Shiism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History [1 ed.] 1527561585, 9781527561588

Citation preview

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History By

John Andrew Morrow

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History By John Andrew Morrow This book first published 2021 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2021 by John Andrew Morrow All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-6158-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-6158-8 Cover Photo Credit: “Moulay Idrīs Zerhoun by Night” by Céline Clanet (Used by permission)

To Ottmar Hegyi, Dennis Patrick Walker, and Laleh Bakhtiar

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ................................................................................... xvi Endorsements ......................................................................................... xvii Sources .................................................................................................... xix Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: The ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the Maghrib .......................................... 24 1.1 Introduction 1.2 al-ণasan and al-ণusayn 1.3 ImƗm ‘AlƯ 1.4 The Mysterious Mission of the ImƗms 1.5 Conclusions Chapter 2: The ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah: The Companions of the Prophet and ‘AlƯ in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ................................................... 29 2.1. Introduction 2.2. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs 2.3 ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far 2.4 ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. al-‘AbbƗs 2.5 Abnj Dhu’ayb al-HudhalƯ 2.6 JƗb AllƗh b. ‘Amr 2.7 ‘Asim b. ‘Umar 2.8 Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs 2.9 MiqdƗd b. al-Aswad 2.10 al-Musayyab 2.12 Conclusions

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: The ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn: The Followers of ‘AlƯ in the Maghrib and al-Andalus .......................................................................................... 35 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd 3.3 ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh 3.4. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d 3.5 Zayd b. al-ণubƗb 3.6 Bakr b. SawƗda 3.7 Abnj ‘Amr ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn 3.8 Other Companions 3.9 Conclusions Chapter 4: The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib .......................................................................................... 43 4.1. Introduction 4.2 Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ 4.3 YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh 4.4 IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh 4.4 RashƯd al-AwrabƯ 4.5 SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh 4.6 IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh 4.7 Muতammad b. Ja‘far 4.8 DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim 4.9 Ibn Warsand 4.10 Conclusions Chapter 5: The Berber Wives and Mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms ............. 54 5.1 Introduction 5.2 ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah 5.3 Najmah Khatnjn 5.4 Sammanah 5.5 Narjis Khatnjn 5.6 The Significance of Berber-ShƯ‘ite Ties 5.7 Conclusions

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

ix

Chapter 6: SharƯfian Settlers in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ................... 62 6.1 Introduction 6.2 The Descendants of IdrƯs I and IdrƯs II 6.3 The Descendants of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far 6.4 The Descendants of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah 6.5 The Descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn 6.6 The Descendants of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im 6.7 The Descendants of ‘AlƯ al-‘Arid 6.8 The Descendants of IbrƗhƯm al-MurtaঌƗ 6.9 The Descendants of Muতammad al-TaqƯ b. ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ 6.10 Conclusions Chapter 7: ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders ............ 71 7.1 Introduction 7.2 The Silsilah of the ShƗdhiliyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.3 The Silsilah of the QƗdiriyyah ৡnjfƯ order 7.4 The Silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.5 The Silsilah of the TijƗniyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.6 The Silsilah of the NaqshbandƯ ৡnjfƯ Order 7.7 The Silsilah of the Chishtiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.8 The Silsilah of the Kubrawiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.9 The Silsilah of the MawlawƯ ৡnjfƯ Order 7.10 The Silsilah of the Suhrawardiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order 7.11 The Silsilah of the Nurbakhshiyyah, Ni‘matullƗhƯ, and DhahabƯ ৡnjfƯ Orders 7.12 The Silsilah of the BektƗshƯ ৡnjfƯ Order 7.13 The Silsilah of the ImƗms of the Ahl al-bayt 7.14 Conclusions Chapter 8: The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ............... 90 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The ZanƗtah Berbers 8.3. The ৡanতƗjah Berbers 8.4 The KutƗmah Berbers 8.5 The MiknƗsah Berbers 8.6 The AwrƗbah and their Allies 8.7 The BarghawƗ৬ah or Masmnjdah Berbers 8.8 The Bannj Lammas Berbers

x

Table of Contents

8.9 ShƯ‘ite Berbers in al-Andalus 8.10 Conclusions Chapter 9: The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ................ 102 9.1 Introduction 9.2 The Bannj HƗshim 9.3 The Arab Tribes of Qays, Azd, Mudhতij, Yahsab, and Sadad 9.4 The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym 9.5 The Yemeni ShƯ‘ites 9.6 The Muwallad ShƯ‘ites 9.7 Conclusions Chapter 10: ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus....................... 120 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Lines of ImƗms 10.3 The ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites 10.4 The Bajaliyyah / Mnjsawiyyah / Waqifiyyah ShƯ‘ites 10.5 The IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites 10.6 The Qarmatians 10.7 The ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites 10.8 The BƗ৬iniyyah 10.9 The ৡnjfƯs 10.10 The GhulƗt or So-Called ShƯ‘ite Extremists 10.11 Conclusions Chapter 11: ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ............... 151 11.1 Introduction 11.2 The IdrƯsids 11.3 The Ideological Affiliation of the IdrƯsids 11.4 IdrƯsid Contributions to Scholarship 11.5 The FƗ৬imids 11.6 The ZƯrƯds 11.7 The ণammadids 11.8 The ণammnjdids 11.9 The ণnjdid Dynasty 11.10 The Green Peninsula: Echoes of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus 11.11 The Naৢrids 11.12 Conclusions

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

xi

Chapter 12: ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ................... 193 12.1 Introduction 12.2 The Great Berber Revolt of Maysarah al-MatgharƯ 12.3 The Revolt of al-ণubƗb b. RawƗতah and ‘Amir b. ‘Amr 12.4 The Revolt of al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth 12.5 The Revolt of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d 12.6 The Revolt of Sa‘Ưd al-MatarƯ 12.7 The ShƯ‘ite Revolt in Lusitania 12.8 The Revolt of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ণabƯb 12.9 The Revolt of al-RumƗতis b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz 12.10 The Revolt of ShaqyƗ 12.11 The Revolt of al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ 12.12 The Revolt of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ণusayn 12.13 The Revolt of Ibn ণafৢnjn 12.14 The Rebellion of MahdƯ b. al-Qi৬৬ and Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj 12.15 The Revolt of Mas‘njd b. TajƯt 12.16 The False Prophet from Lisboa 12.17 The Revolt of Abnj Rakwah WalƯd b. HishƗm 12.18 The Revolt of Ibn QasƯ 12.19 Conclusions Chapter 13: ShƯ‘ite Scholars in the Maghrib .......................................... 217 13.1 Introduction 13.2 IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Naৢr al-Ma‘ƗdƯ 13.3 Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ 13.4 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ 13.5 Aflaত al-MalnjsƯ 13.6 Hurayth al-JƯmalƯ 13.7 MnjsƗ b. MakƗrim 13.8 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan 13.9 Muতammad b. ণayynjn al-Mufattish 13.10 Ibn Haytham 13.11 Muতammad b. Khalaf 13.12 IbrƗhƯm b. Ma’shar 13.13 Abnj al-ণasan al-Mu৬৬alibƯ 13.14 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư 13.15 Abnj al-‘AbbƗs (Muতammad b. Aতmad) 13.16 Abnj Bakr al-QamadƯ 13.17 ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr al-Saffar

xii

Table of Contents

13.18 ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Muতammad al-DabbƯ (Ibn al-Birdawn) 13.19 Ibn SabbƗgh 13.20 RabƯ‘ b. SulaymƗn b. SalƯm (Ibn al-Kaততalah) 13.21 Muতammad b. ণayyƗn 13.22 Ishab b. Abnj MinhƗl 13.23 Abnj ‘AlƯ b. Abnj MinhƗl 13.24 Ja‘far b. Aতmad b. Wahb 13.25 Aতmad b. Baতr 13.26 Abnj Muতammad b. ShahrƗn 13.27 Al-MarwadhƯ 13.28 Abnj Sa‘Ưd Khalaf b. Ma‘mar b. Manৢnjr (d. 915/916) 13.29 Muতammad b. al-Mahfnjd 13.30 Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ (d. 922-23) 13.31 Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư (d. 924) 13.32 ZurƗrah b. Aতmad 13.33 Conclusions Chapter 14: ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus ........................................ 225 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Muতammad b. Masarrah 14.3 The Disciples of Ibn Masarrah 14.4 Muতammad b. ণamdnjn 14.5 Abnj Ja‘far al-BaghdƗdƯ 14.6 Abnj al-ণakam Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd 14.7 Abnj al-YasƗr IbrƗhƯm b. Aতmad 14.8 Muতammad b. Aতmad 14.9 Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm 14.10 Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn 14.11 Abnj al-Khayr 14.12 Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ 14.13 ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. ShamƯt 14.14 Muতammad b. SulaymƗn 14.15 Ibn ণawqal al-NaৢƯbƯ 14.16 Ibn AbƯ al-Manৢnjr 14.17 Ibn HƗnƯ al-AndalusƯ 14.18 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. SulaymƗn 14.19 Maslamah b. Aতmad 14.20 Ibn MƗ’ al-SamƗ 14.21 Ibn DarrƗj al-Qas৬allƯ

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

xiii

14.22 Abnj al-ণakam al-KirmƗnƯ 14.23 Ibn al-SƯd or Badajoz 14.24 Ibn al-AbbƗr 14.25 The Disciples of Ibn al-AbbƗr 14.26 Ibn Sab‘Ưn of Murcia 14.27 LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb 14.28 Conclusions Chapter 15: ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib ............................................ 248 15.1 Introduction 15.2 Volubilis / WalƯlah 15.3 Fez 15.4 Tudjah / Turjah / Dar’ah / Dargah 15.5 MƗsinah 15.6 NiffƯs 15.7 AghmƗt 15.7 Tlemcen 15.8 Baৢrah 15.9 AৢƯlah / Arzilah / Arcilah 15.10 Tangiers 15.11 Wazeqqnjr 15.12 MrƯrah / Mrirt 15.13 TƗgrƗgrƗ 15.14 Fanknjr 15.15 Arshqnjl 15.16 JarƗwah & TƗfargannƯt 15.17 Ceuta 15.18 Melilla 15.19 SalƗ / Salé 15.20 Taroudant 15.21 TiynjywƯn 15.22 Igli / MadƯnat al-Snjs 15.23 TƗmdult / TƗmadalt 15.24 MƗsah 15.25 Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun 15.26 Meknes 15.27 Scores of Cities 15.28 Naf৬ah 15.29 TƗlƗ 15.30 al-Urbus [Lorbeus / Lares / Laribus]

xiv

Table of Contents

15.31 al-NƗznjr 15.32 Qus৬an৬Ưnah 15.33 QayrawƗn 15.34 Al-Mahdiyyah 15.35 ৡabrah al-Manৢnjriyyah 15.36 Bougie 15.37 Conclusions Chapter 16: ShƯ‘ite Centers in al-Andalus .............................................. 263 16.1 Introduction 16.2 Sevilla 16.3 Elvira 16.4 Cordova, Pamplona, Alange and Zaragoza 16.5 Bobastro 16.6 Los Pedroches, La Serena, Puerto de Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, MiknƗsah, and NafzƗ 16.7 Conclusions Chapter 17: The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus....... 266 17.1 Introduction 17.2 The Umayyad Hatred of the Ahl al-Bayt 17.3 The Imposition of MƗlikism 17.4 The ShƯ‘ite Resistance 17.5 The Umayyad Strategy against the ShƯ‘ites 17.6 The Rule of ܑawƗ’if 17.7 The Almoravids 17.8 The Almohads 17.9 The NasrƯds 17.10 Conclusions Chapter 18: The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos .................................. 279 18.1 Introduction 18.2 The Forced Conversion of the Spanish Muslims 18.3 The Final Expulsion of the Moriscos 18.4 The End of the Moriscos 18.5 Aljamiado Literature 18.6 The Value of Aljamiado Literature 18.7 The Diversity of the Morisco Muslims 18.8 Conclusions

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

xv

Chapter 19: Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib .................................... 295 19.1 Introduction 19.2 Scriptural Evidence 19.3 Architectural Evidence 19.4 Gravestones and Burial Sites 19.5 Idiomatic Expressions 19.6 Onomastic Evidence 19.7 Religious Invocations 19.8 Religious Practices 19.9 Dress 19.10 Memories of Mut‘ah 19.11 Conclusions Chapter 20: The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib..................................... 307 20.1 Introduction 20.2 ShƯ‘ism in Morocco 20.3 ShƯ‘ism in Tunisia 20.4 ShƯ‘ism in Algeria 20.5 Conclusions Chapter 21: The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism .......................................... 323 21.1 Introduction 21.2 Durur al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ܒ‬. / The Epic of the ‘Alids 21.3 El libro de las batallas / The Book of Battles 21.3 KitƗb al-anwƗr / The Book of Lights 21.4 Discurso de la luz / The Discourse of Light 21.5 Crónica y relación / Chronicle and Account 21.6 Al-AnwƗr al-nabawiyyah / The Prophetic Lights 21.7 ShƯ‘ite Traditions 22.8 The Testaments of the Prophet Mu‫ۊ‬ammad to ImƗm ‘AlƯ 20.9 The Works of MuqƗtil b. SulaymƗn 21.10 El Recontamiento de al-MiqdƗd y al-MayƗsah / The Account of al-MiqdƗd and al-MayƗsah 21.11 El libro de las suertes / The Book of Luck 21.12 Conclusions Conclusions ............................................................................................ 350 Works Cited ............................................................................................ 364

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The greatest share of gratitude is due to Dr. Ottmar Hegyi for introducing me to Aljamiado-Morisco literature in 1990. He encouraged me to complete an Honors BA, an MA, and a PhD. He inspired me. He opened my heart and mind. He played a seminal role in my scholarly development. Were it not for him, this work would never have been completed, much less conceived. I would also like to recognize the Program for Cultural Cooperation between Spain’s Ministry of Culture & United States’ Universities, Northern State University, and Eastern New Mexico University for helping to fund this research endeavor. Their combined funding supported my research and studies in both Spain and Morocco. I also wish to express my gratitude to all the scholars who reviewed this work. Their constructive criticism was much appreciated. More than anyone, my spouse deserves the prize of “the most patient wife on the planet.” I started to work on this study ten years before we married and twenty years later, I was still working on it. “Enough is enough,” she said, “the time has come to publish it.” Not only will she be pleased to see this book in print, but she will also be relieved. A scholarly gestation should not least three decades. The birth of this work was overdue. Although this study was long in the making and was reviewed by numerous scholars who made every reasonable effort to ensure that it was free of errors, human beings are fallible. Consequently, despite due diligence on the part of all parties, I accept complete responsibility for any shortcomings to be found in this work. Some scholars might complain that it contains no index; however, this is compensated by the detailed table of contents in which the subject matter of each sub-section is identifiable. Finally, I would like to thank everyone at Cambridge Scholars Publishing for supporting my scholarship and, most importantly, for considering contributions to the field far more critical than commercial potential and profit.

ENDORSEMENTS

“This is the first comprehensive work on the ShƯ‘ite presence and contribution in Andalusia. Prior to this book, studies on the subject were confined to the role and contribution of SunnƯ Muslims, ignoring any mention of ShƯ‘ah Muslims. John Andrew Morrow has done some amazing ground-breaking research work demonstrating the social, religious, and political contribution of key ShƯ‘ah figures in Muslim Spain. His lucid and well-researched work makes an important contribution to our understanding of the interplay between religion and politics in this part of the IslƗmic world. This book provides a wealth of information and will be an invaluable resource that students of IslƗm can draw upon.” Dr. Liyakat Takim, Sharjah Chair in Global IslƗm, Department of Religious Studies, McMaster University “An outstanding work that demonstrates an exceptional knowledge of classical Arabic texts and sources… The work, in and of itself, is of unquestionable academic merit… It provides masterful coverage of an especially important field when it comes to understanding the history of North Africa and al-Andalus during its classic period… This excellent work of historical research… will certainly provoke a great deal of scholarly debate.” Dr. José Francisco Cutillas Ferrer, University of Alicante, Professor of Arabic and IslƗmic Studies “In this seminal work, John Andrew Morrow makes a compelling historical argument for the presence of ShƯ‘ite Muslims in Andalusia (IslƗmic Spain) and, as such, provides an excellent corrective to the generally held belief that there were few, if any, ShƯ‘ites in the region. Drawing from a variety of sources, his scrupulous and painstaking research pieces the scattered accounts together to make a cogent, coherent case for their presence. Being the first major and thought-provoking study on this subject, and one that diverges from existing scholarship, Morrow’s work will undoubtedly attract attention and be the center of scholarly debate for years to come.” Dr. Hamid Mavani, Associate Professor of IslƗmic Studies, Bayan-Claremont

xviii

Endorsements

“Academic studies on IslƗm and Muslims in Spain and North Africa have tended to focus on the art and architecture, philosophy and mysticism, and periods of cooperation and conflict between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Among the unexamined axioms concerning Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula is the SunnƯ identity of those who practiced IslƗm. John Andrew Morrow’s two volume study, ShƯҵism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, deconstructs this narrative by providing a treasure trove of historical and textual evidence and analysis. This landmark study is a necessary and timely corrective to those who would attempt to erase any trace of ShƯ‘Ư IslƗm from both the past and the present, whether through myopic scholarship or the destruction of sacred sites and communities. Dr. Morrow’s study may also serve to remind us that not only were there both SunnƯs and ShƯ‘as in Muslim Spain and North Africa, but that both communities exist wherever IslƗm does.” Zachary Markwith, PhD Candidate, Graduate Theological Union

SOURCES

As is customary in the field of IslƗmic studies, I generally do not provide page numbers for citations of prophetic sayings, and simply reference them by source, such as KulaynƯ or BukhƗrƯ. Since works of a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth come in so many versions, page numbers are hardly useful. What is more, virtually all the primary Arabic sources of IslƗm have been digitalized. Consequently, it requires almost no effort to track down traditions through key word searches. When English translations of traditions were available, these have been quoted. It is the primary source of the ‫ۊ‬adƯth that is cited; not necessarily the secondary sources and translations in which it appears. When the translations were not idiomatic, they were improved, often on the basis of the original Arabic. Most of the canonical prophetic traditions cited in this work can easily be found in print and online in Arabic and English. While every reasonable effort has been made to document sources in the bibliography, the sources of some works, often obscure and difficult to access, and which are merely mentioned in passing, are not always included. Since this work has been thirty years in the making, small segments of its findings have been shared in some articles, books, and presentations, including “ShƯ‘ism in Morocco,” which was published in several places on the internet, including Jafariya News (2006) and the Imam Reza Network, and appeared in print in IslƗmic Insights: Writings and Reviews (2012) (193-198). Other findings appeared online in “ShƯ‘ism in North Africa and IslƗmic Spain” which was published in Shafaqna (2016). This study also appeared online in Spanish in Musulmanes por la Paz (2019), ABNA, Rahyafteha, and Prensa Islámica (2020). Some research on the Berber wives and mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms was included in Restoring the Balance: Using the Qur’Ɨn and the Sunnah to Guide a Return to the Prophet’s IslƗm (20-24). Many of the prophetic traditions that I cite are found in ShƯ‘ite IslƗm: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, a work by Luis Alberto Vittor that I translated, edited, and annotated, and which is available in print and various digital editions in both English and Spanish. Since these are my works, and every reasonable effort has been made to identify them, any parallels and echoes fall into the category of fair use.

xx

Sources

Whenever it is written that the Prophet, the ImƗms, or the companions made certain statements, it merely indicates that the source says so. In other words, when one reads that “the Prophet said” it is always implied that “the Prophet reportedly said,” “the Prophet supposedly said,” or the “Prophet allegedly said.” Including such qualifiers, however, would be burdensome, annoying, and repetitive. I am not claiming that all these traditions are true. I am simply sharing sayings that some Moriscos held to be true. Finally, while this work is not indexed, it contains a meticulously detailed table of contents that should allow readers to locate subjects with relative ease.

INTRODUCTION

With a few notable exceptions, the presence of ShƯ‘ite Muslims in alAndalus or IslƗmic Spain has been ignored, minimized, or denied by most historians, orientalists, Arabists, and aljamiadistas, namely, specialists in Aljamiado literature, that is, Spanish language works written in the Arabic alphabet and occasionally in Latin script by the Moriscos or cryptic Muslims. As anyone familiar with the historical, religious, and literary writings of the period can comprehend, this is a puzzling position to take when one considers the evidence available in primary Arabic and aljamiado sources. While there is no shortage of academics who have advanced the argument that there were no ShƯ‘ites in al-Andalus, I will focus on the views of a select group of scholars which, I believe, are representative of the broader sentiments shared by academics who specialize in al-Andalus. They include Derek W. Lomax (1933-1992), David Wasserstein (b. 1951), Régis Blachère (1900-1973), Bernard F. Reilly (b. 1925), Dominique Urvoy (b. 1943), M.A. MakkƯ, José Raimundo Sastre Parres, Jorge Aguadé, Mercedes García-Arenal (b. 1950), and José Francisco Cutillas Ferrer. Some of these scholars deny the presence of ShƯ‘ites in al-Andalus. Some are reticent to recognize it. Others acknowledge the historical existence of ShƯ‘ite Muslims in IslƗmic Spain; however, they generally seek to downplay their significance. In The Reconquest of Spain, for example, Derek W. Lomax, the respected historian, claims that from c. 800 all Spanish Muslims accepted the MƗlikite interpretation of Qur’Ɨnic law, which was extremely literal and conservative, discouraged speculation, and severely repressed heterodox tendencies. (21)

He claims that “neither KhƗrijism nor any other heresy could take root in Spain and so weaken Umayyad resistance to Christian attack” (21-22). Although The Reconquest of Spain contributes to our understanding of Spanish history, Lomax’s claims in the previous passage are incorrect. The author asserts that “all Spanish Muslims accepted the MƗlikite interpretation of Koranic law” (21). Although the MƗlikite madhhab was imposed as the land’s official law, some Spanish Muslims continued to adhere to other

2

Introduction

schools of jurisprudence. There were followers of the AwzƗ‘Ư, ShƗfi‘Ư, ণanafƯ, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, and Ja‘farƯ schools of jurisprudence in al-Andalus. The first school of law to prosper in al-Andalus was that of AwzƗ‘Ư (707-774) (Cruz Hernández 777; Urvoy 850). As Jorge Aguadé mentions, the followers of al-ShƗfi‘Ư (767-820) were rather numerous (58). The school of ShƗfi‘Ư was even discreetly favored by Muতammad I (Urvoy 853). Some of the famous ShƗfi‘Ư shaykhs in al-Andalus included QƗsim b. Muতammad QƗsim b. SayyƗr (d. 889 or 891) who was protected by Muতammad I against the attacks of the MƗlikƯs (Urvoy 853-54). Dominique Urvoy also reports that ‘Abd AllƗh b. Muতammad al-UmawƯ (987/88-1068/69) was the imƗm of the mosque in Cordova even though he was a ShƗfi‘Ư (Wasserstein 1985: 177, note 40). In the previous century, Abnj Muতammad ‘Abd AllƗh had also been a ShƗfi‘Ư (177, note 40). Other ShƗfi‘Ưs from al-Andalus include al‘UdhrƯ (1003-1085), the geographer, and Abnj Umayyah al-ণijƗrƯ (177). Although he had ShƗfi‘Ư leanings, the judge Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (978-1070) used to judge according to MƗlikƯ law (177). While MƗlikƯ jurisprudence dominated, ণanafƯ jurisprudence was also taught in al-Andalus (Saavedra 12). Although Ibn ণanbal’s (780-855) works were known, there were few ণanbalƯs in al-Andalus (Aguadé 58). As al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) relates, In former times the Andalusians, like the inhabitants of Syria, followed the sect of al-AwzƗ‘Ư, but during the reign of al-ণakƯm, son of HishƗm… some learned doctors began to utter legal decisions in conformity with the opinions of MƗlik b. Anas and the people of Medina, whose doctrines soon became known and spread all over Andalus and Africa; the change being in great means brought by al-ণakƯm’s conviction and firmness. (vol 1: 113)

Consequently, “he issued immediate orders for the establishment of the sect of MƗlik b. Anas throughout his domain” (113). From a jurisprudential perspective, the situation remained equally diverse in early modern Spain as manifested by the rulings that were passed by sixteenth-century jurists from Cairo regarding the plight of the Mudéjares, the Muslim minority communities that lived under Christian rule. In response to several questions regarding the duty of the Mudéjares to emigrate to dƗr al-islƗm [the House or Land of IslƗm] and the circumstances that might justify a Muslim’s continued residence in lands conquered by Christians, four judges, representing the ণanafƯ, ShƗfi‘Ư, ণanbalƯ, and MƗlikƯ schools of law, issued a series of edicts or fatwas (Miller 2000: 258). If the Muslims in al-Andalus and early modern Spain were exclusively MƗlikƯs, why was there a need for edicts from ণanafƯ, ShƗfi‘Ư, and ণanbalƯ scholars? The generalization made by Lomax is therefore untenable.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

3

Lomax also claims that the MƗlikƯ interpretation of Qur’Ɨnic law was exceedingly literal and conservative, discouraged speculation, and severely repressed heterodox tendencies (21). This is not the case. According to MƗlikƯ jurists, the Qur’Ɨn and the Sunnah contain texts which are explicit [na‫]܈܈‬, apparent [ܲƗhir], indicative [dalƯl], implicit [maf‫ۊ‬njm], and expositive [tanbƯh]. They also rely on consensus [ijmƗ‘], analogy [qiyyƗs], the practice of the people of Medina [‘amal ahl al-MadƯnah], statements from the companions [qawl al-‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬ƗbƯ], judicial preference [isti‫ۊ‬sƗn], and blocking the means [sadd al-dharƗ’i‘]. MƗlikƯ scholars also include considerations of public interest [ma‫܈‬Ɨli‫ۊ‬ mursalah], local custom [‘urf], common usage [‘adat], presumption of continuity [isti‫ۊ܈‬Ɨb], and discretion [isti‫ۊ‬sƗn] when formulating laws. The MƗlikƯ madhhab is one of the most eclectic, practical, flexible, and culturally tolerant schools of thought in IslƗm. As a result, scholars like Nuত Ha MƯm Keller (b. 1954) view it as the most developed for Muslims living as minorities. Consequently, it is quite popular among Western converts, particularly those who follow the ৡnjfƯ current. Since the MƗlikƯs employ all these methods to derive legal rulings, and since they differentiate between the apparent and implied meanings of the Qur’Ɨn and Sunnah, they cannot be called “literalists.” Lomax also claims that the MƗlikƯ school of thought “discouraged speculation” (22). The term “speculation” seems misplaced in this context as speculation does not come into play in the field of jurisprudence. The MƗlikƯs represent a school of law, not a school of theology or philosophy. In the field of theology, a limited degree of speculation is permitted in the form of kalƗm or scholastic philosophy. In kalƗm, one can philosophize, but within the accepted framework of IslƗmic beliefs. It is in the field of pure philosophy where speculation comes into play. Lomax also claims that the MƗlikƯs “severely repressed heterodox tendencies” (22). This statement is problematic in two regards: firstly, because it makes an academically inappropriate value judgment in terms of what is orthodox and what is heterodox; and secondly, because it confuses the theological establishment with the political establishment. As Luis Alberto Vittor has demonstrated in ShƯ‘ite IslƗm: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, Sunnism, ShƯ‘ism, and ৡnjfƯsm, are all different aspects of IslƗmic orthodoxy. Although they may differ in matters of detail, they all share the same fundamentals of faith -- Divine Unity [taw‫ۊ‬Ưd], Prophethood [nubuwwah], and the Day of Judgment [qiyƗmah] -- despite relatively minor variations in practice. Scholars like Jorge Aguadé and Isabel Fierro both argue that characterizing the MƗlikƯ madhhab as “conservative” and “intolerant” is both inaccurate and inappropriate (Fierro 1987: 34).

4

Introduction

Finally, if MƗlikƯsm was imposed as the official school of jurisprudence in al-Andalus, it was the result of a political decision made by the Umayyads. If MƗlikƯ jurists abused the power they were given, that reflects poorly on the MƗlikƯ jurists involved, and not the MƗlikƯ school of law per se. In Persia, the ৡafavƯds imposed the Ja‘farƯ school of law by force, something which reflects poorly upon the ৡafavƯds, but for which the Ja‘farƯ school cannot be blamed. In The Rise and Fall of the Party Kings: Politics and Society in IslƗmic Spain: 1002-1086, David Wasserstein, an accomplished academic, claims that: Almost from the start of the Umayyad period in the Peninsula, Andalusian IslƗm is marked by characteristics of uniformity, correctness, and staidness. It was completely SunnƯ, and the only legal madhhab to enjoy official recognition through the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah period was that of MƗlik… There was hardly any evidence of ShƯ‘ism or of other forms of heterodoxy during the fifth/eleventh century, and such evidence as there is was concerned with newcomers to the [Iberian] Peninsula. In this context, the way to express divergence from the religious behavior of the majority was through adherence to a different SunnƯ madhhab, and even this remained very slight throughout the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah period. (1985: 174-75)

Al-Andalus did become predominantly MƗlikƯ SunnƯ after the imposition of MƗlikism as the official school of IslƗmic jurisprudence. However, it was certainly not so “almost from the start” (1985: 174). Wasserstein also describes Andalusian IslƗm, namely, SunnƯ MƗlikƯ IslƗm, as being uniform, correct, and staid, words which would irk not only ণanafƯ, ShƗfi‘Ư, ণanbalƯ, Ja‘farƯ, ZaydƯ, and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Muslims, but which would be called into question by MƗlikƯ Muslims as well. Although many SunnƯ Muslims ignore the validity of the ShƯ‘ite schools of law, they generally recognize that the four SunnƯ schools of law are equally acceptable. Wasserstein also claims that Andalusian IslƗm “was completely SunnƯ” (1985: 174). As the primary sources indicate, and as we will see in the course of this study, this was not the case. Al-Andalus, like the Maghrib, was a veritable hodgepodge of IslƗmic ideas. As UsmƗn Bugaje describes, North Africa was “a region where numerous heretical KhawƗrij and ShƯ‘a groups abound[ed]” (104). In response to repression, the descendants of the Prophet Muতammad, and the followers of his family, scattered to the farthest reaches of the IslƗmic world for the sake of self-preservation. Speaking of the suffering inflicted upon his family, ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al‘AbidƯn (658-713), the great grandson of the Prophet, and the son of ImƗm ণusayn, the martyr of KarbalƗ’, said: “We have become like the Israelites among the people of Pharaoh: they were slaughtering their children and

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

5

sparing their women” (Balagh, ImƗm Zain al-Abideen 38). His son, ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir (677-743), said that when al-ণajjƗj b. Ynjsuf (661714), the Umayyad governor of Iraq, came to power: He killed them (the followers of the ahl al-bayt) in the most horrible ways. He punished them on the slightest suspicion. Things were so bad that a man would like to be called “atheist” or “infidel” rather than “follower of ‘AlƯ.” (Balagh, ImƗm Zain al-Abideen 71).

In fact, during his twenty years in power, al-ণajjƗj is reported to have butchered tens of thousands of people, including fifty thousand men and thirty thousand women (Balagh, ImƗm Zain al-Abideen 71). As Edward Gibbon explains (1737-1794), not only did the persecutors of the Prophet usurp the inheritance of his children, these former champions of idolatry (and debauchery) became the supreme heads of his religion and empire (qtd. Razwy 180). Summarizing early IslƗmic history, Robert Payne (1911-1983) observes that “Again and again we shall find Muতammadans mercilessly destroying the living descendants of Muতammad” (qtd. Razwy 180). As Payne describes: For three hundred and fifty years, the descendants of Abnj SufyƗn and those who claimed descent from ‘AbbƗs had made war on the descendants of Muতammad’s flesh… Throughout all the centuries of IslƗm, a strange fate had hovered over the descendants of Muতammad. It was as though that part of the world which eagerly accepted the Messenger of God had turned forever against his living descendants. (qtd. Razwy 181)

While some descendants of the Prophet attempted to endure the persecution as best as they could by practicing taqiyyah or pious dissimulation, in conformity with the Qur’Ɨn (16:106), many were forced to flee, scattering throughout the Muslim world. “Although these migrations had started during the time of ণajjƗj (b. Ynjsuf),” explains Ghulam ণasan MuতarramƯ, “they were accelerated during the ‘AbbƗsid period” (138). As Najam ণaider has pointed out, “The failure of the revolt at Fakhkh [June 11, 786],” in particular, “prompted a ZaydƯ migration to the physical (and intellectual) margins of the IslƗmic world… such as North Africa” (461). Although some descendants of the Prophet had SunnƯ and ৡnjfƯ inclinations, most of them had no faith other than ShƯ‘ism. In the estimation of MuতarramƯ, “it can certainly be stated that most of the sƗdah had been ShƯ‘ah, their suffering at the hands of anti-ShƯ‘ah governments clearly substantiate this contention” (138).

6

Introduction

The migration and scattering of the sƗdah or descendants of the Prophet Muতammad to different parts of the Muslim world was the result of three factors: a) the defeat of the ‘AlawƯ uprisings; b) the pressure exerted by the agents of the government; and c) the existence of good opportunities for migration (MuতarramƯ 140-141). This migration of the sƗdah and the ‘AlawƯs played a significant role in the spread of ShƯ‘ism through most parts of the Muslim world from Transoxiana and India all the way to North Africa. As MuতarramƯ explains: The scattering of the ShƯ‘ah during the ‘AbbƗsid period was very obvious. In the east, in addition to Iran, the ShƯ‘ah went to Central Asia, India, and the Caucasus, among others, and with the collapse of the Umayyad dynasty, the ShƯ‘ah were also able to exert influence in the west, especially in Africa where a ShƯ‘ah government of the IdrƯsids was established during the second century AH. Although their government was a ZaydƯ one, it can be regarded as a ground for the efforts of the ShƯ‘ah. Of course, their contact with the capital (BaghdƗd) and Medina had been less due to the existence of the AghlabƯ government in Egypt which was formed to counter them. In this manner, ShƯ‘ism during the second century AH was spread in both the eastern and western parts of the Muslim world, and in addition to KhnjzestƗn, the mountainous region (jabal) (the regions around the Zagros mountain ranges) and central Iran, ShƯ‘ism was also spread in far-flung regions such as Central Asia, present day AfghanistƗn, AzerbaijƗn, Maghrib (Morocco), India, and ৫abaristƗn. (169)

While there were Umayyad SunnƯs in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, there were also IbƗঌƯ KhawƗrij, ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites, Mu‘tazilites, Masarrites, and so-called GhulƗt ShƯ‘ites, not to mention Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, polytheists, and animists. While some Muslims may have been strict in following their school of thought, others seem to have practiced a syncretistic form of IslƗm which combined elements from various schools of law and theology, and which exhibited varying degrees of pre-IslƗmic cultural influence. Although Wasserstein claims that the IslƗm in al-Andalus was “completely SunnƯ,” he immediately contradicts himself by saying that “There was hardly any evidence of ShƯ‘ism or of other forms of heterodoxy during the fifth / eleventh century, and such evidence as there is concerned with newcomers to the Peninsula” (1985: 174). If Andalusian IslƗm was “completely SunnƯ,” one cannot say that “There was hardly evidence of ShƯ‘ism.” Either it was entirely SunnƯ or it was not. Either there were ShƯ‘ites or there were not. Since the author mentions some evidence for ShƯ‘ism in IslƗmic Spain, we can assume that his initial claim about the SunnƯ uniformity in Spain was an overgeneralization.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

7

According to Wasserstein, the slight evidence for ShƯ‘ism in IslƗmic Spain is concerned with newcomers to the Iberian Peninsula, an argument lacking in precision. Who were the newcomers? To which period is he referring? In the eyes of the indigenous inhabitants of al-Andalus, namely, the Iberians, the Visigoths, the Celts, and the Basque people, it was the Arabs and the Berbers who were newcomers or foreigners. Even after they embraced IslƗm and became increasingly Arabian in language and culture, the Iberian Peninsula’s original people continued to view the Arabs and Berbers as invaders and foreigners. The initial waves of Berbers and Arabs who decided to remain permanently in al-Andalus, as opposed to returning to their native lands, came to view themselves as baladiyynjn or “people of the country.” According to these Arabs and Berbers, anyone who did not descend from the original conquerors and colonists of al-Andalus was a newcomer or an outsider. Evidently, the waves of Arab settlers who came later did not view themselves in such terms, and their descendants considered themselves to be as Andalusian as anyone else. Who, then, were these newcomers who were ShƯ‘ites? The first Umayyad armies to conquer al-Andalus included ShƯ‘ite Muslims, several of whom were disciples of the Prophet’s companions. The Muslim forces that conquered al-Andalus consisted primarily of Berbers from the Maghrib, some of whom were ShƯ‘ites. Some of the earliest Arab tribes to settle in al-Andalus were ShƯ‘ite. And some of the succeeding Berber and Arab tribes that settled in al-Andalus were equally ShƯ‘ites. Furthermore, some of the indigenous Spanish Muslims had embraced ShƯ‘ite IslƗm, as opposed to the official SunnƯ IslƗm of the authorities, as much as an act of faith as an act of defiance. Wasserstein’s words give the impression that ShƯ‘ism was some type of outside ideology brought in to contaminate the pristine pure MƗlikƯ SunnƯ IslƗm of the Andalusians. Nothing can be further from the truth. ShƯ‘ite IslƗm did not arrive in alAndalus by means of newcomers: it was already there, firmly established throughout the Iberian Peninsula by some of the first conquerors and settlers who came to al-Andalus. According to Wasserstein, ShƯ‘ite IslƗm was not a means of expressing difference in al-Andalus. Rather than embracing ShƯ‘ite IslƗm, “the way to express divergence from the religious behavior of the majority was through adherence to a different SunnƯ madhhab, and even this remained very slight throughout the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah period” (1985: 174). Although this is quite a claim to make, the author has not supported it with any evidence. Where are the instances of MƗlikƯ Muslims who became ণanbalƯs, ShƗfi‘Ưs, or ণanafƯs to express difference? Where are the cases of ণanbalƯ, ShƗfi‘Ư, or ণanafƯ revolts or rebellions against MƗlikism? Rather than embrace another SunnƯ

8

Introduction

school, marginalized Muslims, be they Muwallads, the sons of Arab fathers and Spanish or Berber mothers, expressed their alterity, difference, and defiance, by siding with ShƯ‘ism, a revolutionary religion if there ever was one. As those familiar with IslƗm will concede, shifting between SunnƯ schools is not necessarily an expression of difference or dissent. When SunnƯ Muslims are dissatisfied with the version of IslƗm they have been presented, they tend to embrace ৡnjfƯ IslƗm, to compensate for the supposed lack of spirituality they were suffering under legalistic Sunnism. Otherwise, they embrace ShƯ‘ite IslƗm to combine their quest for both spirituality and revolutionary political activism. Unlike Wasserstein’s claim, this argument is supported by fact. If one examines the history of al-Andalus under Umayyad rule, one notes that ShƯ‘ism inspired most rebellions and insurrections, and sometimes, ৡnjfism. To support his claim that there were there were virtually no ShƯ‘ites in Spain, Wassertein quotes Régis Blachère (1900-1973), the French orientalist and translator of the Qur’Ɨn, who said that IslƗmic Spain was “à peu près pure d’influence schismatique” (1985: 175, note 30) [more or less free of schismatic influence]. Although the term “pure” can mean “devoid,” it literally means “pure” and could have a pejorative meaning in the passage in question. The implication seems obvious: the SunnƯ IslƗm of al-Andalus was not contaminated by ShƯ‘ism. Such value judgments have no place in academic discourse. They reflect prejudiced, pre-conceived notions, which impede any attempt at objectivity. Like Wasserstein and Lomax, Bernard F. Reilly uses a confusing combination of tempered and absolute statements. In The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain: 1031-1157, he writes that “the Muslim community itself was fairly homogenous,” (12), words that are mostly unobjectionable although the term “fairly” is challenging to qualify empirically. After that, however, he startles the informed reader by speaking in absolute terms: “In strictly religious terms it was solidly Sunnite without even a tincture of Shias” (12). Such statements are always disconcerting coming from people who present themselves as objective and rational academics. It seems as absurd as claiming that “Latin America is a Catholic continent,” as if there were no Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or other religions represented in the region. It seems as absurd as claiming that “Ireland is a completely Catholic country without a tincture of Protestants.” It is almost as if such scholars fail to see the trees due to the forest. They seem to see their subjects as a monolithic mass, blind to the various elements it contains. Socio-ecological systems are not uniform. They are complex adaptive systems composed of interacting entities.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

9

Reilly inaccurately explains that “within the Sunnite tradition itself, the MƗlikite school of interpretation of the ‫ۊ‬adƯth was the only one followed among the usual four variants within the orthodox Sunnite world” (12). To make matters worse, he proceeds to make the following prescriptive statement: In the Peninsula, then, IslƗm itself was not a source of division among Muslims, but rather one of unity; indeed, it was a relaxed sort of cult which did not even bother itself over much with the absence of a caliph. (12)

This value judgment demonstrates a flawed understanding of the Muslim faith. IslƗm is not viewed as a source of division by most intelligent Muslims. The various expressions of IslƗm, be they jurisprudential, legal, theological, or philosophical, demonstrate the rich diversity of the IslƗmic experience. Reilly seems to imply that uniformity is the only source of unity. For many Muslims, diversity is a source of unity. As the Qur’Ɨn says: “We created you from a single (pair) of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other” (49:13). In the Qur’Ɨn, Almighty God stresses that IslƗm has been made easy for the people: “He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion” (22:78); “On no soul does God place a burden greater than it can bear” (2:286); “God desires to make things lighter for you. Human being was created weak” (4:28); and “God does not want to make things difficult for you, but He does want to purify you and to perfect His blessing upon you so that hopefully you will be thankful” (5:6). In the ‫ۊ‬adƯth literature, the Prophet Muতammad stresses that IslƗm has been made easy for the people. He is cited as saying: “Make things easy for the people, and do not make it difficult for them. Make them calm, and do not repulse them” (BukhƗrƯ); “God did not commission me for clerical duties. The most pleasing thing in the sight of God is to choose the easy way of God’s Oneness” (KamushkhanawƯ) and “Avoid exaggeration while practicing your religion. The ones preceding you perished for this reason” (KamushkhanawƯ). Furthermore, Muslim scholars from all schools of thought agree on the basic principle that “differences of opinion are a form of mercy.” IslƗm, by nature, is designed to be easy for Muslims. Only extremists, heretics, literalists, and fundamentalists make it impossible for the people to endure. Reilly’s description of Andalusian IslƗm as a “relaxed sort of cult” is imprecise: relaxed compared to what and according to what standards? According to Reilly, it was relaxed because it did not concern itself too much with the absence of a caliph, words that do not make any sense.

10

Introduction

According to SunnƯ Muslims, the Prophet died intestate and supposedly wanted communities to select their leaders. For SunnƯ Muslims, then, the caliphate was primarily political. In others words, the caliphs could not claim in good faith that God and His Prophet directly appointed them. The early Umayyads made no pretensions regarding their political ambitions. They did not even try to justify their rule based on religion. It was only at a much later date that they started to falsify prophetic traditions in a vain attempt to legitimize their rule along religious lines. The SunnƯs came to accept only four caliphs, Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, and ‘AlƯ. For the SunnƯs, that was the end of righteous rule. If the rightly guided caliphs had religious legitimacy, those that followed them varied in credibility. According to many ShƯ‘ite Muslims, the Prophet explicitly appointed ‘AlƯ as his successor upon divine command. Although he was passed over three times, he eventually became the fourth caliph. For the ShƯ‘ites, however, ‘AlƯ was always the first ImƗm. Although the ShƯ‘ites split into scores of parties, disagreeing as to which descendants of the Prophet should be followed, they made a clear distinction between the caliphs, who were the political authorities over all Muslims, and the ImƗms, who were the religious authorities for their ShƯ‘ites. From the early days of IslƗm to the present, many Muslims have lived without a caliph or an ImƗm, and this has never posed a problem. Reilly seems to confuse IslƗm, both SunnƯ and ShƯ‘Ư, with Catholicism, and the caliphate and the ImƗmate with the Papacy. IslƗm, however, is not an organized religion. IslƗm does not have a clergy although the Twelver ShƯ‘ites have developed a clerical hierarchy. IslƗm does not have a Pope although the sources of emulation of the Twelver ShƯ‘ites play a similar role. And IslƗm does not have a Vatican or Magisterium although some Twelver ShƯ‘ites would view their religious seminaries as such. For most Muslims, however, both SunnƯ and ShƯ‘Ư, the presence or absence of a political caliph has little to no relevance religiously and is inconsequential when it comes to believing and practicing the religion of IslƗm. Whether the ImƗm is manifest or hidden, or whether the ImƗmate is vacant, does not prevent the continuity of religious practice. As for the few scholars who admit that there were ShƯ‘ites in alAndalus, they tend to minimize their importance. Dominique Urvoy, for example, admits that “there were, in Muslim Spain, a number of cases of more or less profound adherence to ShƯ‘ism” (853). Unlike other historians, Urvoy admits that there were ShƯ‘ites in IslƗmic Spain. However, he is quick to minimize the sincerity of their commitment to the ShƯ‘ite cause and their contributions to Andalusian society. In his eyes, the cases of ShƯ‘ite adherence in IslƗmic Spain “remained… sporadic, representing a posture of

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

11

defiance rather than any positive position conducive to the integration of AndalusƯ Muslims” (853). If their commitment to ShƯ‘ism was “more or less profound,” how can Urvoy also claim that it “represented a posture of defiance?” They were either sincere in their ShƯ‘ism or simply “acting out” by means of it. The author, like many orientalists, seems to view Sunnism as mainstream, moderate, and orthodox, while ShƯ‘ism as some sort of extremist offshoot which is either heterodox or heretical. In his Ensayo sobre las aportaciones, M.A. MakkƯ admits that there were ShƯ‘ites in Spain, while downplaying their importance. As he writes: “En España no floreció el shiísmo, debido a la tendencia por-omeya que tuvo siempre el pueblo hispano-romano y a la estricta ortodoxia que caracterizó al IslƗm español” (1968: 173) [ShƯ‘ism did not flourish in Spain due to the pro-Umayyad tendency that the Hispano-Roman population always had and the strict orthodoxy which characterized Spanish IslƗm]. While nobody can claim that al-Andalus was a stronghold of ShƯ‘ism, one cannot claim that ShƯ‘ism did not flourish, to some degree, in Spain. Although they were a minority, ShƯ‘ites made significant cultural contributions to the Iberian Peninsula. Although they are most always minorities, the Jewish people have also made important cultural contributions to their countries. The same applies to the ShƯ‘ites throughout the SunnƯ world. MakkƯ is also incorrect in asserting that the Hispano-Roman people always had a pro-Umayyad tendency. If the Hispano-Romans were so proUmayyad, why was Umayyad hegemony so short-lived in IslƗmic Spain? Umayyad rule may have lasted from 736-1039. However, after the death of al-Manৢnjr in 1002, al-Andalus had already disintegrated into numerous ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifas. Consequently, the authority of the caliph barely extended beyond the city walls of Cordova. The Almoravids united most of al-Andalus from 1085-1145. Towards the middle of the twelfth century, however, the Almoravids were on the decline. By 1147 there were already twenty kingdom-states. The Almoravids were followed by the Almohads, who ruled al-Andalus from 1147-1238. Although they succeeded in reunifying IslƗmic Spain for many decades, the Almohads were on the defensive by the thirteenth century and soon disintegrated into five kingdoms-states. By 1238, most of al-Andalus has fallen into the hands of the Christians, and only the Emirate of Granada lasted until 1492. Despite MakkƯ’s claim that the people of al-Andalus were always pro-Umayyad, Spanish history demonstrates the contrary: namely, that Spanish Muslims had considerable political, tribal, and religious differences. Their tendency was not towards unity but towards division and factionalism. To judge from all the revolts, insurrections, and revolutions that plagued the early IslƗmic period in al-Andalus, we can deduce that

12

Introduction

Umayyad rule was unpopular in certain sectors and that some of their subjects were in a state of discontent. Ibn ণawqal (d. c. 978), for one, spoke poorly of Umayyad rule in al-Andalus. MakkƯ is correct, however, when he explains that “el Estado no transigió con las tendencias ší’ies y sofocaba cuantas surgían, con la mayor severidad” [the State did not tolerate ShƯ‘ite tendencies and suffocated them as soon as they surfaced with the greatest severity] (1968: 173). As this study will show, the Umayyads were brutal and intolerant towards ShƯ‘ite Muslim minorities. If ShƯ‘ism did not flower more in IslƗmic Spain, it resulted from the ruthless campaign waged against them by the ruling authorities. Rather than repress them, Umayyad attacks forced the ShƯ‘ites to rise up. As MakkƯ admits, “no faltaron revoluciones de tipo ši’í, aunque esporádicas y con poco éxito” [there was no shortage of ShƯ‘ite style revolutions, however sporadic and unsuccessful they may have been] (1968: 173). Although most ShƯ‘ite insurrections in IslƗmic Spain were crushed, it cannot be said that they were all entirely unsuccessful. The revolution initiated by Ibn ণafৢnjn (c. 850-917), as we will see, was a ShƯ‘ite insurrection, occupying a considerable territory, and lasting for over forty years. MakkƯ also observes that “hubo en España agentes fatimíes, quienes contribuyeron grandemente a la difusión de la cultura ši’í” [there were FƗ৬imid agents in Spain who contributed greatly to the spread of ShƯ‘ite culture] (1968: 173) which is indeed correct. As there were only two major powers in the region, the Umayyads in al-Andalus, and the FƗ৬imids in the Maghrib, the oppressed Iberians often turned towards the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ caliphs in search for help. MakkƯ also points out that [o]tro de los medios por el cual llegaba la cultura ši’í a España, fueron los viajes que emprendieron algunos españoles al Oriente, especialmente al Iraq, trayendo a su vuelta elementos de esa cultura. [another one of the means by which ShƯ‘ite culture reached Spain was the trips that some Spaniards took to the east, especially to Iraq, returning with some elements from that culture]. (1968: 173)

It seems that some scholars tend to forget that the IslƗmic world, from alAndalus to India, was interconnected, communication was relatively constant, and travel was quite common. Muslims from all over the IslƗmic world traveled to al-Andalus. Muslims from al-Andalus visited the Maghrib and the Middle East to visit relatives and to study as well as on their way to and from the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

13

Despite rare exceptions, most orientalists, historians, and aljamiadistas, have ignored, minimized or denied the ShƯ‘ite presence in IslƗmic Spain. The primary sources, however, in both Arabic and Aljamiado, confirm the presence of ShƯ‘ite Muslims in al-Andalus from the time of the conquest in 711 to several centuries after the fall of Granada in 1492. In point of fact, a segment of the aljamiado manuscripts I have surveyed show indications of ShƯ‘ism. Therefore, José Raimundo Sastre Parres errs when he paternalistically claims that “nuestros moriscos” [our Moriscos] were “sunnitas todos ellos” [all SunnƯs]. In recent decades, some scholars have opened up to the ShƯ‘ite presence in al-Andalus, including Isabel Fierro and Aguadé. According to Fierro: La heresiografía islámica distingue cuatro sectas principales desde la óptica sunní: jariyíes, ši’íes, qadaríes / mu‘tazilíes y muryíes. De todas ellas, las dos primeras son las que pueden ser consideradas propiamente sectas político-religiosas. Ambas estuvieron representadas en al-Andalus, especialmente la primera. (1987: 171) [IslƗmic heresiography distinguishes four main sects from the SunnƯ perspective: KhƗrijites, ShƯ‘ites, QƗdirites/Mu‘tazilites and Murji‘ites. Of all these, the two first ones are those which can be rightfully considered as political-religious sects. Both were represented in al-Andalus, especially the first former.]

The Spanish scholar is mistaken, however, to believe that “el jariyismo fue la secta que más influencia tuvo en al-Andalus y también la más perdurable” [KhƗrijism was the sect that has the strongest and most enduring influence in al-Andalus] (Fierro 1987: 172). If the KhƗrijites were the most crucial minority movement in al-Andalus, where is the textual evidence? If the KhƗrijites were so important, they should have left behind a literary trail. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no indication of KhƗrijism in the aljamiado documents that I have studied. If the KhƗrijites were ever a vital minority in al-Andalus, they had long disappeared by the end of the fifteenth century. If we peruse aljamiado documents, we find manuscripts of MƗlikƯ SunnƯ provenance. We locate some that were produced by the nawƗ‫܈‬ib or enemies of the household of the Prophet and their partisans. We come some that are ৡnjfƯ, others that are ShƯ‘ite, and yet others that represent an eclectic combination of sources. To my knowledge, there is not a single aljamiado document of a KhƗrijite nature. Based on the textual evidence, the KhƗrijites appear to have been Spain’s least significant minority movement. Both the ৡnjfƯs, and the ShƯ‘ites, however, continued to be represented for hundreds of years after the fall of Granada.

14

Introduction

In his article, “Some Remarks about Sectarian Movements in alAndalus,” Jorge Aguadé admits that “the number of sectarian movements found in al-Andalus is considerable” (69). Notably, he points out that “some of these sects, for example, those led by ShaqyƗ and Ibn al-Qi৬৬, were not minority movements but, rather, had succeeded in attracting the support of important sectors of the population” (69). He also recognizes that “These movements did not disappear without leaving traces” (69). For these reasons, he holds that “it is impossible to continue speaking of a ‘monolithic’ Andalusian IslƗm that is totally ‘impermeable’ to sectarian movements” (69). Although Aguadé wrote that sectarian movements were considerable in al-Andalus, he seems to have retracted his statement. On April 14, 2009, he downplayed the role of ShƯ‘ism in IslƗmic Spain, writing that there were only “escasos movimientos shi’íes” in al-Andalus. Despite demonstrating the ShƯ‘ite presence in IslƗmic Spain, Aguadé seems reluctant to recognize the literary presence of ShƯ‘ism among the Moriscos: Respecto a lo que usted comenta acerca de tradiciones shi‘íes en la literatura aljamiada, pienso que el término shƯ‘Ư en este contexto puede resultar engañoso. En mi opinión, en la literatura popular del IslƗm sunní hay también una enorme veneración por la figura de ‘AlƯ (por su condición de compañero del Profeta y esposo de FƗ৬imah), sin que ello presuponga pertenencia a la shƯ‘ah. Es lo que sucede, por ejemplo, en Marruecos (donde incluso la actual dinastía reinante se denomina ‘alawƯ por considerarse descendientes de FƗ৬imah). (n. page) [Regarding your comments concerning ShƯ‘ite traditions in Aljamiado literature, I believe that the term ShƯ‘Ư may be misleading in this context. In my opinion, there is an enormous veneration for the figure of ‘AlƯ (as both companion of the Prophet and husband of FƗ৬imah) in the popular literature of SunnƯ IslƗm, without presupposing a link with the ShƯ‘ah. The same happens in Morocco, for example, (where the actual ruling dynasty labels itself ‘AlawƯ because they consider themselves descendants of FƗ৬imah].

Mercedes García-Arenal is also reticent to accept that there were ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos. In an email dated April 13, 2009, she wrote that: Yo tengo muchas reticencias a ver chiítas entre los moriscos. Creo que el culto al Profeta, el sharifismo, el sufismo, producen en el occidente islámico fenómenos específicos (que tienen mucho en común con el chiismo) a los que no podemos aplicar divisiones sectarias que son relevantes para otras zonas u otros períodos islámicos.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

15

[I am very reticent to believe that there were ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos. In the western part of the IslƗmic world, I think that reverence for the Prophet, SharƯfism, and ৡnjfism, produce specific phenomena (which have a great deal in common with ShƯ‘ism) but to which we cannot apply the sectarian divisions which are relevant in other IslƗmic zones or periods].

Even though he edited a Morisco book on the lives of the twelve ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, José Francisco Cutillas Ferrer remained cautious about any claims that there were ShƯ‘ite Moriscos. As he explains, “Es posible que no existieran chiíes entre los moriscos, ya que los datos que tenemos sobre la situación anterior en la sociedad de al-Andalus así nos hacen afirmarlo” (1998: 1) [Based on the information we have about the situation in alAndalus, it is possible that there were no ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos]. Although he recognizes the significance of a Twelver ShƯ‘ite text circulating among the Moriscos, afirmar la existencia de una comunidad chií hispanoparlante sería quizás un poco atrevido o al menos no se tienen datos suficientes como para afirmarlo. Si se puede afirmar, al menos, que se usaba el texto entre moriscos exilados. (1998: 5) [It might be a little daring to affirm the existence of a Spanish-speaking ShƯ‘ite community. At the very least, there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. It can be affirmed, however, that exiled Moriscos used the text.]

In the following study, I will provide evidence for the ShƯ‘ite presence in the Maghrib and al-Andalus from the Arab conquest in 711 to centuries after the Christian reconquest in 1492. Chapter one is dedicated to demonstrating the foundational presence of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the Maghrib. Although widely ignored, even by ShƯ‘ite scholars and clerics, the Prophet’s grandsons, al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (625-670) and al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (626-680) reportedly participated in the conquest of North Africa. Later, their father, ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, would briefly reign over part of the region. In other words, the first three ImƗms of the ShƯ‘ites were connected, however tenuously, to North Africa. Nonetheless, they can claim to have established the future ShƯ‘ite foundation of the Maghrib and al-Andalus. If Moroccan ৡnjfis insist that it was ImƗm ণasan who brought the Berbers into the fold of IslƗm, such a claim is not necessarily ahistorical. ণasan, and his younger brother ণusayn, may have planted the seeds of ShƯ‘ism in the hearts, minds, and souls of the Berbers they converted during the process of conquest. As companions of the Prophet, and members of his family, ণasan and ণusayn were not the

16

Introduction

only personalities to reach the area. MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar, the Prophet’s companion, and the loyal friend of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, traveled throughout North Africa, eventually settling in IfrƯqiyyah where he presumably spread the teachings of ahl al-bayt. In chapter two, I focus on the companions of the Prophet and ImƗm ‘AlƯ in the Maghrib. Although they had political and doctrinal differences with the proto-SunnƯs, the early ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ fought side by side with the supporters of Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn for the greater good of IslƗmic expansion. It comes as no surprise, then, that the troops sent to conquer the Maghrib in 647 included a segment of ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah, the most famous of which were ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. al-‘AbbƗs, Abnj Dhu’ayb al-HudhalƯ Khuwaylid (or KhƗlid) b. Muতrith, JƗb AllƗh b. ‘Amr, Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs, MiqdƗd b. al-Aswad, al-Musayyab b. ণazan b. AbƯ Wahab al-MakhznjmƯ, and ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. al-Kha৬৬Ɨb. Although outnumbered by the majority party [‘ammah], the select party which was loyal to ‘AlƯ [khƗssah] was equally represented. So, while the understanding of IslƗm of the opponents of ‘AlƯ was spread in the Maghrib, the understanding of IslƗm shared by the ahl albayt was also disseminated. If chapter two addresses the presence of the ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨba in the Maghrib, chapter three explores the influence of the ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn, namely, the followers of the companions of the Prophet, in the Maghrib and alAndalus. Although most of the tƗbi‘njn who participated in the conquest of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were pro-Umayyad, and hence opponents of the household of the Prophet, several ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn settled in al-Andalus, where they disseminated the teachings of the ahl al-bayt. These include ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-ৡanƗ‘anƯ, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, Zayd b. al-ণubƗb, and Bakr b. SawƗdah b. ThumƗmah, among others. In chapter four, I explore the role of the companions of the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh ImƗms in the Maghrib. These companions, who were scholars of ShƯ‘ism, include al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn: the two missionaries that ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq sent to spread ShƯ‘ism among the Berbers. They also include IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh, Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, Aতmad b. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, alQƗsim b. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, as well as MnjsƗ al-Jawn. Other ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah or tƗbi‘njn in the Maghrib include Ibn Warsand, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan, Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ, and Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư. While I have yet to demonstrate that the eighth ImƗm sent his ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah to the

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

17

Maghrib, it seems that DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim b. IsতƗq b. ‘Abd AllƗh . Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, a companion of ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ (810-835), ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ (827-868), and ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ (846–874), acted as chief of police under the rule of IdrƯs II (r. 791-828). This suggests close contact and collaboration between ZaydƯ and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites during the early days of IslƗmic administration in the Maghrib. In chapter five, I explore a curious fact that scholars have generally overlooked since the early days of IslƗm to the present, namely, the fact that several of the wives and mothers of the twelve ImƗms were Berbers. While this is known to ShƯ‘ite scholars, the significance of this Berber connection has not been fully recognized. Not only were they members of the Amazigh people, the Berber wives and mothers of the ImƗms were also trained as scholars of ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism and instructed women in the teachings of the ahl al-bayt. As the chapter will show, it appears that the Tamazight-speaking wives and mothers of the ImƗms played a role in the innovative and secretive missionary activities of their husbands. They appear to have played a vital role in spreading ShƯ‘ism among the Berbers of the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Considering that the Prophet’s companions, the followers of the companions, and large numbers of disciples of the ImƗms settled in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, there is little doubt that they spread their seed and, through it, the religious, spiritual, and political teachings of ShƯ‘ism. Consequently, chapter six delves into the shurafƗ’ or sƗdah [progeny of the Prophet] that settled in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. These descendants of the Prophet, who established themselves in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, consist of the Bannj IdrƯs, including direct descendants of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, along with Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, and Aতmad b. Muতammad. Other sƗdah belong to the Bannj Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, who arrived in Morocco at the end of the thirteenth century as well as the descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn who came at the end of the fifteenth century. As readers will learn, Morocco is also the home of descendants of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ. As a stronghold of the sƗdah, there was no shortage of ShƯ‘ite sentiment in al-Maghrib alAq‫܈‬Ɨ. In chapter seven, I look into the role that the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms have played in the spiritual chains of narration of the major ৡnjfƯ paths and their various sub-branches, including the ShƗdhiliyyah, QƗdiriyyah, Khalwatiyyah, and TijƗniyyah, as well as the Naqshbandiyyah, Chishtiyyah, Kubrawiyyah, and Mawlawiyyah. Included, as well, are the Suhrawardiyyah, Nurbakhsiyyah, Ni‘matullƗhiyyah, and Dhahabiyyah, as well as the BektƗshiyyah. And,

18

Introduction

finally, the chain of the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt. While not all of these spiritual brotherhoods of ৡnjfism are present in the Maghrib, where the ShƗdhiliyyah, QƗdiriyyah, and TijƗniyyah tend to dominate, they all trace back to the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. In chapter eight, I examine the history of the Berber ShƯ‘ites. As I demonstrate in this chapter, the ZanƗtah, KutƗmah, MiknƗsah, AwrƗbah, BarghawƗ৬ah, Masmnjdah, and Bannj Lamas Berbers were, at one time or another, ShƯ‘ite Muslims. Since the majority of Muslims who conquered alAndalus and settled there were Berbers, and segments of this racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic group were ShƯ‘ites, the presence of ShƯ‘ite Berbers in the Iberian Peninsula is a historical fact. After exploring the ShƯ‘ite Berbers in chapter eight, I address the Arab ShƯ‘ites in chapter nine. Although the Arabs were a minority, they represented the ruling class in the Iberian Peninsula. Since many Arabs who reached the Maghrib and al-Andalus were the military leaders of the Umayyad army, some of the Arabs in the region were pro-Umayyad. Still, since the Umayyads were unable to consolidate their claims to the Maghrib, the region received many ShƯ‘ite Arab refugees, the most famous of whom belonged to the clan of Bannj HƗshim, which founded the IdrƯsid ShƯ‘ite dynasty in Morocco. Besides the Bannj HƗshim, other Arab clans and tribes with ShƯ‘ite sympathies settled in the Maghrib, the most notorious of which were the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym, who rained down the wrath of the FƗ৬imids on the North Africans who had rejected ShƯ‘ite IslƗm in favor of MƗlikƯ Sunnism. Another critical group of ShƯ‘ite Arabs in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were the Yemenites. One of the most crucial groups of Arab ShƯ‘ites were the Arabized muwalladnjn, the descendants of Spanish reverts to IslƗm who, like the Berbers, had accepted IslƗm as true, but rejected the version practiced by the Umayyads, thus embracing ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. In chapter ten, I examine the various ShƯ‘ite sects present in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. These included the Bajaliyyah, who were also known as the Mnjsawiyyah and the Waqifiyyah, the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, the predecessors of the Twelver ShƯ‘ites, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs and the ZaydƯs, as well as the ণasanid ShƯ‘ites. I also examine sects which were influenced by ShƯ‘ism, including the ৡnjfƯs, as well as the Qarmatians and the so-called GhulƗt or Extremists. Chapter eleven is devoted to the numerous ShƯ‘ite dynasties that flourished in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. The ShƯ‘ite dynasties in the Maghrib included the IdrƯsids, who were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, as well as the FƗ৬imids, the ZƯrƯds, and the ণammadids, who were IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites. The ণammnjdids, who were the sole ShƯ‘ite dynasty in al-Andalus, were also

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

19

ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, descendants of the Moroccan IdrƯsids. While some scholars have described them as “showcase ShƯ‘ites,” namely, people who stressed their ties to the Prophet for socio-political reasons and popularity, all evidence indicates that they were ShƯ‘ite in political and religious organization. This is supported by the fact that they maintained ties with some of the ShƯ‘ite communities in North Africa and the Middle East. In chapter twelve, I study the ShƯ‘ite revolts which took place in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. I examine the uprising of ShaqyƗ, ‘Ubayd AllƗh Sa‘Ưd, Abnj Rakwah WalƯd b. HishƗm b. ‘Abd al-MƗlik, Ibn al-Qi৬৬, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj, and Ibn ণafৢnjn, among many other rebellions that were directly or indirectly influenced by ShƯ‘ite ideas. Not only were there ShƯ‘ites in alAndalus, they were often in open insurrection against the oppressive regime of the Umayyads and subsequent rulers. In chapter thirteen, I examine some of the famous ShƯ‘ite scholars from the Maghrib. These scholars, jurists and judges, which included ZaydƯs, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, ImƗmƯs, and converts from Sunnism, include: IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Naৢr alMa‘ƗdƯ, Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ, Aflaত al-MalnjsƯ, Hurayth al-JƯmalƯ, MnjsƗ b. MakƗrim, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan (d. 906-907), Muতammad b. Hayynjn al-Mufattish, Ibn Haytham, Muতammad b. Khalaf, IbrƗhƯm b. Ma’shar, Abnj al-ণasan alMu৬৬alibƯ, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư, Abnj al-‘AbbƗs (Muতammad b. Aতmad), Abnj Bakr al-QamadƯ, ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr al-Saffar, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Muতammad al-DabbƯ (Ibn al-Birdawn), Ibn SabbƗgh, RabƯ‘ b. SulaymƗn b. SalƯm (Ibn al- KaততƗlah), Muতammad b. HayyƗn, Isতab b. Abnj MinhƗl, Abnj ‘AlƯ b. Abnj MinhƗl, Ja‘far b. Aতmad b. Wahb, Aতmad b. Baতr, Abnj Muতammad b. ShahrƗn, al-MarwadhƯ, Abnj Sa‘Ưd Khalaf b. Ma‘mar b. Manৢnjr (d. 915/916), Muতammad b. al-Mahfnjঌ, Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ (d. 922-23), Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn alNaf৬Ư (d. 924), and ZurƗrah b. Aতmad. In chapter fourteen, I examine ShƯ‘ite-inspired scholars from alAndalus, such as Muতammad b. Masarrah and his disciples as well as Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd and Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm b. ণayynjn al-ণijƗrƯ. I also examine the ShƯ‘ite cases of Abnj al-YasƗr IbrƗhƯm b. Aতmad al-RiyƗঌƯ, Muতammad b. Aতmad b. HƗrnjn al-BaghdƗdƯ, Abnj al-Khayr, Ibn ণawqal alNaৢƯbƯ (d. 977), Ibn AbƯ al-Man਌njr, Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ, Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn b. SimƗk al-JudhƗmƯ, Ibn HƗnƯ, and LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb. Chapter fifteen provides an interesting geographical overview of the most important ShƯ‘ite centers in the Maghrib, including, but not limited to, Volubilis, Fez, Tangiers, Ceuta, Melilla, Chellah, Baৢrah, AৢƯlah, Taroudant, Igli, Tiyuywin, Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun and Meknes in Morocco, and Naf৬ah, TƗlƗ, al-Urbus, al-NƗznjr, Qus৬an৬Ưna, QayrawƗn, al-Mahdiyyah,

20

Introduction

ৡabrƗ al-Manৢnjriyyah, and Bougie in Tunisia. Chapter sixteen deals with the same issue as chapter fifteen, this time, however, focusing on al-Andalus. Like the Maghrib, which contained islands of ShƯ‘ites throughout the region, the Iberian Peninsula also had some historically ShƯ‘ite centers. In al-Andalus, ShƯ‘ite communities were found in Sevilla, Cordova, Pamplona, Alange, and Zaragoza, as well as Bobastro, Los Pedroches, La Serena, Puerto de Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, MiknƗsah, and NafzƗ. In some instances, the ShƯ‘ite roots of these communities date back to the companions of the Prophet and ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Others were connected to the IdrƯsids and ণammnjdids. And yet others were associated with the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. In most cases, the existence of ShƯ‘ite communities coincides with the presence of Yemenite Arabs and traditionally ShƯ‘ite Berber tribes. Chapter seventeen deals with a dark period in IslƗmic history, namely, the attempt to exterminate the Prophet’s family and their followers in alAndalus. I examine the Umayyad animosity and antipathy towards the ahl al-bayt. I explore the imposition of MƗlikƯ Sunnism on a population known for its love and attachment to the Prophet’s progeny. I also study the revolutionary ShƯ‘ite resistance against oppressive rule which, however heroic, simply did not have the strength to mount a serious existential challenge to the imposing Umayyad army. The chapter examines the Umayyad strategy against the ShƯ‘ites and the use war crimes and cruel and unusual punishment against insurgents to extinguish any hope of redemption. It demonstrates that the belligerent antiShƯ‘ite sentiment of the Umayyads continued during the rule of the party kings, when al-Andalus was splintered into warring kingdoms. It shows the Almoravids and the Almohads for what they were in the eyes of the ShƯ‘ites: nawƗ‫܈‬ib who perpetrated genocide against the followers of the ahl al-bayt in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Even the Naৢrids, who cultivated ৡnjfism during their brief rule, were not immune from the anti-ShƯ‘ite ideology of their predecessors. Rather than focus on IslƗmic unity and confront the common Christian enemy from the north that was regularly making incursions into Muslim territories, the Umayyads and their successors preferred to direct their military might against Muslim minorities and make alliances with nonMuslims. As a result of this internal cancer, which ate away at the unity of IslƗmic Spain, Muslims became progressively weaker until they were so impotent that “they cried like women for what they could not defend like men,” namely, the city of Granada: the last bastion of IslƗm in Western Europe. Chapter eighteen focuses on the Moriscos, the Spanish Muslims who

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

21

were forcibly converted to Christianity but who, by and large, continued to practice their IslƗmic faith in secret and produced an invaluable body of literature. Known as aljamiado literature, from the Arabic al-‘ajamiyyah or “foreign [language],” it consists of Spanish language IslƗmic literature written with the Arabic alphabet or occasionally in Latin script. As a close study of aljamiado literature demonstrates, the Moriscos were not, as some scholars have argued, a monolithic mass. There was diversity within the Morisco community. There are signs of MƗlikƯ Sunnism, NawƗৢibism, ৡnjfism, and ShƯ‘ism in the aljamiado works that have reached us. While no scholar would dare assert that the Moriscos were not predominantly of the MƗlikƯ SunnƯ madhhab, there is evidence of other schools of thought among the Moriscos, including the ShƯ‘ite ones. With Granada’s fall in 1492, IslƗm commenced a slow and agonizing death in the Iberian Peninsula, disappearing, it would seem, by the 1800s, after centuries of pious dissimulation no longer seemed sustainable and cryptic Muslims succumbed to assimilation and integration. Linguistically, religiously, and culturally, the Moriscos became Catholic Spaniards. They lost their IslƗmic identity, ancestry, and heritage. The Arabic language was eradicated. The Spanish language purged as much as possible of Semitic “stains.” The IslƗmic religion was outlawed and all manifestations of Arabic-IslƗmic culture forbidden. Nonetheless, memories of Muslims and echoes of IslƗm have remained to this day in Spanish architecture, language, literature, music, dance, food, and culture. Although attempts to find traces, relics, and vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in Spain are mostly fruitless after more than five centuries of Spanish Christian rule, the same cannot be said of Morocco. Indeed, three centuries of ShƯ‘ism cannot be swept under the rug that easily. Chapter nineteen, then, takes up a most challenging task: uncovering the vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in Morocco. Slowly but surely, the determined and tenacious researcher can come across the most fascinating of finds. As a result of my investigative endeavors, I have found subtle and notso-subtle signs of ShƯ‘ism in Arabic calligraphy, the architecture of cities such as Fez, Taroudant, and al-Mahdiyyah, gravestones and burial sites, idiomatic expressions, onomastic evidence, religious invocations, religious practices such as the Mawlid al-NabƯ and ‘AshurƗ’, modes of dress, and musical memories of mut‘ah or fixed-term pleasure marriages. While ShƯ‘ism has resurfaced in the Maghrib in recent decades, the ShƯ‘ites had been suppressed, and perhaps entirely eradicated, for centuries. Are the modern-day ShƯ‘ites of Morocco the product of cultural continuity, having resurfaced after centuries of pious dissimulation? Or have they simply rediscovered ShƯ‘ism, often justifying their choice based on the

22

Introduction

IdrƯsid faith of their genetic, political, or spiritual ancestors? What can be said is that ShƯ‘ism seems to be spreading in Morocco among some young, educated men and women. While this is not a new phenomenon, and the same trend can be seen in Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, and many other parts of the Muslim world, the ShƯ‘ites of Morocco face some real challenges. In chapter twenty, I provide an overview of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm’s literary legacy the Iberian Peninsula. Since the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Arabic books housed in the libraries of IslƗmic Spain were set ablaze by the forces of Christian fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism, there remains relatively little in the way of Arabic books in the Spanish national archives. Still, among the Arabic works that have survived, one finds the writings of Ibn al-AbbƗr, who produced a poetic epic on the tragic suffering of the Prophet’s household. What has survived, however, are hundreds of Morisco manuscripts written in Aljamiado. While relatively few scholars have shown any interest in the content of these works, subjecting them simply to linguistic analysis, many of them contain invaluable information that is not found elsewhere. They include prophetic traditions, Qur’Ɨnic translations and commentaries, and entire IslƗmic and literary works that have not survived in the rest of the Arab world. Most importantly, many of these manuscripts are saturated with ShƯ‘ite ideas. This includes the Book of Battles, a beautifully-written epic that highlights the heroic feats of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib; the Book of Lights, a luminous history of the Prophet’s family which was inspired by the teachings of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq; and, most importantly, the Chronicle and Account of the Noble SharƯfian Descendants, a ShƯ‘ite maqtal al-‫ۉ‬usayn which provides an overview of the lives of the twelve ImƗms. Considering the presence of the second and third ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the Maghrib, and the brief rule of the first ImƗm over the region; the presence of ShƯ‘ite companions of the Prophet and the ImƗms along with their followers; the fact that several of the wives and mothers of the ImƗms were Berber ShƯ‘ite Muslim scholars involved in missionary activities; the presence of large numbers of SharƯfian settlers; the prevalence of ShƯ‘iteinfused ৡnjfƯ spirituality; the migration of masses of Arab ShƯ‘ites; the documented existence of ShƯ‘ite sects; the creation of numerous ShƯ‘ite dynasties; the recurrent ShƯ‘ite revolts against Umayyad rule; the established presence of large numbers of leading ShƯ‘ite scholars; the existence of ShƯ‘ite communities; the duly detailed efforts of the Umayyads to exterminate the ShƯ‘ites of the region; the textual evidence of ShƯ‘ism found Aljamiado-Morisco literature; the vestiges of ShƯ‘ism found in Morocco to this day; and the on-going ShƯ‘ite revival in the Maghrib which

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

23

seems to have been inspired by some substrata, there can be no question that ShƯ‘ism played a role in the history of the Maghrib and al-Andalus. To argue otherwise is to willfully ignore the evidence and its implications.

CHAPTER 1 THE SHƮ‘ITE IMƖMS IN THE MAGHRIB

1.1 Introduction The ShƯ‘ite presence in the Maghrib did not begin with the FƗ৬imids, nor did it commence with the IdrƯsids or the two missionaries sent to the region by ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (702-765). The ShƯ‘ite presence in North Africa starts with the physical appearance of two ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, ImƗm al-ণasan (625670) and ImƗm al-ণusayn (626-680) in what is now present-day Tunisia and Libya. The presence of the two grandsons of the Prophet in the Maghrib is unknown to most Muslims, including many Twelver ShƯ‘ites, both clergy, and laity.

1.2 al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (625-670) and al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (626-680) ImƗm al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and ImƗm al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib both participated in the first IslƗmic incursion into North Africa in 647 (SalƗwƯ 188). Ordered by the caliph ‘UthmƗn (c. 579-656), the invading forces were led by ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. AbƯ al-Sarত, the governor of Upper Egypt. ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm al-ণusayn, both of whom were in their twenties at the time, were among the twenty thousand Arab warriors who marched from Medina and who were joined by another twenty thousand in Memphis, Egypt. According to al-৫abarƯ, the troops that conquered IfrƯqiyyah included ten thousand warriors from Quraysh, the Helpers, and the Emigrants (1990: 23). The two ImƗms participated in the invasion of the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa, where IslƗmic forces took Tripolitania in what is now modern Libya. The Muslim warriors then proceeded to defeat Count Gregory (d. 648) and his allies at the Battle of Sufetula, a city some one hundred and fifty miles to the south of Carthage. With Gregory dead, North Africa came under the rule of the RƗshƯdnjn caliphate, becoming a vassal state of the IslƗmic empire. The entire campaign lasted fifteen months, after which ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm al-ণusayn reportedly returned to Medina in 648.

The ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the Maghrib

25

Shortly after their return to Medina, the two brothers reportedly joined the campaign of Sa‘Ưd b. al-‘Aৢ in TabaristƗn in 650/651. The MƗzandarƗn Province, which had been conquered during the reign of ‘Umar, broke into revolt during ‘UthmƗn’s reign, along with most of the territory that formerly formed the Sassanid empire. As a result, the caliph ‘UthmƗn sent a strong force of eighty thousand warriors. Besides ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm alণusayn, the force included such eminent persons such as the three ‘Abd AllƗhs: ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs (618/19-687), ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘Umar (c. 614693), and ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-Zubayr (624-692). Interestingly, the first town they entered was Qum, a city that, in centuries to come, would become a scholarly center of ShƯ‘ism. After the murder of ‘UthmƗn in 656, and the assumption of the caliphate by their father, ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm al-ণusayn played parts in the battles fought during his reign, fighting in the Battles of Jamal (656), ৡiffƯn (657) and NahrawƗn (657). After the assassination of his father, ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ImƗm al-ণasan was acclaimed the fifth caliph and second ImƗm of the IslƗmic ummah. Due to dissent among his ranks, and the superior military capability and cunning of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah (602-680), who rose up in opposition to his rule, ImƗm alণasan was compelled to sign a peace treaty with his arch-enemy. The treaty, which aimed, in part, to protect the practices of IslƗm which were being corrupted by the Umayyads, was almost immediately violated. Rather than respect the treaty obligations he made with ImƗm al-ণasan, Mu‘Ɨwiyyah intensified his persecution of the ShƯ‘ites of the household of the Prophet. The assault was both verbal and physical. Mu‘Ɨwiyyah initiated the practice of cursing ImƗm ‘AlƯ both formally -- during prayers -- and informally, outside of prayers. Mu‘Ɨwiyyah and his soldiers would randomly ask individuals to curse ‘AlƯ and kill them on the spot if they refused to do so. He even killed some of the Prophet’s companions who refused to curse ImƗm ‘AlƯ, including ণujr b. AdƯ whom Mu‘Ɨwiyyah buried alive. The ritual cursing of ‘AlƯ would continue in SunnƯ mosques from 661 to approximately 717-720 when it was stopped by caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz (c. 683-720). Like his father before him, who had faced the usurpation of the caliphate on three occasions, ImƗm al-ণasan removed his person from the public sphere and devoted himself to a life of spiritual contemplation or, if we believe the sources, a series of seemingly endless marriages and divorces. ImƗm al-ণasan eventually met martyrdom, reportedly at the hands of his wife, Ju‘dah bint al-Ash‘ath b. Qays, who is said to have poisoned him at the behest of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah since he had promised to make her a princess by marrying her to his son YazƯd. After the evil deed had been

26

Chapter 1

done, Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, in keeping with his character, reportedly broke his oath once again, offering her to another man. Although ImƗm al-ণasan spent relatively little time in the Maghrib, his impact on the region would be profound, not so much due to his physical presence, but due to the influence of his direct descendants who spread his teachings throughout North Africa and al-Andalus. Consequently, ImƗm alণasan b. ‘AlƯ is considered, in the oral tradition of ৡnjfism, “as the person who taught the esoteric interpretation of the Qur’Ɨn and sowed the seed of ৡnjfism in the western lands of IslƗm” (Naৢr 2007: 169). After the assassination of his brother, ImƗm al-ণusayn assumed to office of the ImƗmate. If the situation at the time of al-ণasan called for abdication, the degree of corruption and oppression had reached such a point under YazƯd that al-ণusayn had no other option but to resort to an activist attitude. Martyred in KarbalƗ’ in the year 680, ImƗm ণusayn’s influence would be felt in eastern lands of IslƗm.

1.3 ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (c. 601-661) Although ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib never physically set foot in the Maghrib, he assumed the rule of an IslƗmic empire which stretched from the highlands of Iran to North Africa in 656. Immediately upon assuming power, and in an act that would eventually backfire, ImƗm ‘AlƯ dismissed all the provincial governors who had been appointed by ‘UthmƗn in nepotistic fashion, replacing them with his own trusted companions such as his adopted son, Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr (631-658), which was equally nepotistic. Although he belonged to the Bannj Umayyah, Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr had been raised in the household of ‘AlƯ who considered him an adopted or foster son. By asking ‘AlƯ to raise his son, as opposed to ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, or even his daughter ‘A’ishah, ShƯ‘ites argue that Abnj Bakr was implicitly acknowledging the rights of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, wanting to ensure that his son would be rightly-guided. It was Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr, a faithful ShƯ‘ite, who was appointed governor of Egypt by ImƗm ‘AlƯ in 657. However briefly, Egypt and the Maghrib were under the direct rule of ImƗm ‘AlƯ via his governor, Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr. When Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, who was viewed by some as a false claimant to the caliphate, revolted against ImƗm ‘AlƯ, the caliph of the ummah, the Muslim forces in the Maghrib retreated to Egypt, which, nonetheless, included onethird of the coast of present-day Libya. As the first Fitnah, or Civil War, between ImƗm ‘AlƯ and Mu‘Ɨwiyyah broke out, IslƗmic authority over the Maghrib was lost. It was only under Mu‘Ɨwiyyah that IfrƯqiyyah returned to IslƗmic rule. Under al-WalƯd I (r. 705-715), the IslƗmic empire extended to

The ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the Maghrib

27

the west of North Africa. Al-Andalus was invaded in 711 and the entire Iberian Peninsula was under IslƗmic rule by 716. IslƗmic expansion in Western Europe came to an end after the Arab army was defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Tours in 732.

1.4 The Mysterious Mission of the ImƗms Although some ShƯ‘ite scholars and historians have expressed doubts concerning the participation of ImƗm ণasan and ImƗm ণusayn in the campaign to open North Africa to IslƗm, since it suggests that they supported ‘UthmƗn, many more objective sources confirm that this was indeed the case. If they did participate in the conquest, their reasons for doing so are subject to speculation. Why, one wonders, did they fight under the command of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d, the brother of caliph ‘UthmƗn, who had reneged IslƗm during the Prophet’s lifetime? A former scribe of the revelation, he claimed to have changed words of the Qur’Ɨn that were dictated to him by the Prophet. Since Muতammad supposedly did not notice his wrongdoing, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d concluded that he was a false prophet. Merely because the Prophet overlooked it and did not mention it does not mean that he was not aware of it. After his public rejection of IslƗm, the Prophet sentenced him to death, a punishment that was commuted to exile due to the intercession of ‘UthmƗn. When ‘UthmƗn eventually became the caliph, he brought his brother out of obscurity and granted him the governorship of Egypt. Even though he was a governor of the caliphate, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d was notorious for appearing in public while intoxicated causing many of his contemporaries to question his character and the sincerity of his repentance and return to IslƗm. Since they were only young men, it is difficult to conceive that they joined ‘UthmƗn’s army without the consent of their father, ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. The reasons he could have advanced for permitting them to participate in the conquest are many. For example, the spread of IslƗm benefited the greater good. The reasons may have been practical, for example, the need for the young ImƗms to acquire military expertise. The motivation could also have been economic. According to the ShƯ‘ite view, they were deprived of their inheritance by Abnj Bakr (c. 573-634) -- who usurped the property of Fadak that belonged to their mother FƗ৬imah on dubious grounds -- leaving them destitute. Knowing how the other ImƗms have operated historically, one can infer that the sons of ImƗm ‘AlƯ may have been dispatched on a mission. Anticipating that he would be the fourth caliph, ImƗm ‘AlƯ may have sent his sons to scout out the Maghrib in the

28

Chapter 1

hope of future expansion. They may also have been dispatched to North Africa to spread the seeds of ShƯ‘ism.

1.5 Conclusions Whatever their motivations may have been, ImƗm ‘AlƯ, ImƗm al-ণasan, and ImƗm al-ণusayn were all reportedly involved in military activities in the Maghrib. Although ImƗm ‘AlƯ had separated himself from the community after Abnj Bakr came to power, appearing in public only when called upon to solve problems upon the request of Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn, he remained the spiritual, if not temporal, ImƗm of his small band of ShƯ‘ites. That ImƗm ‘AlƯ was making moves, pulling strings, and advancing his agenda from behind the scenes can hardly be questioned. Armed with patience and constancy, he waited nearly two and a half decades before assuming the office that he believed had been granted to him by the Prophet through divine decree. Placing the greater good of IslƗm in the first place, there is little doubt that he was preparing plans for the future, plans which seem to have included the spread of proto-ShƯ‘ite IslƗm into the Maghrib and al-Andalus.

CHAPTER 2 THE SHƮ‘ITE ‫܇‬A‫ۉ‬ƖBAH: THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET AND ‘ALƮ IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

2.1. Introduction Although most of the companions of the Prophet who participated in the conquest of North Africa in 647 were proto-SunnƯ supporters of the caliph ‘UthmƗn (c. 579-656), some followers of the ahl al-bayt also participated, including: ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ‘Abd alRaতmƗn b. al-‘AbbƗs, Abnj Dhu’ayb al-HudhalƯ, Khuwaylid (or KhƗlid) b. Muতrith, JƗb AllƗh b. ‘Amr, Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs, MiqdƗd b. al-Aswad, alMusayyab b. ণazan b. AbƯ Wahab al-MakhznjmƯ, and ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. al-Kha৬৬Ɨb. While it may seem surprising that ShƯ‘ites would fight alongside those they accused of usurping power from the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt, it appears that some of them were willing to struggle with protoSunnƯs for the greater good of IslƗmic expansion or for the simple sake of assuring their sustenance.

2.2. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs (618/619-687/688) ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs was a cousin of the Prophet and ‘AlƯ. He was fifteen years old during the Messenger of God’s final illness. He claimed that he witnessed ‘Umar prevent the Prophet from designating his successor in writing. Ibn ‘AbbƗs also objected to what he viewed as the usurpation of the Prophet’s property by Abnj Bakr. Under the rule of the first caliph, Ibn al‘AbbƗs devoted his time to collecting prophetic traditions. He was consulted by the second caliph, ‘Umar, on several occasions. During the reign of ‘UthmƗn, he participated in the campaign in the Maghrib. When ImƗm ‘AlƯ was finally appointed caliph, Ibn ‘AbbƗs was one of his staunchest supporters, participating in the Battle of ৡiffƯn on the side of ‘AlƯ. When a large portion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ’s forces broke away from him in

30

Chapter 2

protest with the result of the arbitration, Ibn ‘AbbƗs succeeded in convincing twenty thousand, of the twenty-four thousand dissidents, to return to his ranks. Although he was forced to pay allegiance to YazƯd b. Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, he only did so out of taqiyyah, his heart remaining with ImƗm al-ণusayn. Despite the respect he received due to his age and knowledge, he expressed an enormous amount of reverence for ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, bowing to him in submission. When the ImƗm would enter into his presence, Ibn ‘AbbƗs would rise out of respect for him, greeting him with the words: “Welcome dear and beloved one!” (Ibn ‘AsƗkir, vol. 36: 47). Although he does not rise to the ranks of individuals like ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs is considered one of the better ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah by ShƯ‘ite scholars.

2.3 ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. 680) ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib was a companion of the Prophet. His father migrated to Abyssinia during the first hijrah where he was born. He was famous for fighting side by side with ‘AlƯ in battle. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far was both the nephew and son-in-law of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, having married his daughter Zaynab. During the rule of ‘UthmƗn, he fought in North Africa along with ImƗm ণasan and ImƗm ণusayn. When YazƯd assumed power, and ImƗm ণusayn was invited to Knjfah by the partisans of his father ‘AlƯ, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far advised him to remain in the ণijƗz until the Knjfans overthrew their Umayyad overlords. Since the ImƗm insisted that he must go, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far sent his two sons, Awn and Muতammad, along with their mother Zaynab. The sons of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far and Zaynab bint FƗ৬imah were martyred at KarbalƗ’.

2.4 ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. al-‘AbbƗs b. ‘Abd al-Mu৬৬alib (d. seventh century) ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. al-‘AbbƗs b. ‘Abd al-Mu৬৬alib was a paternal cousin of the Prophet Muতammad and ImƗm ‘AlƯ. He died a martyr in Tunisia (SalƗwƯ 186).

2.5 Abnj Dhu’ayb al-HudhalƯ Khuwaylid (or KhƗlid) b. Muতrith (d. seventh century) According to SalƗwƯ, Abnj Dhu’ayb embraced IslƗm during the lifetime of the Prophet. He was present at the SaqƯfah and the proclamation of Abnj Bakr as caliph. He attended the Prophet’s prayer and his funeral. He fought

The ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah

31

against the Byzantines during the caliphate of ‘Umar. He is reported to have been fatally wounded on the way back. According to Ibn KathƯr (13011373), however, he died during the caliphate of ‘UthmƗn while participating in the campaign in Tunisia. He lost five children during the plague in Fus৬Ɨ৬. An illustrious poet, he lamented their loss in a famous poem (SalƗwƯ 186). Abnj Dhu’ayb was one of the narrators of the tradition of GhadƯr Khumm in which the Prophet appointed ImƗm ‘AlƯ as his successor.

2.6 JƗb AllƗh b. ‘Amr b. Tha‘labah b. Asad al-AnৢƗrƯ (d. seventh century) JƗb AllƗh b. ‘Amr was the brother of Abnj Mas‘njd al-BadrƯ. He participated in the Battle of Uতud, the conquest of Egypt, and the Battle of ৡiffƯn alongside ImƗm ‘AlƯ. In 670, he participated in the campaign in Tunisia along with Mu‘Ɨwiyyah b. Hudayj. He was one of the Prophet’s leading companions and one of the most learned (SalƗwƯ 188). He was known for his honesty and integrity.

2.7 ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. al-Kha৬৬Ɨb (628–689) ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. al-Kha৬৬Ɨb was born during the final years of the Prophet’s life. He was the son of the second caliph. His mother was JamƯlah, the daughter of ‘Asim b. ThƗbit, a respected AnৢƗrƯ who fought at Badr. Originally named Asiyyah, the Prophet gave her the name JamƯlah after embracing IslƗm. ‘Asim was the only son she bore from ‘Umar who subsequently divorced her for some unknown reason. ‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. alKha৬৬Ɨb was one of the narrators of the tradition of GhadƯr Khumm in which the Prophet designated ‘AlƯ as his successor. ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. HƗfs, the grandson of ‘Asim b. ‘Umar, was a student of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, narrating many traditions from the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm.

2.8 Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs (d. 655) Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs was the son of al-‘AbbƗs b. ‘Abd al-Mu৬৬alib and Umm Faঌl LubƗbah bint al-ণƗrith. He was the cousin of ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs. He was a paternal cousin to the Prophet. He was a reciter of the Qur’Ɨn and a transmitter of traditions from the Prophet Muতammad and ImƗm ‘AlƯ. He also acted as a governor. He married Umm JamƯl bint al-SƗ’ib of the Bannj Sa’sa’ with whom he had a son, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs. Ma‘bad b. al-‘AbbƗs was martyred in Tunisia, while he was still young, during the reign of ‘UthmƗn. He was a ShƯ‘ite of ‘AlƯ much like his brothers

32

Chapter 2

‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, Faঌl b. ‘AbbƗs, and ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs. Faঌl is held in high regard by ShƯ‘ites as he refused to pay allegiance to Abnj Bakr unless ‘AlƯ did so. He participated in many battles against the Persians and Europeans. He was martyred in Syria. As for ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, he is distinguished as having been one of the leaders of ImƗm al-ণasan’s army (Howard 610).

2.9 MiqdƗd b. al-Aswad al-KindƯ (c. 586-c. 676) MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar, the son of ‘Amr b. Tha‘labah al-KindƯ, was adopted as a child by al-Aswad b. ‘Abd Yaghuth. He was one of the first individuals to embrace IslƗm. He reportedly participated in all the battles of the Prophet: Badr, Uতud, and others. He participated in the conquest of North Africa with Ibn AbƯ Sarত, the governor of Egypt. However, he did not settle in IfrƯqiyyah and returned to Egypt during the reign of ‘UthmƗn. MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar was one of the Prophet’s companions who never pledged allegiance to Abnj Bakr. He belonged to the group of six mu‫ۊ‬Ɨjirnjn who never gave bay‘ah [allegiance] to Abnj Bakr, including: Abnj Dharr alGhifƗrƯ, MiqdƗd b. Aswad, ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, KhƗlid b. Sa‘Ưd, and Buraydah AslamƯ. Ubay b. Ka‘b, from the Bannj HƗshim, SalmƗn al-FƗrisƯ, ‘UthmƗn b. ণunayf, Zayd b. Arqam, al-BarƗ’ b. AzƯb, and Qays b. Sa‘d, also refused to pledge allegiance to Abnj Bakr. Venerated by ShƯ‘ite Muslims, MiqdƗd b. al-Aswad was one of the Prophet’s most respected companions. Included among the four most faithful companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, he is described in ShƯ‘ite traditions as a perfect ShƯ‘Ư.

2.10 al-Musayyab b. ণazan b. AbƯ Wahab al-MakhznjmƯ (d. seventh century) Al-Musayyab b. ণazan b. AbƯ Wahab al-MakhznjmƯ was the father of Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyab (642-715). Both Sa‘Ưd and his father frequented the Prophet and cited traditions from him. Sa‘Ưd, in particular, became an eminent jurist in Knjfah. He entered Egypt and participated in the campaign in the Maghrib. Ibn NadhƯm (d. 995 or 998), Muতammad ণusayn al-KƗshif al-GhitƗ’ (d. 1953), and others claim that Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyab was a ShƯ‘ite. According to al-KulaynƯ, Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyib was a trusted and reliable companion of the fourth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn. While he was a friend and student of ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn (Balagh 56) and said that he had never met a person who was more gentle, pious, and meritorious than him, Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyab differed with the ImƗm on legal issues. For this reason, S.M.H JafrƯ disputes his ShƯ‘ism (245). If Sa‘Ưd and his father were not

The ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah

33

ShƯ‘ites per se, they were ShƯ‘ite sympathizers who loved, respected, and admired the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt.

2.11 ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. al-Kha৬৬tab (d. 657) Born towards the end of the Prophet’s life, ‘Ubayd AllƗh, the son of the second caliph, was a ShƯ‘ite of ‘AlƯ. In fact, he was martyred in the Battle of ৡiffƯn fighting against Mu‘Ɨwiyyah (SalƗwƯ 191).

2.12 Conclusions While most of the companions of the Prophet who participated in the conquest of North Africa were supporters of the Umayyads, there was a small segment of ShƯ‘ites among their ranks. While they may have refused to fight their fellow ShƯ‘ites, they believed that it was beneficial to IslƗm to unite with the Umayyads in their attempts to open new territory to IslƗm. For other ShƯ‘ites, joining the Umayyads may have been motivated by money and promises of booty. Others may have been staunch ShƯ‘ites who were along for the ride in the same way that many cryptic Jews accompanied the Spanish Catholic conquerors in their voyages to the Americas. Some followers of the ImƗms may have followed the military caravans to reach North Africa, only to desert at the first opportunity to engage in ShƯ‘ite missionary work among the Berbers. Whatever their motivation was, there was a small segment of ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah in the Maghrib since the earliest spread of IslƗm in the region. Influence, however, cannot be determined solely based on numbers. Simply because the SunnƯ ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah were more numerous does not necessarily mean that they were more influential when it came to attracting people to IslƗm. Some of the pro-Umayyad ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah were famous for their brutality and barbarity towards conquered populations. The ShƯ‘ite ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah, however, were famous for their kindness, generosity, and piety towards the local population. Rather than view themselves as conquerors, IdrƯs I and Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư considered themselves guests among the Berbers. This explains why it was ShƯ‘ism, and not Sunnism, which appealed to many believing Berbers of North Africa. A similar phenomenon was also observed in Persia where an increased conversion to IslƗm was achieved, not by the caliphs, but by the ambassadors of the ImƗms. As a result of their efforts in the second century of the first millennium, the MƗzandarƗnƯs and Gilaks became some of the first groups of Persians to convert directly to ShƯ‘ism. If the Prophet’s companions commenced the spread of ShƯ‘ism in the

34

Chapter 2

Maghrib and al-Andalus, the effort was continued by their followers, the tƗbi‘njn.

CHAPTER 3 THE SHƮ‘ITE TƖBI‘NjN: THE FOLLOWERS OF ‘ALƮ IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

3.1 Introduction The first IslƗmic incursion into the Iberian Peninsula took place during the reign of the caliph ‘UthmƗn (644-656). Immediately after the conquest of North Africa under the command of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d, two of his generals, ‘Abd AllƗh b. NƗfƯ‘ b. al-ণusayn and ‘Abd AllƗh b. NƗfƯ‘ b. ‘Abd al-Qays, were commissioned by the caliph to invade the coastal areas of al-Andalus by sea. Landing by sea, the Arab warriors, who were aided by a Berber force, succeeded in conquering some of the coastal areas of the Iberian Peninsula. According to al-৫abarƯ (838-923), the caliph ‘UthmƗn sent the following dispatch to those to whom he had delegated authority among the inhabitants of Spain: “To proceed: Only through Spain can Constantinople be conquered. If then you conquer [Spain], you will share the reward of those who conquer [Constantinople]. Peace” (1990: 22). One of ৫abarƯ’s sources relates that: They set out accompanied by the Berbers. They came [to Spain] by land and sea, and God bestowed it upon the Muslims and the Ifranjah. They flourished under Muslim rule as did Ifriqiyyah… The situation in Spain continued to be like that in Ifriqiyyah until the time of HishƗm; the Berbers defended their land; those living in Spain kept their affairs in good order. (22-23)

It is presumed that these early Muslims established trading colonies in parts of southern Spain and entered trade relations with the rest of the Iberian Peninsula and parts of Europe. These colonies, which were ruled initially by ‘Abd AllƗh b. NƗfƯ‘ al-ণusayn, and then by ‘Abd AllƗh b. NƗfƯ‘ b. ‘Abd al-Qays, were lost shortly after they were established due to the chaos which

36

Chapter 3

reigned during the last days of ‘UthmƗn’s rule. The complete conquest of al-Andalus commenced under the rule of alWalƯd I (668-715), who ruled from 705 to 715. It was al-WalƯd I who ordered ৫Ɨriq b. ZiyƗd to take possession of the Iberian Peninsula in 711. Defeating the Visigoths at the Battle of Guadalete on July 19, 711, ৫Ɨriq b. ZiyƗd placed the Iberian Peninsula under Umayyad rule except for the kingdom of Asturias. Al-WalƯd I was an enemy of the ahl al-bayt. Like his father and predecessor before him, WalƯd I employed the services of al-ণajjƗj b. Ynjsuf (661-714) as governor of Iraq to crush any opposition to Umayyad rule with the utmost cruelty. An illiterate drunkard who poisoned ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, al-WalƯd I was succeeded by his brother SulaymƗn (c. 674-717 ; r. 715-717), who continued the expansion in Spain. After SulaymƗn, an insatiable glutton, died of overeating, he was succeeded by ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz (c. 682-720) who ruled from 717 to 720. Although some SunnƯs insist on recognizing the legitimacy of all caliphs, most of them only recognize the four rightly-guided caliphs, Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, and ‘AlƯ, as well as a few of the subsequent caliphs whom they judged to be genuine caliphs, and not worldly kings, including ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz, considered by some as the fifth rightly-guided caliph. Among his accomplishments, ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the ShƯ‘ites and the KhawƗrij, stressing the importance of IslƗmic unity. He halted the long-standing ritual cursing of ‘AlƯ, which was customary among both the Umayyads and the KhawƗrij at the end of Friday sermons. Instead of cursing the first ImƗm of the ShƯ‘ites and the fourth caliph of the SunnƯs, he ordered that the following Qur’Ɨnic verse be recited instead: “Surely God enjoins justice, doing good and giving to kinfolk” (16:90), a practice which continues to this day in SunnƯ mosques. Significantly, the caliph returned the property of Fadak, which had reportedly been usurped from FƗ৬imah, the daughter of the Prophet, by the caliph Abnj Bakr, to her descendants. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz was also determined to enforce the sharƯ‘ah, as he understood it, attempting to put an end to the debauchery which was reportedly characteristic of Umayyad rule. He placed a great deal of stress on providing social services for orphans and the destitute. He also abolished the jizyah which was imposed on Muslim converts and prohibited the payment of human tribute. As E. Savage explains, “‘Umar ordered all Arabs who had LuwƗta (that is, Berber girls) either to take them in marriage after obtaining the consent of their fathers or to give them back to their families” (360, note 60). If his predecessors were more concerned with conquering North Africa, ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz turned his focus to inviting the Berbers to the IslƗmic faith. As such, he sent ten tƗbi‘njn or followers of the Prophet’s

The ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn

37

companions to disseminate the IslƗmic faith among the indigenous inhabitants of North Africa. Although he was popular among the people, ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz was loathed by some of the other Umayyads that surrounded him, leading to attempts on his life. When it was discovered that one of his servants had been bribed to poison his food, he pardoned the culprit, collected the punitive payment for murder, and deposited it in the public treasury to support social services. Even though the ShƯ‘ites never recognized his right to rule, which, in their view, was reserved to the ImƗms from the family of the Prophet, the identity of whom, however, they could never quite agree upon, leading to constant sectarian splintering, some conceded that ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz was a righteous ruler and a pious person. As startling as it may seem that ShƯ‘ites fought for al-WalƯd I, and SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd al-MƗlik, ShƯ‘ite support for ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz was more sensible. Driven by a desire for dinars or da‘wah, many ShƯ‘ites were willing to struggle with SunnƯs against their common enemies. Even though they questioned or opposed the rule of the first three caliphs, the ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ, for the sake of IslƗmic unity, did not fight them. ImƗm al-ণasan signed a peace treaty with Mu‘Ɨwiyyah. Some ShƯ‘ites supported the ‘AbbƗsids in their quest for the caliphate, and ImƗm ‘AlƯ alRiঌƗ (765-818) was the heir apparent of the caliph al-MƗ’mnjn (786-833). As a minority with significant strength, some of the ShƯ‘ites were politically pragmatic. Even when they were prevented from establishing the utopian ImƗmate of the just, some of them supported what they perceived to be lesser evils to avert what they viewed as greater ones. Although no ShƯ‘ite companions of the Prophet reached al-Andalus, several disciples of the companions did, in fact, make it to the Iberian Peninsula after spending time in the Maghrib. According to Ibn al-FaradƯ (962-1013), five tƗbi‘njn reached al-Andalus. According to al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632), who reports from Ibn BashkuwƗl (1101-1183), twenty-eight companions reached the Iberian Peninsula, although he only believed that five did so. Among modern scholars, MakkƯ believes that the presence of ten tƗbi‘njn can be confirmed. While some of these tƗbi‘njn were followers of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah and YazƯd, and enemies of the household of the Prophet, a few of them were ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ, including Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd, ণanash alৡanƗ‘anƯ, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd, and Zayd b. al-ণubƗb.

38

Chapter 3

3.2 Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd (d. eighth century) Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd was the son of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maৢ‘njd (d. 652), a prominent companion of the Prophet Muতammad. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maৢ‘njd was the sixth man to embrace IslƗm. The Prophet reportedly said of him: “Learn the Qur’Ɨn from four persons: ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maৢ‘njd, SalƯm, Mu‘Ɨdh, and Ubayy b. Ka‘b” (BukhƗrƯ). ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maৢ‘njd and his disciples supported ‘AlƯ’s claim to the wilƗyah, the khƯlafah, and the imƗmah, namely, the guardianship, the caliphate, and the ImƗmate. His son, Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd, was a governor of MadƗ’in during the caliphate of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. During the reign of caliph ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz, Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd formed part of a group of tƗbi‘njn sent to North Africa to IslƗmize its inhabitants. Sa‘Ưd b. Maৢ‘njd spread the teachings of ImƗm ‘AlƯ in the Maghrib.

3.3 ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-ৡana‘ƗnƯ (d. eighth century) According to al-MaqarrƯ, the first ShƯ‘Ư who arrived in al-Andalus was ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-ৡana‘ƗnƯ, a disciple and partisan of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, on whose authority he used to transmit prophetic traditions. Born in Syria, his real name was ণusayn b. ‘Abd AllƗh (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 3). According to al-FaradƯ (962-1013), al-HimyarƯ (14th c.), and al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632), ণanash was a companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ in Knjfah. As Abnj Sa‘Ưd b. Ynjnus explained, ণanash “followed the fortunes of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, to whose party he was addicted” (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 3). Besides narrating traditions on the authority of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, “it appears certain that ণanash preserved traditions from the mouth of ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs” (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 4). Although he reportedly viewed himself as an equal, ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs was a supporter of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and cited many traditions on his authority. According to al-FaradƯ, al-BukhƗrƯ, al-MaqqarƯ, and al-KindƯ, ণanash moved to Egypt after the death of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, from where he participated in several expeditions of conquest in North Africa and the Maghrib. According to al-HumaydƯ, al-FaradƯ, Ibn ‘IdarƯ, and al-MaqqarƯ, ণanash participated in MnjsƗ b. Nusayr’s conquest of al-Andalus. He is said to have left Syria in his company. According to al-MaqqarƯ, al-HumaydƯ, al-FaradƯ, ‘UdrƯ, al-HimyarƯ, Mu’nƯ, and SƗmarrƗ’Ư, ণanash built the mosque in Zaragoza. He is also said to have arranged the qiblah of the mosque in Elvira (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 4). The city of Elvira, it should be noted, was eventually inhabited by KutƗmah Berbers, an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite tribe associated with the revolt of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ (r. 888-912). ণanash is equally linked with Cordova and Pamplona, a city

The ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn

39

founded by Berbers. ণanash returned to the east where he participated in the rebellion led by Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 692) whom he might have met in IfrƯqiyyah. Although HumaydƯ, Ibn al-FaradƯ, DabbƗgh, Ibn ণajar, and al-MaqqarƯ relate that ণanash returned to North Africa, where he died in 718-719, leaving descendants in that region, ‘UdrƯ and ণimyarƯ relate that he was buried in Zaragoza, next to BƗb al-Yahnjd, to the west of the city, in a cemetery known as Maqbarah BƗb al-Qiblah. The city of Alange, which derives from the Arabic ণanash, may have been named in his honor. Curiously, Alange was the base of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn al-JiliqƯ, a Galician Muslim who descended from Gothic nobles. He led a revolt of muwalladnjn or Muslim converts against the Umayyad rulers of Cordova.

3.4. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir (d. eighth century) According to al-MaqarrƯ, the first armed movement in al-Andalus was headed by a ShƯ‘Ư, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d, who was the grandson of ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, a fact confirmed by Ibn IdhƗrƯ, and supported by the modern scholarship of MakkƯ. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir was the subgovernor of Elvira in IslƗmic Spain. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir was a famous companion of the Prophet who is respected by both SunnƯs and ShƯ‘ites. His parents, Summayah bint KhayyƗ৬ and YƗsir b. ‘AmmƗr, were among the first converts or reverts to IslƗm. They were also the first martyrs of IslƗm who were tortured and murdered by the polytheists from Mecca. When the Prophet witnessed the torture of ‘AmmƗr’s parents in Mecca, he told them: “Be patient, O family of YƗsir! Verily, your destination is Paradise” (TirmidhƯ). It is reported by ImƗm ‘AlƯ that: “I was sitting in the house of the Prophet and ‘AmmƗr asked to see him. The Prophet greeted him by saying: ‘Welcome the good and the purified’” (Ibn MƗjah). The Prophet also said that “Whenever ‘AmmƗr is given two alternatives, he always chooses the best of the two” (Ibn MƗjah). The Messenger of God also said: “Every prophet was given by God seven righteous companions. I was given fourteen righteous companions” (TirmidhƯ) and that he included ‘AmmƗr among them. For ShƯ‘ite Muslims, ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir was one of the four most faithful disciples of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, those who always insisted on his right to succession. The other three include: SalmƗn al-FƗrisƯ, MiqdƗd b. Aswad, Abnj Dharr alGhifƗrƯ. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir never gave the pledge of allegiance to Abnj Bakr. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir was famous for his loyalty towards ImƗm ‘AlƯ. The Prophet had reportedly predicted the SunnƯ-ShƯ‘ite split and had reassured

40

Chapter 3

‘AmmƗr that he would side with the followers of the straight path. As both SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite sources have reported, the Prophet said: “‘AmmƗr, the unjust group will kill you.” Although he was eighty-seven years of age at the time, ‘AmmƗr died defending ‘AlƯ at the Battle of ৡiffƯn from the forces loyal to Mu‘Ɨwiyyah. Jorge Aguadé does not believe that ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir’s rebellion against ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I was the first ShƯ‘ite movement in Spain. He does not believe that it was a ShƯ‘ite movement at all. According to him, “the sources do not seem to confirm this interpretation: the rebel’s action was influenced by a desire for vengeance” (64, note 48). In the words of Aguadé, “It seems that ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd’s grandfather died at ৡiffƯn fighting on ‘AlƯ’s side and, for this reason, his grandson did not feel well-disposed towards the arrival of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I” (64, note 48). Whether or not ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d was seeking revenge is irrelevant. Seeking revenge, or seeking justice, has nothing to do with whether he was ShƯ‘ite or not. Even if he was seeking revenge, he was a ShƯ‘ite Muslim seeking revenge, though if he rallied his troops it was likely based on ShƯ‘ite ideals rather than a personal vendetta. Although many things are unclear in early IslƗmic history, it does not “seem” that ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir died at ৡiffƯn: it is a fact. It is also odd to claim that ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d fought against ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I because he was an Umayyad when ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d was working for an Ummayad, Ynjsuf al-FihrƯ, the governor of al-Andalus from 747 to 756, who was obliged to rule independently following the collapse of the caliphate in 750. Had ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d been so antiUmayyad, he would have allied himself with the ‘AbbƗsids against the Umayyads. In any insurrection or war, there are many motives. Although Spain’s reconquest and the conquest of the Americas were motivated by money, religion was still the rallying call. The same applies to the ShƯ‘ite rebellion of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d.

3.5 Zayd b. al-ণubƗb (c. 748-819) Abnj al-ণusayn al-‘UklƯ / al-TaymƯ, al-TamƯmƯ, al-KufƯ, al-KhurasƗnƯ Zayd b. al-ণubƗb b. al-RayƗn, who was originally from the town of Marv, in KhorasƗn, resided in Knjfah. He traveled extensively throughout the IslƗmic world in search of prophetic traditions. He lived in Egypt and, according to al-FaradƯ (962-1013), al-HumaydƯ, and ImƗm Aতmad, he finally reached al-Andalus where he related traditions from Mu‘Ɨwiyyah b. SƗliত. Zayd b. al-ণubƗb had many teachers including MƗlik b. Anas, SufyƗn al-ThawrƯ and Shu‘bah among many more. He died in Knjfah in 819.

The ShƯ‘ite tƗbi‘njn

41

According to SharƯf al-DƯn: Ibn Qutaybah has included his biography among those whose biographies he has included among ShƯ‘ah dignitaries in his work al-Ma‘Ɨrif. AlDhahabƯ has mentioned him in his al-MƯzƗn, describing him as “pious, trustworthy, truthful...” He indicates his being vouched as trustworthy by Ibn Ma‘Ưn and Ibn al-MadƯnƯ. He has quoted Abnj HƗtim and Aতmad describing him as truthful, adding that ‘AdƯ has said: “He is one of the reliable KnjfƯ traditionists whose trustworthiness is never doubted.” Muslim has relied on his authority. (n. page)

Zayd b. al-HubƗb is one of the transmitters of the tradition of GhadƯr Khumm, arguably the most important tradition in ShƯ‘ism as it purports that the Prophet explicitly appointed ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib as his successor, ImƗm, and KhalƯfah. Zayd b. al-ণubƗb has also related the tradition in which ImƗm ‘AlƯ cursed the companions of the Prophet who refused to admit that they heard the tradition of GhadƯr Khumm.

3.6 Bakr b. SawƗda b. ThumƗmah (d. eighth century) The tƗbi‘Ư, Bakr b. SawƗdah b. ThumƗmah is often mentioned in connection with al-Andalus. According to Ibn Ynjnus, he died in IfrƯqiyyah where he was sent by caliph ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz to do da‘wah. According to HumaydƯ, he died when the boat taking him to al-Andalus sank in 745, an opinion shared by al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) (10). While he never set foot on Andalusian soil, he traveled throughout the Maghrib before embarking for Europe. Bakr b. SawƗdah was a ShƯ‘ite Muslim, a faqƯh, and mu‫ۊ‬addith. He was one of the narrators of the event of GhadƯr Khumm.

3.7 Abnj ‘Amr ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ShamƗsah b. Dhib al-FihrƯ (d. eighth century) According to al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632), Abnj ‘Amr ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. Shamasah b. Dhib al-FihrƯ was another tƗbi‘Ư who established himself in alAndalus. It is said that “this tƗbi‘Ư held traditions from Abnj Dharr, or from Abnj Nadhrah who held them from Abnj Dharr” (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 10). Since Abnj Dharr is viewed as the embodiment of the ideal ShƯ‘ite, it seems reasonable to assume that his followers or the followers of his followers were also faithful in their allegiance to ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. Interestingly, the FihrƯ family, though rooted in QayrawƗn, relocated to Fez, under IdrƯsid rule, and was instrumental in building the QarawiyyƯn University, a public well, as well as the Mosque of the Andalusians.

42

Chapter 3

3.8 Other Companions Although most of the Prophet’s companions who went to the Maghrib and al-Andalus were opponents of the progeny of the Messenger of God, there are many more of which little is known. Since they were among the lesser companions, it is difficult to determine whether the following individuals were friends or foes of the ahl al-bayt. They include the likes of alMunaydhir, the youngest companion of the Prophet, said to be of East African or Yemeni origin, and who acted as his advisor. Some of his narrations are cited in BukhƗrƯ. Other tƗbi‘njn and traditionists include ‘AlƯ b. RajƗ‘ al-TamƯmƯ, Hayat b. RajƗ‘ al-TamƯmƯ; Abnj ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn ‘Abd AllƗh b. YazƯd al-JubaylƯ al-AnৢƗrƯ, who related traditions on the authority of Abnj Ayynjb al-AnৢƗrƯ; and ণayyƗn b. Ublah, who was one of the ten theologians dispatched by caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz to teach IslƗm to the Berbers. He used to report traditions from ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, among others. Although he traveled to al-Andalus, ণayyƗn is said to have died in Africa in 739/740. Other lesser companions and followers include Muতammad b. Aws b. Takib al-AnৢƗrƯ; Zayd b. QƗsid al-SiksikƯ; al-MughƯrah b. AbƯ Burdah al-KinƗnƯ, who seems to have been dismissed from the army; ‘Abd AllƗh b. alMughƯrah al-KinƗnƯ; ‘Abd al-JabbƗr b. AbƯ Salmah b. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. Awf, Manৢnjr b. AbƯ Khuzaymah, Zurayk b. ণƗkim, and ‘AlƗ b. ‘UthmƗn b. Kha৬৬Ɨb.

3.9 Conclusions While the majority of the tƗbi‘njn or followers of the companions of the Prophet who traveled to or settled in North Africa and al-Andalus were the partisans of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, and the enemies of the ahl al-bayt, a small contingent of partisans of ImƗm ‘AlƯ also established itself in North Africa and al-Andalus, the most prominent of which included ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd, and Zayd b. al-HubƗb. If the followers of the Umayyads spread the teachings of the ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama‘ah, the followers of the ImƗm ‘AlƯ spread the teachings of the ahl al-bayt among the inhabitants of the Maghrib and al-Andalus. As Muতsin AmƯn has said: “Wherever the trustees of ‘AlƯ went, the people there would become ShƯ‘ah” (25). As they were all authorities of a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth, some of the ShƯ‘ite traditions which circulated in Spain from 711 to centuries after the reconquest in 1492 may trace back to these early missionary efforts.

CHAPTER 4 THE COMPANIONS OF IMƖM AL-ৡƖDIQ, IMƖM AL-KƖ਋IM, IMƖM AL-RIঋƖ, IMƖM AL-TAQƮ, IMƖM AL-NAQƮ, AND IMƖM AL-‘ASKARƮ IN THE MAGHRIB

Introduction 4.1 Since I have covered the companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, the first ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, under the companions and followers of the companions of the Prophet, this section is devoted to the companions of the ImƗms who came after ‘AlƯ, specifically the followers of Muতammad al-BƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, MnjsƗ alKƗ਌im, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, Muতammad al-TaqƯ, ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, and ণasan al‘AskarƯ, namely, the fifth to eleventh ImƗms. The companions of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq that reached the Maghrib include al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn: the two missionaries he sent to spread ShƯ‘ism among the Berbers. They also include IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh, Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, Aতmad b. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, alQƗsim b. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, as well as MnjsƗ al-Jawn. Other ShƯ‘ite scholars from the Maghrib, who may have been companions of the ImƗms or followers of their companions, include Ibn Warsand, who was granted an ijƗzah to relate the traditions of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. alণasan, a moderate ShƯ‘ite from Naf৬ah, Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr alBarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ, a ZaydƯ scholar from Iraq, and Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư, who may have belonged to the madhhab of Ibn Warsand. Although I have not uncovered evidence that ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ sent any companions to the Maghrib, it seems that DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim b. IsতƗq b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, a companion of ImƗm Muতammad alTaqƯ (810-835), ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ (827-868), and ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ (846–874), acted as chief of police under the rule of IdrƯs II (r. 791-828). Not only was he a close advisor to IdrƯs II, he appears to have been the wakƯl

44

Chapter 4

of the eleventh ImƗm in the Maghrib. He may have been sent to the Maghrib specifically for that purpose. There is little doubt, then, that the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms stationed in the Middle East were in contact with their ZaydƯ and ImƗmƯ brethren in Morocco.

4.2 Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ (d. eighth century) As early as 762, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq had sent two of his companions, Abnj Sufyan and al-HulwanƯ, as missionaries to the Maghrib which, for all practical purposes, included al-Andalus, long before the arrival of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư. Al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn (d. 974) provides the following description of these early ShƯ‘ite missionaries to the Maghrib: In the year 145/762-63, two men from the east arrived in the Maghrib. It is said that Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Ja‘far b. Muতammad, may God’s blessing be upon him, sent them, instructing them to spread the exoteric (ܲƗhir) knowledge of the ImƗms from the progeny of Muতammad, may God’s blessings be upon them, and proclaim their excellence. He instructed them to go beyond IfrƯqiyyah to the frontiers of the Berbers, and then each one to proceed separately to a region. When the two arrived at MarmƗjanna, one of them, Abnj SufyƗn, settled there at a place called TƗlƗ. He constructed a mosque, married a woman, and bought a slave-girl and a slave. It is said that he worked with his slave and ordered his wife to work with her slave-girl. He had such integrity, piety, and reputation in the region that he became renowned there. The inhabitants of those regions would come to him to hear him relate the virtues of the ahl al-bayt, may God’s blessings be upon them. They learned these from him, and those of the inhabitants of [plain of] MarmƗjanna [now known as Bermajna, on the banks of the Oued Sarrath in Algeria] who adhered to ShƯ‘ism did so through him. (MarmƗjanna) is a center of ShƯ‘ism (dƗr shƯ‘ah), and it was due to him that they adhered to ShƯ‘ism. The same is true for the inhabitants of al-Urbus [Lorbeus], and it is said that due to him the inhabitants of Naf৬a also adhered to ShƯ‘ism. (ণajƯ 42) The other man, known as al-ণulwƗnƯ, advanced until he arrived at SnjjmƗr [in the territory of the SumƗtah, on the eastern edge of the KutƗmah territory, and to the northwest of Qas৬iliya] where he settled in a place called al-NƗznjr [Nador, near Guelma / Calama / Duvivier]. He constructed a mosque, married a woman, and bought a slave and a slave girl. He gained such high reputation in that locality by his piety, virtue, and knowledge that he became famous. People from different tribes came to him and many elements of the KutƗmah, NafzƗ, and SumƗtah adopted ShƯ‘ism through him. He would tell them, “We have been sent, Abnj

The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib

45

SufyƗn and myself, and we have been told, ‘Go to the Maghrib! You will come to a waste land. Plough it, labor it, and tread it until the sower comes to it, and finds it ready to sow his seeds.’” (ণajƯ 43-44)

Although al-QaঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn claims that the “sower” mentioned in the command that ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq made to al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn refers to Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the Zaydis might claim that it refers to IdrƯs, the MahdƯ of the IdrƯsids, while Twelver ShƯ‘ites would argue that the sixth ImƗm was referring to ImƗm Muতammad al-MadhƯ, the twelfth ImƗm, who would “rise from the Maghrib.” In any event, it was thanks to the efforts of al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn that ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite IslƗm spread to the Berber tribes of Algeria and Tunisia, including the KutƗmah, NafzƗ, and SumƗtah. Through both words and actions, they convinced some the indigenous inhabitants of North Africa to embrace the IslƗm of the Prophet’s household. They also left behind a new generation of missionaries and scholars to sow the seeds of ShƯ‘ism. These included Umm MnjsƗ, the daughter of al-ণulwƗnƯ, Abnj ণayynjn, known by the kunyah Abnj al-Mufattish, along with KutƗmah converts ণurayth alJƯmalƯ, MnjsƗ b. MakƗrimah, Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ, and Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ, among many others. Although many disciples of alণulwƗnƯ embraced the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith upon the arrival of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh alShƯ‘Ư, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionary was most impressed with the knowledge that al-ণulwƗnƯ had instilled in them. As al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn mentions, “He found among them a strong basis of the knowledge of the ShƯ‘ah and the excellence of the ahl al-bayt” (ণajƯ 53).

4.3 YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯt ৫Ɨlib (d. eighth century) YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the great-grandson of ImƗm al-ণasan, was a companion and student of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. The son of ‘Abd AllƗh b .al-ণasan -- who claimed the leadership of the ‘Alids, and who presented his son Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, as the MahdƯ -- YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was raised in the household of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm who trained him as a traditionist (ণaider 467). YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh is found in many chains of narrations and is considered trustworthy by Twelver ShƯ‘ite traditionists. Whenever he would cite a tradition from the sixth ImƗm, he would precede it by “My dear Ja‘far b. Muতammad thus said…” (MuতarramƯ 153; Abnj alFaraj al-IsbahƗnƯ 393). Nonetheless, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was not uncritical of his master and his son, openly objecting to their policy of political quietism. As L. Clarke explains,

46

Chapter 4 YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan, the brother of Nafs al-Zakiyyah, is also reported by ShƯ‘Ư tradition to have reproached the sixth and seventh ImƗms for not rising up. YaতyƗ asserted that this was a sign that they were not worthy of the ImƗmate. The seventh ImƗm, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, is supposed to have replied by writing to YaতyƗ, demanding that he prove his claims by answering two difficult questions about human anatomy (YaতyƗ, we are meant to understand, could not answer because he did not have the ‘ilm a true ImƗm would have had). Al-KƗ਌im predicted that YaতyƗ would be killed and advised him to seek clemency from the ‘AbbƗsid caliph, HƗrnjn al-RashƯd. The tradition goes on to relate how the caliph intercepted the letter and, reading it, remarked: “People are trying to turn me against MnjsƗ, the son of Ja‘far, but he is innocent of that of which they accuse him!” ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ, the ণasanid who rose up in the mid- eighth century against the caliph al-HƗdƯ, is reported in a tradition to have asked the seventh ImƗm, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, to swear fealty (bay‘ah) to him. The ImƗm refused and stated that the ণasanid’s uprising would be defeated and he himself killed -- all of which came about exactly as he had predicted. (54)

Although a student of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was influenced by his activist ণasanid family which opposed the quietist line adopted by his ণusaynid family of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Considering the death of the caliph al-HƗdƯ as an optimal time for an ‘Alid revolt against the ‘AbbƗsids, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh played a leading role in the battle of Fakhkh which took place on the eleventh of June of 786, which was led by his nephew, ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. al-ণasan, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was second in command, followed by his younger brother IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. After the failure of the revolt at Fakhkh, it was YaতyƗ who sent his brother IdrƯs to the Maghrib to set up a ShƯ‘ite state. In fact, it was YaতyƗ who orchestrated the flight of IdrƯs to Egypt and from Egypt to the Maghrib. If the AwrƗbah Berbers of Morocco warmly welcomed IdrƯs, it was because his brother, YaতyƗ, had been in communication with them and had prepared the ground for his arrival. As for YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh, his exact whereabouts after the failure at Fakhkh cannot be confirmed with certainty. According to some sources, he traveled to Ethiopia. After the defeat of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, he headed to KhorasƗn, and from there, to the land of Daylam in present-day GƯlƗn and MƗzandarƗn, on the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, where he proclaimed the ImƗmate in 792/793. In response, the caliph, HƗrnjn alRashƯd, sent fifty thousand troops against him under the command of Faঌl BarmakƯ. Considering his charisma, it comes as no surprise that the SunnƯs, the ZaydƯs, and the ImƗmƯs claim YaতyƗ b ‘Abd AllƗh’s as one of their own. As

The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib

47

far as MuতarramƯ is concerned, Among the leaders of the uprisings who did not accept the fundamentals of the ZaydƯ belief and follow the way and method of the ahl al-bayt was YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh, brother of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah. (153)

According to ImƗmƯ sources, YaতyƗ b ‘Abd AllƗh was an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite who was betrayed by the ZaydƯs for failing to follow their doctrines. “Since he was following the way and method of the ahl al-bayt in terms of jurisprudence [fiqh],” claims MuতarramƯ, “the ZaydƯs opposed him and distanced themselves from him. So, he was forced to surrender himself to Faঌl b. YaতyƗ, HƗrnjn’s vizier” (153; Abnj al-Faraj 392-393). The claim that YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite can easily be called into question due to the defiant attitude he assumed towards the sixth and seventh ImƗms. As ImƗmƯ traditions report, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh claimed that Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im were unworthy of the ImƗmate since they refused to rise in rebellion against the oppressors of the age. This is a ZaydƯ dogma. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh also proclaimed himself the caliph and ImƗm in Daylam, a claim that no ImƗmƯ would ever make as, in their view, only the ImƗms from the descendants of ণusayn had the right to rule after the Prophet. If YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was supposedly abandoned by some of his ZaydƯ followers, it was not because he was an ImƗmƯ, it was possibly because he was a JƗrnjdƯ ZaydƯ while they were predominantly SulaymƗnƯ ZaydƯs. The distinction is critical. There can be little doubt that YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was influenced by the ImƗmƯ ideas the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm taught him. As all evidence indicates, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh followed aspects of ImƗmƯ jurisprudence and embraced many ImƗmƯ practices such as tabarrƗ’, the repudiation of the opponents of the ahl al-bayt, namely, Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn. These are all indicators that he was a ZaydƯ of the JƗrnjdiyyah persuasion. The JƗrnjdiyyah ZaydƯs, however, were denounced, along with the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, as rawƗfi‫ڲ‬, by the SulaymƗniyyah ZaydƯs who accepted the rule of the first three caliphs. Reluctant to fight a descendant of the Prophet, Faঌl attempted to come to a diplomatic settlement with YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh. Since YaতyƗ had lost support from some of the ZaydƯs among his ranks, and could not resist the looming military assault, he was pressed into signing a peace treaty with the caliph. In return for assurances from the highest legal authorities that his safety would be secured, and that he would be granted the governorship of the Caspian provinces, he set off to BaghdƗd where he was lavishly received. The pardon and promises of the caliph, however, were merely a ruse. Shortly after returning to BaghdƗd, the caliph calumniously accused

48

Chapter 4

YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh of conspiracy. According to most sources, he was imprisoned and died of starvation. ShƯ‘ite sources, however, cite witnesses who state that he was poisoned. Others argue that YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh escaped from prison due to the complicity of his guard, Ja‘far b. YaতyƗ b. KhƗlid b. Barmak. This explains why ণarnjn al-RashƯd had him killed in such a cruel fashion: cutting him limb from limb.

4.4 IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. 791) Like his older brother YaতyƗ, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh was also closely connected to the household of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq in Medina (ণaider 467). A leading figure in his family and the larger ShƯ‘ite community, he was a driving force behind the rebellion at Fakhkh. After the failure of the revolt, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh fled to Egypt and eventually to the Maghrib where he converted the Moroccan Berbers to ShƯ‘ism and established the ShƯ‘ite dynasty of the IdrƯsids. Since IdrƯs was YaতyƗ’s assistant, he was a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite who seems to have belonged to the JƗrnjdiyyah school of thought.

4.4 RashƯd al-AwrabƯ b. Menৢah / Murshid (d. 801) RashƯd al-AwrabƯ was the AwrƗbah Berber retainer of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh (Eustache 26, note 2). Originally from the valley of Zerhoun in Morocco, RashƯd was brought from the Maghrib to Medina by Umayyad or ‘AbbƗsid slave traders, where he became the retainer of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. Since IdrƯs was a companion of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ may also have been a companion of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. If he did not, in fact, have direct contact with ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, as the retainer of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, he was nonetheless a follower of one of his relatives and companions. It was thanks to RashƯd al-AwrabƯ that IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh was able to flee to Egypt, and then to the Maghrib, where the AwrƗbah Berbers embraced him as their ImƗm. RashƯd was not only the assistant of IdrƯs I, he was the teacher and counselor of IdrƯs II, ruling in his place until he reached maturity. RashƯd was martyred in 801 by some Berbers who had been paid off by IbrƗhƯm al-Aghlab, who had been appointed ruler of IfrƯqiyyah by HƗrnjn al-RashƯd in the year 800. As the retainer of IdrƯs, RashƯd was also a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite who seems to have belonged to the JƗrnjdiyyah school of thought.

The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib

49

4.5 SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. eighth century) The fate of SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh is subject to debate. According to Mas’njdƯ, he was arrested and decapitated in Mecca (Beck 17). According to some sources, SulaymƗn migrated to Kirman, Iran, bringing ShƯ‘ism to Persia and, through his descendants, to India. According to Ibn Khaldnjn’s Histoire des berbères, however, SulaymƗn only made it to the Maghrib after the death of his brother IdrƯs I. He initially attempted to seize power in Tiaret but the Berbers resisted his efforts. Since the Aghlabids had given orders to arrest him, he proceeded to Tlemcen, namely TilimsƗn, where he became the leader of all the ZanƗtah Berbers of the region. After his death, his descendants continued to rule the region for generations. The most reasonable version, however, comes from AbƯ Zar’ who asserts that SulaymƗn eventually rejoined his brother IdrƯs in TilimsƗn, where he settled, was granted governorship of the region, and left numerous descendants who governed the region for generations (Beck 59-60). According to the Shajarat al-nasab, the ণasanid shurafƗ’ of TilimsƗn, Algeria, trace their ancestry back to Muতammad b. SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, who fled to the Maghrib after the battle of Fakhkh. According to the Shajarat al-nasab, many descendants of Muতammad b. SulaymƗn are found among the Lam৬a, a large Berber tribe from the Snjs in southern Morocco. As the brother of IdrƯs and YaতyƗ, SulaymƗn was also a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite who seems to have adhered to the JƗrnjdiyyah madhhab.

4.6 IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. eighth century) IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil b. al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ b. al-ণasan alSib৬ b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’ was the brother of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah and IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. While some sources say that he was killed in the vicinity of Knjfah during the revolt against the ‘AbbƗsids in 763, along with some four to five hundred ShƯ‘ite followers, IৢbahƗnƯ and Aতmad b. Sahl al-RƗzƯ assert that he fled to the Maghrib (ণaider 460, note 12). If so, then IbrƗhƯm must also have brought his ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ism to Morocco.

50

Chapter 4

4.7 Muতammad b. Ja‘far b. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. eighth century) Muতammad b. Ja‘far b. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib was a senior member of the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites. According to IৢbahƗnƯ and Aতmad b. Sahl al-RƗzƯ, he also headed to the Maghrib (ণaider 460, note 12). Since he was connected to the Bannj ণassan family, Muতammad b. Ja‘far must also have been a ShƯ‘ite of the probable JƗrnjdiyyah persuasion.

4.8 DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim b. IsতƗq b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. ninth century) According to an anonymous historian cited by al-BakrƯ, the prince who escaped the battle of Fakhkh was DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim b. IsতƗq b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (Beck 25). This seems to be a mistake since DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim was a follower of ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ (810-835), ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ (827-868), and ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ (846–874). Since the battle of Fakkh took place in 787, it is chronologically impossible that DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, the companion of the ImƗms, was the ‘Alid prince who fled to the Maghrib. While it is possible that DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim migrated to the Maghrib, seeking shelter in the ShƯ‘ite stronghold of the IdrƯsids, this may only have been done at a later time; namely, during the reign of IdrƯs II (791-828). In fact, according to al-BakrƯ, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim actively participated in the war led by IdrƯs II against the KhƗrijites. An eyewitness to the war, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim praised the courage and strength of IdrƯs II (Beck 26). According to DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, IdrƯs II explained to him that his strength was the result of the prayers that the Prophet made for him (Beck 26). In the following passage from Naܲm al-durr by the Algerian chronicler Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-TanasƯ (d. 899/1484), DƗwnjd b. QƗsim, a companion of IdrƯs II and a companion of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ImƗms, described the qualities which led his master to victory over the KhƗrijites: I was amazed by what I saw of Moulay IdrƯs’ bravery, strength, and firmness of resolve. Then he turned toward me and said, “O DƗwnjd, why is it that I see you staring at me so much?” I said, “O ImƗm, I am amazed at the qualities in you that I have seen in no one else.” “What are they?” he asked. “Your goodness, your beauty, the firmness of your intellect, the openness of your demeanor, and your determination in fighting the enemy,” I answered. Then he said, “O DƗwnjd, what you have seen is what we have inherited from the barakah of our ancestor the Messenger (peace

The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib

51

and blessing be upon him and his family) and from his prayers for us and blessings upon us. This [barakah] has passed on as a legacy to our father, ImƗm ‘AlƯ (may God honor his face).

Since DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, the descendant of Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, was a companion of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, it seems that he was sent by one of them to act as a counselor to IdrƯs II. The presence of a companion of three ShƯ‘ite ImƗms in the court of IdrƯs II would demonstrate close contact between the IdrƯsids and the ImƗms from the ahl al-bayt. After serving as the chief of police for IdrƯs II during his war against the KhƗrijites, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim is said to have returned to the Middle East (Beck 26). According to al-BakrƯ, his descendants continued to inhabit in Fez, where they intermarried with the IdrƯsids (Beck 25, 26). This served to solidify ties between the ImƗmƯ and ZaydƯ branches of ShƯ‘ism. Unlike IdrƯs and his brothers, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim was a proto-Twelver ShƯ‘ite. Despite their differences, the ণasanƯ ZaydƯs and the ণusaynƯ ImƗmƯs were connected through family ties and maintained relatively friendly relations.

4.9 Ibn Warsand (d. 908/909) Along with al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn al-Warsand was one of the founding fathers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗmƯ madhhab in the Maghrib. He was a native of the ShƯ‘ite center of Naf৬ah [or Nefta, in current day Tunisia], which had been brought into the school of the ahl al-bayt by Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionaries of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq to the Maghrib. In fact, the town of Naf৬ah harbored such a sizable ShƯ‘Ư community that it was known as Knjfah al-‫܈‬ughrƗ or “Little Knjfah” (ণajƯ 42). The actual date of birth of Ibn al-Warsand is currently unknown. All that is known is that he had spread ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism among the Berbers of Morocco before the arrival of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-MahdƯ to IfrƯqiyyah in 893. What is clear, however, is that he rose to prominence after Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ had died. While Ibn Warsand did not study under these two scholars, he may have studied ShƯ‘ism from the disciples of al-ণulwƗnƯ, since these are said to have lived until the time of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh (ণajƯ 44). One such scholar was Abnj Hayynjn, who was known by his kunyah Abnj alMufattish. After receiving his early education from al-ণulwƗnƯ, Abnj Hayynjn was trained by his disciples (ণajƯ 44, 52, note 64). While much is uncertain about the actual training that he received in the Maghrib, we know for sure that Ibn Warsand traveled to the east to study ShƯ‘ism. Since the ShƯ‘ite seminary in Najaf was only founded in the midtenth century, and the seminary in Qum only became a prominent center of

52

Chapter 4

scholarship in the 1500s, the main center of ShƯ‘ite scholarship during the time was Medina, most specifically, the seminary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. Regardless of where he studied, Ibn Warsand returned to North Africa with the permission to cite traditions on the authority of ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir and ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Upon his return to the Maghrib, Ibn Warsand devoted himself to scholarship and missionary activity. He compiled numerous books which, although cited by al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, appear to be entirely unknown to ShƯ‘ite scholars in the east. He trained his sons or grandsons, ‘AlƯ and Muতammad, as ShƯ‘ite scholars and collectively contributed to the conversion of the SnjsƯ Berbers of Morocco to ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism. The IdrƯsid leader of the Snjs, Aতmad b. IdrƯs b. YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs, is said to have been a follower of al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. Warsand. Although some scholars claim that ‘AlƯ al-Warsand converted Aতmad b. IdrƯs to ShƯ‘ism, it seems more likely that he revived and revitalized the North African ShƯ‘ism of the IdrƯsids which may have been on the wane due to lack of contact with the ImƗms from the household of the Prophet who were based in the Middle East. Based on their family name, al-Warsand, they appear to have been Berbers, entirely or partially so, and thus expertly prepared to do da‘wah among the Imizaghen. The nisbah of ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn al-Warsand was alBajalƯ, probably referring to the Arab tribe of Bajilah, was common among Knjfan ShƯ‘Ư traditionists of the time (Madelung 1976: 91). Considering that the Berbers are a matriarchal culture, it is possible that ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn bore the last name of his mother al-Warsand, and attached his father’s nisbah, al-BajalƯ. It is possible that ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn al-Warsand al-BajalƯ was of mixed origin: the son of an Arab ShƯ‘ite father and a Berber ShƯ‘ite mother.

4.10 Conclusions As has been established, the companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ who were sent to the Maghrib were followed by the companions of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, including Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ. Since he studied ShƯ‘ism abroad and was authorized to quote traditions from ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir and ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, Ibn Warsand was likely the disciple of one of their companions. His sons, al-ণasan and Muতammad, were also connected to the ImƗms through their father’s teachings. Although Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan and Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư seem to have studied in the Maghrib, they did so at the hands of ShƯ‘ite scholars who were either companions of the ImƗms or followers of their companions. As the companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ had done before them, the companions of ImƗm

The Companions of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ in the Maghrib

53

Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im spread the teachings of the ahl albayt among the inhabitants of the Maghrib and al-Andalus. As they were all authorities of a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth, some of the ShƯ‘ite traditions which circulated in Spain from 711 to centuries after the reconquest in 1492 may trace back to these early missionary efforts.

CHAPTER 5 THE BERBER WIVES AND MOTHERS OF THE SHƮ‘ITE IMƖMS

5.1 Introduction “Paradise lies at the feet of your mother,” said the Messenger of God (Ibn MƗjah, Aতmad, NasƗ’Ư, ণƗkim), stressing the primordial importance of the female parent. In an affront to Arab patriarchy and misogyny, the Prophet stressed that, since he had no male heir, his lineage would continue through his daughter, FƗtimah al-ZahrƗ’. If, according to ShƯ‘ite doctrine, the prophets and messengers were all the sons of noble and righteous mothers, so were the ImƗms the sons of the best of mothers. Not only did the Prophet and his household defy Arab cultural norms by stressing the importance of maternal lineage, but they also opposed the endogamy of the age by marrying women from other religious, racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups. According to tradition, the Prophet married ৡafiyyah bint ণuyayy bint Akh৬ab of Bannj al-NaঌƯr, who was a Jewish woman, as well as MƗriyyah al-Qib৬iyyah, who was an Egyptian Coptic Christian. The ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt generally followed the Prophet’s practice and married women of different origins. This stands in stark contrast to the endogamous practices of certain sayyids who have contributed to creating of a Hindu-style caste system. The mother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn is alleged to have been Shahr BƗnnj, the daughter of Yazd Jurd, the last emperor of Persia. The mother of ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ was SabƯkah, also known as KhayzurƗn and ৫ayyibah, a slave-girl supposedly from Nubia. The mother of ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ, known as Hudayth and SalƯl, was supposedly a slave-girl from the Yemen. Narjis Khatnjn, the alleged mother of the twelfth ImƗm, is supposed to have been a princess from the Byzantine empire, although some sources suggest she was of black African or Berber extraction. What is of particular interest to this study is the long-standing connection between the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms and the Berber people, a topic previously touched upon in

The Berber Wives and Mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms

55

Restoring the Balance (Morrow 20-24). No fewer than three of the twelve ImƗms were the sons of Berber or Amazigh mothers.

5.2 ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah, also known as Lu’lu’ah, was the Berber wife of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and mother of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. Taught by the sixth ImƗm, she became a central figure to ShƯ‘ism. Although some sources claim that she was Roman, the Arabic term for European, such a claim is the result of confusion. Since North Africa had long been part of the Roman empire, individuals from the region were referred to as Romans. This does not change the fact that most of the inhabitants of the North African Roman provinces were Berbers. Furthermore, since she was known as al-Barbariyyah or “the Berber,” it seems silly to suggest that she was European. Not only was she a scholarly figure, to whom ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq used to send women to learn the tenets of IslƗm, she is portrayed as a saintly soul who was known as al-৫Ɨhirah or “the Pure One.” As her husband, the sixth ImƗm, used to say: “ণamƯdah is pure from every impurity like the ingot of pure gold.”

5.3 Najmah Khatnjn Najmah Khatnjn also known as Tuktam, Umm al-BanƯn, and ৫Ɨhirah, was the Berber wife of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and the mother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ alRiঌƗ. A leading female scholar of ShƯ‘ism, Najmah Khatnjn was taught by ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah. Although some sources claim that she was Ethiopian, this seems to be the result of confusion. While Berbers are of Caucasian stock, they have intermingled with black African slaves. They have also absorbed and assimilated populations of various origins. It is possible that Najmah was a dark-skinned Berber. She may have had some genetic material from black Africa; however, she was very much a Berber culturally and linguistically. For some Arabs, anyone who was dark-skinned was an Ethiopian or a Nubian. After examining the evidence, Sa‘Ưd Akhtar RizvƯ has also concluded that “The mother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ… was a slave-girl from [the] Maghrib” (North-West Africa)” (n. page). Like her teacher, ণamƯdah, Najmah was also renowned for her piety and knowledge.

5.4 Sammanah Sammanah, also known as Sayyidah, was the Berber wife of ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ, and the mother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ. Like Najmah, it

56

Chapter 5

has also been suggested that Sammanah was also a black African, a claim that does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Considering all sources, RizvƯ has also concluded that ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ’s mother was from the Maghrib (n. page). Like Najmah and ণamƯdah, Sammanah was reportedly a woman of sublime spirituality. As RizvƯ writes, She had no equal in piety, and love and fear of AllƗh. She fasted nearly the whole year. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ told her that she was protected by AllƗh and was foremost amongst the mothers of ‫܈‬iddƯqƯn and ‫܈‬Ɨli‫ۊ‬Ưn -- the truthful and virtuous people. (n. page)

5.5 Narjis Khatnjn While it is far from a fact, there also exists a remote possibility that the mother of ImƗm Muতammad al-MahdƯ, known variably as Narjis Khatnjn, Maryam bint Zayd al-‘Alawiyyah, MƗlikah, RayতƗnah, SaqƯl and ৡawৢƗn, was also of Berber origin. The traditions regarding the birth of the MahdƯ are contradictory and filled with legendary material that seeks to create parallels with Biblical accounts. According to traditions cited by ৫njsƯ (9951067) and ৡadnjq (918-991), his mother was a Christian from Byzantium who had been captured by Muslim troops. She is alleged to have allowed herself to be taken captive and claimed that she was a descendant of Simon Peter who was destined to be the mother of the MahdƯ. For many serious ShƯ‘ite scholars, this is the stuff of legends. Muতammad b. Baতr al-ShaybƗnƯ, the authority on which this claim is based, is considered by traditionists to be unreliable due to his extremist tendencies (ণussain). The leading experts of ‘ilm al-rijƗl [the science of narrators, lit. the “science of men”], such as al-৫njsƯ (d. 1067), Ibn Rustam al-৫abarƯ (d. 11th c.), al-NajƗshƯ (d. 1071), al-ণillƯ (d. 1325), al-GhaঌƗ’irƯ (d. 1058/1059), and al-Khu’Ư (d. 1992) consider him a ghƗlƯ or ShƯ‘ite extremist as well as a member of the mufawwi‫ڲ‬a or delegators. He also happened to be a slave trader. According to the Prophet, “They are the worst of people.” If we follow the Prophet’s criteria, then the account of slave traders, who were notorious for lying about their human merchandise’s origin and status as part of their marketing, must be summarily discredited and discounted. Other individuals in the chain include Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Abnj al-Mufaঌঌdal who is described as ‫ڲ‬a‘Ưf [weak or unreliable] by al-৫njsƯ, alNajƗshƯ, al-ণillƯ, al-GhadƗ’irƯ, and al-Khu’Ư, as well as Bishr b. SulaymƗn al-NakhƗs who is unknown. Very weak [‫ڲ‬a‘Ưf jiddƗn] at the least, the tradition shows every sign of being mawdnj‘ or fabricated. If it was accepted, and popularized, by some scholars, it was because it gave a noble lineage to

The Berber Wives and Mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms

57

the mother of the MahdƯ. Such scholars could not conceive of an African slave girl, black or Berber, as being of noble stock and high social status. With the regrettable rise of black nationalism and chauvinism in segments of the IslƗmic seminary, some black ShƯ‘ite scholars with unresolved racial issues have suddenly “rediscovered” that the mother of ImƗm MahdƯ may have been of black African origin. They fail to realize that race is of no importance in IslƗm. If I have stressed the possibility that some of the ImƗms may have been of Berber origin, it is to support a theory that this motivated, in part, their covert missionary activity in North Africa and, by extension, al-Andalus. While I would not have any issues if the ImƗms were all black, there are black Muslims, both SunnƯs and ShƯ’Ưs, who take serious issue with any claims that the Prophet and any of the ImƗms were of a white complexion. With the shackles of slavery on their minds, inferiority complexes in their souls, and deep-rooted racism in their hearts, they ignorantly insist that the Prophet and the ImƗms, like all “real” Arabs, were black. With turbans on top of their heads, they can now preach their racists views from the pulpit. While it is true that Nu‘mƗnƯ (d. c. 971) and ৡadnjq (d. 991) retroactively and anachronistically relate traditions which claim that the MahdƯ’s mother was to be a black slave-girl, these traditions are not proven. It is equally true that KulaynƯ has reported that the MahdƯ’s mother was from Nnjbah or northern Sudan, the tradition in question is mursal or disconnected. It is not ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ ۊ‬or authentic. Assuming that the tradition was true, it does not necessarily mean that she was “blue black” as one racially infatuated mullah has claimed. Blacks, as anyone who knows anything about the Sudan can confirm, have been historically confined to the southern part of the country. The northern region has been traditionally populated by Arabs. One may argue that the Arabs were not established in the Sudan at the time, which is false. They had conquered the region in the early days of the caliphate. Like cheerleaders for Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muতammad, these black ShƯ‘ite scholars ignore the fact that Berbers also inhabited the northern Sudan. In short, the origin of the mother of the twelfth ImƗm remains unknown. She may have been a European. She may have been a black slavegirl. She may have been a Nubian. And she may also have been a Berber. If the traditions quoted by KulaynƯ are authentic, and the witnesses who saw the MahdƯ told the truth, then the twelfth ImƗm had white skin and green eyes. This would support the claim that his mother was European or Berber. Ultimately, the racial or ethnic origin of his mother does not matter. It only becomes an issue when people espouse one theory over another for reasons of nationalism or racism.

58

Chapter 5

What can be said with certainty is that many ShƯ‘Ưtes believed that the MahdƯ would rise from the west. The IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs and the ZaydƯs believed that this referred to his physical uprising; hence their migration to the Maghrib. As ণussain explains, [A] tradition attributed to the Prophet says that the MahdƯ will appear when the sun rises from the place of its setting. According to them, this meant not the rising of the real sun, but that of al-MahdƯ, who would appear in al-Maghrib. Therefore, they became more interested in preaching their doctrine in al-Maghrib and encouraged their followers in the east to emigrate there. (n. page)

The prophetic tradition concerning the Sun rising from the west may allude to the MaghribƯ origin of the ImƗm. In other words, he is the ImƗm with roots in the Maghrib. Ibn ‘ArabƯ (1165-1240) writes that he met the MahdƯ, spoke with him, and saw the signs of wilƗyah in him in the city of Fez in the year 595 AH [1198 CE] (Kazemzadeh and Davarnia 66, 68).

5.6 The Significance of Berber-ShƯ‘ite Ties Although never subjected to any serious study before, the ties between the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms and the Berber people seem significant. Since the Berbers are, by and large, a matriarchal culture, tracing lineage through their mothers, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, and ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ could be considered as Berbers. Since marriage also marks the entrance into a Berber tribe, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ would have been considered as Berbers by the tribes of their wives. The Berber influence on the ImƗms spans one hundred and thirty-six years from Ja‘far’s assumption of the ImƗmate to the death of ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ. The ImƗm’s Berber policy continued until the death of ImƗm Hasan al‘AskarƯ in 874. Rumors of the presence of ImƗm Muতammad al-MahdƯ in the Maghrib’s far western reaches also seem to support continued missionary effort on that front. It is also possible that the twelfth ImƗm appeared in North Africa after entering a state of occultation. If several of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms were the husbands and sons of Berber women, this might suggest that some of the ImƗms themselves spoke Tamazight. As captives from non-Arabized regions of the world, it is improbable that ণamƯdah, Najmah, Sammanah, or Narjis could communicate in classical Arabic. Slave-girls were typically sent to slave schools where they were instructed in the Arabic language and literature, poetry, song, dance, as well as seduction and even sexual arts to increase their value on the slave market. However, the stories related about these women’s capture

The Berber Wives and Mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms

59

and sale suggest that they were put on sale shortly after they were taken. Still, the traditions show that the ImƗms communicated with them without any problems. This could mean that the ImƗms spoke to them in their respective languages. In the case of ণamƯdah, Najmah, Sammanah, such languages could have been Latin and Berber. If Narjis came from Europe, perhaps the region of Marseilles, the language would have been colloquial Latin. If she hailed from North Africa, perhaps from Tunisia, the languages could have been colloquial Latin and Berber, although Greek is also a remote possibility. If ShƯ‘ite traditions are correct, then the ImƗms, like the Prophet, could miraculously speak every language known to humankind. As ImƗm ‘AlƯ said in ‫ۉ‬adƯth al-ܑƗriq: “The ImƗm is blessed in his majesty with the knowledge of all languages spoken by all living things.” As many traditions report, the Prophet and the ImƗms knew all languages and scripts. When the ImƗms were asked whether the Prophet was illiterate, they would respond: “By God, he could read and write in seventy languages.” There are SunnƯ traditions that suggest that the Prophet, ণasan, and ণusayn used to speak Persian. There are ShƯ‘ite traditions in which ImƗm ‘AlƯ speaks Persian. Many ImƗms are cited as speaking Hebrew. ImƗm al-RiঌƗ was reputed to be fluent in the languages spoken in his part of the world. Whether the ImƗms were granted a divine linguistic gift or whether they learned multiple languages through human effort, they could supposedly communicate in many tongues. For more skeptical scholars, such claims are unfounded. They are the exaggerations of extremists. Even so, since most mothers speak to their children in their native language, it seems reasonable that the maternal language of several ImƗms was Tamazight while their paternal language was classical Arabic. That the ImƗms were interested in the Berbers there is no question. In one ‫ۊ‬adƯth, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (d. 765-66) laments that the sweetness of belief has not entered the hearts of the Berbers (Ibn BƗbawayhƯ 321). In short, they had not embraced IslƗm and, if they had, they had embraced Umayyad IslƗm as opposed to the IslƗm of the Prophet and his household. Since spreading IslƗm is a communal obligation, and considering the fact that this could not be openly done in regions under Umayyad and ‘AbbƗsid control, the ImƗms devoted their missionary efforts to the periphery: the lands of the Kurds, the Turks, the Persians, the Indians, and the South-East Asians, as well as the land of the Yemenites, the Sudanese, the Berbers, and the Andalusians. Since the ImƗms operated in a shadowy world of secrecy immersed in pious dissimulation, they only trusted a small circle of family members, friends, associates, and companions. Being related to Berbers in North

60

Chapter 5

Africa was of great strategic advantage to the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. Both ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah and RashƯd al-AwrabƯ were Berbers of the AwrƗbah tribe of Morocco who formed part of the extended family of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. Since IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, was received with acclaim by the AwrƗbah Berbers of Volubilis in Morocco, there is little doubt that this was pre-conditioned upon previous diplomatic efforts in the region. As such, it has been suggested that IdrƯs had gone to the Maghrib several years before the Battle of Fakhkh. It has also been hypothesized that his brother, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh, had gone to the Maghrib to lay the groundwork for a ShƯ‘ite state. For some, this suggests that YaতyƗ planned to pass the ZaydƯ ImƗmate to his brother ‘Abd AllƗh. For others, it indicates that Moulay IdrƯs opportunistically usurped the authority of YaতyƗ and assumed the leadership of the AwrƗbah in his place. As suggestive as these hypotheses may be, they exclude the leading players of the period: ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im who were both tied to the AwrƗbah via ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah, the wife of the former, and mother of the latter. Did the sixth and seventh ImƗms participate in the creation of the IdrƯsid State? Were they attempting to establish a safehaven for their ShƯ‘ites? If anyone had the sophisticated underground network to do so, it was the sixth and seventh ImƗms. Not only did ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq train ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah in the IslƗmic sciences, she also seems to have taught women in his seminary or hawzah. Considering the large number of Berber soldiers and slaves operating in Arabia, ণamƯdah may have taught in Tamazight or Latin as well as Arabic. The ImƗm also sent two missionaries to the Maghrib: Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ who established themselves in what is now Tunisia. Although ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im insisted on a gradual movement towards their political goal and opposed the supposedly suicidal, self-destructive, and reactionary revolts of the ZaydƯs, they did sympathize with ShƯ‘ite revolutionaries. If the ZaydƯs wanted power yesterday, the ImƗmite leaders thought long-term. They believed in building strong bases of support to ensure the future survival of ShƯ‘ism. If their activities in the Maghrib were not aimed at creating a state, they were a contributing factor in IdrƯsid state’s success. It was thus the ImƗmƯs, under the guidance of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and not the ZaydƯs, who had created ideal conditions for the spread of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib. IdrƯs, after all, was a minor ShƯ‘ite leader, who came second to his older brother YaতyƗ. Both IdrƯs and YaতyƗ had only localized support. They were both eclipsed by the likes of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im around whom the majority of ShƯ‘ites rallied.

The Berber Wives and Mothers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms

61

ণussain suggests that IdrƯs “already had a large body of partisans” in Egypt and that “It seems most likely that his partisans in al-Maghrib had already spread much propaganda against the ‘AbbƗsids, because within three years IdrƯs succeeded in rebelling against them and establishing the IdrƯsid state, in 172/788.” As he admits, the adherents of ImƗm MnjsƗ alKƗ਌im were scattered throughout the IslƗmic state and used the rite of Pilgrimage to communicate with each other. They succeeded in maintaining an important body of followers in AkhmƯm in Egypt, which became a center for communication between the ShƯ‘ah in Knjfah and those in Egypt. They had other followers in al-Maghrib. (ণussain n. page)

It seems unlikely that a minor and virtually unknown figure like IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh had partisans in Egypt, much less in the Maghrib. If IdrƯs found sympathizers in Egypt and even supporters in the Maghrib, they were most likely ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites who viewed IdrƯs as a wakƯl or representative of the ImƗm of the Age as opposed to the ImƗm per se.

5.7 Conclusions Connected by blood and marriage to the Berbers, the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms had ties to North Africa. Taking advantage of these bonds, they expanded the sphere of ShƯ‘ite influence in the Maghrib and, inevitably, al-Andalus. With their possible knowledge of Tamazight and Latin, as well as the assistance of Berber scholars and saints such as ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah and Najmah Khatnjn, the sixth and seventh ImƗms established an intricate network of ShƯ‘ite cells throughout the Muslim world, including the Maghrib. Communicating through secret codes and meetings that typically took place during the pilgrimage, they arranged for shelter and refuge for revolutionary ShƯ‘ites in safe-houses and ensured their safe transport to the farthest reaches of the Muslim world. As a result of the underground railroad of the ahl al-bayt, many sƗdah and shurafƗ’ eventually settled in the Maghrib.

CHAPTER 6 SHARƮFIAN SETTLERS IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

6.1 Introduction As has been established, the earliest descendants of the Prophet Muতammad to settle in the Maghrib included the Bannj IdrƯs, including IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, along with Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, and Aতmad b. Muতammad. The majority of sharƯfs in the Maghrib descend from these settlers who arrived in the eighth and ninth centuries. These early settlers were followed by the Bannj Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah who arrived in Morocco at the end of the thirteenth century. The latest descendants of the Prophet to settle in Morocco were the Bannj MnjsƗ al-Jawn who arrived at the end of the fifteenth century. Morocco is also the home of descendants of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ. The descendants of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq in the Maghrib, who bear the family name Sqalli, trace their ancestry through the sixth ImƗm’s son, ‘AlƯ al-‘Arid, indicating that ‘AlƯ, or his son, left progeny in North Africa. The descendants of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im in Morocco, known by the family name Laaraqi, trace their ancestry through a son or grandson of the seventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗm who left progeny in the Maghrib. It is a testament to the persecution to which they were subjected that the Prophet’s descendants are found primarily in Morocco, Iran, and the Indian subcontinent. At present, there are a mere one hundred and fifty thousand descendants of the Prophet in the western ণijƗz (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor n. page). Were it not for the Berbers, the Persians, and the Indians, the sƗdah and shurafƗ’ might have been exterminated by the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids. According to LéviProvençal, Morocco has more authentic or claimed representatives of this religious noblesse of descendants of the Prophet than any other country in the Muslim world (qtd Brown 66). Syed-Moতsin NaquvƯ also asserts that:

SharƯfian Settlers in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

63

Syeds from the branch of ImƗm ণasan (as opposed to the Syeds from ImƗm ণusayn’s branch) are really greater in number. Many of them went into hiding and taqiyyah [sic] during the persecution by the ‘AbbƗsids. It is very likely that they actually could not tell their children who they actually were. Many ণasanƯ Syeds do not know that they are actually ণasanƯ or even that they are Syeds. This was the extent of ܲulm on the children of the Prophet of IslƗm across the centuries. (n. page)

According to the Joshua Project, however, there are over fourteen million sayyids in Southeast Asia, 6,696,000 in India, 6,613,000 in Pakistan, 1,058,000 in Bangladesh, and 77,000 in Nepal (n. page). According to the Alimaan Charitable Trust, however, there are thirty million ShƯ‘ites in India, more than half of whom are sayyids (n. page). According to Abnj Muতammad OrdonƯ, FƗ৬imah’s descendants (who are also the Prophet’s descendants) are spread around the globe as follows: Iraq -- one million, Iran -- three million, Egypt -- five million, Morocco -- five million, Algeria, Tunis, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, the Persian Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia -- approximately twenty million descendants of the Prophet of IslƗm. An IslƗmic country in which descendants of FƗ৬imah ZahrƗ do not live is hard to find. Their number is estimated to be thirty-five million; however, if precise and accurate statistics are taken, their number could be much higher. (n. page)

Although the number and distribution of the descendants of the Prophet are subject to dispute, Morocco has a large number of shurafƗ’ and sƗdah, genetic evidence that ShƯ‘ism was once prevalent in the region.

6.2 The Descendants of IdrƯs I and IdrƯs II Since the Maghrib and al-Andalus were political and cultural entities for centuries, they shared many of the same sharƯfian families, the foremost of which were the descendants of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. Speaking of the sayyids of al-Andalus, al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) shared the following facts: Ibn GhƗlib, in his Far‫ۊ‬at al-anfus fƯ akhbƗr al-Andalus, tells us that families descended from the noble stock of HƗshim, of the tribe of Quraysh, were very numerous in Andalus. He adds that they all descended from IdrƯs, son of ‘Abd AllƗh, son of ণusayn son of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, from whom also sprung the BanƯ ণammnjd, who ruled for a while in Andalus after the overthrow of the BanƯ Umayyad dynasty. (vol. 2: 20-21)

64

Chapter 6

According to al-MaqqarƯ, the love for ahl al-bayt was so great in al-Andalus that the Umayyad families were forced to change their patronym, al-UmawƯ, to al-QurayshƯ. As the author explains, “They did this because they saw that the people had taken a dislike to them and would never forget the conduct of their ancestors towards ণusayn, the son of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib” (vol. 2: 21). Since the term ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama‘ah was coined by Mu‘Ɨwiyyah b. AbƯ SufyƗn as an act of opposition to ahl al-bayt, the inhabitants of alAndalus who opposed the Umayyads could not have been SunnƯs in the original sense of the word. They may have been SunnƯs in creed and jurisprudence; however, they were not pro-Umayyad SunnƯs from a political perspective. Politically speaking, they seem to have had a ShƯ‘ite allegiance, expressing their solidarity with the sayyids from the household of the Prophet. Considering that there were so many sƗdah in al-Andalus, it is scarcely conceivable that there were no committed ShƯ‘ites among them. If many Andalusians sided with ণusayn, they might have been de-facto ShƯ‘ites. As Miriam Greenblatt comprehends, “Mu‘Ɨwiyyah founded the Umayyad dynasty… His followers became known as SunnƯs… ণusayn’s followers became known as ShƯ‘ites” (95). Considering that IdrƯs II, the son of IdrƯs I, had a dozen male children, Muতammad, Ahmad, ‘IsƗ, ‘Abd AllƗh, YahyƗ, ‘Umar, DƗwnjd, Hamzah, alQƗsim, Ja‘far, ‘AlƯ, and IdrƯs, he produced a prolific progeny. The descendants of Muতammad b. IdrƯs in Morocco are found in FiguƯg and the mountain of the BanƯ IsnƗsen (Benblal 224-225). They are also found in Aguercif, Tadla, Souid, Kataa, Medionna, and other parts of Morocco (224225). The descendants of Aতmad b. IdrƯs are found in the Djebel Mgrara, Sefrou, Masmouda, FiguƯg, Fez, BenƯ IsnƗsen, and Oued Zanan (226-227). The progeny of ‘IsƗ b. IdrƯs are found in Kanouas, close to SijilmƗsah, Melouya, Zehoun, Tasmala, Djebel Rached, Djebel Tadla, Rara, and Alkhizana in Morocco (227). As for the descendants of ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs, they can be found in Ain el Fter, SijilmƗsah, Ra El Oued, Sous al-Aqsa, FiguƯg, Djebel el Alam, Fez, Marrakesh, Ahara, Tlemcen, Tunis, Tadla, and Oued Romman (227-228). The progeny is YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs is found in Fez, Zerhoun, and Djout (228); that of ‘Umar b. IdrƯs is Tamesna (229); those of Hamzah b. IdrƯs in Kersef, Ain El-Fodda, and Fez (229). The descendants of al-QƗsim b. IdrƯs are in the Sous region as well as Fez (230). As for the descendants of the IdrƯsids in Algeria are found in Ain el-Hout (231), Bnisnous (233), Tlemcen (234), Sidi Bel Abbes (235), Mascara, Mostaganem, the Plaine du Chelif, Tiaret, Algiers, Biskra, Sahara, Bougie, Djebel Azwawa, Kabylie (238), and Constantine (239).

SharƯfian Settlers in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

65

6.3 The Descendants of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib The NƗৢirƯ family of Morocco, which includes Muতammad b. NƗৢir alDar’Ư, the founder of the NƗৢiriyyah zawiyyah, trace their ancestry back to ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. According to their descendant, Aতmad b. KhƗlid al-NƗৢirƯ, the author of the KitƗb al-Istiq‫܈‬Ɨ li akhbƗr duwal alMaghrib al-Aq‫܈‬Ɨ, his ancestors left the ণijƗz at the beginning of the tenth century as a result of a conflict between the Bannj ণasan and the Bannj ণusayn regarding who exercised spiritual authority (vol. 3: 1). They settled first in Upper Egypt until the conflict between al-Mustanৢir BillƗh and alMu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs al-ৡanতƗjah, his governor in IfrƯqiyyah (1). The former unleashed the Bedouin tribes of Bannj HilƗl, Bannj ‘Amir, and BanƯ Sulaym b. Manৢnjr against the North Africans (1). According to Aতmad, some of the Bannj Ja‘far who lived in Upper Egypt mingled with the Arab invaders, settling in southern Morocco in the middle of the twelfth century in the area next to Mouloya, Tafilalet, and the oases of the Dar’a (2). Although Aতmad is silent about the issue, his ancestors who settled in the Maghrib were ShƯ‘ites. The conflict to which he refers, namely, the struggle between the descendants of al-ণasan and the descendants of alণusayn, regarding who exercised authority over the community of believers, was a conflict specific to the ShƯ‘ism. It was essentially a conflict between ণasanid ZaydƯs versus ণusaynid ImƗmƯs. It is not surprising, then, that the descendants of Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib moved to Upper Egypt, a historically ShƯ‘ite region, during the reign of the ShƯ‘ite FƗ৬imids. It is also quite revealing that their ancestors joined the Bannj HilƗl, the Bannj ‘Amir, and the Bannj Sulaym, in their punitive invasion against the apostates in IfrƯqiyyah. Since this confederation of Bedouin tribes had been specifically sent to North Africa to punish its inhabitants for having renounced ShƯ‘ism, it is improbable that the Bannj Ja‘far were SunnƯs unless they were SunnƯs or ৡnjfƯs who were practicing taqiyyah, a position which seems implausible. Finally, of all places the Bannj Ja‘far decided to settle, they selected the Dra region in southern Morocco, a historically ShƯ‘ite region since the time of the IdrƯsids.

6.4 The Descendants of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah Both the Saadians and the ‘Alawites claim descent from Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah. According to the Saadians, their ancestors came from Yanbu‘ al-NakhƯl, an ancient Red Sea port located in what is now Saudi Arabia. A descendant of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah is said to have settled in Tidzi, a qsar some ten kilometers north of Zagora in the Draa region. The Saadi

66

Chapter 6

family, per se, rose to prominence while residing in Tagmadert in Draa River valley. Like the Saadians, the ‘Alawites trace their origin back to Yanbu‘ alNakhƯl, a two thousand five hundred-year-old city on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia, through which many Berber pilgrims passed on their way to and from the pilgrimage to Mecca. Berbers from Tafilalet had invited ণasan DƗkhil, an inhabitant of Yanbu‘, to move to the Maghrib so that he could act as their ImƗm. The Berbers felt that they would be blessed to have a descendant of the Prophet among them. ণasan DƗkhil, who was the twentyfirst descendant of Muতammad and the seventeenth descendant of Nafs alZakiyyah, accepted their invitation and settled in SijilmƗsah in 1266. The ‘Alawites are thus descendants of much later sƗdah who settled in the Maghrib. As previously explained, the city of Yanbu‘ is known for having a small community of KaysanƯs. The origin of the ancestor of the Saadians and the ‘Alawites is especially interesting. Demographically speaking, the ShƯ‘ites in Saudi Arabia are found in the following regions: the ণijƗz or western region, the southern region of Asir, JayzƗn, and NajrƗn, and the eastern region of Qa৬Ưf and al-AhsƗ’. In total, ShƯ‘ites represent ten to fifteen percent of the population of Saudi Arabia (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor). Some eighty percent of Saudi ShƯ‘ites are Twelvers. The remaining twenty percent are mostly SulaymƗniyyah IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. There are also some twenty thousand ZaydƯs in the country. The southern region of Saudi Arabia contains a variety of IslƗmic denominations: ShƗfi‘Ưs, MƗlikƯs, ZaydƯs, and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the last of which are the majority in NajrƗn. The majority of the inhabitants of the eastern region are Twelver ShƯ‘ites. The ShƯ‘ites of the ণijƗz are found mostly in Medina, where a small, but strong Twelver and ZaydƯ community has existed since the early days of IslƗm. Interestingly, the ShƯ‘ite community in the city of Yanbu‘, which is in the western region, is of the KaysanƯ denomination. In “Diversity in IslƗm,” FarhƗd Daftary describes their beliefs in the following terms: The Kaysaniyyah elaborated some of the doctrines that came to distinguish the radical wing of ShƯ‘ism. For instance, they condemned the first three caliphs before ‘AlƯ as illegitimate usurpers and also held that the community had gone astray by accepting their rule. They considered ‘AlƯ and his three sons, ণasan, ণusayn, and Muতammad, as their four ImƗms, successors to the Prophet, who had been divinely appointed and were endowed with supernatural attributes. Many such ideas, first developed by different KaysanƯ groups, were subsequently adopted by other ShƯ‘ah communities. This explains why most ShƯ‘ah groups in time came to

SharƯfian Settlers in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

67

accuse the majority of the early companions of the Prophet of apostasy, which also led to the general ShƯ‘ah vilification of the first three caliphs. (Diversity in IslƗm n. page)

Although Yanbu‘ is also home to a community of ৡnjfƯ Muslims, it is not unreasonable to suggest that some the ancestors of the Saadians and the ‘Alawites were ShƯ‘ite Muslim sƗdah who may have belonged to the Kaysaniyyah denomination.

6.5 The Descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil b. al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib The descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn in the Maghrib all claim descent from ‘Abd al-QƗdir al-JilƗnƯ (1077-1166). In Morocco, they are known as the QƗdirƯ shurafƗ’ (Brown 67). The descendants of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh, the son of SirƗj al-DƯn Abnj IsতƗq IbrƗhƯm, and the grandson of ‘Abd al-QƗdir alJƯlƗnƯ left Knjfah and settled in al-Andalus where they resided in the fortress of al-QƗhirah which overlooked Guadix. As a result of the Christian reconquest, they were forced to relocate to Granada. They emigrated from Granada to Fez shortly before the fall of the city to Christian forces in 1492. Although MnjsƗ al-Jawn and his immediate descendants were ShƯ‘ites, his later descendants became associated with ৡnjfism. Since they trace their ancestry back to ‘Abd al-QƗdir al-JƯlƗnƯ, the descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn in the Maghrib are of a ৡnjfƯ background.

6.6 The Descendants of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im The Laaraqi family descends from ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im b. Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq b. Muতammad al-BƗqir b. ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn b. al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. They trace back to him through one of his nineteen sons.

6.7 The Descendants of ‘AlƯ al-‘Arid The Squalli family descends from ‘AlƯ al-‘Arid b. Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq b. Muতammad al-BƗqir b. ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn b. al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. This would suggest that either ‘AlƯ b. al-‘Arid, a son of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm through a slave-wife, or a descendant of ‘AlƯ b. al-‘Arid, moved to the Maghrib where he left his descendants.

68

Chapter 6

6.8 The Descendants of IbrƗhƯm al-MurtaঌƗ al-Mujab b. MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im The Moroccan sharƯfs of IraqƯ ancestry descend from IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ, the brother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, the eighth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, and the brother of Zayd b. MnjsƗ. Both IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ and Zayd b. MnjsƗ were revolutionary leaders under Abnj Surayyah al-SirrƯ b. Manৢnjr, the prominent military leader in the ShƯ‘ite revolt against the caliph al-MƗ’mnjn which started in Knjfah and spread to the Yemen and the ণijƗz. Other leaders included Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm, known as Ibn ৫abƗ৬ƗbƗ, ‘AlƯ b. ‘Ubayd AllƗh, ‘Abd AllƗh b. MnjsƗ, and Muতammad b. Muতammad. Often described as a ZaydƯ revolt, the movement included ShƯ‘ites of all sorts. As sons of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and supporters of the ImƗmate of their brother ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, IbrƗhƯm and Zayd were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites. Other ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites who rose in revolt along with Abnj Surayyah included Aতmad b. MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, who was also a scholar. Although many ShƯ‘ites swore allegiance to him as their ImƗm, he redirected their pledge to his brother, saying: O People, you have pledged allegiance to me, and I will pledge allegiance to my brother, ‘AlƯ b. MnjsƗ al-RiঌƗ. Know that he is the ImƗm and successor after my father. He is the friend of AllƗh. AllƗh and His Apostle have made it incumbent upon you and me to obey him. (QarashƯ n. page)

Another faithful ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite was IbrƗhƯm [al-Aৢghar] b. MnjsƗ who, according to some sources, appeared in the Yemen during the revolt of his elder brother IbrƗhƯm [al-Akbar] b. MnjsƗ (QarashƯ n. page). The two brothers, IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ and Zayd b. MnjsƗ, had a fierce reputation for their harsh treatment of the enemies of the ahl al-bayt. Zayd was known as al-NƗr or “the Firebrand” due to his behavior in Baৢrah where he consistently condemned the ‘AbbƗsids to be burned alive and their properties repossessed (৫abarƯ, 1987: 26-27). IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ was known by the title of al-MujƗb, namely, “the one who asks and receives a positive reply,” namely, “one whose prayers are answered,” due to the large number of ShƯ‘ites who rallied around him. He was also known as al-JazzƗr or “the Butcher” due to the large quantity of blood that he shed in the Yemen during a ShƯ‘ite revolt in 815 (৫abarƯ, The Reunification… 28-29). Apparently, IbrƗhƯm was following the dictates of his father ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, who said: “Be tough and strict with the cruel so that you can take the right of the oppressed from him.” In the absence of IsতƗq b. MnjsƗ b. ‘IsƗ al-‘AbbƗsƯ, the ‘AbbƗsid governor of the Yemen, who had been ordered by al-MƗ’mnjn to march to

SharƯfian Settlers in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

69

Mecca to protect the pilgrims, IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ was able to take over the region where he ruled from 815-816, as governor of Abnj al-Surayah, even having dinars struck in his name. By the end of 815, IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ sent a descendant of ‘AqƯl b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib to lead the pilgrimage in the name his brother, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, the eighth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, whom he proclaimed heir to the caliphate of al-MƗ’mnjn (৫abarƯ, The Reunification 83). Intercepted outside of Mecca by the ‘AbbƗsid army, the ShƯ‘ite troops were soundly defeated. After the pilgrimage, the ‘AbbƗsid forces headed south to expel IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ from the Yemen. In the ensuing confrontation, which took place outside of ৡan‘Ɨ’, the ‘AbbƗsids defeated the ‘Alids, forcing their leader to flee. After Abnj Surayah was executed in 815, resulting in the collapse of his movement, al-MƗ’mnjn detained IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ in KhurasƗn (SharƯf al-QarashƯ n. page, Howard 593). As a result of the intercession of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ was released from prison, only to be poisoned by the caliph in BaghdƗd in 825 or 828 (QarashƯ n. page). IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ was buried in one of the courtyards of the Shrine of ImƗm ণusayn in KarbalƗ’, Iraq. According to the Shajarat al-nasab, the descendants of IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ, who were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, fled the Middle East and settled in Morocco.

6.9 The Descendants of Muতammad al-TaqƯ b. ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ The SaqalƯ family descends from ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ who was also known as al-JawƗd through his ancestor ৫Ɨhir b. al-ণusayn b. Mawhnjb. After first settling in al-Andalus, the descendants of the ninth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm relocated to Sicily where they acquired the last name al-SaqalƯ or “the Sicilian.” A portion of the family moved to Ceuta, in Morocco, in 1090, before to settling in Fez. This branch of the family eventually became extinct. Another branch of the SaqalƯ family, known as the ৫ƗতiriyyƯn, remains extant.

6.10 Conclusions While not an absolute rule, most descendants of the Prophet were the followers of the ImƗms from his family. While most remain ShƯ‘ites to this day, some are ৡnjfƯs who adhere to various SunnƯ schools of jurisprudence. With their lives in peril, they opted to maintain ShƯ‘ite spirituality under the safety of ৡnjfism. The presence of sƗdah or shurafƗ’ is almost invariably an indicator of present or past ShƯ‘ism in any region of the Muslim world. This is especially the case when the individuals are direct descendants of the

70

Chapter 6

ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. As this chapter has documented, descent from ImƗm al-ণasan is prevalent in Morocco. In most cases, such sayyids belong to the Bannj IdrƯs, including direct descendants of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, IbrƗhƯm b. ‘Abd AllƗh, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, along with Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. alQƗsim, and Aতmad b. Muতammad. Other sƗdah belong to the Bannj Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah who arrived in Morocco at the end of the thirteenth century as well as the descendants of MnjsƗ al-Jawn who arrived at the end of the fifteenth century. Morocco is also the home of descendants of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and ImƗm Muতammad alTaqƯ. The household of the Prophet has thus contributed significantly to the genetic makeup of Morocco. They have also played a role in its spiritual genesis.

CHAPTER 7 SHƮ‘ITE SAINTS IN THE SPIRITUAL SILSILAHS OF ৡNjFƮ ORDERS

7.1 Introduction As a response to the perceived legalism of the SunnƯ schools of law, and as a form of peaceful protest against the moral and political corruption that reigned under the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids, a spiritual movement known as ৡnjfism surfaced in the Muslim world. These mystically-minded Muslims, most of whom were connected to the Prophet via the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms or their companions, cultivated the inner dimension of IslƗm, stressing piety, ethics, and the constant remembrance of Almighty God. The most famous of these ৡnjfƯ orders include the ShƗdhiliyyah, the QƗdiriyyah, the Naqshbandiyyah, the Khalwatiyyah, the Chishtiyyah, and the Kubrawiyyah, all of which have numerous branches and sub-branches. Although numbering in the hundreds, and cross-connected in their early stages in many regards, the majority of these ৡnjfƯ orders trace back to the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. As Idries ShƗh has admitted, “The ৡnjfƯ Way was handed down through the People of the House [the descendants of the Prophet]” (279). In the words of Öztürk, “‘AlƯ stands at the head of the spiritual genealogies of almost all ৡnjfƯ schools and is recognized in ৡnjfƯ history as foremost among the walƯs (saints)” (15).

7.2 The Silsilah of the ShƗdhiliyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The ShƗdhiliyyah ৫arƯqah, which was established by Abnj al-ণasan alShƗdhilƯ, who was born near Ceuta in northern Morocco in 1196, is an important and influential ৡnjfƯ order in North Africa and Egypt. The order, which has over seventy branches and sub-branches across the world, including the FƗsiyah, Darqawiyyah, ‘Alawiyyah, Attasiyyah, HƗshimiyyah, and Badawiyyah, has several spiritual chains of authority, the first of which includes:

72

Chapter 7 Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ Al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

This silsilah features the two first ShƯ‘ite ImƗms: ImƗm ‘AlƯ and ImƗm alণasan. The ShƗdhiliyyah ৫arƯqah also has a second silsilah, which features al-ণasan al-BaৢrƯ in the place of al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ. Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ Al-ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

Although no scholar can claim that al-ণasan b. AbƯ al-ণasan YasƗr al-BaৢrƯ was a ShƯ‘ite, he was, for a time, a spiritual disciple of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. A supporter of Abnj Bakr, al-ণasan al-BaৢrƯ generally avoided politics. He did, however, oppose the Umayyads, and was on relatively good terms with caliph ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz. Apart from ImƗm ‘AlƯ, this is an almost exclusively ৡnjfƯ chain of authority. The third silsilah of the ShƗdhiliyyah ৡnjfƯ order features the founders of the IdrƯsid dynasty and their immediate ancestors: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ Ļ al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ Ļ ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil Ļ IdrƯs al-Akbar Ļ RashƯd al-AwrabƯ Ļ IdrƯs al-Azhar Ļ Continuing to the Present

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

73

This chain of authority, in particular, has a solid ShƯ‘ite foundation, featuring ImƗm ‘AlƯ and ImƗm al-ণasan, the first two ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. It features the son and grandson of ImƗm al-ণasan, al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ and ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil. These last two were ShƯ‘ites, but not of the ImƗmƯ persuasion. Although al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ does not appear to have aspired to the caliphate, he seems to have believed that he was the heir to the spiritual ImƗmate of the ShƯ‘ite community. In fact, when ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn asserted his ImƗmate, the elder al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ became infuriated for challenging his tenure to this office (Lalani 45). Although a ShƯ‘ite, and a pretendant to the ImƗmate, al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ was not a proto-Twelver. Influenced by his father, who seems to have commenced the claim that the ImƗmate was destined to the sons of al-ণasan as opposed to the sons of al-ণusayn, ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil, known as al-Mahd or the Pure-Blooded, presented his son, Muতammad, as the promised MahdƯ from the time of his birth. Encouraged by his father, and embraced as the MahdƯ by many ShƯ‘ites, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil, known as Nafs al-Zakiyyah, rose up against al-Manৢnjr, the second ‘AbbƗsid caliph, only to be martyred in 762. Besides Muতammad, ‘Abd AllƗh had numerous other revolutionary sons who rose up in an attempt to seize power on behalf of the ShƯ‘ite community. Besides YaতyƗ, who was briefly acclaimed the ImƗm in Daylam, the sole son who was successful was IdrƯs, the founder of the IdrƯsid dynasty in Morocco. Although he was a companion of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, he was more of a ZaydƯ than an ImƗmƯ. Since he was born after the death of his father IdrƯs al-Akbar, IdrƯs al-Azhar was raised and educated by RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, the Berber retainer of his father, who was educated in the ণijƗz, where he grew up in the household of the ণasanid family. Like his liege, IdrƯs al-Akbar, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, was also intricately connected to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. Although RashƯd was a ZaydƯ in ideological inclination, he was influenced by ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism. Since he was raised by RashƯd, and was surrounded by Arab ShƯ‘ites, including ZaydƯs and ImƗmƯs, IdrƯs al-Azhar was ShƯ‘ite in his ideological outlook. Although there is currently no evidence that he had direct contact with the ImƗms of the Age, his chief of police was, for a time, DƗwnjd b. alQƗsim, a companion of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. The fourth silsilah of the ShƗdhiliyyah ৡnjfƯ order is decidedly more ImƗmƯ in orientation, featuring:

74

Chapter 7 Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ al-ণusayn Ļ ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn Ļ Muতammad al-BƗqir Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

This particular chain includes Abnj Mahfnjz Ma‘rnjf b. Firnjz al-KharkhƯ (d. c. 815). Converted to IslƗm by ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ is a pivotal figure in ৡnjfism who is found in the chains of multiple ৡnjfƯ orders. An ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite, Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ was initiated into the mystical dimensions of IslƗm by the eighth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm.

7.3 The Silsilah of the QƗdiriyyah ৡnjfƯ order Although ‘Abd al-QƗdir al-JƯlƗnƯ was a ৡnjfƯ who followed SunnƯ jurisprudence, the early part of his initiatory chain is solidly ImƗmƯ-ShƯ‘ite in orientation, featuring: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ Ļ ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn Ļ Muতammad al-BƗqir Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im Ļ

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

75

‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

If the IdrƯsid chain of the ShƗdhiliyyah order is full of ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites who were secondary associates of the ImƗms, the silsilah of the QƗdiriyyah order includes the eight first ShƯ‘ite ImƗms from ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib until ‘AlƯ alRiঌƗ, making it an ImƗmƯ chain par excellence.

7.4 The Silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The Khalwatiyyah ৡnjfƯ order, and its sub-branch, the Sammaniyyah, established by Muতammad b. ‘Abd al-KarƯm al-Samman al-MadanƯ (d. 1775), provide the following spiritual lineage: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq Ļ al-QƗsim b. AbƯ Bakr al-ৡiddƯq Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ al-KharaqƗnƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

As currently presented, the chain of this ‫ܒ‬arƯqah is broken and untenable. Al-QƗsim was not the son of Abnj Bakr but the son of his son Muতammad. It is related that during the reign of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, two daughters of Yazdigard b. ShahriyƗr b. Choesroe, were sent to the commander of the faithful (MufƯd 1981: 380). He gave ShƗhzanƗn to his son al-ণusayn, and she bore him ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, and he gave the second sister of the former Persian emperor to Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr, and she bore him al-QƗsim (MufƯd 1981: 380). As such, Zayn al-‘AbidƯn and QƗsim were supposedly maternal cousins (MufƯd 1981: 380). Hence, the chain should state:

76

Chapter 7 Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq Ļ Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr Ļ al-QƗsim b. Muতammad Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ al-KharqanƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

Even so, this chain continues to pose problems for the fact that Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr was unlikely to have learned anything from his father Abnj Bakr who died during his childhood. As part of his will, Abnj Bakr appointed ‘AlƯ as the guardian of his son, Muতammad. As such, Muতammad, the son of Abnj Bakr, was raised by ImƗm ‘AlƯ. In the process, he became a staunch ShƯ‘ite of ‘AlƯ. Since he derived his knowledge from ImƗm ‘AlƯ, and not from Abnj Bakr, the chain should state: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr Ļ al-QƗsim b. Muতammad Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ al-KharaqƗnƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

While the link between al-QƗsim b. Muতammad (d. 726) to Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq may seem strange, it is sound, and the connection is interesting. Ja‘far was a descendant of ‘AlƯ from his father’s side. He also happened to be a descendant of Abnj Bakr from his mother’s side. The mother of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq was the daughter of al-QƗsim b. Muতammad. Hence, al-QƗsim b.

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

77

Muতammad was the father-in-law of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. What the silsilah seems to suggest is that Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq inherited his knowledge from ‘AlƯ through his paternal line and from Abnj Bakr through his maternal line. As we have seen, however, this postulation is ostensibly false for the fact that Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr was trained as a jurist by ImƗm ‘AlƯ and not by Abnj Bakr. The person following ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq in the chain is Abnj YazƯd BistƗmƯ (804-874 or 877/78). Again, the chain is disconnected. Since the sixth ImƗm died in 765, he could never have passed down the initiation to Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ who was born in 804. Chronologically speaking, it makes more sense that he received his initiation from ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, the eighth ImƗm, and Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ImƗm (Shushud). However, since the eighth ImƗm died in 818, when BistƗmƯ was but a teenager, he may have been associated with ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ, ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ. Closely connected to the twelve ImƗms (Takim 2007: 69), Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ may have met ImƗm Muতammad al-MahdƯ at the funeral of his father, ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ, when the twelfth ImƗm was but four or five years old. The successor of Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ was Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ alKharqƗnƯ who transmitted the belief in the twelve ImƗms to KhawƗjah ‘Abd AllƗh al-AnৢƗrƯ and his successor, Abnj al-QƗsim al-GurgƗnƯ (d. 1076). As a testament to the fact that they were ShƯ‘ite ৡnjfƯs, the shrines of both ‘Abd AllƗh al-AnৢƗrƯ (1006-1088) and Abnj al-QƗhir al-JurjƗnƯ (d. 1078 or 1081) are inscribed with the names of the twelve ImƗms (‘Abd AllƗh AnৢƗrƯ Shrine Complex).

7.5 The Silsilah of the TijƗniyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The TƯjƗniyyah ৫arƯqah, established by Abnj al-‘AbbƗs Aতmad b. Muতammad al-TƯjƗnƯ (1737–1815) who was born in Algeria but who died in Fez, Morocco. Since he claimed to have been initiated directly by the Prophet, through a dream no doubt, he avoided the problem of producing a chain of spiritual transmission. However, since he had accepted to become a representative of the KhalwatƯ ৡnjfƯ order, he reproduced its chain which, like the ShƗdhiliyyah ‫ܒ‬arƯqah, traces back to the Prophet via ণasan al-BaৢrƯ and ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib.

7.6 The Silsilah of the NaqshbandƯ ৡnjfƯ Order Influential in Egypt, Syria, India, and China, the NaqshbandƯ ৡnjfƯ order has not played a significant role in North Africa. Still, it has been included here

78

Chapter 7

as it shares the same early links as the Khalwatiyyah and Sammaniyyah ৡnjfƯ orders and may shed some light on the mistakes it contains. While the salƗsil of the former orders are full of flaws, including many missing links, due perhaps to disavowed predecessors, the isnad of the NaqshbandƯ ‫ܒ‬arƯqah is far more complete, detailed, and accurate. Its initial few chains differ from the Khalwatiyyah and Sammaniyyah salƗsil in the inclusion of SalmƗn alFƗrsƯ as the connection between Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq and his grandson QƗsim b. Muতammad. The silsilah of the Naqshbandiyyah-ণaqqaniyyah and Naqshbandiyyah-Mujadidiyyah ৡnjfƯ orders includes: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq Ļ SalmƗn al-FƗrsƯ Ļ QƗsim b. Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ Abnj YazƯd al-BistƗmƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ al-KharaqƗnƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

While it makes more sense to state that QƗsim b. Muতammad was initiated into Muslim mysticism by SalmƗn al-FƗrisƯ than to claim that he was instructed into the secrets by his grandfather, Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq, who died when his father, Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr, was but a child, this scenario seems unlikely. SalmƗn al-FƗrisƯ, as is well-known, was a staunch ShƯ‘ite and loyal supporter of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. As one of the pre-eminent companions of the Prophet and ‘AlƯ, he derived his knowledge firstly from the fountainhead of IslƗm, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh, and secondarily, from the first ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. There is no evidence to indicate that SalmƗn learned a single tenet of IslƗm from Abnj Bakr, much less the Muslim faith’s inner mysteries. Curiously, the NaqshbandƯ Uwaysiyyah ৡnjfƯ order, which is based in Pakistan, has a chain of narration which has been purged of ShƯ‘ite figures, featuring:

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

79

Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ Abnj Bakr al-ৡiddƯq Ļ ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

This chain makes little chronological sense. Since Abnj Bakr died in 634, and ণasan al-BaৢrƯ was only born in 642, the former cannot have passed any knowledge to the latter. The inclusion of Abnj Bakr in the NaqshbandƯ chain is surprising altogether. Although he is reported to have been a close companion of the Prophet for twenty-three years, he narrated a mere one hundred and forty-two traditions. He left no scholarly, literary, or spiritual legacy of any sort. Unlike many of the Prophet’s other companions, Abnj Bakr did not leave any discernible disciples among the tƗbi‘njn. Evidently, this is not his fault as he only lived a couple of years after the Prophet. The issue is not with Abnj Bakr but with the chain. None of the eight ascetics -- SufyƗn al-ThawrƯ, AmƯr b. ‘Abd al-Qays, Abnj Muslim al-KhawlanƯ, Uways al-QarnƯ, al-RabƯ‘ b. Khuthaym, Aswad b. YazƯd, Masrnjq b. al-Ajda‘ and ণasan al-BaৢrƯ -- were trained by followers of Abnj Bakr. Uways al-QarnƯ was a direct disciple of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Al-RƗbi‘ b. Khuthaym was a disciple of ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, who, in turn, was a companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Al-Aswad b. YazƯd was a disciple of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maৢ‘njd, a companion of the Prophet who was also a devoted follower of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Masrnjq b. al-Ajda‘ was also a student of Ibn Maৢ‘njd. As a follower of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, Masqrnjq fought on his side against the KhƗrijites in 658. Finally, ণasan al-BaৢrƯ was also a well-known disciple of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. None of the seven SunnƯ jurists of Medina -- Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyib, Urwah b. Zubayr, Abnj Bakr b. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn, QƗsim b. Muতammad, ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘Utbah b. Maৢ‘njd, SulaymƗn b. YasƗr, and KhƗrijah b. Zayd b. ThƗbit -- trace their educational pedigrees back to Abnj Bakr or his followers. On the contrary, Sa‘Ưd b. al-Musayyib studied IslƗmic jurisprudence under ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, the grandson of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Although he was trained by ‘A’ishah, QƗsim b. Muতammad was the son of Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr, the adopted son of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, and a strident ShƯ‘ite. Despite being the grandson of Abnj Bakr, QƗsim was born long after his grandfather’s death and learned IslƗm from his aunt ‘A’ishah. Since she lived with the Prophet since an early age, she cites her husband, and not her father, as the source of some 5,374 traditions. Although he was not a ShƯ‘ite like his father and was eager to protect his grandfather’s image, Abnj Bakr, which ensured him prestige, Muতammad

80

Chapter 7

b. QƗsim opposed his aunt’s attempts to antagonize the children of ‘AlƯ and FƗ৬imah. As if it did not suffice that she rebelled against ImƗm ‘AlƯ, the fourth caliph, causing the deaths of ten thousand ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah and tƗbi‘njn – six hundred of whom she reportedly ordered to be decapitated for supporting her adversary -- her animosity toward ‘AlƯ and his children remained unabated. As the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Old grudges die hard. When ImƗm al-ণasan, the son of ‘AlƯ, was murdered, and his family wished to fulfill his wish to be buried next to his grandfather, the Prophet, ‘A’ishah could not withhold her opposition. Mounting a gray mule, she urged the Umayyads to declare a second battle against the Prophet’s household. Muতammad b. QƗsim confronted ‘A’ishah, saying: “Aunt, we have not washed our heads since the Battle of the Camel. Do you want people to call this day the Battle of the Gray Mule?” Although ‘A’ishah went back home, the family of the Prophet was ostensibly forced to bury ImƗm al-ণasan in the cemetery of al-BaqƯ beside his grandmother, FƗ৬imah bint al-Asad.

7.7 The Silsilah of the Chishtiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The Chistiyyah ‫ܒ‬arƯqah was founded by Abnj IsতƗq al-ShƗmƯ or “the Syrian” in the small town of Chisht, located near HerƗt, in Afghanistan, around the year 900. Besides spreading ৡnjfƯ ideas among the ordinary people of the region, he initiated, trained, and deputized Abnj Aতmad ‘Abdal, the son of Sul৬Ɨn Farsanafah, to ensure the continued spread of ৡnjfism. After establishing the future foundation of ৡnjfism in Afghanistan, Abnj IsতƗq returned to Syria, dying in Damascus in the year 940. The spiritual chain of the ChishtƯ order includes: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

7.8 The Silsilah of the Kubrawiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The Kubrawiyyah ৡnjfƯ order is named after its thirteenth-century founder, Najm al-DƯn al-KubrƗ. Reputed to have been a crypto-ShƯ‘ite ৡnjfƯ order which followed SunnƯ jurisprudence, two of its branches became overtly Twelver ShƯ‘ite in orientation: the Nurbakhshiyyah and the Zahabiyyah.

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

81

The first branch, led by Muতammad Nurbakhsh QahistƗnƯ, became known as the Nurbakhsh KubrawƯ or the ৡnjfiyyah ImƗmiyyah Nurbakhshiyyah. Although he was a Twelver ShƯ‘ite, he attempted to bridge the gap between Sunnism and ShƯ‘ism, stressed the importance of the sharƯ‘ah, and opposed religious innovations. Although the SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite branches of the Kubrawiyyah differ in IslƗmic jurisprudence, the spiritual lineage of the SunnƯ branch and the ShƯ‘ite branches of the order is the same, featuring: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ Al-ণusayn Ļ ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn Ļ Muতammad al-BƗqir Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Continuing to the Present

7.9 The Silsilah of the MawlawƯ ৡnjfƯ Order The MawlawƯ ৡnjfƯ order, founded by RnjmƯ, contains both SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite branches with various spiritual pedigrees. They include: Muতammad Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ Ļ Continuing to the present

Shams al-DƯn TabrƯzƯ’s spiritual lineage also presents the following line of initiation:

82

Chapter 7 ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ ণabƯb the Persian Ļ Abnj SulaymƗn Da’njd ৫a’Ư Ļ Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ

7.10 The Silsilah of the Suhrawardiyyah ৡnjfƯ Order The Suhrawardiyyah ৡnjfƯ order, founded by Abnj NajƯb al-SuhrawardƯ (1097-1168), traces its spiritual genealogy back to ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib through the following chain: Muতammad ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ al-ণusayn Ļ ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn Ļ al-ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ Muতammad al-BƗqir Ļ ণabƯb al-‘AjamƯ Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ DƗwnjd al-৫Ɨ’Ư Ļ MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Ma‘rnjf al-KarkhƯ Ļ Continuing to the present

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

83

7.11 The Silsilah of the Nurbakhshiyyah, Ni‘matullƗhƯ, and DhahabƯ ৡnjfƯ Orders The few ShƯ‘ite ৡnjfƯ orders such as the Nurbakhshiyyah, Ni‘matullƗhiyyah, and Dhahabiyyah, were originally SunnƯ. They only became openly ShƯ‘ite upon the advent of the ৡafavids. The founder of the Ni‘matullƗhƯ ৡnjfƯ order, ShƗh Ni‘matullƗh WalƯ (d. 1431) was originally a follower of the QƗdiriyyah ৡnjfƯ order. The order he founded proclaimed itself ShƯ‘Ư upon the establishment of the ৡafavƯd state with which it closely allied itself (Moomen 109). After they adopted ShƯ‘ism, they stressed the teachings of the twelve ImƗms. The works of Muতammad Nurbakhsh (1392-1464) were not compilations of his own devotional creations. All the practices he promoted traced back to the Prophet through the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt. The Nurbakhshiyyah, Ni‘matullƗhƯ, and DhahabƯ provide the following fragmented chain of spiritual knowledge: Muতammad Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Ma‘rnjf al-KarkhƯ Ļ Abnj al-QƗsim al-JurjƗnƯ Ļ Aতmad al-GhazƗlƯ Ļ Continuing to the present

7.12 The Silsilah of the BektƗshƯ ৡnjfƯ Order The BektƗshƯ ৡnjfƯ order, which is named after ণajjƯ BektƗshƯ VelƯ (c. 1209c. 1271), is followed primarily in Anatolia and the Balkans. Although it appears to have been a Twelver ShƯ‘ite ‫ܒ‬arƯqah at its onset, it fused aspects of ShƯ‘ism, Sunnism, and ৡnjfism. The recognition and love of the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt forms a fundamental part of the BektƗshƯ beliefs. In fact, one copy of ণajjƯ Bektash’s MaqalƗt commences with the following introduction: And confess thou the twelve ImƗms. Reject thou those who oppose them. Be affectionate to those who are friends to them and show Thou enmity to their detractors If thou desireth that thine faith be enlightened. (qted. Öztürk 60)

84

Chapter 7

The ceremony of initiation into the order includes the question, “Do you believe in the unity of God, Muতammad, and ‘AlƯ; the twelve ImƗms; and the line of the family of the Prophet?” (qtd. Öztürk 79). Although Yaúar NnjrƯ Öztürk translated “unity” as “trinity,” thus implying that the BektƗshƯs have integrated aspects of Christianity or GhulƗt beliefs into their system, the followers of ণajjƯ Bektash insist that they do not believe in any sort of Trinity. When they speak of AllƗh, Muতammad, and ‘AlƯ as a single entity, they do so in the sense of wa‫ۊ‬dat al-wujnjd, namely, the Unity of Existence as expounded upon by Ibn ‘ArabƯ. In the final part of the initiatory part of the ceremony, the murƯd says: I am a slave of God. I am of the offspring of Adam. I am of the nation of Abraham. My religion is IslƗm; my book is the Koran; my qiblah is the Ka‘bah. I am of the community of the najiyyah [saved ones] and of the school of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. God is great; God is great; God is great. (qtd. Öztürk 80)

To become a BektƗshƯ, one must pledge allegiance to “Muতammad-‘AlƯ our Master, the twelve ImƗms, and the fourteen pure innocents” (Birge n. page). Besides following the spiritual teachings of the twelve ImƗms, the BektƗshƯs also share many devotional practices with the Twelver ShƯ‘Ưtes, such as the commemoration of ‘AshnjrƗ’ and the recitation of litanies. ণajjƯ Bektash VelƯ traces his teachings back to the Prophet through the following two spiritual silsilahs: First Silsilah ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ ImƗm ণusayn Ļ ImƗm Zayn al-‘AbƯdƯn Ļ ImƗm Muতammad BƗqir Ļ ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ ImƗm Mnjsa al-KƗ਌im Ļ ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Junayd al-BaghdƗdƯ Ļ Abnj ‘UthmƗn MaghribƯ

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders Ļ Abnj al-QƗsim GurgƗnƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan KharkƗnƯ Ļ Shaykh Abnj ‘AlƯ FarmadƯ Ļ Khwaja Ynjsuf al-HamadƗnƯ Ļ Khawja Aতmad YesevƯ Ļ Shaykh LuqmƗn Perende Ļ Pir HünkƗr ণajjƯ Bektash VelƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

Second Silsilah ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib Ļ ণasan al-BaৢrƯ Ļ ণabƯb al-‘AjamƯ Ļ DƗwnjd at-TƗ’Ư Ļ Ma‘rnjf al-KharkhƯ Ļ Shaykh Sariy al-SaqatƯ Ļ Junayd al-BaghdƗdƯ Ļ Abnj ‘AlƯ RudbarƯ Ļ Shaykh Abnj ‘AlƯ KhƗ৬Ưb al-MiৢrƯ Ļ Abnj ‘UthmƗn MaghribƯ Ļ Abnj al-QƗsim GurgƗnƯ Ļ Abnj al-ণasan KharkƗnƯ Ļ Shayh Abnj ‘AlƯ FarmadƯ Ļ KhawƗjah Ynjsuf al-HamadƗnƯ

85

86

Chapter 7 Ļ KhawƗjah Aতmad YesevƯ Ļ Shaykh LuqmƗn Perende Ļ Pir HünkƗr ণajjƯ Bektash VelƯ Ļ Continuing to the Present

7.13 The Silsilah of the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt Unlike the relatively rigid division between the legal and the spiritual found in Sunnism, ShƯ‘ism contains a complementary combination of both. Since ShƯ‘ites claim to have direct guidance from the chain of the twelve ImƗms, some assert that they do not require murshids or spiritual guides to lead them along the path of spiritual perfection. For Twelver ShƯ‘ites, the path back to the Prophet is clear, and consists of the following links: Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh Ļ ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib & FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’ Ļ al-ণasan Ļ al-ণusayn Ļ ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn Ļ Muতammad al-BƗqir Ļ Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq Ļ MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im Ļ ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ Ļ Muতammad al-TaqƯ Ļ ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ Ļ ণasan al-‘AskarƯ Ļ Muতammad al-MahdƯ

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

87

As far as Twelver ShƯ‘ites are concerned, the chain of the fourteen infallibles is unbreakable. They claim that the chains of some ৡnjfƯ orders contain gaps, inconsistencies, and anachronistic indirect connections. When RnjmƯ writes that “The Saint… is the living ImƗm… / … whether he be a descendant of ‘Umar or of ‘AlƯ” (1996: 77), Reynold A. Nicholson comments that the poet draws a sharp line between the Twelver ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, descended from ‘AlƯ (of whom the last vanished mysteriously but is expected to reappear as the MahdƯ at the end of the world) and the uninterrupted succession of great ৡnjfƯ saints… (1996: 77 note 3)

According to Twelver ShƯ‘ites, the line of the ImƗms is uninterrupted from the Prophet to the present. The spiritual connection to the Prophet continues through the viceregency of the living but hidden ImƗm. For Twelver ShƯ‘ites, the silsilah of the ahl al-bayt traces back uninterruptedly to the Prophet. The ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt are known in detail. Their births, their lives and the circumstances surrounding their deaths are common knowledge. Like the Prophet, who has one of the most detailed biographies in the history of humanity, the words, and actions of the twelve ImƗms were documented, to varying degrees, during their lifetimes and passed down through the generations. Not only did the companions of the ImƗms produce thousands of books documenting the teachings they had received from the House of Prophecy, but the ImƗms themselves also delivered speeches, produced treatises, wrote books, and completed Qur’Ɨnic commentaries, some of which seem to have survived the test of time. As far as Twelver ShƯ‘ites are concerned, every ImƗm had the opportunity to learn directly from the authority and often authorities who came before him. The ahl al-bayt practiced a curious custom. The father of an ImƗm would give his son to his father to be raised. As such, the ImƗms were raised first by their grandfathers. After their grandfathers had died, they were raised by their fathers. Assuming that sons are raised by their fathers, scholars have claimed that some ImƗms never had the opportunity to pass their knowledge on to their sons due to their untimely deaths. Not only did the ImƗms inherit the knowledge of their fathers, but they also inherited the knowledge of their grandfathers, and through them, their forefathers back to the Prophet. According to Twelver ShƯ‘ite sources, ImƗm ‘AlƯ was raised by the Prophet since he was a child. The sons of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, al-ণasan and alণusayn, were raised by the Prophet. It was only after the Prophet died that their father fully raised them. ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, the son of ImƗm al-ণusayn, was raised by his grandfather, ImƗm ‘AlƯ, for two years, by his

88

Chapter 7

uncle, al-ণasan, for twelve years, and by his father, al-ণusayn, for twentythree years. Likewise, ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir was raised by his grandfather, ImƗm al-ণusayn, for three years, and by his father, Zayn al‘AbidƯn, for thirty-four years. ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq was raised by his grandfather, Zayn al-‘AbidƯn for ten years, and by his father, Muতammad al-BƗqir, for another twenty years. Although the final six ImƗms were born after their grandfathers passed away, Twelver ShƯ‘ite sources report that they were raised by their fathers for long enough periods to ensure the transmission of their knowledge. ImƗm al-KƗ਌im was trained by his father ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq for twenty-one years. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ was trained by his father, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, for thirty-four to thirty-five years. ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ was trained by his father, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, for seven years. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ was trained by his father, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, for eight years. ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ was trained by his father, ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, for twenty-two years. Finally, if the sources are accurate, ImƗm Muতammad al-MahdƯ was trained by his father, ণasan al‘AskarƯ, for up to six years. While the training of the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth ImƗms may seem short in comparison with that received by their forefathers, Twelver ShƯ‘ite sources stress that they were child prodigies. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ is reported to have defeated leading Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in debate while only a boy. Furthermore, since Twelver ShƯ‘ites believe that the knowledge of the ImƗms was not only inculcated but inborn, they view the length of time they spent under the guidance of their fathers as inconsequential since their divine knowledge was innate, forming a part of their genetic code and spiritual inheritance.

7.14 Conclusions If ZaydƯ, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism were partly political movements of protest, ৡnjfism was a spiritual movement of protest rooted in ShƯ‘ism. When confronted with the moral decadence of the Umayyads, the ZaydƯs, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, and ImƗmƯs strived to re-assert the Prophet’s political principles while the ৡnjfƯs stressed the spirituality, ethics, morals, and values, which were at the core of seminal IslƗm. While stressing different aspects of IslƗmic doctrine, these various movements shared the same goal: opposition to the pseudo-IslƗm being spread by the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids. Although not all the ৡnjfƯ orders studied in this chapter are represented in the Maghrib -- where the ShƗdhiliyyah, QƗdiriyyah, and TijƗniyyah ‫ܒ‬arƯqahs tend to dominate -- most of them share a common characteristic: the presence of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms and their companions in their spiritual

ShƯ‘ite Saints in the Spiritual Silsilahs of ৡnjfƯ Orders

89

chains of authority. In some cases, the ShƯ‘ite influence seems to have been slight, with a mere echo of ImƗm ‘AlƯ in the distant past. In other cases, the ShƯ‘ite influence seems strong, containing a long line of ণasanid ShƯ‘ite leaders, including ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites such as IdrƯs I, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, and IdrƯs II or as many as seven of the twelve ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. Although Twelver ShƯ‘ism became increasingly legalistic and ritualistic over time -- as a result of the rise of the jurists who suppressed expressions of spirituality -- the ৡnjfƯ orders seem to have passed down some of the devotional practices of the Prophet and the ImƗms. Although some of these ৡnjfƯ orders were Sunnitized over the centuries, responding to the imposition of Sunnism and MƗlikism by the Almoravids, the Almohads, and the Merinids, they were largely ShƯ‘ite in origin. Due to changes in religious and political winds, many ShƯ‘ites sought refuge in ৡnjfƯ orders. Although some of these orders publicly professed Sunnism for the sake of their safety, their followers were initiated into a type of crypto-ShƯ‘ism. If the outward practices of ShƯ‘ism could not be preserved due to peril, then, at least, its spiritual message could be protected and passed down. While they may be SunnƯ in practice, many ৡnjfƯ orders remain ShƯ‘ite in spirit. The predominance of ৡnjfism in the Maghrib and alAndalus suggests a common ShƯ‘ite origin. In short, where there are ৡnjfƯs, there once were ShƯ‘ites.

CHAPTER 8 THE BERBER SHƮ‘ITES IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

8.1 Introduction The Berbers are the indigenous people of the Maghrib. Known as the Imazighen or the Free People, they were conquered by ‘Uqbah b. NƗfi‘, the commander of the Umayyad dynasty from Damascus, in the year 683. While many Berbers were quick to embrace IslƗm, this did not guarantee their support for their Arab conquerors who taxed them heavily, treated converts as second-class Muslims, and, in the worst cases, even enslaved them. According to Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ, “Of the Muslims in Spain, the Arabs formed only a small minority, and they, moreover, showed all the indifference towards religion and contempt for the laws of IslƗm” (61). As a result, many Berbers became inclined to the teachings of KhƗrijism, as well as ImƗmƯ and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, resulting in the IdrƯsid, FƗ৬imid, and ণammnjdid ShƯ‘ite dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. According to Stanley Lane-Pool (1854-1931): The Berbers, always a marvelously credulous people, were quick to accept any new faith and embraced IslƗm with a fervor far exceeding anything the more skeptical mind of the Arab could evoke. Very soon, Barbary became the hotbed of religious nonconformity; the arid doctrines of IslƗm were supplemented by those more mystical and emotional elements which imaginative minds soon engraft upon any creed so-ever; and the Muতammadan dissenter, expelled from the more rigid regions of orthodoxy, found a singularly productive soil for his doctrines in the simple minds of the Berbers. (53)

The only thing worth retaining from this passage is that the Berbers were drawn to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. As for the rest, it reflects stereotypes and prejudice. The Berbers are not “a marvelously credulous people.” They have produced such brilliant intellects as Saint Augustine. Nor is it true that the Arab mind is “skeptical.” Lane-Pool suggests that Sunnism is rational and logical while

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

91

ShƯ‘ism is irrational and emotional, and that skeptical Arabs are naturally drawn to the dry doctrines of Sunnism while the simple-minded Berbers are naturally drawn to mystical and magical matters. Lane-Pool is imposing the Arab/Persian divide and applying it to the Arab/Berber divide. ShƯ‘ism, however, was originally an entirely Arab construct. It was Sunnism that was developed primarily by non-Arabs. As Duncan Townson points out, the Arabs were never the majority in the Maghrib and al-Andalus (24). Although the Berbers had formed the bulk of the armies which invaded al-Andalus, they never received their fair share of the spoils (24). Although there were never that many Arabs in IslƗmic Spain, they populated the most fertile lands in the valleys, built the finest houses in the towns, and occupied the government’s main posts (24). The Berbers, on the other hand, were relegated to the less fertile hill country where they struggled to scrape together a living by farming in difficult conditions (24). As Lane-Pool explains: They had cause to grudge the Arabs their lion’s share of the spoils of Spain, which had been the trophies of the Berbers’ bow and spear. While the Arabs, who had only arrived in time to reap the advantages of the conquest, had appropriated the most smiling provinces of the Peninsula, the Berbers found themselves relegated to the most unlovely parts, to the dusty plains of Estremadura, or to the icy mountains of León, where they had to contend with a climate which severely tried natures brought up in African heats, and where, too, they had the doubtful privilege of forming a buffer between their Arab allies and the Christians of the North. Already there had been signs of disaffection. One of Tarik’s Berber generals, Monousa, who had married a daughter of Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, raised the standard of revolt when he heard of the oppression of his countrymen in Africa; and now, when the Berber cause was triumphant across the Straits, a general rising took place among the northern provinces; the Berbers of the borders, of Galicia, of Mérida, Coria, and all the region round about, took up arms, and began to march south upon Toledo, Cordova, and Algeciras, when they intended to take ship and go join their compatriots in Barbary. (54-55)

Besides facing economic and political discrimination, the Berbers also suffered racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic discrimination at the hands of the Arab elite that loathed and despised them as uncouth barbarians who were valuable only as warriors. As a result, “the Berbers felt discontented and were sometimes prepared to take part in plots and revolts against their Arab overloads” (Townson 35). As Lane-Pool expresses, “The Berbers were more numerous than the Arabs, and at least equally disaffected” (101). According to Derek W. Lomax and AnwƗr G. Chejne, the Berbers were

92

Chapter 8

resentful of Arab predominance, and did not hesitate to express their discontentment by espousing some extremist causes, such as those of the KhƗrijites, and the ShƯ‘ites (Lomax 21; Chejne 1974: 113). The IbƗঌƯ KhƗrijites has reached North Africa by 719 when Salam b. Sa‘d was sent from the IbƗঌƯ jama‘at of Baৢrah, Iraq, to QayrawƗn, in modern Tunisia. By 740, the IbƗঌƯ KhƗrijites had succeeded in converting the major Berber tribes of HawwƗrah and ZanƗtah. In 757, a group of four Baৢrah-educated KhƗrijite missionaries proclaimed an IbƗঌƯ ImƗmate which lasted until the ‘AbbƗsids destroyed it in 761. The KhƗrijites then founded the Rustamid dynasty which ruled the central Maghrib until the FƗ৬imids conquered it in 909. The Rustamids created a multi-religious, pluralistic, cosmopolitan society where the members of various KhƗrijite sects, nonKhƗrijite Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in an environment which encouraged open religious debate. As a free people with free minds, “los beréberes norteafricanos estuvieron abiertos a todo tipo de movimientos religiosos” [the North African Berbers were open to all types of religious movements] (Fierro 1987: 34). Although KhƗrijism appealed to the Berbers due to its egalitarian almost anarchistic attitude of revolt, ShƯ‘ism was appealing as “the doctrine of the ImƗmate kept the potential … for armed insurgence very much alive” (Collins 16868). As a result, Berber ShƯ‘ites participated in numerous rebellions in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, the first of which was the Great Revolt against Arab rule in the 740s.

8.2 The ZanƗtah Berbers Although the Magrawah, a tribe of ZanƗtah Berbers, were one of the first Berber tribes to embrace IslƗm in the seventh century, they were the most opportunistic. In the seventh century, they supported the Umayyad ‘Uqbah b. NƗfi‘ in his campaign to the Atlantic in 683. By the eighth century, however, they had become KhƗrijites who were allied with the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids. From the tenth century, the ZanƗtah were allied with the SunnƯ Umayyads of Cordova. They defeated the allies of the FƗ৬imids in 924, only to ally themselves with the FƗ৬imids. When they switched back their allegiance to the side of SunnƯ Cordova, they were driven out of central Morocco by the ZƯrƯds, who ruled on behalf of the FƗ৬imids. Finally, in 980, the Magrawah drove the MiknƗsah FƗ৬imids out of SijilmƗsah. Whether it was Sunnism, KhƗrijism, ImƗmism, or IsmƗ‘Ưlism, the ZanƗtah were willing to embrace any IslƗmic ideology that was the most politically expedient. The ZanƗtah were speakers of Zenati, a dialect of Taririf (also known as Rifi, Rifia, Northern Shilha, and Shilha). A mere one

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

93

percent of the Moroccan population continues to speak the dialect of the ZanƗtah Berbers. The descendants of the ZanƗtah are found in the Rif region of Morocco.

8.3. The ৡanতƗjah Berbers Originally desert nomads, the ৡanতƗjah were one of the largest Berber tribal confederations in the Maghrib. They were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs and played a seminal role in the rise of the FƗ৬imids. In the tenth-century the ZƯrƯds, a clan of the SanhƗjah Berbers, defeated the KhƗrijite rebellion of Abnj YazƯd (943-947) under the leadership of ZƯrƯ b. Manada (935-971) who was installed as the governor of the central Maghrib. ZƯrƯ’s son, BuluggƯn b. ZƯrƯ (971-984), was appointed viceroy of IfrƯqiyyah when the FƗ৬imids moved their base to Egypt in 972. The relationship between the ZƯrƯds and the FƗ৬imid overlords was variable. In 1016, thousands of ShƯ‘ites were slaughtered in rebellions in IfrƯqiyyah. In 1045, the ZƯrƯds broke away from the FƗ৬imids, embraced MƗlikƯ Sunnism, and recognized the ‘AbbƗsids of BaghdƗd as the legitimate caliphs. As a result, the FƗ৬imid caliph unleashed the wrath of the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym Arabs upon them for having abandoned ShƯ‘ism. The ৡanতƗjah Berbers of al-Andalus, however, seem to have maintained their allegiance to the household of the Prophet. They were the only Berbers who helped ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd, the descendant of the IdrƯsids, to assume power in al-Andalus (Rosado Llamas 23). The ৡanতƗjah were speakers of Taৢenতajit (meaning, “the language of the ৡanতƗjah). The language, which was known as BanƯ Iznassen or BanƯ Sanasen, is still spoken by 0.5% of the population in Morocco located in “Little Senhaja,” and survives among the Senhaja de Srair in Algeria. It was either a dialect of Tarifit or a different Tamazight language. ৡanতƗjah Berbers were among the early tribes to settle in al-Andalus, particularly in what is now Gandia and Catalunya.

8.4 The KutƗmah Berbers The KutƗmah were a Berber tribe from the region of Jijel in eastern Algeria and formed part of the ৡanতƗjah confederation of the Maghrib. They were also ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs who played an essential part in the FƗ৬imid armed forces. The FƗ৬imid attacks against Egypt in 914, 919, and again in 969, were undertaken by armies of KutƗmah Berbers. The ZƯrƯds, who originated in Petite Kabylie, among the KutƗmah tribe, ruled IfrƯqiyyah, which was roughly the equivalent of modern-day Tunisia, on behalf of the FƗ৬imids for approximately two centuries. When they rejected ShƯ‘ism in favor of

94

Chapter 8

Sunnism, the FƗ৬imids sent the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym to punish them. These Arabs tribes which were loyal to the FƗ৬imids weakened but did not destroy the ZƯrƯds who were eventually overthrown by the Almohads. They spoke Taqbaylit. They are the ancestors of the modern Kabyles of Algeria. In the region of Ketama in Algeria, there are fifty thousand speakers of Tasenhajit (meaning, “the language of the ৡanতƗjah”).

8.5 The MiknƗsah Berbers The MiknƗsah were a Berber tribe based in Morocco and western Algeria. A group of them embraced IslƗm after the first Arab invaders defeated them. In 711, members of the tribe participated in the conquest of al-Andalus under ৫Ɨriq b. ZiyƗd, settling north of Cordova, and founding the Aftasid dynasty in Badajoz in the eleventh century. Another group participated in the Maysarah uprising (739-742), embraced KhƗrijism, and established the Emirate of SijilmƗsah on Sahara’s northern edge in 757. They were allies of the caliphate of Cordova against the FƗ৬imids. The MiknƗsah Berbers were among the first wave of tribes to settle in al-Andalus, arriving there in the eighth century, the period in which they were allies of the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids. When the MiknƗsah chief, al-Mu‘tazz, allied himself with the FƗ৬imids, the Maghrawah, who were Umayyad allies, drove the MiknƗsah out of SijilmƗsah. Yet another group of MiknƗsah Berbers was allied with the FƗ৬imids against the Umayyads of al-Andalus. They overthrew the Rustamid KhƗrijites of Tahert in 912 and drove the pro-Umayyad Salihid Berbers from northern Morocco in 917. Finally, some MiknƗsah Berbers, who were allied to the IdrƯsids, changed their allegiance to the FƗ৬imids, and succeeded in expelling the IdrƯsids from Fez. Unable to definitively overcome the pro-Umayyad Magrawah of northern Morocco, and weakened by the struggle, the MiknƗsah were eventually subdued by the Almoravids in the eleventh century. The city of Meknes in Morocco is named after the MiknƗsah who were speakers of Tamazight (which is also known as Middle Atlas Berber or Central Shleuh).

8.6 The AwrƗbah and their Allies: The Ghiatah, GhumƗrah, MiknƗsah, Nafzah, Louatah, Sedratah, Zouaghha, Zouaouah, and ZanƗtah Berbers The AwrƗbah Berber in general, and the clan of Zerhoun in particular, embraced Moulay IdrƯs as the MahdƯ and accepted ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism. IdrƯs I

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

95

married Kanzah bint ‘Uqbah al-AwrabƯ, the daughter of the chief of the AwrƗbah tribe, who fathered his successor, IdrƯs II. The AwrƗbah, who were Romanized Berbers, inhabited the city of Volubilis. Although the AwrƗbah converted to Mu‘tazilite IslƗm from Judaism and Christianity in 675, they fiercely fought Arab attempts to control their land and lives for decades. Although IdrƯs was an Arab, he was a rival of the Umayyads who were trying to dominate the Berbers. The AkhbƗr majmnj‘ah or Collected Accounts explain that “[i]n the year 63/683-683 when ‘Uqba was governor of al-JazƯrah… in the time of YazƯd ibn Mu‘awiyyah (60-64/680-683), he raided … Tangiers. He came against a Berber tribe called [Bannj Awrnjba who defeated his troops and he died” (James 47-48). It is poetic justice that a tribe that was attacked during the rule of YazƯd, the man responsible for the murder of ImƗm ণusayn, would embrace IdrƯs, the descendant of ImƗm ণasan. IdrƯs was accepted as the ImƗm, not only of the AwrƗbah Berbers, but of their allies as well, a confederation composed of the Ghiatah, Ghomarah, MiknƗsah, Nafzah, Sedratah, Zouaghah, Zouaouah, as well as some ZanƗtah. Within five years, Moulay IdrƯs had united and converted all these tribes to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm, carving out an impressive kingdom based in Fez as of 790. The AwrƗbah were speakers of Tamazight. They are the ancestors of the Berbers of the Middle Atlas. GhumƗrah and the Nafzawah Berbers settled in Mallorca in the early tenth century, the time in which they were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite allies of the IdrƯsids.

8.7 The BarghawƗ৬ah or Masmnjdah Berbers The BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers belonged to the Masmnjdah confederation of tribes on the Atlantic coast of Morocco who converted to IslƗm at the beginning of the eighth century. Their leader, ৫arƯf al-MatgharƯ, had participated in the conquest of al-Andalus (Gozalbes Cravioto n. page). He turned against the conquerors and returned to the Maghrib as a result of the racist attitude of the Arabs against the Berbers. The BarghawƗ৬ah participated in the Maysarah uprising (739-742) and in a failed ৡufrƯ KhƗrijite rebellion against the ‘AbbƗsids. The ৡufrƯ KhƗrijites believed that Snjrah 12, the chapter of Ynjsuf, was not authentic part of the Qur’Ɨn. They also believed that women could assume leadership positions. After the failure of the ৡufrƯ insurrection, the BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers established a kingdom (744-1058) in the area of Tamesna on the Atlantic coast between Safi and Salé under the leadership of their first king, ৫Ɨrif al-MatgharƯ. If we are to believe the claims of al-BakrƯ, Ibn ণazm, and Ibn Khaldnjn, the second king of the BarghawƗ৬ah, SƗliত b. ৫Ɨrif, proclaimed himself a

96

Chapter 8

prophet of a new religion in 744 during the caliphate of HishƗm b. ‘Abd alMƗlik. SƗliত b. ৫Ɨrif, it is reported, claimed to have received a new revelation from God. Although it was called the Qur’Ɨn, it was written in the Berber language. It contained eighty chapters, with titles such as Adam, Noah, the Duck, the Camel, the Elephant, Harnjt and Marnjt, IblƯs, and the Wonders of the World, which were read during their ten daily prayers. SƗliত b. ৫Ɨrif reportedly claimed to be the final MahdƯ and that Jesus would be his companion and pray behind him. He said that his Arabic name was ৡƗliত, his Syrian name was MƗlik, his ‘ajamƯ name was ‘AlƯm, his Hebrew name was Rubya, and his Berber name was Werba. He claimed that he was the successor of the Prophet Muতammad, and that there would be no prophet after himself. It is reported that he had ten companions and many wives. It is also alleged that he could communicate with the dead and that he was able to heal the sick like Jesus. Known by his people as “SƗliত al-Mu’minƯn,” he established laws which diverged from the mainstream Muslim sharƯ‘ah, including: capital punishment for theft, unlimited polygyny, unlimited divorce, fasting the month of Rajab rather than the month of RamaঌƗn, ten daily prayers instead of five, ablutions and prayers which differed from those of mainstream Muslims, the communal prayer on Thursday [the “ৡnjfƯ Sabbath”] rather than Friday, and the prohibition of marriage between cousins. He headed east out of the kingdom after reaching the age of forty-seven and promised to return during their seventh king’s reign. He instructed his son IlyƗs to profess IslƗm publicly and to support the Umayyads of alAndalus, but to reveal his real religion when they became powerful enough to do so, something which was done by his grandson Ynjnus. Although the BarghawƗ৬ah may have been bona fide heretics in the eyes of SunnƯ Muslims, it might be wiser to reserve judgment. Little is known about the beliefs of the BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers, and most of the historical sources are predominantly posterior to their rule and are often confused and contradictory. Al-BakrƯ and Ibn ণazm wrote about ৡƗlif b. ৫arƯf three hundred years later, and Ibn Khaldnjn wrote about ৡƗlif b. ৫arƯf almost seven hundred years after the fact. The objectivity of these writers can be called into question. For example, Ibn ণazm’s father and grandfather had served the Andalusian Umayyads and had been steadfastly loyal to their cause. Ibn ণazm was a proud servant of the Umayyads. As a self-proclaimed enforcer of IslƗmic orthodoxy, he showed no trepidation when it came to declaring Muslims to be infidels. Although al-BakrƯ was more objective than Ibn ণazm, he spent his entire life in Spain, living in Cordova. It is reported that he never traveled to the regions he wrote about and allegedly relied on second-hand information. Although Ibn Khaldnjn treats ShƯ‘ites

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

97

with a greater degree of objectivity than Ibn ণazm does, as chief muftƯ of the MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, Ibn Khaldnjn viewed ImƗm ণusayn’s death in KarbalƗ’ as a “misguided adventure” and rejected the belief in the MahdƯ. Nonetheless, he transmitted this belief and admitted its near universality. Furthermore, many of the accusations made against the BarghawƗ৬ah are essentially the same that are cast against the most mainstream of ShƯ‘ites. Both classic and contemporary writers claim that the ShƯ‘ites believe that ‘AlƯ was a prophet and superior to Muতammad. They claim that the ShƯ‘ites believe that ‘AlƯ and the ImƗms are the incarnations of God. They claim that the ShƯ‘ites have a different Qur’Ɨn. They claim that the ShƯ‘ites have three prayers per day, instead of five, when they have five daily prayers, some of which they are permitted to combine (dhuhr and ‘asr; and maghrib and ‘ishƗ’), something which is endorsed by the Sunnah. They also claim that the ShƯ‘ites have different ablutions when their ablutions are essentially the same as the SunnƯs with the slight variations found between the SunnƯ schools of jurisprudence themselves. The ShƯ‘ites are also accused of performing unlimited temporary marriages when both the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites and the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites prohibit temporary marriage. Although Twelver ShƯ‘ites, like many early SunnƯ scholars, believe that fixed-term marriages are legal, they are subjected to limitations, rules and regulations. To ShƯ‘ites, the allegations made against the BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers sound uncannily similar to the allegations made against the followers of the ahl al-bayt. Rather than accepting the words of al-BakrƯ, the stay at home scholar who never heard of fieldwork and the importance of confirming reports, or the words of Ibn Khaldnjn, who rejected beliefs which are fundamental even to SunnƯ Muslims, or the words of Ibn ণazm, who viewed anyone who did not agree with him as a misguided miscreant, ShƯ‘ites treat them with distrust. That the BarghawƗ৬ah held beliefs that differed from so-called orthodox SunnƯ IslƗm seems certain. That they were followers of a fake prophet who received a fake revelation is something that cannot be confirmed. According to Muতammad ৫albƯ, there is no contemporary record of him being anything other than a ৡufrƯ KhƗrijite, and that it may have been a myth propagated by his grandson Ynjnus (৫albƯ 217-233). It is also believed that SƗliত b. ৫Ɨrif was born in the Iberian family to a Jewish family (Fagnan 157). This would not be surprising as some Berber tribes were Jewish before their conversion to IslƗm. Although there may be a degree of truth in the words of al-BakrƯ, Ibn ণazm, and Ibn Khaldnjn, TalbƯ believes that they contain a certain amount of myth or propaganda. The safest and the most tempered position would be to acknowledge that the BarghawƗ৬ah followed a syncretistic religion inspired by IslƗm (and perhaps influenced by Judaism) with

98

Chapter 8

elements of SunnƯ, ShƯ‘ah, and KhƗrijite IslƗm, mixed with astrological and heathen traditions. Interestingly, ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. Tnjmart (c. 1080- c. 1130) was a Berber of the Masmnjdah tribe. Possibly influenced by the ShƯ‘ite ideas that circulated among his tribe or from the ShƯ‘ite ideas he was exposed to during his travels to Egypt and Iraq, he proclaimed himself as MahdƯ and infallible ImƗm in 1121, founded the Muwaততad dynasty, and revolted against Almoravid rule beginning in 1125. The Masmnjdah Berbers most likely spoke Tamazight. They are the ancestors of the modern-day Berbers of the Middle Atlas in Morocco.

8.8 The Bannj Lammas Berbers According to al-BakrƯ, Ibn ণawqal, and Ibn ণazm, the SnjsƯ Berbers of the Bannj Lamas tribe in the south of Morocco were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites of the Mnjsawiyyah or Waqifiyyah persuasion, which means that they cut the line of ImƗms at the seventh ImƗm. As evidence of this ShƯ‘ism, the Berbers of the Snjs region of Morocco used to included Hayya ‘alƗ khayr al-‘amal in the call to prayer, a formula that purportedly formed part of the original prophetic adhƗn, which was suppressed by the caliph ‘Umar, and which only continues to be respected by ShƯ‘ite Muslims. Ibn ণazm, who died in 1064, wrote that the Masmnjdah Berbers of the Snjs were Bajaliyyah ShƯ‘ites, followers of al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ Warsand alBajalƯ (Madelung 1976: 88). Known also as the Waqafiyyah or Mnjsawiyyah, these ShƯ‘ites cut the line of ImƗms at MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. A note in one of the manuscripts of Ibn ণazm’s book mentions that the sect was conquered and exterminated by ‘Abd AllƗh b. YasƯn, the Almoravid leader (88). In his account of the conquest of Tarudant, Ibn AbƯ Zar’ confirms that Tarudant was inhabited by a group of RawƗfiঌ, known as the Bajaliyyah. They were described as followers of ‘AlƯ b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-BajalƯ who had come to the Snjs during the time of ‘Ubayd AllƗh, the first FƗ৬imid caliph, and had spread his doctrine there (88). The success of the Almoravids in extinguishing these ShƯ‘ites was not as complete as these reports suggest since both al-BakrƯ and al-IdrƯsƯ mention that the sect was still flourishing at their time (Madelung 1976: 89). Writing in 1068, al-BakrƯ states that the whole tribe of the Bannj Lamas in the region of TƗzrƗrt were ShƯ‘Ưs known as the Bajaliyynjn (Madelung 1976: 88). As al-BakrƯ specifies, Warsand settled among the Berbers of the region before the mission of the FƗ৬imid dƗ’Ư Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư in IfrƯqiyyah, namely, before 898 (1976: 89). The capital of the Snjs, Tarudant, which is close to Agadir, was populated by ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, followers of ImƗm MnjsƗ

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

99

al-KƗ਌im. The city was inhabited by the family of Ibn Warsand who were missionaries of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. The second central town, TiynjywƯn, which was close to Tfiriudnt and Tarfudnt, also adhered to the madhhab of MnjsƗ b. Ja‘far (Madelung 1976: 89). The town of Igli, in the region of Misour, not far from Ouarzazate, was also inhabited by MnjsawƯ ShƯ‘ites. The Berbers of the Snjs were speakers of Tashlতit (which is also known as Tasousit, Susia, Shilha and Southern Shilha). Although the Almoravids attempted to exterminate the southern Moroccan ShƯ‘ites in 1054, some ShƯ‘ites of the Snjs continued to survive, thanks to the practice of pious dissimulation, and the resilience of the ShƯ‘ite faith. Others may have responded to Ibn Tnjmart’s claim to be the MahdƯ and integrated the ranks of the Almohads. From this point on, however, the Maghrib would be mainly of the MƗlikƯ SunnƯ madhhab, forcing other schools of thought underground, only to reemerge in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

8.9 ShƯ‘ite Berbers in al-Andalus Most Muslim settlers in al-Andalus were Berbers from a wide array of tribes from the Maghrib. According to calculations made by historians, there were fifty thousand Arabs during the first decades of the conquest of al-Andalus, and one hundred and fifty thousand Berbers out of a population of five million Hispano-Romans and Visigoths. The Berbers arrived in al-Andalus during two significant waves: the first, during the early decades of the Muslim conquest; and the second, the result of the resettling policy of the Almohads during the second half of the twelfth century. The Islas Baleares were settled by GhumƗrah, MatgƗrah, HawwƗrah, Masmnjdah, ZanƗtah, SadƯnah, MalƯlah, Nafzah, Tasknjrah, and Masnjfah Berbers. Alicante, Valencia, Castellon, Cuenca and Terguel were settled mostly by HawwƗrah and Madynjnah Berbers, with a presence of SanhƗjah and ZanƗtas. The HawwƗrah left the toponym Fabara, the SanhƗjah left the place-name Senija, and the ZanƗtah left the place-name Adzaneta. The Bannj DƗsim, a KutƗmah clan, settled in Alpuent, while the Bannj AmƯrah and the Bannj Gazlnjn, who belonged to the UlhƗsah tribe, a branch of the NafzƗ, settled in Terguel and Billel. Marcas was settled mainly by HawwƗrah and Madynjnah Berbers, although Ausachah, Malznjzah, UlhƗsah SadƯnah, and Masmnjdah Berbers were also represented. The town of Mequinenza in Zaragoza, Aragón, was founded by MiknƗsah Berbers. The southern part of al-Andalus was settled mostly by the ZanƗtah Berbers. Colonies of AwrƗbah Berbers settled throughout the province of Jaen. There were also HawwƗrah in Marchena.

100

Chapter 8

Some of the Berbers in al-Andalus were SunnƯs, who supported the Umayyads. Others were KhƗrijites. And yet others were ShƯ‘ites. Since the Umayyads had relatively little control over the Maghrib, every possible interpretation of IslƗm was circulating in the region. As a result, the Maghrib was a veritable gumbo of IslƗmic ideologies. Al-Andalus was equally heterogeneous during the early years of the IslƗmic conquest, and it took centuries for the Umayyad caliphs to superficially homogenize its inhabitants via the imposition of MƗlikƯ Sunnism and the Arabization of the Iberian Peninsula. Since the terms Berber and ShƯ‘ite became so inextricably linked, the rulers believed that Arabization would lead to SunnƯ IslƗmization. To avoid being persecuted as ShƯ‘ites, many Berbers, both SunnƯs and ShƯ‘ites, adopted Arabic as their language to avoid arousing undue suspicion. The HawwƗrah, the LuwƗtah, the Nafzah, the Masmnjdah, the ZanƗtah, and the SanhƗjah were among the most substantial Berber tribes to occupy al-Andalus. Although not always ShƯ‘ite Muslims, the Nafzah, the Masmnjdah, and the ZanƗtah Berbers were influenced by ShƯ‘ite ideas. The Nafzah controlled vast expanses of land in al-Andalus, specifically “the region between the Tajo and Guadiana basins” (Fierro 2004: 240). Although they eventually became MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, the SanhƗjah Berbers were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs during their early IslƗmic history. The Masmnjdah Berbers settled in several parts of Spain, including Mawrur, Cordova, Valencia, Guadalajara, and Santaver, as well as in southern Portugal. Many of the NafzƗ also settled in Spain, particularly in Takurunna. Although they were not numerous compared to other Berber tribes in al-Andalus, the KutƗmah were found in Alpuente, the region of Elvira and SaktƗn in Toledo (Fierro 2004: 241). In the countryside of al-Andalus, there were many alquerías or villages with identifiably Berber tribal names, giving us an indication of the tribes that settled there. They include: Benicasem, located in Castelló, which derives from Bannj QƗsim, a tribe of KutƗmah Berbers; Benisomada, located in Ibiza, which derives from Bannj SumƗta, a segment of the Nafzah Berber tribe; Cenaja, located in Vall d’Uxó, which derives from SanhƗjah; Zeneta, located in Vall d’Uxó, which derives from ZanƗtah; and Benigazló, also located in Vall d’Uxó, which derives from Bannj Gazlnjn, a clan of NafzƗ Berbers (Glick 31, 84). Based on place names, the GhumƗrah, ZanƗtah, and Nafzah Berbers also appear to have settled in Mallorca (32). GhumƗrah Berber clans settled in both Valencia and Mallorca, leaving place names of their clans including BanƯ Ryagel or Vinarragell near Borriana, Benimarva in Castellón, Benmarvan Tarragona, as well as Beniraçket and Abenmarwam in Mallorca (33).

The Berber ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

101

As we have seen earlier, the KutƗmah Berbers in the Maghrib were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, who formed the foundation of the FƗ৬imid empire. Like the NafzƗ and Masmnjdah Berbers, the KutƗmah were also ShƯ‘ite followers of Ibn al-Qi৬৬. The SanhƗjah were a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ confederation, and the ZanƗtah were sometimes SunnƯs, KhƗrijites, ShƯ‘ite ImƗmƯs or ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. The GhummƗrah and the MiknƗsah Berbers were traditionally ShƯ‘ite ImƗmƯs who were allies of the IdrƯsids. The Berber tribe of the AwrƗbah, which was composed of ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, were among the early Muslims settlers in southern Spain. They established colonies throughout southern Spain, including the town of Orba, a contraction of AwrƗbah, which is located to the south of Valencia, and which is currently the home of some 2,100 inhabitants. In 1768, twelve skulls of early Moors were found in a cave outside of Orba. Ibn ণazm also mentions that the inhabitants of a village near Almería called Velefique were ShƯ‘ites, although he does not mention whether they were Arabs or Berbers (Wasserstein 1985: 175-76). Like the Berbers of North Africa, the Berbers of al-Andalus also suffered the consequences of Arab racism. Despite his political allegiances with Berbers abroad, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III hated Berbers as did al-ণakam II (Glick 183). Like the Spanish neo-Muslims, the Berbers were subject to Arab stereotypes and discrimination. Viewed as a threat to socio-political stability, the Berbers were often massacred by the Arabs. During the period of anarchy at the end of the Umayyad caliphate, violent outbursts and ethnic massacres were common. In Cordova, for example, the Arabs rose up in 1010 and slaughtered the Berber troops under ZawƯ’s command (Glick 184).

8.10 Conclusions As we have seen, many Berbers appear to have had a natural inclination towards ShƯ‘ism. Proud to be a “free people,” the Imizaghen were eager to embrace IslƗm, the IslƗm of the Prophet’s family, and not the imperialistic IslƗm of their opponents, the Umayyads. As a result, numerous Berber tribes from the Maghrib embraced ShƯ‘ism in its ImƗmƯ, ZaydƯ or IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ form; thereby asserting their independence from the Arab SunnƯs who sought to subjugate them. Since a segment of the Berber tribes in the Maghrib consisted of ShƯ‘ite Muslims, and since the majority of soldiers and settlers who went to al-Andalus were Berbers, it can only be concluded that ShƯ‘ite Muslims reached IslƗmic Spain, some of whom returned to the Maghrib, but many of whom decided to settle there.

CHAPTER 9 THE ARAB SHƮ‘ITES IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

9.1 Introduction Although many orientalists, and an equal quantity of SunnƯ scholars, have claimed that ShƯ‘ite IslƗm is a Persian product, the origin and early development of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm is Arab. Although they married women of different racial and ethnic origins, culturally and linguistically speaking, the Prophet and the twelve ImƗms, were all Arabs, as were many of their companions and disciples. As for the Maghrib and al-Andalus, the Arab ShƯ‘ites were outnumbered by the Berber ShƯ‘ites. Nonetheless, there were several important Arab ShƯ‘ite tribes and clans in the western part of the IslƗmic world: the Bannj HƗshim, the Bannj HilƗl, the Bannj Sulaym, the Yemenites, and the Arabized muwalladnjn or neo-Muslims.

9.2 The Bannj HƗshim The Bannj HƗshim was the clan of the Prophet Muতammad. Many members of this clan were ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ, including: ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, al-Faঌl b. ‘AbbƗs, ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘AbbƗs, Qiththam b. al-‘AbbƗs, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ‘AbbƗs, TamƗm b. ‘AbbƗs, AqƯl b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, Abnj SufyƗn b. al-ণƗrith b. ‘Abd al-Mu৬৬alib, Nawfil b. al-ণƗrith, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ‘Awn b. Ja‘far, Muতammad b. Ja‘far, RabƯ‘ b. al-HƗrith b. ‘Abd alMu৬৬alib, al-Tufayl b. al-ণƗrith, al-Mughayrat b. Nawfil b. al-ণƗrith, ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণƗrith b. Nawfil, ‘Abd AllƗh b. AbƯ SufyƗn b. al-ণƗrith, al‘AbbƗs b. RabƯ‘ b. al-ণƗrith, al-‘AbbƗs b. ‘Utbah b. AbƯ Lahab, ‘Abd alMu৬৬alib b. RabƯ‘ b. al-ণƗrith, Ja‘far b. AbƯ SufyƗn b. al-ণƗrith. The IdrƯsids who ruled in the Maghrib from 788 to 985 were also ShƯ‘ite Muslims who belonged to the clan of HƗshim.

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

103

9.3 The Arab Tribes of Qays, Azd, Mudhতij, Yahsab, and Sadad Since the IdrƯsids were the sole ShƯ‘ite state in North Africa from 788 until the rise of the FƗ৬imids in 909, and the sole ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite state in the region until 985, ShƯ‘ites from around the world moved to the Maghrib to seek shelter and to support them. During the rule of IdrƯs II al-Azhar, a delegation of five hundred North African and Andalusian knights from the Arab tribes of Qays, Azd, Mudhতij, Yahsab, and Sadad paid their allegiance to the ShƯ‘ite sovereign. Although these tribes were not exclusively ShƯ‘ite, one can only assume that many the members who joined the ranks of IdrƯs II espoused the ShƯ‘ite faith. Otherwise, they could have benefited more from the more powerful Umayyads and ‘AbbƗsids. Elements of the Yemeni tribe of Qays were known for their strong support of ‘AlƯ at both the battles of alJamal and ৡiffƯn (JafrƯ 105). The Yemeni tribe of Mudhতij also produced some staunch supporters of the ShƯ‘Ư cause (JafrƯ 104). ImƗm ‘AlƯ also have followers and supporters from the Yemeni tribe of Azd (MuতarramƯ 195). In any event, these Arab immigrants to the Maghrib soon assumed important posts in the administration of IdrƯs II.

9.4 The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym were confederacies of nomadic Arab tribes from Najd in the ণijƗz. Both the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym supposedly descended from the same ancestor, a man by the name of Manৢnjr. Both tribes were cousins of the al-YƗs tribe, a branch of the Prophet’s tribe of Quraysh. In fact, three of the Prophet’s grandmothers, from the fourth and sixth generations, two of whom bore the name of ‘Atikah, were Sulaymites. A tumultuous tribe, the Bannj Sulaym would sometimes ally themselves with the Bannj HawƗzin in their battles against the Bannj Gha৬afƗn. The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym were enemies of the Prophet and fought against IslƗm. The Bannj Sulaym fought against the Prophet during the Battle of the Trench, after which they converted to IslƗm. They joined the Muslim army, defeating the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj HawƗzin at the Battle of ণunayn. The Bannj Sulaym and the Bannj HilƗl were among the last Arab tribes to become Muslims. In the year 8 AH, the Bannj Sulaym participated in an expedition against the Bannj Jadhimah under the command of KhƗlid b. alWalƯd. As soon as the Prophet died, they rose in revolt against Abnj Bakr during the riddah wars as supposed ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ. Abnj Bakr’s response was reportedly as sickening as the actions of the Bannj Sulaym themselves:

104

Chapter 9

he sent KhƗlid b. al-WalƯd with orders to burn every member of the Bannj Sulaym to death (TƯjƗnƯ 217). As for the sincerity of these tribes, only God can judge. They did supposedly produce one eminent companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ: the nebulous Sulaym b. Qays al-HilƗlƯ which might show, if he ever existed, that some members of the Bannj HilƗl were devout ShƯ‘ites. The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym used to roam the deserts of the ণijƗz in the Najd region. The Sulaym used to frequent the region surrounding Medina while the HilƗl frequented the mountain of GhazwƗn, close to ৫Ɨ’if. Sometimes, however, they would spend their summers along the borders of Iraq and Syria to conduct raids in the neighboring regions, pillaging and plundering travelers and caravans. Like the rest of the AmirƯ tribes, such as the Bannj KilƗb, the Bannj Numayr, the Bannj Ka‘b, and the Bannj KilƗb, the Bannj HilƗl, and the Bannj Sulaym did not think twice about attacking pilgrims on the way to Mecca, and robbing pilgrims who visited the Prophet’s tomb in Medina. The Bannj ‘Amir confederation, to which the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym belonged before they migrated to Egypt and North Africa, were allies of the eastern Arabian Qarmatian movement and, as such, considered the pilgrimage to Mecca as a pagan superstition. In 906, the Qarmatians and their allies among the Bedouin Arab tribes ambushed a pilgrim caravan returning from Mecca, massacring some twenty thousand pilgrims. Along with the Qarmatian IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs from Baতrayn and ‘UmƗn, the Bannj HilƗl participated in the 930 pillage of Mecca, desecrated the Well of Zamzam with corpses of ণajj pilgrims, and took the Black Stone to al-ণasƗ’ where they held it for ransom until 952, when they returned it to the ‘AbbƗsids in exchange for a vast sum. As a result, the caliphs in BaghdƗd were always sending out troops to punish these brigands and protect the pilgrims from such outrages. Whether the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym were sincere in their IslƗm and their ShƯ‘ism is challenging to determine. Prior to their migration to Egypt and North Africa, the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym formed part of the Bannj ‘Amir confederacy, most of which rejected IslƗm after the death of the Prophet. Although they were coerced to return to IslƗm by Abnj Bakr, most of the Bannj ‘Amir confederacy continued to oppose the first three caliphs ideologically instead of militarily, siding with the ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ. When the split between the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites took place after the death of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, the ShƯ‘ite Arab nomads sided with the most militant of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the Qarmatians, committing unspeakable crimes against Muslims and their holy places, much like modern TakfƯrƯ groups such as ISIS. Eventually, however, most of the members of Bannj ‘Amir confederacy merged into more mainstream

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

105

IsmƗ‘Ưlism. Although the Bannj KilƗb tribe of the Bannj ‘Amir initially supported the Qarmatians, they integrated into the main body of the ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs after their demise. The Bannj KilƗb founded the MirdadƯ dynasty which dominated Central Arabia. As a result of the expansion of the Seljuk Turks, however, they were constrained to convert to SunnƯ IslƗm. The Bannj ‘Uqayl, one of the four tribes of the Bannj Ka‘b, were ShƯ‘ah IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Muslims. They established the ‘Uqaylid dynasty which ruled various parts of the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, and Iraq in the late tenth and eleventh centuries, with the main dynastic line ruling in Mosul from 990 to 1096. The Uৢfnjrids, one of the branches of the Bannj ‘Uqayl, returned to Arabia, settling in Baতrayn, where they founded they founded a ShƯ‘ah dynasty. They had initially been allies of the Qarmatians, who were defeated in 876 by the ‘AbbƗsids, and brought to an end by the ‘Uyynjnids who took over the whole of Baতrayn in 1076. The Uৢfnjrids eventually overthrew the ‘Uyynjnids and took power for themselves. In 1330, however, Baতrayn became a tributary to the rulers of Hormuz, even though the islands were controlled locally by the ShƯ‘ite Jarwanid dynasty of Qa৬Ưf. When Ibn Ba৬৬nj৬ah visited Qa৬Ưf in 1331, he found a large and prosperous city inhabited by Arab tribes whom he described as rƗfi‫ڲ‬iyyah GhulƗt or extremist ShƯ‘ites, the terms a SunnƯ would use to describe ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. As a result of the rise of the ৡafavƯds, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites of Baতrayn embraced Twelver ShƯ‘ism in 1602, when ‘AbbƗs I made it the official religion of the island. Today, many BaতraynƯ ShƯ‘ites are AkhbƗrƯ Twelvers as opposed to UৢnjlƯ Twelvers, perhaps the result of their penchant for more radical religious views. If we can judge them by their peers, the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym seem to have been sufficiently strong in their ShƯ‘ite beliefs to fight for them, die for them, and to attempt to establish them by military might. Although some of the tribes of the Bannj ‘Amir participated in the wars of apostasy after the death of the Prophet, the military strategies of Abnj Bakr brought them back into nominal submission to IslƗm. Due to their revulsion towards central authority, most of them sided with the ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ in opposition to Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn. Although some of the Bannj ‘Amir allied with the Umayyads, like the Bannj Numayr, the majority of them sided with extremist ShƯ‘ite sects like the Qarmatians, only to merge into the more mainstream ShƯ‘ism of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs over the centuries. Like many early Muslims, the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym were only superficially IslƗmized. Although nominal Muslims during the Prophet’s time, they reportedly reneged on IslƗm after his death, only to be forced

106

Chapter 9

back into the fold by the first caliph, Abnj Bakr. Little is known about the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym during the seventh and eighth centuries; however, when we hear of them again, they are allies of the Qarmatians and later, ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. Although they had been Muslims for three centuries, they remained attached to the warrior ways of the Days of Ignorance when they settled in Egypt and invaded North Africa. It was only when they became more sedentary that they became more IslƗmized, a process of reform initiated from within their tribe. According to oral tradition, the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym left Arabia due to a seven-year drought, settling briefly in Egypt before migrating to North Africa in the eleventh century, under the leadership of Abnj Zayd al-HilƗlƯ, who was the son of a black woman. The Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs who invaded the whole of the Maghrib in 1051 at the instigation of the FƗ৬imids. They were sent by the FƗ৬imids to punish the ZƯrƯds for having abandoned IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism in favor of MƗlikƯ Sunnism. Although environmental and economic factors drove the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym from northern Arabia, their invasion of North Africa and their decimation of its SunnƯ population were justified on religious grounds. According to one account, the FƗ৬imid caliph offered a gold coin to every warrior from the Bannj HilƗl who was willing to invade North Africa. Whether offering a pot of gold to the Bannj HilƗl was enough to convince them to invade the Maghrib is uncertain. However, what is certain, is that the FƗ৬imids offered the Arabs iqtƗ’ or land titles and the taxation rights that came along with them. Whatever stratagem the FƗ৬imids used, they succeeded in ridding themselves of a potentially perilous party of tribes and eradicating the ZƯrƯds whom they viewed as apostates for having reneged on ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. With the help of the Bannj Sulaym, the Bannj HilƗl defeated the ZƯrƯds in the Battle of GabƯs in 1052, and conquered QayrawƗn in 1057. The Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym reportedly included fifty thousand warriors and some two hundred thousand Bedouins. Due to their numerical strength, they almost completely Arabized Libya and its indigenous Berber inhabitants. Although the Maghrib had been IslƗmized in the seventh century, it had not been fully Arabized. The Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym spread the Arabic language throughout the Maghrib to regions it had never reached before, helping to further IslƗmize the indigenous Berbers. As new feudal lords controlling vast expanses of land, the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym ruled over what is now modern-day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and even some parts of Morocco, for approximately one hundred years. The North African invasion of the Bannj HilƗl has been immortalized in the TaghrƯbat BanƯ HilƗl. Also known as SƯrat Abnj Zayd al-HilƗlƯ, the

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

107

TaghrƯbat is an Arabic epic poem which recounts the tribe’s journey from Egypt to the Maghrib, and the conquest of the later. In 2003, the UNESCO declared it one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. Inspired by historical events, the epic relates the rivalry between the HilƗlƯ leader, Abnj Zayd al-HilƗlƯ and KhalƯfah al-ZanatƯ, the hero of the ZanƗtah Berbers. The epic poem was passed down orally from generation to generation by bards well into the twentieth century and recorded in various versions. The Egyptian poet and writer, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn al‘AbdundƯ, traveled from Egypt to Libya and Tunisia to compile an exhaustive collection of the various variants the SƯrat. As the epic confirms, the Bannj HilƗl invaded North Africa at the behest of the FƗ৬imid ImƗm. As a result of shifting alliances, serving as the strong-arm of the Almoravids, the ণafৢids, the ZayyƗnids, and the MarƯnids, among others, the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym eventually embraced SunnƯ MƗlikƯ IslƗm. Ironically, those who massacred the MƗlikƯ SunnƯs of the Maghrib became MƗlikƯ SunnƯs themselves by the middle of the eleventh century. The spread of MƗlikƯsm had commenced around the year 1040 with the help of ‘Abd AllƗh b. YƗ-SƯn, a zealous MƗlikƯ missionary from Tunisia brought to the Maghrib by Almoravid leader YaতyƗ b. IbrƗhƯm. However, the conversions, were not without compulsion and by 1054 the MaghribƯ ShƯ‘ites who failed to practice taqiyyah had all been officially exterminated. Despite Dwight Reynolds’ claims that the Bannj HilƗl “were essentially wiped off the face of the earth” by the Almohads in 1161, some descendants of the Bannj HilƗl are alive and well in Algeria and Morocco. Nor is it true that “After 1161, we no longer hear of the BanƯ HilƗl as a social unit, as a people. We hear of people whose lineage comes from the BanƯ HilƗl, but the tribe or the confederation seems simply to have disappeared from history” (n. page). While it is true that the Almohads defeated the Bannj HilƗl, they were not wiped off the face of the Earth. Their tribal confederation disintegrated. Rather than representing a single unified force, the Bannj HilƗl broke up into independent tribes. As Radhi Daghfous confirms, À l’époque almohade, nous les trouvons éparpillés dans un espace qui s’étendait de la Tripolitaine jusqu’au Maghrib central. Leurs relations avec le nouveau pouvoir qui venait d’unifier la totalité du Maghrib et alAndalus furent fluctuantes au gré des circonstances jusqu’au jour où le calife al Manৢnjr transféra nombre d’entre eux vers le Maghrib extrême pour les utiliser dans ses campagnes contre les chrétiens d’Espagne. La carte de la présence hilalienne en IfrƯqiyyah enregistra des changements significatifs avec le transfert des RiyƗh au Maroc et leur remplacement

108

Chapter 9 dans l’Ouest par les ‘Awf tandis que d’autres clans des Sulaym s’établirent dans l’Est du pays. Dans l’ensemble ces tribus, nomades ou sédentaires, n’ont pas réussi à établir un pouvoir politique viable en IfrƯqiyyah. [During the Almohad period, we find them spread from Tripolitania to the central Maghrib. Their relationship with the new rulers which had unified all the Maghrib and al-Andalus fluctuated according to the circumstances until the caliph al-Manৢnjr transferred a group of them to the extreme end of the Maghrib to use them in his campaigns against the Spanish Christians. The map of the HilƗlian presence in IfrƯqiyyah changed significantly with the transfer of the RiyƗত to Morocco and their replacement in the west by the ‘Awf while other Sulaymid clans established themselves in the east of the country. As a whole, these tribes, both nomadic and sedentary, were unable to form a viable political power in IfrƯqiyyah.]

Reynolds seems to ignore that the Bannj HilƗl were a confederation of tribes and that they were often referred to by tribal names as opposed to their confederate name, and that even these tribes were subdivided into sub-tribes and clans. One of the most important tribes of the Bannj HilƗl included the descendants of Riah b. AbƯ RabƯ b. Nahik b. HilƗl. This tribe was divided into the clans of Ouled el-Khadar, Ouled Said, Ouled Meslem, and BanƯ Merdes, among others. The tribe of Riah ruled over numerous regions of the Maghrib. Their chief, Seada, had ordered his troops to end lawlessness and was killed combating brigands. Another chief of the Zughbab tribe succeeded in putting an end to the robbers and modified the Arab tribe’s values. Reynolds errs when he claims that the Bannj HilƗl was never heard of after 1161. On the contrary, the Bannj HilƗl, as a people, and as a tribe, continued to play a role in the Maghrib’s history into modern times. After trekking from Egypt in the eleventh century, they penetrated the Maghrib’s steppes and coastal lowlands as far west as the Atlantic plains (Dunn 34). Large numbers of Bannj HilƗl tribes settled in Morocco in 1188 during the reign of the Almohad Sul৬Ɨn Ya’qnjb al-Manৢnjr. The region of Tafilalt, which is south of Fez, is known in Berber as “the Country of the HilƗlƯ,” as many of inhabitants descend from the Bannj HilƗl. The Khlot, a portion of whom settled in Chaouia, became incorporated into the Achache tribe, while the larger segments of the tribe settled in the Gharb. The Khlot were partisans of the MarƯnids. They formed part of their Makhzen and their armies, enjoying two centuries of prestige. Dominating the Haut-Gharb region, the Khlot continued to play a prestigious role under the Wa৬৬Ɨsids, until they sided with the Sadian, Moতamed Cheikh, who was

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

109

defeated by the Wa৬৬Ɨsid, Abnj ণasnjn. To punish the Khlot, the Wa৬৬Ɨsids held some as them as hostages in Marrakesh. The rest were removed from the army registers, effectively putting an end to their livelihood, while subjecting them to taxation. Famous for their courage in combating the Iberians, the Khlot distinguished themselves in the battle of Oued El-Makhazine, which led the Sadian Sul৬Ɨn to incorporate half of them into his army, and to relocate the other half to the Azghar where they Khlot multiplied and acquired wealth. Like many tribes, the Khlot were disarmed during the reign of the ‘AlawƯ Sul৬Ɨn Moulay IsmƗ‘Ưl, only to be reintegrated into the army under the reign of Moulay ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn where they represented the bulk of his armed forces. Under the rule of Sul৬Ɨn Moulay al- ণasan I, the Khlot fell out of favor and were relegated the ranks of Naibah tribes, namely, tribes subject to taxation. The Bannj SufyƗn, a branch of the Jochem tribe, settled in Chaouia since their arrival in Morocco during the rule of the Almohads. After extending their reign over the territory of Doukkala and Abda, they were defeated by their rivals, the Khlot, forcing them to migrate to the Souss and Haha region. They joined the Sadians during the sixteenth century and settled in the Gharb, on the right side of Oued Sebou, in the neighborhood of their cousins, the BanƯ Malek. The BanƯ JabƯr settled in Chaouia and participated in the dynastic feuds that took place towards the end of the Almohad rule. To escape the wrath of the Almohads, they retired to the province of Tadla where they became assimilated into the local Berber tribes. They continued to play an active political role in the region into the sixteenth century. Far from disappearing from history, the BanƯ ‘Amir tribe of the Bannj HilƗl, based in modern-day Algeria, fought against both the Ottoman and French invaders. The BanƯ ‘Amir, along with several other HilƗlian tribes, fought the French during the early years of colonization under the command of Emir ‘Abd El-Kader in the western region of Algeria. Several HilƗlian tribes continue to live in the arid and semi-arid regions of Algeria. Little inclined towards agriculture, the Bannj HilƗl are experts in animal husbandry, mainly goats and sheep. Remnants of the BanƯ HilƗl continue to live to the south and west of Shabwa and in the Central Wadi Amd in Yemen. They have also left place names in Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco. The Bannj HilƗl played major roles in both the Maghrib and al-Andalus where they were sent by Almohad lieutenant ‘Abd al-Mu’min al-KumƯ (1094-1163) to combat the Christians. They were also sent to al-Andalus by the Alhomad prince, Ya‘qnjb al-Manৢnjr (1184-1199). Some of the Bannj HilƗl returned to the Maghrib after their campaigns in al-Andalus. Others,

110

Chapter 9

however, settled permanently in the Iberian Peninsula. The Bannj LabƯd tribe of the Bannj HilƗl settled in al-Andalus, leaving place names in southern Catalonia (Glick 33). The Bannj HilƗl also left place names in Mallorca (32). When he visited al-Andalus, Ibn Ba৬৬nj৬a resided in the house of a HilƗlƯ shaykh in Qaryah BanƯ RiyƗত near Ronda (32). Rather than exterminate the HilƗlians as Reynolds has claimed, the Almohad policy was to divide them, exile them, and decimate them through of military service. Although the Bannj HilƗl were probably MƗlikƯ Muslims when they entered al-Andalus, it is not impossible that there were still some ShƯ‘ites among them, or at least specific ShƯ‘ites ideas circulating in their oral traditions.

9.5 The Yemeni ShƯ‘ites Most Arabs who settled in the Maghrib and al-Andalus migrated there from the Yemen. From the early days of IslƗm, Yemen had been a hot-bed of ShƯ‘ite sentiments. The Yemenite or southern Arabs, also known as the Kalbites, were reportedly inclined toward ShƯ‘ism for two reasons: 1) They had been taught IslƗm at the hands of ImƗm ‘AlƯ who had been sent as a Muslim missionary to the Yemen by the Prophet Muতammad; and 2) Unlike the NƯzƗrƯ or northern Arabs, also known as the Qaysites, whose tribal leaders were selected by shnjrƗ or tribal congress, the Yemenis or southern Arabs had a tradition of following hereditary leaders who were both chiefs and priests. As JafrƯ explains, the south Arabians had a “long and deeprooted tradition of the priest-king with hereditary sanctity and therefore hereditary succession,” making them “more prone toward… the ShƯ‘Ư ideal of leadership” (117). As Philip KhurƯ ণittƯ summarizes: “The Qaysites were solid Sunnites; the Yamanites were impregnated with ShƯ‘ite doctrines” (1968: 61). As MuতarramƯ explains, [A]fter the demise of the Prophet of IslƗm most of ‘AlƯ’s supporters among the companions of the Prophet were AnৢƗr who were Qaত৬ƗnƯ in origin and constituted most of those who accompanied ‘AlƯ from Medina up to the Battle of Jamal. (191) ‘AlƯ had followers and supporters from among all the YemenƯ tribes such as the tribes of Kindih, Naka’, Azd, Juhaynah, ণimƯr, Bujaylah, Khath’am, KhuzƗ’ah, ণaঌramnjt, Mudhতaj, Ash’ar, ৫ay, Sadnjs, ণamdƗn, and RabƯ‘ah. But among them, the two tribes of ণamdƗn and RabƯ‘ah were leading. The ণamdƗnƯs who embraced IslƗm during the time of the Prophet, through ‘AlƯ’s efforts, had always been sympathetic to him, and were considered as among the ImƗm’s sincere ShƯ‘ah. Mas‘njdƯ says, “During the Battle of ৡiffƯn, not a single person from among them was in the army of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah.” (195)

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

111

The companions of ImƗm al-ণusayn, with the exception of Bannj HƗshim and some GhaffƗrƯs, also belonged to YemenƯ tribes. (194)

To offset the intrigues of the ShƯ‘ite opponents of the ‘AbbƗsids, caliph alMƗ’mnjn transferred the rule of Yemen to the ZiyƗd family. In 819, Muতammad b. ZiyƗd founded a SunnƯ empire which was to last for two centuries. The ZiyƗd family essentially imposed SunnƯ rule on what was a predominantly ShƯ‘ite population. As early as 883, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism was being preached openly in the Yemen. By 905-906, almost all of Yemen was under IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ control. By the end of the ninth century, however, the majority of Yemenites were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, with SunnƯ ShƗfi‘Ư, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, and Twelver ShƯ‘ite minorities. As Bernard and Ellen Whishaw explain: The Yemenite Arabs were, with rare exceptions, followers of ‘AlƯ, the nephew and son-in-law of Muতammad, whose murder by the Marwan party (from which dynasty the Umayyads sprang) brought about the division of IslƗm into two hostile sects -- the Sunnites, who approved of the murder, and for forty years afterwards daily cursed the name of ‘AlƯ in the public prayers; and the ShƯ‘ites, who regarded him as a martyr, in many places wore black garments and bore a black banner in token of perpetual mourning for him, and everyone worshipped his memory as that of their patron saint. (74-75)

Since the majority of Yemenites were ShƯ‘ites, it goes without saying that the Yemenites who settled in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were predominantly ShƯ‘ites, mostly of the ZaydƯ persuasion, but with some ImƗmƯ and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ minorities. As MuতarramƯ explains, Most of the supporters and ShƯ‘ah of the commander of the faithful were from the Qaত৬ƗnƯ and Yemeni tribes. Among the companions of the Prophet, most of ‘AlƯ’s sympathizers were from among the AnৢƗr who had YemenƯ origin. ImƗm al-ণusayn’s main supporters were from among the YemenƯ tribes, with the exception of the Bannj HƗshim and some GhaffƗrƯ men. Among the YemenƯ tribes, the two tribes of ণamdƗn and RabƯ‘ah were leading in ShƯ‘ism. (199)

If the southern Arabians were primarily ShƯ‘ite, the northern Arabian were predominantly Sunnite. Although there was an ethnic basis to the rivalry between these two groups in al-Andalus, there was also a religious rivalry between them. Even before the arrival of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I in 756, the northern and southern Arabs fought each other ferociously in al-Andalus. As Chejne notes, “Both parties engaged themselves in a civil war so bloody that historian Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ compared it with the two great fitnahs of early

112

Chapter 9

IslƗm -- the battle of the Camel in 656 and that of ৡiffƯn in 657” (1974: 112). MakkƯ might be in error when he claims that “La lucha entre šƯ’íes y omeyas no fue más que la continuación de las rencillas preislámicas entre los Beni HƗšim, a la que pertenecía ‘AlƯ, y Beni Omeya” (1968: 36) [the struggle between ShƯ‘ite and Umayyads was nothing more than the continuation of the pre-IslƗmic squabbles between the Bannj HƗshim, to which ‘AlƯ belonged, and the Bannj Umayyah]. With the advent of IslƗm, religious and political positioning seems to have taken precedence over pre-IslƗmic tribalism, or perhaps it amplified it.

9.6 The Muwallad ShƯ‘ites Although they were the ruling elite, the Arabs were always a minority in alAndalus. Much like the white South Africans during apartheid, the Arabs in al-Andalus “despreciaban… a las otras razas, tanto beréberes como indígenas” [viewed others races with contempt, including Berbers and indigenous populations] (MakkƯ 1968: 2). During the period of the conquest, most of the Muslim population of the Iberian Peninsula was Berber. Drawn by conviction or convenience, most Spaniards embraced IslƗm within one hundred years of the conquest of al-Andalus. As Townson explains, There was no attempt to force them to become Muslims, but many found IslƗm attractive… Spanish conversion to IslƗm was rapid and widespread. Soon Arabic-speaking Spanish Muslims were a majority of the population. (35)

According to MakkƯ, “Se puede decir que, en tiempos de ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I, la mayoría de la población española, especialmente la del Sur y Este, era muladí, o sea hijos de conversos al IslƗm” (1968: 54) [It can be said that, by the time of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I, the majority of the Spanish population, especially in the south and the east, were Muladis, namely, descendants of early Muslims converts]. For Thomas Glick, the process of conversion was somewhat slower. In his estimation: Assuming that there were seven million Hispano-Romans in the Peninsula in 711, and the numbers of this segment of the population remained level through the eleventh century, with population growth balancing out Christian migration to the north, then by 912 there would have been approximately 2.8 million indigenous Muslims (muwalladnjn) plus Berbers and Arabs. At this point, Christians still vastly outnumbered Muslims. By 1100, however, the number of indigenous Muslims would

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

113

have risen to a majority of 5.6 million. (35)

The Iberian Muslims were of two types, the musƗlimah, the descendants of men and women who had converted to IslƗm, and the muwalladnjn, the descendants of Arab or Berber men who had taken Spanish women as wives or concubines (Chejne 1974: 114). Evidently, the term muwalladnjn, which can be translated as “sons of concubines,” was offensive to the neoMuslims. The term was as pejorative and racist as the Spanish moro or morisco. If the Arabs came in first class, and the Berbers in second class, the muwalladnjn, or descendants of Muslim converts, came in third class, just above the Slavic slaves. As Duncan Townson explains, “Below the Arabs and Berbers in importance were Spaniards, who had been converted to IslƗm” (21). Although “Most Muslims… were…converts from Christianity and descended from families which had lived in Spain before 711” (Lomax 21), they were treated like third class citizens in their own country. As Townson explains: Theoretically, they and their descendants would have enjoyed the same rights as other Muslims, but in practice conversion merely exempted them from some legal burdens, without given them the social prestige attaching to Arabic ancestry, and they naturally shared Berber resentment at Arab predominance. (21)

As a result, the muwalladnjn, much like their Berber brothers, revolted against Arab rule. The Muwallads did not object to IslƗm. They objected to the fact that the Arabs did not apply IslƗmic principles and failed to treat their subjects equitably as the religion reportedly required. In this sense, the muwalladnjn were more Muslim than the Arab Muslims. As Glick explains, the neo-Muslims were chided for forging genealogies to conceal their Spanish Christian origin. They were ridiculed for their language as “stammerers who have a speech impediment.” They were mocked for their pale skin and blond hair. They were decried as cowards in battle and denounced for being disloyal to the Arabs. They were also accused of having Christian leanings (190). Insulted as “sons of slaves” and “sons of white women,” and excluded from political participation, the Muwallads “s’insurgent contre ce qu’ils considèrent comme une discrimination” [rose in revolt against what they considered to be acts of discrimination] (Clot 234). The neo-Muslims and the muwalladnjn participated in the Great Revolt against the Arabs which took place in the 740s. As Lane-Pool explains:

114

Chapter 9 The Muতammadan Spaniards, who had put on something of Arab civilization along with their new faith, were by no means barbarians like the Berbers; but they were not the less hostile to the central power. The province of Algarve, at the south-west corner of the Peninsula, was entirely in their power; and they held numerous independent cities and districts throughout Andalusia. Indeed, all the most important cities were in secret or open revolt. Arab governors, Berber chiefs, Spanish renegades, alike joined in repudiating or disregarding the sovereign authority of ‘Abd AllƗh. (102)

The neo-Muslim muwalladnjn regularly revolted against Arab rule. Although they were divided both politically and economically at the beginning of Arab rule, the Spanish Muslims soon organized themselves as a solid block. As André Clot observes, Au IXe siècle, on assiste à la montée en puissance des muwallads dont certains s’estiment, du point de vue juridique, insuffisamment assimilés et qui s’insurgent contre ce qu’ils considèrent comme une discrimination. (234) [In the ninth century, we witness the rise in power of the Muwallads, some of whom feel that they are not sufficiently integrated into the legal framework. As a result, they rise up against what they consider to be discrimination].

The Ummayad’s policy towards the Spanish neo-Muslims was the same as the policy towards the Berbers: physical extermination. In 797, al-ণakam wiped out a pocket of Muwallad resistance in Toledo. The Umayyads engineered a banquet of neo-Muslim dignitaries, only to cut off their heads and cast them into the moat. The event became known as the Day of the Ditch (Glick 39). In 805, the neo-Muslims attempted to overthrow the emir. As a result, al-ণakam unleashed his troops into the suburb, which was razed to the ground. The neo-Muslims who were not massacred were forced to flee al-Andalus. As many as twenty thousand Spanish Muslims fled the country. One group settled in Fez, founding the AndalusƯ quarter, while the other established itself on the isle of Crete (Glick 39). There were three prominent foci of neo-Muslim rebellion during the fitnah which began during the reign of Muতammad I: Mérida, where ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. MarwƗn al-JilliquƯ, “the son of the Galician,” who repeatedly rose up against the Arabs from his base in Mérida; the Upper March, where the Bannj QasƯ ruled in practical independence from Cordova; and the mountains of Málaga and Ronda, where the most important revolt erupted in 879 under the leadership of ‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn, the charismatic muwallad

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

115

leader (188). From the castle of Bobastro, ‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn ruled over several mountain valleys of the region for over forty years. Although his enemies claimed that he renounced IslƗm and embraced Christianity shortly before his death, these claims must be placed in context. After all, SunnƯ extremists are well-known for accusing their opponents of being “infidels,” “Jews,” and “Christians.” Traditionally, most historians accepted the allegations of the Umayyad historians as fact. In recent decades, more critical minds have started to call into question these claims. Ibn al-Qnj৬iyyah, who may have been a contemporary witness, mentions nothing of Ibn ণafৢnjn’s apostasy, and the earliest account of it appears in the Anonymous Chronicle of ‘Abd alRaতmƗn al-NƗৢir. It was Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ (d. 14th c.) who claimed to know the exact date of Ibn ণafৢnjn’s conversion to Christianity. As Ann Christys has perceived, It is possible that the accusation that Ibn ণafৢnjn was an apostate was made in order to blacken his name. The story is elaborated with the detail that Ibn ণafৢnjn’s apostasy had been secret and was revealed only when his body was exhumed and found to be buried in the Christian manner; ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III was said to have exhumed his corpse and crucified it on the walls of Cordova between those of two of his sons. It is likely that Ibn ণafৢnjn had Christian support, but the question of his conversion is much less certain. (103)

In “Cuatro preguntas en torno a Ibn ণafৢnjn,” Isabel Fierro discusses the problem of Ibn ণafৢnjn’s so-called “conversion” to Christianity and underscores the indistinctness of religious divisions for those moving between the two faiths in this period of accelerated conversion (1995: 244265). While this is possible, it is more likely that the accusations of apostasy made against Ibn ণafৢnjn were Umayyad propaganda. As Janina M. Safran explains: ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III also identified ‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn as a former partisan of the ShƯ‘Ư cause, claiming in his announcement of the destruction of the congregational mosque of Bobastro that the name of the FƗ৬imid ImƗm had been invoked from its pulpit. Whatever the confessional allegiances of the Bannj ণafৢnjn over the course of their rebellion, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III referred to Bobastro as the base of polytheism and the strength and refuge of Christianity and more generally as the abode of unbelief and falsehood (dƗr al-kufr wa al-ifk), the place of error (buq‘at al-dalƗlah), the pulpit of discord (minbar al-khilƗf), the den of iniquity (‘arƯn al-ghawayyah), and the city of criminals (madƯnat al-mujrimƯn). In short, he defined his

116

Chapter 9 enemies as the enemies of God and himself as the warrior against polytheism (shirk), hypocrisy and apostacy (nifƗq), and schism (shiqƗq) that filled the land. (2000: 22)

In the eyes of the ‘Umayyads, Ibn ণafৢnjn was an infidel, a heretic, a criminal, a ShƯ‘ite, and a Christian. Passing this Umayyad propaganda through the filter of objectivity, we can conclude that Ibn ণafৢnjn was a Muslim. We can also conclude that he publicly professed to be a ShƯ‘ite Muslim. Whether this was sincere, or pragmatic, is difficult to determine. We cannot peer into the souls of people. We can, however, say that Ibn Khaldnjn treated Christians kindly accordingly to Qur’Ɨnic commandments and the covenants of the Prophet (Morrow 2013, 2017). This stands in contrast to the attitude of some the Umayyads towards the Christians and the Jews who lived in their midst. We can also say that Ibn ণafৢnjn and his sons did not reject IslƗm and embrace Christianity. If anything, they died as martyrs. Considering the mistreatment directed toward them by the Arabs, it is scarcely surprising that there were other muwallad uprisings throughout alAndalus, including the revolt of Sawar b. Hamdub and Sa‘d b. JudƯ. In Sevilla, there was a bloody feud between the muwallad families of the Bannj Angelino and the Bannj Sabarico against the aristocratic Arab families of the Bannj ণajjah and the Bannj Khaldnjn. The Muwallads of Cordova revolted against the Umayyads in 805, and again in 814. Both revolts were suppressed, and the second one led to the expulsion of nine thousand five hundred Muwallads from Cordova with over one thousand five hundred going to Alexandria, and eight thousand to Fez. At Mérida, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. MarwƗn al-DjillikƯ rose in rebellion in 868. He was known as al-DjillikƯ or “the Galician” because he descended from a muwallad family which originated in northern Portugal or southern Galicia (Fletcher 46). The Muwallads were disaffected because, despite being Muslims, they were taxed as if they were conquered Christians (Reilly 14). As Pedro Damián Cano has noted, “Los nuevos musulmanes no llegaran a integrarse dentro de la sociedad musulmana” [The new Muslims were unable to integrate into Muslim society] (57). There were also many minor muwallad rebellions which led to the creation of semi-independent principalities. They included the rebellions of ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. Umayyah b. Shaliyyah, Sa‘Ưd b. Mastannah, Khayr b. ShƗkir, Sa‘Ưd b. Hudhayl, Daysam b. IsতƗq, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. ‘Abd al-Jawd, and Bakr b. YaতyƗ, which took place throughout what is now modern Spain and Portugal. In many instances, the muwalladnjn and Berber families divided their control over certain regions.

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

117

Although they had embraced IslƗm at the hands of the Arab conquerors, many Berbers and neo-Muslims quickly rejected the version of IslƗm which the Arabs claimed to incarnate. The neo-Muslims and the muwalladnjn were not opposed to IslƗm. They were opposed to the misinterpretation of IslƗm that was imposed upon them. As Richard Fletcher explains: The “rebellions” of the Bannj QasƯ, of Ibn MarwƗn and of ‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn tend to be grouped together by historians as ‘muwallad revolts.’ It is true that among the features which these movements had in common was a leadership which was not of Arab or Berber descent. It is further suggested that the muwallads or converts were being excluded from power and influence in ninth century al-Andalus and that the muwallad rebellions were movements of protest by men who, though IslƗmic by faith, were regarded as outsiders on grounds of ethnicity. (49)

Berbers, neo-Muslims, and their muwalladnjn descendants embraced KhƗrijism, ৡnjfƯsm or ShƯ‘ism, not as an act of defiance against IslƗm, but as an affirmation of their IslƗmic identity. According to Bernard and Ellen Whishaw, the muwalladnjn “were either attached to the ShƯ‘ite sect or retained the Christian religion of their royal ancestors, as many of them certainly did” (64). As Cano has confirmed, la “doctrina chiíta” [ShƯ‘ite doctrine] was “de gran predicamento entre los muladíes y beréberes de al-Andalus y que defiende la titularidad califal para los descendientes de ‘AlƯ, esposo de FƗ৬imah desposeído por el primer omeya, Mu‘Ɨwiyyah” [found great appeal among the Muladis and Berbers of al-Andalus, which upheld that the caliphate belonged to the descendants of ‘AlƯ, the husband of FƗ৬imah, who was dispossessed by Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, the first Umayyad] (28). Due to the scarcity of data available, one cannot claim that all Muwallads and Berbers were ShƯ‘ites and that ShƯ‘ism inspired all these rebellions. At the same time, it cannot be claimed that the Muwallads and Berbers were all subservient SunnƯs. On the contrary, the Berbers who rallied around Ibn ণafৢnjn were predisposed to embrace ShƯ‘ism. As William Montgomery Watt explains, “Most of the Berber settlers were from sedentary tribes and might be expected to welcome religious ideas similar to those favored by the Berber followers of the FƗ৬imids” (44). The rebellion of Ibn ণafৢnjn is an eloquent example of the spread of ShƯ‘ite ideas in IslƗmic Spain. In 910, Ibn ণafৢnjn sent emissaries to the FƗ৬imids and pledged allegiance to the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ caliph (Wasserstein 2002: 293). The FƗ৬imid caliph sent two missionaries to Bobastro, leading to an agreement that was signed in 913/914 (Martínez Enamorado 274). In exchange for spreading ShƯ‘ism, the FƗ৬imid caliph was prepared to grant

118

Chapter 9

Ibn ণafsnjn the governorship of al-Andalus. In his letter to Ibn ণafৢnjn, ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ commanded him to implement ShƯ‘ite practices in Spain, a call to which he immediately responded, making ShƯ‘ite proclamations from the mosques under his control. As Fierro admits, “Ibn ণafৢnjn invocará al califa fƗ৬imƯ durante un tiempo” [Ibn ণafৢnjn invoked the FƗ৬imid caliph for a time] (1987: 72). She believes, however, that “está alianza con el šƯ’ismo no deja de ser un tanteo más de un rebelde que no supo dar con una alternativa político-religiosa clara que oponer a la dinastía omeya” [this alliance with ShƯ‘ism was nothing more than the sounding out of a rebel who could not provide a clear political and religious alternative against the Umayyad dynasty] (1987: 72). This is also the view of William Montgomery Watt, who viewed Ibn ণafৢnjn’s allegiance to the FƗ৬imids as one of opportunism (44). Opportunistic or not, even Watt admits that Ibn ণafৢnjn’s profession of allegiance led the FƗ৬imids to direct their attention towards Spain (44). More than a rebel, Ibn ণafৢnjn was a revolutionary leader. The fact that he has appealed for the help of the ‘AbbƗsids, and then to the FƗ৬imids, does not suggest that he was politically precarious. On the contrary, as a person representing a people who were in a position of weakness, it makes sense that he would seek out the support of a superpower capable of contesting the Umayyads. Simply because he turned to the ‘AbbƗsids does not mean that Ibn ণafৢnjn was a SunnƯ. It should be recalled that the ‘AbbƗsids came to power thanks to the support they received from the ShƯ‘ites. A cunning politician, Manৢnjr cultivated sympathy from the descendants of the Prophet and their partisans. It was only after they assumed power that the ‘AbbƗsids sided with the SunnƯs and attempted to eliminate the ShƯ‘ites. Assuming that Ibn ণafৢnjn only accepted ShƯ‘ism after seeking out FƗ৬imid support, there is no reason to question his conversion. However, what can be challenged is the claim that Ibn ণafৢnjn converted to Christianity, something which seems to have been invented by the Umayyads to discredit him. With the Christian phase dismissed, it appears that Ibn ণafৢnjn died as a ShƯ‘ite Muslim. Although people may pass through various phases in their lives, they can only be judged by the final phase they reached.

9.7 Conclusions As we have seen, members of the Bannj HƗshim, a traditionally ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite clan from the tribe of Quraysh, settled in the Maghrib and alAndalus, leading to the establishment of the IdrƯsid dynasty in Morocco and the ণammnjdid dynasty in IslƗmic Spain. We have also seen that the

The Arab ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

119

Yemenites, a predominantly ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite people, settled in both the Maghrib and al-Andalus. We have also observed that the Arabs from the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym, who had been sympathetic to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, established themselves in both the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Finally, we have seen that the muwalladnjn, the descendants of Arabized Spanish Muslim reverts, also objected to the Umayyad version of IslƗm and, like the Berbers, seemed more inclined towards ShƯ‘ism than the official version of Sunnism that was imposed upon them. Considering the fact that ShƯ‘ite Arabs were present in al-Andalus during the entire history of IslƗmic Spain, one cannot claim that there were no ShƯ‘ites in Spain.

CHAPTER 10 SHƮ‘ITE SECTS IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

10.1 Introduction The ShƯ‘ite Muslims of the Maghrib and al-Andalus represented a diverse community of believers which was comprised of ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, the early name applied to those who would become the Twelve-ImƗm ShƯ‘ites; the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, who followed Zayd b. ‘AlƯ as the fifth ImƗm instead of ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir; the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites, or Seven-ImƗm ShƯ‘ites, who accepted IsmƗ‘Ưl, as opposed to MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, as the seventh ImƗm; and the Bajaliyyah, also known as the Mnjsawiyyah and Waqifiyyah, who broke the line of ImƗms at MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, the seventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. Although viewed as outside the fold of IslƗm by many ShƯ‘ites, the Qarmatians and the GhulƗt were also present in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Before proceeding, however, it is imperative to provide an overview of the various sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus and the lines of ImƗms or caliphs that they followed.

10.2 Lines of ImƗms The Zaydiyyah SulaymƗniyyah, accept Abnj Bakr and ‘Umar as legitimate, but less than ideal, caliphs, followed by ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. alণusayn, and Zayd b. ‘AlƯ. The Zaydiyyah JƗrnjdiyyah, however, rejected the first three caliphs, accepting only ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, and Zayd b. ‘AlƯ. The IsmƗ‘Ưliyyah Musta‘liyyah followed ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, Muতammad al-BƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, and IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Ja‘far whereas the IsmƗ‘Ưliyyah NizƗriyyah accepted ‘AlƯ, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. alণusayn, Muতammad al-BƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, and IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Ja‘far, discarding the ImƗmate of al-ণasan for having negotiated a peace settlement with Mu‘Ɨwiyyah.

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

121

The Bajiliyyah, known also as the Waqifiyyah or Mnjsawiyyah, accepted the first of the seven ShƯ‘ite ImƗms: ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, Muতammad al-BƗqir, and Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, cutting off the ImƗmate at MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, the final ImƗm. The main ShƯ‘ite trunk from which other sects broke away was the ShƯ‘ah ImƗmiyyah, who would eventually evolve into the IthnƗ ‘Ashariyyah, the followers of ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, Muতammad alBƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, Muতammad al-TaqƯ, ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, ণasan al-‘AskarƯ, and Muতammad al-MahdƯ. The only ShƯ‘ite sect that seems to have been exclusive to the Maghrib and al-Andalus seems to have been the ShƯ‘ah ণasaniyyah who embraced both the four rightly-guided caliphs of the SunnƯs, and the twelve ImƗms of the ShƯ‘ites, including: Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, ‘AlƯ, ণasan, ণusayn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, Muতammad al-BƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, Muতammad al-TaqƯ, ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, ণasan al-‘AskarƯ, and Muতammad al-MahdƯ. Although they ritually cursed YazƯd, they reportedly respected Mu‘Ɨwiyyah as a righteous companion of the Prophet, perhaps out of taqiyyah.

10.3 The ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites The majority of ShƯ‘ite Muslims are ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites: followers of the twelve ImƗms from the household of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt). From the time of the first ImƗm to the eleventh ImƗm, they were known as the ShƯ‘ah ImƗmiyyah or ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites. It was only upon the completion of the ImƗmate, with the arrival of the final ImƗm, Muতammad al-MahdƯ, that they came to be known as the ShƯ‘ah ImƗmiyyah IthnƗ ‘Ashariyyah or the ShƯ‘ites of the twelve ImƗms. Since the split between the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites and the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites cannot have occurred before the death of IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Ja‘far in 755, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs did not exist during the conquest of North Africa which was completed in 740. The ZaydƯs only became a full-fledged sect after the death of Zayd b. ‘AlƯ in 740. Hence, many references to ShƯ‘ites before 740 were references to ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, and not any of the splinter groups which broke away from the main branch of ShƯ‘ism: the followers of the ImƗms from the descendants of FƗ৬imah and ‘AlƯ. Since the Muslims only conquered Egypt and Libya between 632 and 661, and only conquered what are current day Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Spain between 661 and 750, it was ZaydƯ and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, and not IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites, who were the first ShƯ‘ites in Egypt, the Maghrib and al-Andalus.

122

Chapter 10

There had always been a ShƯ‘ite presence in Egypt since the early days of IslƗm. The region had been under the governorship of Muতammad b. Abnj Bakr (631-658), the son of the first caliph, who was adopted and raised by ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Although his sister, ‘A’ishah was an ardent opponent of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, her brother Muতammad b. Abnj Bakr, and her sister AsmƗ’, were among the staunchest ShƯ‘ites. The granddaughter of Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr was the mother of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. As for Muতammad b. AbƯ Bakr, he was murdered by either Mu‘Ɨwiyyah b. Hudayj, a soldier under the command of ‘Amr b. al-‘Aৢ, or by Mu‘Ɨwiyyah himself, after which time Egypt fell into Umayyad hands. After the slaughter of ImƗm al-ণusayn, and his family and friends, at KarbalƗ’, YazƯd (645-683), the Umayyad caliph, ordered that Zaynab bint ‘AlƯ and the remaining members of ণusayn’s household be banished to the region of their choice. After initially refusing, Zaynab eventually opted for Egypt. Accompanied by FƗ৬imah and Sukaynah, the daughters of ImƗm alণusayn, Zaynab was met by Maslamah b. Mukhallad in BilbƯs, a town on the eastern Nile Delta, among weeping and condolences. Maslamah b. Mukhallad was a companion of the Prophet and a member of the AnৢƗr. He was one of the companions who refused to pledge allegiance to ‘AlƯ as caliph. Siding with Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, he fought against ‘AlƯ at ৡiffƯn. Maslamah b. Mukhallad was appointed governor of Egypt by Mu‘Ɨwiyyah where he ruled from 665-682. From BiblƯs, Malamah b. Mukhallad led Zaynab to her to his home in Cairo, where she is said to have been received hospitably. In Egypt, she spent the final eleven months and fifteen days of her life and where she was buried. While the cage may have been of gold, it was still a cage. Zaynab was exiled and condemned to house arrest. The house of Maslamah b. Mukhallad was converted into a shrine which has remained a significant site of pilgrimage for ShƯ‘Ư, SunnƯ, and ৡnjfƯ Muslims, who hold fast to the love of the household of the Prophet. Although ShƯ‘ism persisted in Egypt after the ImƗmate of ‘AlƯ, it was during the time of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq that ImƗmite activities were intensified in AkhmƯm, a city which included the likes of ‘UthmƗn b. Suwayd al-AkhmƯmƯ and Dhnj al-Nnjn al-MiৢrƯ, who were students of JƗbir b. HayyƗn al-KnjfƯ who, in turn, was a student of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Many notable ShƯ‘ites, including ‘AlƯ b. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, and SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh had fled the ণijƗz to Egypt from where the two latter headed for the Maghrib. The spread of ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism in Egypt, the Maghrib and al-Andalus, was the result of the missionary efforts spearheaded ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (702-765), the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. A veritable polymath, the sixth ShƯ‘ite

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

123

ImƗm excelled in the IslƗmic sciences, the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, anatomy, alchemy, and other subjects. At his school in Medina, the ImƗm trained over four thousand students whom he sent to the farthest reaches of the IslƗmic world to spread the teachings of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. As MuতarramƯ explains, The end of the Umayyad period, the ascension to power of the ‘AbbƗsids, and the disputes and conflicts between them were a good opportunity for ImƗm al-BƗqir and ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq to propagate the fundamentals of ShƯ‘ism considerably and to a great extent. This was especially true in the case of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq who trained students in different fields and sciences. Many outstanding scholars such as HƗshim b. al-ণakam, Muতammad b. Muslim, AbƗn b. Taghlib, HishƗm b. SƗlim, Mu’min ৫Ɨq, Mufaঌঌal b. ‘Umar, JƗbir b. ণayyƗn, and others were trained by the ImƗm. According to Shaykh al-MufƯd, their companions all together totaled four thousand approximately in number. They used to come to ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq from the different parts of the vast Muslim territory, bringing bounty and removing their doubts and skepticism. The ImƗm’s students were scattered across various cities and regions and it is natural that they played an important role in the spread of ShƯ‘ism to the various regions that they reached. (137)

In the words of MuতarramƯ, those who were lovers of knowledge (‘ilm) and thirsty for the Muতammadan gnosis (ma‘rifah) rushed from different parts of the then Muslim world to that heroic ImƗm in multitude and benefited from his abundant spring of knowledge and wisdom. (119)

Since the ImƗmates of Muতammad al-BƗqir and Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq coincided with the bloody confrontations between the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids, they did not bear the full brunt of their oppression. The final days of the Umayyad empire, and the early days of the ‘AbbƗsid rule, provided the ImƗms with an unprecedented opportunity to spread the fundamentals of ShƯ‘ism (MuতarramƯ 98, 137). By the time the ‘AbbƗsids redirected their wrath against the ImƗms and their followers, the sixth ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, had trained thousands of ShƯ‘ite scholars and missionaries who then spread ShƯ‘ism from India to the Maghrib and al-Andalus. As early as 762, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq had sent two of his companions, Abnj SufyƗn and HulwanƯ, as missionaries to the Maghrib which, for all practical purposes, included al-Andalus, long before the arrival of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư. Although Israel Friedlander claims that HulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn were “Karmatian missionaries in [the] Maghrib” (110), and although

124

Chapter 10

the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs claim them for themselves, HulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites. Since IsmƗ‘Ưlism did not even exist at the time, HulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn can only be described as what they were: ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites who were students of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. The ImƗmite activity in Egypt, the Maghrib, and al-Andalus, also continued under ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. The seventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗm had several agents in Egypt, including ‘UthmƗn b. ‘IsƗ al-RawasƯ, and alণusayn b. ‘AlƯ al-‘Uynjn. Like his father, ImƗm MnjsƗ had missionaries to the Maghrib and al-Andalus, including Ibn Warsand. These representatives or agents, who were both missionaries, and teachers, formed part of the network established by ImƗm MnjsƗ to collect the khums or religious tax ShƯ‘ites must pay to the living ImƗm. Rather than receive taxes from such regions, however, the ImƗms were likely sending funds to them to support the spread of ShƯ‘ism. The interest of the ImƗms in al-Andalus dates as far back as the time of the fifth ImƗm, Muতammad al-BƗqir (676-743). As a result of the conquest of al-Andalus, many Andalusians were taken as captives by the Muslims and sold throughout the IslƗmic empire. One such slave was ণamƯdah alBarbariyyah, who was also known as ণamƯdah al-MuৢaffƗ’ or the Purified One. Nicknamed Lu’lu’ah or Pearl because of her beauty, she was reportedly a Berber from the Maghrib or a RnjmƯ from al-Andalus. Her father was said to have been a nobleman named Sa‘Ưd from Qastalia, the oasis region of the salt pan of the Chett el-Djerid in the south of present-day Tunisia. Consequently, many ShƯ‘ite historians describe her as being a Berber princess. The claim that ণamƯdah was from Nubia, and thus a black African woman, appears incorrect. According to Ibn Qutaybah (d. 889), who may have borrowed the information from Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 728-729 or 732733), the inhabitants of the Sudan included the Zanj, the ZaghƗwah, and the Berbers (Savage 355). The Zanj belong to the black African race. The ZaghƗwah, however, were southern Saharan peoples whom the Berbers transported as slaves (Savage 355). Since Berbers have inhabited the Sudan since ancient times, being a Nubian does not necessarily make a person black. If ণamƯdah did indeed come from Nubia, she might have been a Berber. The fact that she was called al-Barbariyyah, or the Berber, and not al-Snjdaniyyah or al-Nubiyyah, logically identifies her as a member of the Amazigh people. If ণamƯdah was a Berber, she might have been a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, or a pagan. Although Muslims are not supposed to take other Muslims as slaves, this was a common practice among the Umayyads. Not only did they organize slave raids in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, they

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

125

demanded that conquered and converted Berbers pay part of their taxation through the delivery of slaves. When MnjsƗ b. Nusayr, the conqueror of alAndalus was summoned to Damascus in 714, his tremendous spoils included eighteen thousand of the finest men and women captured by soldiers under his command. Even though the Prophet Muতammad opposed slavery and introduced a system through which the trade in human beings would be gradually abolished, the Muslim dynasties that followed him failed to follow his enlightened vision of the future. Rather than eliminate the limited extent of slavery that existed at the time of the Prophet, the Umayyad conquerors established an Arab slave trade that was comparable to the slave trade in the New World. The trans-Saharan slave trade was as devastating and dehumanizing as the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As Savage states, “The origins of the slave trade from North Africa to the central IslƗmic regions lay in the Arab conquest” (353). Regardless of whether or not they were Muslim, the Arab leaders in the Maghrib viewed Berbers as potential slaves (Savage 361). Rather than being motivated by religion, many Arabs viewed the conquests as a way to acquire more slaves (Savage 357). Although IslƗm theoretically prohibits the enslavement of Muslims, in practice, all the Arabs had to do to justify their enslavement was to accuse them or heresy or apostasy (Savage 359). Motivated by money, the court ‘ulamƗ’ were pleased to formulate fatwas permitting such behavior (Savage 357). During Umayyad rule, the slave markets in the Middle East were flooded with hundreds of thousands of Berber and European slaves, most of whom were Muslims. Most of these slaves from the west “came overland by way of Syria as well as from the ণijƗz during the pilgrimage season, when commerce with Berbers from North Africa was particularly active” (Savage 356). Although there were slaves from East Africa, India, and Europe, the most sought-after slaves were Berber women (Savage 353). Although some became famous singers, Berber women were also highly regarded for “housework, sexual relations and child-bearing” (Savage 354). Before being offered for purchase, these women were often given years of training in the Arabic language and IslƗm, including lessons in song and dance by well-known instructors. According to Ibn Bu৬lƗn, “the ideal slave was a Berber woman who from the age of nine had spent three years in Medina, three years in Mecca and then nine years in Iraq” (Savage 353). Since slave traders made a considerable investment in training their slaves, they expected a handsome return.

126

Chapter 10

If ণamƯdah was a Berber, she may have been initially a KhƗrijite, a ShƯ‘ite or a SunnƯ. If she was a rnjmƯ or a Roman, the Arabic term for a white person or a European, she was either an indigenous Andalusian of Christian origin or from a family that had recently converted to IslƗm. It should be noted, however, that the term rnjmƯ did not apply exclusively to Europeans. Besides Byzantines, Greeks, and Slavs, it also applied to other light-skinned peoples (Bacharach 477). The Berbers, it must be recalled, were identified as whites, along with Europeans and Persians (Bacharach 492, note 15). Northern Europeans, including Russians, Poles, and Finns, were known as saqlabƯ. The Sicilians were known as siqillƯ. Western Europeans, both the French and Spaniards, were known as faranjƯ, while Persians were known as daylamƯ. North Africans, in general were referred to as maghƗribah. But regardless of whether she was from the Maghrib or al-Andalus, and of whether she was of Berber or European extraction, ণamƯdah found herself in the slave market in Medina where she was purchased by the fifth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, Muতammad al-BƗqir, for seventeen dirhams. The dirhams used at the time were silver coins weighing approximately three grams. Though the price of silver continually fluctuates, one gram is currently worth $18.56 (USD). In 2020, seventeen dirhams of silver would amount to $946.56 (USD). In the seventh and eighth centuries, this was a small fortune. In light of Arab aesthetics, it seems unlikely that a black African woman would have fetched such a price. According to numerous sources cited by Savage, including Ibn Khaldnjn, Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ, al-QayrawanƯ, and ৫albƯ, the most beautiful Berber girls sold for one thousand gold mithqals in the eastern market (Savage, note 59). Since a mithqal weighs approximately 3.64 grams, and a gram of gold is worth $44.00 USD in 2020, the prettiest of Berber girls would have sold for over $150,000.00 USD, a price which seems implausible. Assuming that ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq married ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah when he was twenty, she must have been sold on the slave market of Medina around 722. Assuming she was a teenager or a young woman at the time, she must have been born at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century. As such, she could not have been captured during the first (647) or second (666-689) IslƗmic invasions of the Maghrib. If she was especially young when purchased by ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir, she may have been captured in 698 during the third IslƗmic invasion of the Maghrib in 698 in which MnjsƗ b. Nusayr crushed a renewed Berber rebellion, enslaving three hundred thousand captives. Since the entire Maghrib was under the caliphate’s control by 709, most subsequent slaves were acquired through the payment of human tribute. It would seem unusual, however, for

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

127

a Berber tribe to offer a princess for the purpose of paying taxes. When ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir first saw her in the slave market, ণamƯdah was ashamed of her plight. To lift her spirits, the first thing that he said to this beautiful Berber was: “You are ণamƯdah [The Praised One] in this world and Maতmnjdah [the Praiseworthy] in the next world” (Rafed Foundation, Life History, n. page). She was then presented to his son, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, for marriage. Not only did the sixth ImƗm marry ণamƯdah, but he paid close attention to her education. As a result of his training, his wife ণamƯdah became a leading jurist. ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq assigned her to work with women whom she educated about IslƗm’s beliefs and practices. In fact, she was so learned that when the women of Medina came to the sixth ImƗm with questions, he would send them to ণamƯdah saying: “Her answers will be those given by me” (Rafed Foundation n. page). Not only was she a great scholar, ণamƯdah was a pious person who distributed wealth among the poor and needy, visiting the sick, and offering them material assistance (Balagh Foundation, The IslƗmic Hijab n. page). Besides being the mother of MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, the seventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, she was also the mother of two of his brothers, IsতƗq and Muতammad. According to ShƯ‘ite tradition, the birth of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im was a momentous occasion. The following tradition from Abnj Bashir, describes the miraculous event: Once we went for ণajj with Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh in the year that his son MnjsƗ was born. When we arrived at al-Abwa, lunch was served. When he would serve food to his people, he would serve good and plentiful food. At such time, the messenger of ণamƯdah, (his wife), came saying, “ণamƯdah says, ‘I have almost lost myself and I have found what I was to find, I am about to give birth. You had commanded me not to do anything to this child without you.’” Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh left with the messenger. When he came back, his companions congratulated him and said, “May AllƗh take our souls in service for your cause, what did you do to ণamƯdah?” He said, “AllƗh granted her good health and gifted me with a boy whom He has formed as the best in His creatures. ণamƯdah informed me of a matter about him that she thought I did not know. I, however, knew it better than her.” I then asked him, “May AllƗh take my soul in service for your cause, what was it that ণamƯdah told you about the child?” He said that she informed him about the baby’s actions as soon as he fell on the ground. “The baby placed his hands on the ground and raised his head to the sky. I explained to her that it was a sign like that of the Messenger of AllƗh and a sign of the executor of his will after him.” I then said, “May AllƗh take my soul in service for your cause, what sign is the sign of the Messenger of AllƗh and the sign of the executor of his will after him?” He said to me,

128

Chapter 10 “In the night that the mother of my grandfather conceived him, someone came to my great grandfather with a drink finer than water, softer than butter, sweeter than honey, cooler than ice and whiter than milk. He was asked to drink it and then go to bed with his wife. He went to bed with his wife and she conceived with the baby. In the night that the mother of my father conceived him, someone came to my grandfather with the same kind of drink as that brought to my great-grandfather. He was asked to drink it as my great-grandfather had done. He was commanded to do as my great grandfather had done. He then went to bed with his wife and she conceived with my father. In the night that my mother would conceive with me, someone came to my father with the same kind of drink as that brought for my greatgrandfather and grandfather and made him to drink as they had done and commanded him as he had commanded them before him. He then went to bed with his wife and my mother conceived with me. In the night that my wife was to conceive with my son, someone came to me with the same kind of drink as that for my great grandfather, my grandfather, and my father. He did to me as he done to them. I then went with the knowledge of AllƗh and with joy for what AllƗh had granted to me to bed with my wife and she conceived with the baby that is just born. The newborn is with you and he, by AllƗh, will be your companion after me. The seed of the ImƗm is from what I just explained to you. When the seed is accommodated in the womb for four months and the spirit is established therein AllƗh, the Most Holy, the Most High, then sent an angel. This angel is called ণaywƗn. He then writes on his right shoulder ‘in all truth and justice, your Lord’s Word has been completed. No one can change His Words. He is All-hearing and All-knowing’ (6:115). When he comes out of his mother’s womb, he places his hands on the floor and raises his head to the sky. Placing his hands upon the earth is an indication of his taking possession of all the knowledge of AllƗh that is sent from the heavens to earth. Raising his head to the sky is that because a caller from inside the Throne calls him from the high horizon with his name and the name of his father. It is for (on behalf of) the Lord, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, saying, ‘O, so and so, son of so and so. Be firm so that you would be established. For the great purpose that I have created you, you are my chosen one in my creatures. You are the keeper of My secrets, the container of My knowledge, the trustee of My inspiration and My deputy and representative on earth. I have made it necessary for My blessings and mercy to reach you and those who would love you (and acknowledge your Divine Authority). I have gifted My paradise and given a place near Myself to you and to them. Also, by My majesty and grace, I will make your enemies to feel the heat of My punishment even though I may have given them expanded prosperity in My world such as prosperity in their livelihood.’

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

129

When the call of the caller ends, he responds to it by placing his hands on the ground and raising his head to the sky and says the following. “God Himself testifies that He is the only Lord. The angels and the men of knowledge and justice testify that God is the only Lord, the Majestic, and All-wise’” (3:18). The ImƗm said, “When he says this, AllƗh grants him the knowledge of the first and the knowledge of the last the qualification to be visited by the spirit in the nights of destiny.” I then said, may AllƗh take my soul in service for your cause: “Is the Spirit different from JibrƯl?” He said, “The Spirit is a creature greater than JibrƯl. JibrƯl is of the angels. The Spirit is a creature greater than the angels. Is it not true that AllƗh, the Most Holy, the Most High, has said, ‘On this Night, the angels and the Spirit descend’ (97:4). (KulaynƯ, Chapter 93, the Birth of the ImƗms n. page)

ImƗm Ja‘far is ৡƗdiq is said to have loved her and respected her more than any of his other wives, describing her in the following terms: “ণamƯdah is as purified from defilement as a gold ingot; the angels guarded her until she gave to me and the ImƗm after me a dignity from AllƗh” (RizvƯ chapter 4 n. page). In fact, ণamƯdah was so important that ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq appointed her as one of his testamentary trustees, along with Abnj Ja‘far alManৢnjr, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, ‘Abd AllƗh, and MnjsƗ, a strategy employed by the ImƗm to protect the life of his successor, the seventh ImƗm. As MuতarramƯ relates, When Manৢnjr heard the news of the martyrdom of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq, he wrote a letter to the governor of Medina, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn: “In case Ja‘far b. Muতammad designated a certain person as the implementer of his will, arrest him and cut off his head.” In reply to the caliph’s letter, the governor of Medina thus wrote: “Ja‘far b. Muতammad designated these five persons as the executors of his will: Abnj Ja‘far Manৢnjr, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, ‘Abd AllƗh, MnjsƗ, and ণamƯdah.” Then Manৢnjr said: “They cannot be killed.” (130-131)

The eighth ImƗm, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, was also the son of a Berber slave girl from the Maghrib known as Najmah, Umm al-BanƯn, BƯbƯ Sul৬Ɨnah, and Taktum. When the sixth ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, went to the slave market, the human trafficker related to him that when he was coming to Medina from Marrakesh, a pious Christian woman had predicted that Najmah would have a bright future, specifying that she would bear a son who would spread the true word from East to West. The ImƗm proceeded to purchase Najmah and gave her to his wife ণamƯdah. Shortly after that, ণamƯdah had a dream in which the Prophet told her to give Najmah to her son, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. The sixth ImƗm used to tell his companions that his grandson, whom he

130

Chapter 10

addressed as ‘AlƯm ‘AlƯ Muতammad, would be a great scholar. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, the son of Najmah, was born one month after the martyrdom of his grandfather, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Like ণamƯdah, Najmah al-৫Ɨhirah was renowned for her knowledge and piety. The mother of the tenth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, Muতammad al-NaqƯ, was also the son of a former slave from the Maghrib. His mother, Sammanah, was called Sayyidah or “Chief of Women.” Unequaled in piety, she used to fast most of the year. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ informed her that she was divinely protected and that she was the foremost among the mothers of the ‫܈‬iddƯqƯn and the ‫܈‬Ɨli‫ۊ‬Ưn: the truthful and virtuous people (RizvƯ chapter 4 n. page). Considering that the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth ImƗms all had family ties to the Maghrib and al-Andalus, it seems quite natural that they would have sent missionaries to ণamƯdah and Najmah’s people whether they were found in the Maghrib, al-Andalus or both. If ণamƯdah and Najmah were in fact Berbers, it is possible that they had kin in both regions as many tribes had a presence in both North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Since mothers almost invariable speak to their children in their language of origin, it would not be surprising if ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im and ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ spoke Berber as their maternal language on top of Arabic, which was their paternal language. Since the mother of ImƗm MnjsƗ alKƗ਌im was a Berber, and his wife, ণamƯdah, was a Berber, ImƗm ‘AlƯ alRiঌƗ had a Berber mother, a Berber grandmother, and Najmah or Taktun, a Berber wife. ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, the tenth ImƗm, also had a Berber mother named Sammanah. Consequently, the eleventh ImƗm, ণasan al-‘AskarƯ had a Berber grandmother, a Berber great-grandmother, and a Berber greatgreat-great-grandmother. The household of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth ImƗms were thus thoroughly Berberized. The matriarchal culture of the Berbers must have had an impact on the upbringing of ImƗm MnjsƗ alKƗ਌im, ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, and ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ. It was during the ImƗmate of MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im that IdrƯs I escaped Umayyad attempts to exterminate both sayyids and ShƯ‘ites, establishing himself in what is now modern-day Morocco, where he ruled from 788 to 791. While IdrƯs I was seeking self-preservation, he was also motivated by a desire to spread ShƯ‘ite IslƗm among the Berber people. After all, since he had sacrificed and suffered in the ণijƗz as a result of defending ShƯ‘ism, it is implausible that he would have abandoned his beliefs to preach Sunnism to the Berbers. If he was ruthlessly hunted down and murdered by the ‘AbbƗsids, it was because he continued to espouse ShƯ‘ite ideals. Although the early IdrƯsids were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of the probably JƗrnjdƯ persuasion, they were intricately connected to the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms of the

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

131

proto-Twelvers, and included ImƗmƯs in their ranks. IdrƯs I had been raised in the household of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm and was well-acquainted with the seventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. Other IdrƯsid leaders, like Aতmad b. IdrƯs b. YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs, were also ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, in this case, followers of al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. Warsand, the leader of the Bajaliyyah school, who upheld the ImƗmate of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. The advisor of IdrƯs II was DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘Ư companion of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. As the KitƗb al-MunƗܲarah of Ibn Haytham confirms, ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites of the Twelver school were present in QayrawƗn before the advent of the FƗ৬imids (Madelung 2000: 50-51). As Wilfred Madelung states, “it is evident from Ibn al-Haytham’s account that no IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ dƗ’Ưs were active in al-QayrawƗn and the other towns of IfrƯqiyyah before their conquest by Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư” (1999: 98). Born to a ZaydƯ family in QayrawƗn, Ibn Haytham embraced ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism (Madelung 2000: 50-51). Unconvinced of the existence of the twelfth ImƗm, he changed line of ImƗms, and embraced the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith after meeting Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư (Madelung 2000: 52), becoming a leading missionary for the movement. Along with Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư and his brother Abnj al-‘AbbƗs, Ibn Haytham participated in debates with SunnƯ scholars from the ণanafƯ and MƗlikƯ, acting as a champion of the ShƯ‘Ư side in many of these encounters (Madelung 2000: 52).

10.4 The Bajaliyyah / Mnjsawiyyah / Waqifiyyah ShƯ‘ites As we have seen, the first form of ShƯ‘ism to reach the Maghrib and alAndalus was not IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ IslƗm: it was ImƗmƯ IslƗm. As early as 762, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq had sent two dƗ’Ưs or missionaries to the Maghrib: alণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn. Based in the plain of MarmƗjanna, the disciples of the sixth ImƗm spread ShƯ‘ism throughout the Maghrib. The town of Naf৬ah, in particular, became an important ShƯ‘ite center in North Africa. The Warsand family, which was responsible for spreading ShƯ‘ism in Morocco’s Snjs region, originated from Naf৬ah. The head of the Bannj Warsand, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn, had studied at a seminary abroad, probably in Medina, and had compiled ShƯ‘ite books of traditions on the authority of ImƗm Muতammad al-BƗqir and Ja‘far alৡƗdiq. Interestingly, QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn quoted from the works of the Ibn Warsand. As Madelung points out, it is not unlikely that Ibn Warsand quoted directly from ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, someone QƗঌi al-Nu‘mƗn would have refused to acknowledge, thus removing him from the chain of narration. The fact that QƗঌi al-Nu‘mƗn cited Ibn Warsand, and suppressed the sayings of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, confirms that Ibn Warsand was an

132

Chapter 10

ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite, and that it was the ImƗmƯs, and not the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, who were the first to spread ShƯ‘ism in North Africa. So, when Madelung asserts that ‘Abnj al-ণasan/ণusayn b. al-ণusayn b. Warsand al-BajalƯ was the “founder of the ShƯ‘Ư madhhab in the Maghrib” (1976: 87), we are speaking specifically of a MaghribƯ ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite madhhab. According to anti-ShƯ‘ite authorities, and the orientalists who follow them, the Bajaliyyah were Mnjsawiyyah or Waqifiyyah ShƯ‘ites: namely, ShƯ‘ites who believed in seven ImƗms, the last of whom was ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. Heinz Halm describes them in the following terms: Those ShƯ‘ites who believed that MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im had not died but was only hidden, and awaited his return as MahdƯ, were called al-waqifah (“the ones who remain still”) by their opponents because they let the succession of ImƗms end with him and contested any transfer of the ImƗmate to his son. Several Waqifites, mainly Knjfans, defended the “occultation” (ghaybah) of the seventh ImƗm in special documents of which only the titles are still extant. The youngest of these authors, al-ণasan b. Muতammad b. SamƗ’a al-KnjfƯ, died in 263/876-7. (1991: 33)

When describing the inhabitants of the Snjs, Ibn ণazm makes the following claims: There was one section among them called al-Bajaliyyah tracing its origin to al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. Warsand al-BajalƯ. He belonged to the people of Naf৬ah, of the district of Kafsa in Kastilia, of the lands of IfrƯqiyyah. Then this infidel started for al-Snjs at the extreme end of the lands of the Masamida, who he led astray, also leading astray the AmƯr of al-Snjs Aতmad b. IdrƯs b. YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. They are very numerous there, dwelling in the environments of the city of al-Snjs, openly professing their unbelief… They maintain that the ImƗmate is confined to the descendants of alণasan, to the exclusion of the descendants of al-ণusayn. (Friedlaender I: 54-55)

Ibn ণazm is in error in many regards. The Andalusian author asserts that the Bajaliyyah believed that the ImƗmate was confined to the descendants of al-ণasan. The IdrƯsids, who descended from ImƗm al-ণasan, may have held this belief. Such a belief was limited to the ণasanid ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib. The Waqifiyyah, however, believed in seven ImƗms, ‘AlƯ, alণasan, al-ণusayn, Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, Muতammad al-BƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, and MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, the last four of whom were descended from ImƗm ণusayn.

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

133

Writing in 988, Ibn ণawqal mentions that the people of the extreme Snjs in the western Maghrib were partly MƗlikƯ SunnƯs and partly MnjsawƯ ShƯ’Ưs who cut the line of ImƗms after MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im and belonged to the followers of ‘AlƯ b. Warsand (Madelung 1976: 87). However, the fact that the Bajaliyyah were described as Mnjsawiyyah does not mean that they were Waqifiyyah. The early ShƯ‘ites, it should be recalled, labeled themselves as ‘Alawiyyah or followers of ‘AlƯ. Since there were sometimes various contenders for the ImƗmate, the various parties identified themselves by the name of the ImƗm they had elected to follow. The Mnjsawiyyah emphasized that they followed the line of ImƗm MnjsƗ while the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯyyah stressed that they were the followers of IsmƗ‘Ưl. To this day, the Twelver ShƯ‘ites identify themselves as Ja‘fariyyah, or followers of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. While it is plausible that the Bajiliyyah were Waqifiyyah, it is equally possible that they were followers of ImƗm al-MnjsƗ, and not necessarily rejecters of ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ. As al-NawbakhtƯ mentions in his Firaq al-shƯ‘ah, some followers of ImƗm MnjsƗ considered that ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ and his descendants were his khulafƗ’ or lieutenants rather than ImƗms (Madelung 1976: 96, note 4). As Madelung observes, “The Bajaliyyah could have attributed a similar role to the IdrƯsids in their midst” (1976: 96, note 4). It should also be stressed that “Towards the end of the 3rd/9th century the Waqifiyyah, the earliest instance of a ‘Sevener’ Shia, appears to have merged with the Twelver Shia which was now firmly establishing itself” (Halm 1991: 33). If this is the case, the Bajaliyyah or Mnjsawiyyah, who were based in Taroudant in the Moroccan Snjs, may have reintegrated into Twelver ShƯ‘ism, as they were only allegedly exterminated by the Almoravids in the year 1040. If the Moroccan Waqifites followed the example of the Middle Eastern Waqifites, they had been Twelver ShƯ‘ites from the end of the ninth century to the rise of the Almoravids in the middle of the eleventh century. According to a note in one of the manuscripts of Ibn ণazm’s books, the Bajaliyyah ShƯ‘ites were conquered and exterminated by Almoravid leader ‘Abd AllƗh b. YƗ-SƯn. Their property was confiscated and distributed among the Almoravids as booty (Friedlander 55, note 1). Those who survived accepted the Sunnah (Ibn AbƯ Zar 82). The success of the Almoravids in exterminating the ShƯ‘ites of the Snjs was not as complete as these reports suggest. Both Abnj ‘Ubayd al-BakrƯ and al-IdrƯsƯ later mention the sect as still flourishing. According to BakrƯ’s Description de l’Afrique Septentrionale To the right of the Bannj Magnjs there is a tribe called Bannj Lamas. They are all RawƗfiঌ and known under the name Bajaliyynjn. There settled in their midst a Bajalite of the people of Naf৬ah in Castilia, before Abnj ‘Abd

134

Chapter 10 AllƗh Ash-ShƯ‘Ư entered IfrƯqiyyah. His name was Muতammad b. Warsand. He called upon them to denounce the companions (of the Prophet) and permitted them forbidden things… They still adhere to his doctrine to this day and (believe) that the ImƗmate is permissible only in the descendants of al-ণasan, not in those of al-ণusayn. Their ruler was IdrƯs Abnj al-QƗsim b. Muতammad b. Ja‘far b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs. (Friedlander II: 75)

Al-BakrƯ, like Ibn ণazm, does not hide his hatred, prejudice, and stereotypes regarding ShƯ‘ites. He claims that ShƯ‘ites denounce the companions when they simply denounce those who betrayed the Prophet. He asserts that Ibn Warsand allowed his followers to engage in prohibited acts. One can only assume that he refers to reciting the complete, prophetically-approved, call to prayer, as opposed to the altered ‘Umarian version; the propheticallypermitted combination of dhuhr and ‘asr prayers and maghrib and ‘ishƗ prayers; along with the prophetically-permitted practice of fixed term marriage. Like Ibn ণazm, al-BakrƯ also makes the misleading claim that the Bajaliyyah believe that the ImƗmate only belongs to the descendants of ImƗm al-ণasan.

10.5 The IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites The second most important ShƯ‘ite faction was that of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs or the Seveners. They accept the first six ImƗms of the Twelver ShƯ‘ites; however, instead of following ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, who was appointed as the seventh ImƗm by his father ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, they insisted that the right of succession should have belonged to his elder son, IsmƗ‘Ưl, even though he died before his father did and did not have the moral, intellectual, or spiritual capacity to assume the leadership of the ShƯ‘ite faith. After the death of IsmƗ‘Ưl, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs believe that his son, Muতammad b. IsmƗ‘Ưl, became the ImƗm. After Muতammad died, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs would gradually splinter into half a dozen different factions. The first of these were the original FƗ৬imids who followed a line of ImƗms allegedly descended from Muতammad b. IsmƗ‘Ưl, including WƗfƯ Aতmad, TaqƯ Muতammad, RabƯ ‘Abd AllƗh, ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ BillƗh, who were the first, second, third, and fourth dƗ’Ư’s or missionaries of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith in the Maghrib, the last of which declared himself the ImƗm and the first FƗ৬imid caliph. ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ was followed by Muতammad al-QƗ’im bi-AmrillƗh, IsmƗ‘Ưl al-Manৢnjr, Ma‘d al-Mu‘Ưzz li-DƯnillƗh, Abnj Manৢnjr NizƗr al-‘AzƯz BillƗh, and finally, al-ণƗkim bi-AmrillƗh, the sixth FƗ৬imid caliph who disappeared in 1021.

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

135

The Druze, extremist ShƯ‘ites [ghulƗt] who believed in the divinity of the ImƗms, split from mainstream IsmƗ‘Ưlism after the disappearance of alণƗkim. They hold that al-ণƗkim was the MahdƯ and that he entered a state of occultation. Al-ণƗkim was followed by his son, ‘AlƯ al-਋ahrƯ lƯ I’zaz DƯnillƗh, who was followed by Abnj TamƯm Ma‘d al-Mustanৢir BillƗh, the eighth FƗ৬imid caliph who died in 1094. The FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs splintered once again after the death of the eighth FƗ৬imid caliph, dividing themselves into the Musta‘lƯ who recognized Aতmad al-Musta‘lƯ, son of al-Mustanৢir, as the ninth FƗ৬imid caliph, who was followed by his son, Al-Amir biAতkamillƗh who died in 1130. Since Amir died without an heir, the Musta‘lƯ split into two factions: the ণƗfi਌Ưs, who accepted al-ণƗfi਌, the cousin of Amir as their caliph, and the ৫ayyibƯs, who believed that Amir’s purported son, al-৫ayyib, was the rightful ImƗm who has gone into occultation. The ণƗfi਌Ư ImƗms included al-ণƗfi਌, al-਋Ɨfir, al-FƗ’iz, and al-‘AdƯd, the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth FƗ৬imid ImƗms. The FƗ৬imid dynasty came to an end with the death of al-‘Aঌid in 1171. The subsequent splits among the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs took place are of little relevance to this present study. It suffices to say that the ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs of the Maghrib and al-Andalus were FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. The FƗ৬imids ruled from Cairo from 969-1171, spreading ShƯ‘ism among a population primarily composed of SunnƯs of the ShƗfi‘Ư school of law. Although SunnƯs were the majority, “there were ShƯ‘ites in Egypt before FƗ৬imid rule” (35). As Devin J. Stewart explains, many of the ShƯ‘ites there, both before and during FƗ৬imid rule, were probably Twelver ShƯ‘ites as opposed to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs (35). IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ideas were disseminated from the minbars of all mosques and through institutions of higher learning such as the University of al-Azhar and DƗr al-ণikmah. Founded as JƗmi‘ al-QƗhirah or “the Mosque of Cairo” between 970 and 972, al-Azhar became a center of ShƯ‘ite celebrations and learning. In 975, the FƗ৬imid caliph, al-Mu’iz, instructed his friend, ‘AlƯ b. al-Nu‘mƗn, to organize a ‫ۊ‬alaqah [a study circle] for teaching IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ jurisprudence. The first text used at the university was KitƗb al-Ikhti‫܈‬Ɨr, a work on the jurisprudence of the progeny of the Prophet, written by his father, al-QƗঌƯ AbƯ ণanƯfah al-Nu‘mƗn b. Muতammad al-TamƯmƯ al-MaghribƯ (d. 974), a FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ from the city of QayrawƗn in the Maghrib. This book, which was an abridged version of his massive KitƗb al-izah, was eventually replaced by the author’s DƗ’im al-IslƗm, a law manual based primarily on the rulings of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Although the dispensation was short-lived, the FƗ৬imids momentarily made Twelver ShƯ‘ism the official religion of their empire. This decision,

136

Chapter 10

made by FƗ৬imid vizier Abnj ‘AlƯ KutayfƗt al-Afঌal (d. 1131), himself a Twelver ShƯ‘ite, was reversed, and Sevener ShƯ‘ism returned to its place as the state religion (Daftary 1990: 247). For a brief moment, a mere year, Twelver ShƯ‘ism was thus the official religion of the FƗ৬imid empire under the leadership of al-Afঌal who issues coins in 525 and 526 in which he labeled himself the nƗ’ib [representative] and khalƯfah [deputy] of the Hidden ImƗm (1990: 247). Egypt, under the FƗ৬imids, was a ShƯ‘ite country. Like Moroccan historians, Egyptian scholars have also attempted to deny or minimize any suspect or heretical ShƯ‘ite past (Stewart 36). Unfazed by academic attempts to ignore the obvious, Lev Yaacov affirms that “The tenor and character of the religious life in FƗ৬imid Egypt was unmistakably IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ” (qtd. Stewart 35-36). As Stewart confirms, there is significant evidence of a sizable ShƯ‘ite presence within the Egyptian populace before, during, and after FƗ৬imid rule. In addition, most scholarship to date has ignored the important role that non-IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ -probably Twelver -- ShƯ‘ism played in Egypt in the middle ages. (52)

The FƗ৬imid influence on Egyptian culture can be seen in architecture, sugar-dolls, and even the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday (Stewart 36). As Stewart suggests in his study, the ShƯ‘ite influence on Egyptian culture has left linguistic evidence in a series of idiomatic expressions which have a decidedly ShƯ‘ite ideological content, including rafa‫ڲ‬Ư, ‘amal ‘Ɲsha, and yƗ ‘Umar (38). The most detailed description of ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices among Egyptian ৡnjfƯs is found Valerie J. Hoffman’s ‫܇‬njfism, Mystics, and Saints in Modern Egypt, particularly in her richly detailed chapter on “The Prophet Muতammad and His Family in Egyptian ৡnjfism.” As can be perceived from this study, the impact of ShƯ‘ism on Egyptian ৡnjfism has been profound. Jurisprudence aside, the beliefs, prayers, and devotional practices of Egyptians ৡnjfƯs are of ShƯ‘ite as opposed to SunnƯ origin. Cairo is filled with tombs, some alleged and some confirmed, belonging to members of the Prophet’s family. The tombs of Ruqayyah, the daughter of ImƗm ‘AlƯ; ImƗm ণusayn; FƗ৬imah al-Nabawiyyah, the daughter of ImƗm ণusayn; Sukaynah, the daughter of ImƗm ণusayn; Sayyidah Zaynab, the sister of ণusayn; Sayyidah NafƯsah, the daughter of ImƗm al-ণasan; ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al‘AbidƯn; and ‘A’ishah, the daughter of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, continue to receive great veneration from Egyptian ৡnjfƯs to this day. Egypt, which was an officially ShƯ‘ite country for two centuries, from 969 to 1171, was only returned to Sunnism by force upon the command of ৡalƗত al-DƯn al-AyynjbƯ. After overthrowing the last FƗ৬imid caliph, the

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

137

Kurdish conqueror had all the ShƯ‘ite judges dismissed and replaced with ShƗfi‘Ư judges. He also removed the words ‫ۉ‬ayya ‘alƗ khayr al-‘amal or “Come to the best of actions” from the call to prayer. He also demanded that people follow one of the four SunnƯ schools of jurisprudence. As Ross E. Dunn explains, “It was Saladin who brought the madrasah idea from Iraq to Cairo in the twelfth century with the specific intention of founding SunnƯ schools to combat and suppress the ShƯ‘Ư doctrines of the preceding FƗ৬imid dynasty” (50). ৡalƗত al-DƯn ordered that: “The evidence of only that person, who believes in the four sects will be accepted, and a person is not entitled to deliver a speech or to teach unless he follows one of the four sects.” As ‘AbidƯn explains, The AyynjbƯs forcibly interfered with the traditions and teachings of the ShƯ‘ah and endeavored to destroy them, eventually leaving the ShƯ‘ah faith relatively dormant in Egypt at that time. ৡalƗত al-DƯn also revived the Umayyad practice of treating ‘AshurƗ’, the 10th of Muতarram, as a celebration as opposed to a day of mourning for ImƗm ণusayn and the martyrs of KarbalƗ.

While the FƗ৬imid empire had provided a haven for the descendants of the Prophet, ShƯ‘ites of all schools, as well as other religious minorities, ৡalƗত al-DƯn had the remaining descendants of ImƗm ‘AlƯ in Egypt imprisoned. By incarcerating the descendants of the Prophet, and separating the men from the women, ৡalƗত al-DƯn hoped that the bloodline of ‘AlƯ might become extinct. While the descendants of ‘AlƯ did not become extinct, alMaqrizƯ (d. 1442) could state that ShƯ‘ism had been eradicated from Egypt by the fifteenth century (Stewart 52). In reality, however, ShƯ‘ism was not eradicated. It was suppressed. In his study on the geographical origins of Twelver ShƯ‘Ư ‘ulamƗ’, Moomen found that no record of Twelver ShƯ‘ite scholars born in Egypt between the first four centuries to 1008. This may suggest that the Twelver ShƯ‘ite community was relatively small in the region at the time. From 1009-1105, however, he located two Twelver scholars born in Egypt (84); and one from 1106-1202 (91). The appearance of Twelver ShƯ‘ite scholars of Egyptian origin suggests that the twelve community in Egypt has strengthened during FƗ৬imid rule which lasted from 969-1171. Despite the defeat of the FƗ৬imids at the hands of the Ayynjbids in 1171, the Egyptian Twelver ShƯ‘ite community showed an increased production of scholars. In fact, Moomen found evidence that five such scholars were born in Egypt from 1203-1299. Although Egyptians ShƯ‘ites were obliged to adopt SunnƯ jurisprudence by the Ayynjbids, many of them continued to maintain ShƯ‘ite beliefs and

138

Chapter 10

practices under the protective umbrella of ৡnjfism. In short, ৡnjfism, in its organized form, arose “to fill the vacuum left by the suppression of ShƯ‘ism” (Moojan 208). As Valerie J. Hoffman has noted, [S]ome Egyptian ৡnjfƯs hold views regarding the ahl al-bayt that are remarkably similar to those of the ShƯ‘ah. For example, Shaykh Faris writes that most books do not give the ahl al-bayt their due, that the (SunnƯ) Muslim community engaged in continuing conspiracies against them until the advent of the (ShƯ‘Ư) FƗ৬imid rule, that many of the তadƯths honoring the ahl al-bayt have been lost, burnt, or otherwise suppressed because of the prevalence of hatred, envy, and deceit, and that the awaited MahdƯ is none other than the twelfth ImƗm of the Twelver ShƯ‘ah. (85)

If many Egyptian historians attempt to ignore or minimize Egypt’s ShƯ‘ite past, so do most Moroccan and Spanish scholars downplay or deny the presence of ShƯ‘ites in their respective regions. Although most orientalists deny that there were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs in al-Andalus, Fierro is willing to consider the matter cautiously. As she explains, Es casi imposible, dada la escasa información de que disponemos, saber si durante el emirato de Muতammad hubo penetración de la da‘wah ismƗ‘ƯlƯ en al-Andalus. Uno se inclina a pensar que debió de haberla, ya que fue una época en la que al-Andalus se abrió a Oriente, siguiendo el camino ya iniciado en los días de ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn II. (1987: 94) [Due to the little information we possess, it is almost impossible to know whether there was any penetration of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ da‘wah in al-Andalus during the Emirate of Muতammad. One is inclined to believe that there must have been since it was a period in which al-Andalus opened up to the east, following the path which had been forged during the days of ‘Abd alRaতmƗn II.]

She finally concludes that, “Aunque la información de que disponemos es muy escasa, se puede concluír que la da‘wah fƗ৬imƯ llegó también a alAndalus, si bien sin obtener resultados duraderos” (1987: 124) [Although the information we possess is scarce, it can be concluded that FƗ৬imid da‘wah also reached al-Andalus, although without achieving lasting results]. She also says that “Apenas si disponemos de información acerca de la muy probable presencia de esos propagandistas [ismƗ‘ƯlƯes] en la Península Ibérica” (1987: 118) [We barely have information regarding the most probable presence of those [IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ] propagandists in the Iberian Peninsula]. In some of her more recent work, Fierro is more confident about the spread of IsmƗ‘Ưlism in al-Andalus. As she explains: “En la segunda mitad del s. III/IX hay indicios de actividad propagandística ismƗ‘ƯlƯ en al-

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

139

Andalus” (2004: 239) [There are indications of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ propaganda in alAndalus in the second half of the third/fourth century]. Aguadé is more confident in confirming a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ presence in al-Andalus. In his words: The IsmƗ‘Ưlite doctrines also found some followers in al-Andalus, although the authorities quickly suppressed all attempts to spread these doctrines. We also know there were some Andalusians who allowed themselves to be seduced by the IsmƗ‘Ưlite creed and emigrated to the FƗ৬imids. (67)

Unlike most orientalists, Aguadé admits that there were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs in al-Andalus. He also points out how difficult it was for them to openly spread their teachings due to government repression. Rather than saying that some Andalusians were “seduced” by ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘Ưlism, which sounds pejorative, he could have said they were “convinced” or “drawn to convert.” Far from being a foreign ideology, “el ismailismo se veía favorecido en al-Andalus por todas las grandes familias arabo-andalusies opuestas a los omeyas” [IsmƗ‘Ưlism was favored by all the important Andalusian-Arab families who were opposed to the Umayyads] (Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme 87) Although many scholars limit IsmƗ‘Ưlism to regions of the Maghrib under the direct control of the FƗ৬imids, there were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs spread throughout North Africa and al-Andalus. As Virgilio Martínez Enamorado explains, Although we know little about the da‘wah prior to 948, the FƗ৬imid missionaries were probably already organized in jazƗ’ir (sg. jazƯrah, lit. “island”), separate units which were responsible for the dissemination of ShƯ‘Ư ideologies in a given area outside the FƗ৬imids’ domain. Each of these “islands” was led by a dƗ’Ư who was called ‫ۊ‬ujjah (proof, guarantor) or, in more adequate terms used in the early stages of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ movement, naqƯb (chief, representative), lƗ‫ۊ‬iq (assistant), or yad (hand). The leader of each jazƯrah had a number of subordinate dƗ‘Ưs, sometimes more than thirty. In all likelihood, it was the “island” responsible for the Maghrib and Andalusia, with its headquarters in QayrawƗn, that arranged the expedition to the ণafৢnjnid domain, appointed the missionaries involved, and selected the presents as well as the protocolary garments. (286-287)

After 948, it was the DƗr al-IsmƗ‘Ưliyyah or “The House of IsmƗ‘Ưlism,” in ৡabrah al-Manৢnjriyyah, the courtly city near QayrawƗn, which “was probably responsible for the entire mission in the Maghrib, and no doubt also in Sicily and al-Andalus” (Halm 1997: 57).

140

Chapter 10

In 972, when the Umayyad troops occupied Arcila, a North African port on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, General Ibn Tumlus found a pulpit or minbar which was inscribed with the name of the FƗ৬imid caliph (Fierro 1987: 145, note 74). The port of Arcila has been founded by the IdrƯsids and was in a rich agricultural region. The port allowed for the shipment of grains from the Maghrib to al-Andalus. And, evidently, since the principal mosque of Arcila was IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, it was not only food that was being exported, but ShƯ‘ism as well.

10.6 The Qarmatians Although the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs reject them, the Qarmatians were present in the Maghrib, and possibly in al-Andalus as well. The Qarmatians were followers of a Knjfan man named ণamdƗn who converted to IsmƗ‘Ưlism by the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ leader al-ণusayn al-AhwazƯ in 874 C.E. HamdƗn adopted the name Qarma৬ after his new faith. Along with theologian brother-in-law, ‘Abdan, Qarma৬ prepared southern Iraq for the coming of the MahdƯ by creating a military and religious stronghold. Other strongholds were established in Yemen, Baতrayn and North Africa. The goal of the Qarmatians was the creation of an egalitarian society in which all land, personal belongings and, according to some lurid claims, even wives, were shared. Under Abnj ৫Ɨhir, it is alleged that “IslƗm was to be abrogated, for a complete revelation of past hidden esoteric truths was to take place.... The IৢfahƗnƯ Messiah abolished the sharƯ‘ah and sanctioned the worship of fire and the cursing of Muতammad and his family... the truth meant a return to a Persian past” (Babayan 276-277). The movement’s revolutionary messianism attracted many new ShƯ‘Ư followers in the ণijƗz, North Africa, Persia, and Transoxiana. The Qarmatians instigated a century of terrorism in the IslƗmic world, massacring pilgrims to and from the hajj, sacking the city of Mecca, and even stealing the black stone to bring about the “end of IslƗm.” As Syed AbƯd ‘AlƯ cautions in his “Political Theory of the ShƯ‘ites:” The Qarmatian sect is not confused with the IsmƗ‘Ưlites, as the latest research has established beyond any doubt: it is the term “IsmƗ‘Ưlite” which is indicative of the true origin of the sect, other appellations being either misleading or based on hostility to this sect in general and to orthodox ShƯ‘ites in particular. (738)

He also writes that, “At this juncture, it is perhaps expedient to state in the most explicit terms that the Qarmatians were not associated with the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, nor were they identical with them as it is sometimes wrongly

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

141

supposed” (741). As FarhƗd Daftary has observed in The Assassin Legends: Myths of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, “they may not have been IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs at all on the outset, and their conduct and customs gave plausibility to the belief that they were not merely heretics but bitter enemies of IslƗm” (1995: 21). Although the Qarmatians have been discredited as opportunistic and nihilistic extremists, they claimed to be ShƯ‘ites.

10.7 The ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites The ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites recognized the first four ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, but accepted Zayd b. ‘AlƯ as their fifth ImƗm in place of Muতammad al-BƗqir. Unlike the Seveners and the Twelvers, the ZaydƯs believed that the ImƗmate was open to any descendant of al-ণasan or al-ণusayn who revolted against despotic rulers. They were critical, however, of the ণusaynid branch for its perceived political inactivity. Unlike the Twelvers, the ZaydƯs do not believe in infallibility, object to taqiyyah, oppose ‘irfƗn or mysticism, reject miracles, and refuse to acknowledge underaged ImƗms. They also hold that the Prophet’s designation of ‘AlƯ was implicit as opposed to explicit. The ZaydƯs are divided into two main factions, the SulaymƗniyyah and the JƗrnjdiyyah, the first of which accept the first three caliphs and the second of which rejects them. While many early ZaydƯs were of the JƗrnjdiyyah faction, the SulaymƗniyyah faction eventually came to dominate. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh and IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh were apparently connected to the JƗrnjdiyyah branch of the ZaydƯs. As ণaider explains, “Aতmad b. ‘IsƗ… maintained close ties to a number of prominent ‘Alids including both YaতyƗ and IdrƯs, the sons of ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. alণasan” (468, note 49). As he points out, ‘Aতmad b. ‘IsƗ’ b. Zayd (d. 863), the author of al-AmƗlƯ, the most important ZaydƯ ‫ۊ‬adƯth collection, was known for being a staunchly JƗrnjdƯ ZaydƯ jurist (468). ZaydƯ jurisprudence is based on the teachings of Zayd b. ‘AlƯ as found in Majmnj‘ al-fiqh. It has been influenced by ণanafƯ jurisprudence to a large extent and by Ja‘farƯ jurisprudence to a lesser degree. Rather than follow the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt, the ZaydƯs followed the ahl al-‫ۊ‬adƯth of Medina. While they may be ShƯ‘ites politically, they are essentially SunnƯs in religious practice. Consequently, many ZaydƯs were eventually assimilated into the larger body of Sunnism. Many of the Yemenite Arabs who settled in the Maghrib and alAndalus were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites. Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. Sallam b. SayyƗr al-KnjfƯ, whose books were quoted extensively by QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, was a Knjfan ZaydƯ scholar who lived for some time in Barqah and later presumably moved to al-QayrawƗn where he seems to have passed away.

142

Chapter 10

One of his students, Ibn Haytham, was also from a ZaydƯ family from QayrawƗn in what is now modern-day Tunisia. Since ZaydƯ fiqh is similar to ণanafƯ fiqh, it is not surprising that the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of the pre-FƗ৬imid Maghrib were strongly associated with ণanafƯ scholars, with whom they would study. As Aতmad Pakatchi explains, In the first half of the third century AH, Aতmad b. ‘IsƗ b. Zayd and QƗsim b. IbrƗhƯm RasƯ, two prominent Zaydite leaders, simultaneously established two schools of fiqh in Iraq and ণijƗz. Soon, the principles of their fiqhi methods were compiled in a comparative work attributed to a ণasan b. YaতyƗ in a work titled al-JƗmi’ ‘alƗ madhhab al-QƗsim wa A‫ۊ‬mad b. ‘IsƗ (A Compendium of the Religion of QƗsim and A‫ۊ‬mad b. ‘IsƗ). The same comparative method of compilation was taken up by Muতammad b. Manৢnjr MurƗdƯ (d. 290 AH) throughout his numerous works. Throughout its development, several factors contributed to the Zaydite fiqh, including extensive influence from its ণanafite counterpart. These included the existing intellectual affinities between the two schools, the Zaydites’ sympathy for Abnj ণanƯfah because he supported the Zaydite movement throughout its phase of uprisings, and the rising popularity of the ণanafite fiqh in all parts of IslƗmic world, owing to its progressive systematization.

Since many ণanafƯ scholars from the Maghrib embraced ShƯ‘ism upon the advent of the FƗ৬imids, one wonders whether they were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites who were feigning to be ণanafƯs.

10.8 The BƗ৬iniyyah The ܲƗhirƯs or literalists focus on the esoteric meaning of the Qur’Ɨn. The term bƗ‫ܒ‬iniyyah is used pejoratively by SunnƯs to describe AlevƯs, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, and often ৡnjfƯs who focus on the inner or esoteric meaning of the Qur’Ɨn. Hence, although the term can also be applied to ৡnjfƯs, it is possible that some of the people from the Maghrib and al-Andalus who were condemned as bƗ‫ܒ‬iniyyah were ShƯ‘ite Muslim mystics. Besides fighting KhƗrijism, ShƯ‘ism, ৡnjfƯsm, and Mu‘tazilism, the Umayyads of al-Andalus were also at war against all forms of esoterism regardless of its origin. According to Fierro, “En el caso de los andalusíes que nos ocupan ningún indicio nos permite suponerles isma’ilíes; lo que sabemos de sus biografías me lleva a considerarles batinƯes en el sentido místico” (1987: 131) [In the case of the Andalusians which interest us, there are no indications to suggest that they were IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs: what we know about them from their biographies leads me to consider them as bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯs in the mystical sense.] Although the bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯs she studied may have been SunnƯs, it

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

143

is possible that other bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯs were ShƯ‘ites.

10.9 The ৡnjfƯs Although some scholars speak of three “sects” in IslƗm, the SunnƯ, the ShƯ‘Ư, and the ৡnjfƯ, others insist that there are only two main branches in IslƗm: Sunnism and ShƯ‘ism. For the latter, the ৡnjfƯs do not comprise a separate branch. Since they do not have their own separate jurisprudence, ৡnjfƯs are either SunnƯs or ShƯ’Ưs. There are ৡnjfƯ orders in the SunnƯ world and ৡnjfƯ orders in the ShƯ‘ite world. However, regardless of the school of law that they follow, ৡnjfƯ Muslims are devoted to ImƗm ‘AlƯ, and most of ৡnjfƯ orders trace back to him, often via the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. So, even though some ৡnjfƯs may be SunnƯs in jurisprudence, they are almost always ShƯ‘ite in their devotion to ahl al-bayt and ShƯ‘ite in their spirituality. As Valerie H. Hoffman has remarked, “The centrality of devotion to the ahl albayt in Egyptian ৡnjfism lends itself to accusations of ShƯ‘ism” (85). Even the earliest authorities have observed this fact on the development of IslƗm. As Ibn Khaldnjn noted: The ৡnjfƯs… became saturated with ShƯ‘ah theories… The fact that (the ৡnjfƯs) restrict (precedence in mysticism) to ‘AlƯ smells strongly of proShƯ‘ah sentiment. This and other aforementioned ৡnjfƯ ideas shows that the ৡnjfƯs have adopted pro-ShƯ‘ah sentiments and have become enmeshed in them. (187)

For scholars like Henri Corbin (1903-1978), ShƯ‘ism and ৡnjfƯsm were identical in essence: ShƯ‘ism was the outer form of IslƗmic mysticism, while ৡnjfƯsm was its inner core. As Seyyed ণossein Naৢr says: “From the ShƯ‘ite point of view, ShƯ‘ism is the origin of what later came to be known as ৡnjfƯsm” (1972: 106). Alternatively, as Joaquin Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme puts it, ৡnjfƯs and mystics are all “salidos del chiísmo” [the product of ShƯ‘ism] (86). This claim finds support in the fact that nearly all ৡnjfƯ orders trace back to ImƗm ‘AlƯ, many by means of the sixth ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. Within the past few decades, millions of ৡnjfƯ Muslims from black Africa, from Senegal to Sudan, have embraced Twelver ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. Some of their scholars are both ShƯ‘ite shaykhs and representatives of ৡnjfƯ orders. Thanks to taqiyyah, they move with ease between Sunnism, ShƯ‘ism, and ৡnjfism. While some of these ৡnjfƯs were SunnƯs who, for various reasons, found ShƯ‘ism more fulfilling spiritually and politically, one wonders whether some of these “converts” were ShƯ‘ites all along, living in taqiyyah under the guise of ৡnjfism, and whether they only recently found the situation sufficiently safe and propitious to profess them ShƯ‘ism openly.

144

Chapter 10

Considering that Arab trade routes from the Sahara extended as far as Elmina, in Ghana (Hemming 64), it seems that trade brought ideas as much as goods. In Egypt, where ShƯ‘ism is spreading at such a pace that it has provoked government outrage, the new converts are disguised in more than seventysix ৡnjfƯ groups, a fact confirmed to al-‘Arabiyyah News Channel by Muতammad al-DarƯnƯ, the leader of the Egyptian ShƯ‘ites (Majid). In Libya, which appeared to be relatively sheltered from ShƯ‘ite influence emanating from Iran, the late QaddafƯ declared that North Africa was ShƯ‘ite and called for the establishment of a new FƗ৬imid state: Today there is a divide [in the IslƗmic world] that we must acknowledge, and we must know who is deepening it. Perhaps it is colonialism, the enemy of IslƗm, the enemy of the Arabs, and the enemy of the Persians, that is deepening it… They have divided IslƗm into two IslƗms, and there came to be ShƯ‘ite IslƗm and SunnƯ IslƗm. This is a forbidden innovation [bid‘ah]… When did Muতammad say: “I have brought you ShƯ‘ite IslƗm and SunnƯ IslƗm?” As a consequence of this, they have now begun to group the Arabs against Iran and Iran against the Arabs, and then ShƯ‘ites against SunnƯs and SunnƯs against ShƯ‘ites. Are we Muslims, or are we ShƯ‘ites and SunnƯs?! For whose benefit is this? It is for the benefit of the “other” that we are speaking about, for the benefit of the enemy, for the benefit of colonialism… The FƗ৬imid state arose at the beginning of the tenth century, and it formed an umbrella over North Africa, and under its banner all of the tribal, denominational, political, and ethnic differences fused, and they all became one single FƗ৬imid identity, which lasted two hundred and sixty years and extended as far as the Arab East… Now people say to us that the ShƯ‘ites are all in Iran and that ShƯ‘ite means Persians and that SunnƯ means Arabs. This is a lie. This is deceit. Those who say this are ignoramuses who do not know history. To the contrary, the first ShƯ‘ite state arose in North Africa. The FƗ৬imid state was the first ShƯ‘ite state… In North Africa… go anywhere and ask them about their customs and traditions. They are all ShƯ‘ite customs and traditions. [They include] the celebration of ‘AshnjrƗ’, the sorrow on ‘AshnjrƗ’ and the remembrance of ‘AshnjrƗ’ and our lord ‘AlƯ; the extensive stories about our lord ‘AlƯ and being the party [tashayyu‘] of our lord ‘AlƯ. [The North Africans] do not know Mu‘Ɨwiyyah. From Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, there is not a single person named Mu‘Ɨwiyyah. They are all named ‘AlƯ, FƗ৬imah, KhadƯjah, ণasan, ণusayn, etc. When we come to religious authority… have [people] not gotten themselves into a mess and said that the SunnƯs are against the ShƯ‘ites and the Arabs against the Persians? Who holds to this view? It is the foreign

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

145

occupation and the Zionist settlement that brought this... North Africa is Arab and ShƯ‘ite… The ShƯ‘ite FƗ৬imid state arose in North Africa and not in Iran. We want to revive it once again. We direct a renewed call to all of the forces in the first FƗ৬imid state to revive [it in] a modern, second FƗ৬imid state -- on the condition that it be free of all of the sectarian conflicts and [the debate about] the ImƗmate and [religious] rule [‫ۊ‬Ɨkimiyyah] and the sophistry of old… (MEMRI n. page)

Although QaddƗfƯ was overthrown due to his decision to stop exporting oil to Europe in favor of China, one wonders whether his increasing ties with the “Islamic” Republic of Iran also played a role in determining his demise. Even though they were obliged to adopt SunnƯ jurisprudence for the sake of outward appearances, the ৡnjfis maintained the spiritual message of ShƯ‘ism. As a result, when the ৡafavids came to power, the ৡnjfƯ orders played an essential role in bringing SunnƯs into ShƯ‘ism. As Naৢr explains in Expectation of the Millennium: ShƯ‘ism in History: As for ৡnjfism the period between the Mongols and the ৡafavids was witness not only to a remarkable flourishing of ৡnjfism, as exemplified by the appearance of such great poles of sanctity as MawlanƗ JalƗl al-DƯn RnjmƯ, Najm al-DƯn KubrƗ, ৡadr al-DƯn al-QunawƯ and the like, but it was also the period during which ৡnjfism became a bridge between Sunnism and ShƯ‘ism and in many instances prepared the ground for the spread of ShƯ‘ism. The role of the Kubrawiyyah, the Nurbakhshiyyah and the Ni‘matullƗhiyyah orders bears close study in the light of their relation to the later spread of ShƯ‘ism in Persia through a dynasty of ৡnjfƯ origin. (1989: 161)

In the Maghrib and al-Andalus, and much of the Muslim world, ৡnjfism was used as a cover by ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ agents. As Pinault has explained, the dƗ’Ưs would disguise themselves as merchants or ৡnjfƯ dervishes (Pinault 42). As Portillo Pasqual del Riquelmo observes: “los agentes secretos ismailíes seguían moviéndose…y entremezclándose con los sufíes, cuya filosofía penetra el hermetismo ismailí, especialmente in al-Andalus” (50) [the secret agents of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs continued to operate… mixing themselves with the ৡnjfƯs whose philosophy penetrates IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ hermeticism, especially in alAndalus].

10.10 The ণasanid Twelver ShƯ‘ites Although there were ZaydƯ, WaqifƯ, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites in alAndalus, The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants, a work on the lives of the twelve ImƗms which was translated into Spanish

146

Chapter 10

in 1639 for the benefit of the Morisco community, seems to suggest that there were Muslims who believed in both the three first caliphs as well as the twelve ImƗms, cursed YazƯd, and yet held that Mu‘Ɨwiyyah was a righteous companion of the Prophet. If such a sect ever existed, and the work is not merely some eclectic mélange of Sunnism, ৡnjfism, and ShƯ‘ism, its partisans could be described as some sort of ণasanid Twelver ShƯ‘ites. If this hypothesis is correct, these ণasanid Twelver ShƯ‘ites would represent the western branch of TwelveImƗm ShƯ‘ite IslƗm as opposed to the ণusaynid Twelver ShƯ‘ites who represent the eastern branch of Twelve-ImƗm ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. In an attempt to save their lives and properties and to preserve what they perceived to be the original teachings of IslƗm, the ShƯ‘ites of the ahl al-bayt attempted to flee from Umayyad control. A group of them, who would come to be known as the ণusaynid ShƯ‘ites, established themselves in the eastern part of the IslƗmic world, in Iraq and Persia, while another group, who would come to be known as the ণasanid ShƯ‘ites, fled to Egypt, the Sudan, North Africa, and the Maghrib. Just as ণusayn and his descendants were fleeing the ণijƗz for Iraq, Persia, and India, the descendants of al-ণasan were fleeing the ণijƗz in the opposite direction, towards Egypt, the Sudan, North Africa, and eventually al-Andalus. As Syed Moতsin NaquvƯ explains, Many of them went into hiding and taqiyyah during the persecution by the ‘AbbƗsids. It is very likely that they actually could not tell their children who they actually were. Many ণasanƯ Syeds do not know that they are actually ণasanƯ or even that they are Syeds. (n. page)

The status of the first three caliphs was a subject of contention among the early ShƯ‘ites. The early ZaydƯ group, the JƗrnjdiyyah, denied the legitimacy of Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn. They also denounced ৫alতah and Zubayr. Although this became a prevalent view among later ZaydƯs, the latter were assimilated into the Twelver ShƯ‘ites due to the similarity in their beliefs. The SulaymƗniyyah ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites accepted the first two caliphs, Abnj Bakr and ‘Umar, but rejected the third caliph, ‘UthmƗn. They believe that ‘AlƯ should have been the first caliph because he was the most preferred candidate [af‫ڲ‬al]. Although Abnj Bakr and ‘Umar were the less preferred candidates, their reign was nonetheless legitimate in the eyes of the SulaymƗniyyah ZaydƯs. Many of these more moderate ZaydƯs were eventually assimilated into Sunnism.

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

147

Although they disappeared from the Middle East, being absorbed into Twelver ShƯ‘ism, there was once a group of ZaydƯs that was willing to accept the three first caliphs of the SunnƯs, the twelve ImƗms of the Twelvers, along with Zayd b. ‘AlƯ, the founder of the Zaydiyyah, as their leaders. There was even one ShƯ‘ite scholar, who lived during the Lesser Occultation of the Hidden ImƗm, who accepted Zayd b. ‘AlƯ among the ImƗms of the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites (Sachedina 55). Consequently, it is not farfetched to suggest that such beliefs, which bend sectarian boundaries, were also found in North Africa and Spain. They were the proverbial SuShis: SunnƯ-ShƯ‘ites. If historians have mistaken these ণasanid ShƯ‘ites for SunnƯs it is for several reasons. In the early days of IslƗm, it was sometimes difficult to determine who was a SunnƯ and who was a ShƯ‘Ư. As Naৢr explains: the hard-and-fast divisions of later centuries are not discernible in the earlier period. There were SunnƯ elements with definite ShƯ‘ite tendencies, and there were ShƯ‘ite contacts with SunnƯ elements both intellectually and socially. In certain cases in fact it is difficult to judge as to whether a particular author was ShƯ‘ite or SunnƯ especially before the fourth/tenth century, although even in this period ShƯ‘ite and SunnƯ religious and spiritual life each possessed its own particular perfume and color. (1972: 106-107)

Historians may also have mistaken these ণasanid ShƯ‘ites for MƗlikƯ SunnƯs since their external rituals were similar if not identical. They may also have mistaken ণasanid ShƯ‘ites for MƗlikƯ SunnƯs due to the fact that they accepted both the rightly-guided caliphs of the SunnƯs and the twelve ImƗms of the ShƯ‘ites. Hence, they could not be called rƗfi‫ڲ‬Ưs, or rejecters, the slur which certain intolerant SunnƯs apply to ShƯ‘ites. Clearly, historians who speak of al-Andalus as some type of homogeneous MƗlikƯ SunnƯ state are mistaken. Rather than examine the beliefs of the inhabitants of the Maghrib and al-Andalus, they have labeled them all as being MƗlikƯ SunnƯs based on superficial external ritual practices. Finally, the main reason historians have denied or downplayed the ShƯ‘ite presence in al-Andalus is due to the fact that they have blindly followed biased SunnƯ sources. As Bernard and Ellen Whishaw observed over a hundred years ago, “The Sunnite Ibn HayyƗn and Cordovan historians in general suppressed, as far as possible, any recognition of strength and importance of the elements hostile to their own part” (9). They attempted to ignore ShƯ‘ite contributions to al-Andalus: “Ibn ণayyƗn and his seventeenth- century successor MaqqarƯ, both being Sunnites, never mention the tribal name, if they can avoid it, when recording honors

148

Chapter 10

bestowed on ShƯ‘ites” (65). As Bernard and Ellen Whishaw explain: How, for instance, could Ibn HayyƗn, a Mudarite and a Sunnite, do justice to the part played in history by his racial and religious foes, the ShƯ‘ite Arabs descended from the tribes of Yemen? He wrote the history of Spain as he saw it at Cordova, which for men of his race and religion was the only place that mattered. To him the protracted civil war of the ninth century, for instance, was merely the rebellion of “bad Muslims,” “rebels,” and “bandits.” MakkarƯ, a Mudarite and a Sunnite like HayyƗn, naturally followed him and other writers of the same school, and inevitably their views differed toto coelo from those of the Yemenites, the “bad Muslims” and “rebels” whom they so cordially hated. (6-7)

10.11 The GhulƗt or So-Called ShƯ‘ite Extremists The so-called GhulƗt or Extremist ShƯ‘ites, as they are labelled by Twelver ShƯ‘ites who view them as heretics, consider the ImƗms to be divine entities or incarnations of God (Morrow 2020; Morrow 2019: chapter 2). As can be evidenced by Aljamiado-Morisco literature, their influence reached the Maghrib and al-Andalus. In fact, some Moriscos were fond of quoting from in al-ণarrƗnƯ’s Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl, a work which is popular among the ‘AlawƯNusayrƯ GhulƗt and Twelver ShƯ‘ites. Although the Hidden ImƗm is given supernatural qualities among Twelver ShƯ‘ites, he, along with the other ImƗms, is deified by the GhulƗt. One Morisco by the name of Joan Crespo, whose Arabic name was Abrahim Fatimí, appears to have presented himself to the people of the town of Cofrentes as El Moro FƗ৬imƯ, the FƗ৬imid Moor, the Hidden ImƗm of Morisco legend. As Marya T. Green Mercado relates, [P]eople in the village believed that Fatimí’s name meant that he was “a man of the other world” … A similar though more heretical explanation of Fatimí’s name was offered by a Morisca named Ana Mahorte. Ana had first-hand information about the newcomer, since it was in her brother’s home where Abraham Fatimí had been living for the past seven months. During her interrogation, Ana stated that people in the town called the man Abrahim, and that he called himself Fatimí, “which means that he is God (que es Dios).” The witnesses also recalled that Fatimí openly displayed miraculous gifts. He claimed to have knowledge of all past, present, and future things. For example, he knew exactly when Francisco Mahorte’s house had been built, and where the first stone had been set. Francisco and his wife took this a proof of the newcomer’s holiness. Additionally, the witnesses also testified that it was public news in the town of Cofrentes that Abrahim Fatimí could speak to angels…

ShƯ‘ite Sects in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

149

[m]any believed in the divine origin of Fatimí’s supernatural attributes. Thus they described … Abrahim Fatimí’s ability to hide himself (el que se esconde), becoming invisible; the skill with which he could transport himself without being perceived; and they marveled at the fact that several Moriscos had seen him levitating (como elevado) in a room in Francisco. Yet Abrahim Fatimí’s most important mission was to lead the Moriscos in a rebellion, set to take place on April 5, 1575. For this occasion, Fatimí would direct forty men into battle, carrying a standard. Abrahim would appoint several men… as his deputies, to rule as kings over different parts of the Peninsula. (205) The Moriscos’s testimonies to the agent of the Valencian inquisition suggest that the man whose name was Abraham was making a special claim by calling himself Fatimí, “the FƗ৬imid,” (a descendant of the Prophet Muতammad’s daughter FƗ৬ima). The degree to which the Moriscos of the town of Cofrentes immediately recognized his claim is striking. Their interpretation of Fatimí’s name as an “otherworldly” visitor, and their descriptions of Fatimí’s behavior, suggest that these Moriscos were well acquainted with the legend of El moro Alfatimí, which circulated widely among the crypto-Muslims of the Crown of Aragón throughout the sixteenth century. According to the legend, Alfatimí would come at the End of Times to fight the final apocalyptic battle on behalf of the Moriscos. (205)

Although most SunnƯ Muslims believe in the Mahdi, the concept is not nearly as important, developed, and emphasized as in ShƯ‘ism. The Morisco belief in a messianic Hidden ImƗm, who can perform miracles, render himself invisible, levitate, transport himself from one place to the other, who has knowledge of all things, who will rise in revolt to bring justice to the world, and who will appoint special deputies aligns is entirely of ShƯ‘ite origin. Finally, the association of the Hidden ImƗm with God aligns with GhulƗt ShƯ‘ite beliefs.

10.12 Conclusions As we have seen, there was a great deal of diversity among MaghribƯ and AndalusƯ Muslims. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that MaghribƯ Muslims always favored SunnƯ IslƗm. On the contrary, the first forms of IslƗm to take root in the Maghrib were KhƗrijism and ShƯ‘ism. Not only were ShƯ‘ites among the first Muslims in the Maghrib, but many different ShƯ‘ite sects were represented in the region. The first ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and alAndalus, were mainstream ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, the predecessors of the TwelveImƗm ShƯ‘ites, who were mainly HƗshimite Arabs and Berber converts. Besides the eastern school of ShƯ‘ism based in the Middle East, there also existed a western school of ShƯ‘ism based in the Maghrib founded by

150

Chapter 10

the descendants of ImƗm al-ণasan, and reinforced by missionaries like Abnj SufyƗn and al-HulwanƯ who were sent by ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. As Madelung has pointed out, QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn did not rely exclusively on ShƯ‘ite books imported from the east. In fact, he quoted pre-FƗ৬imid MaghribƯ ShƯ‘ite scholars like ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn al-Warsand who was merely one of the pre-FƗ৬imid MaghribƯ ShƯ‘ite scholars. Due to lack of communication with the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt in the Middle East, it is possible that word of the nomination and confirmation of succession of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ did not reach some of the ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib. As such, it is conceivable that the Bannj Lamas Berbers continued to follow ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im as the last ImƗm that they had known. It is also possible, however, they were convinced and committed Waqifites. The second earliest group of ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites from Arabia and the Yemen. Although the FƗ৬imids attempted to present themselves as the first ShƯ‘ites to be active in the Maghrib, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs were arguably the last ShƯ‘ite group to spread in the region. Since most of the Muslims from al-Andalus came from the Maghrib, and since many of the Muslims of the Maghrib were ShƯ‘ites, the presence of ShƯ‘ite Muslims in al-Andalus cannot be questioned by any serious scholar.

CHAPTER 11 SHƮ‘ITE DYNASTIES IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

11.1 Introduction The ShƯ‘ite Muslims of the Maghrib and al-Andalus were not the followers of a powerless minority movement. On the contrary, the ShƯ‘ites of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula achieved political power. As shall be seen below, the first ShƯ‘ite dynasty established in the Maghrib was that of the IdrƯsids, which included both ZaydƯ and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites. These were soon followed by the FƗ৬imids, who were IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites, and rivals of the IdrƯsids, fighting for the hearts and minds of the ShƯ‘ite community. Although they eventually broke from the FƗ৬imids, the ZƯrƯds and the ণammadids were, for a time, ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ dynasties situated in North Africa. After the demise of the IdrƯsids in the Maghrib, their descendants, the ণammnjdids, established a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite dynasty in al-Andalus during the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah period.

11.2 The IdrƯsids (780-974) While Umayyad IslƗm dominated the Arab garrisons and settlements in the Maghrib, the conquerors made little effort to convert the indigenous Amazigh people to the Muslim faith. As Richard Frye explains, In the first century of the IslƗmic conquests, ideology reverted in some degree to ancient concepts. The Arab tribes believed that IslƗm was an Arab religion, restricted to tribesmen and their clients. To become a Muslim meant to become an Arab: to break with one’s previous community and faith, learn Arabic, and become a part of the Arab community, the ummah. In the early years of the Umayyad caliphate, instances of refusal to accept converts are recorded, since doing so would have reduced the capitation taxes paid by non-Muslims. It was only after the establishment of the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate in 750 that conversion to IslƗm became more widespread. This is not to deny the previous missionary

152

Chapter 11 work of pious Arabs, especially the caliph ‘Umar II, but on the whole no great efforts were made to turn the entire population into Muslims under the Umayyads. (127-28)

It was only with the arrival of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil b. al-ণasan alMuthannƗ b. al-ণasan al-Sib৬ b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’ in 788 that the IslƗm of the ahl al-bayt spread significantly among the Amazigh people. Not only did he create the first autonomous IslƗmic state in Morocco, IdrƯs created the first ShƯ‘ite dynasty in the history of IslƗm thanks to the support of the Berbers. As a testimony of the importance he placed on the wilƗyah or guardianship of the ahl al-bayt, Moulay IdrƯs established the sharƯfian tradition in Morocco, by which the claim of descent from the Prophet was the basic requirement for monarchic rule. In fact, every dynasty that has ruled Morocco -- except the Almoravids and the Almohads -- has claimed descent from the Prophet and followed a ShƯ‘ite political model. The dynasty of IdrƯs I was also the first to incorporate both Berbers and Arabs. Moulay IdrƯs, as he is respectfully known, traced his ancestry back to ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’. In fact, he was the great-grandson of ImƗm al-ণasan, the second ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. His grandfather, al-ণasan alMuthannƗ, was one of the three sons of ImƗm al-ণasan. The two brothers of al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ, QƗsim and ‘Abd AllƗh, died defending their uncle, ImƗm al-ণusayn, in KarbalƗ’. Although seriously wounded, al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ was saved by the Bannj Asad tribesmen who treated his wounds. Once he recovered, he returned to Medina where he stayed with the Bannj Asad for one year. When the surviving members of the family of the Prophet were released from captivity and returned to KarbalƗ’, he joined their caravan. After paying their respects to ImƗm ণusayn and the martyrs of KarbalƗ’, al-ণasan al-MuthannƗ returned with them to the City of the Prophet in the year 681/682, at which point he was seventeen years of age. Shortly after, he married his cousin, FƗ৬imah al-ৡughrah, the daughter of ImƗm al-ণusayn, with whom he had a son known as ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil. The head of the ণasanid family, and a figure respected by the entire Bannj HƗshim, ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil had sons and daughters from three different women. He had Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, IbrƗhƯm, MnjsƗ, IdrƯs (al-Akbar), HƗrnjn, Kulthnjm, Umm Kulthnjm, FƗ৬imah, Zaynab, and Ruqayyah with Hind bint AbƯ ‘Ubaydah b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Zam’a b. alAswad b. al-Mu৬৬alib b. Asad b. ‘Abd al-‘UzzƗ b. Quৢayy (Montgomerry 149). He also fathered ‘IsƗ, DƗwnjd, and IdrƯs (al-Aৢghar) with ‘Atikah, who was the daughter of ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. al-ণƗrith b. KhƗlid b. al-‘Aৢ b. HishƗm

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

153

b. al-MughƯrah b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Makhznjm, a famous poet. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn were born to Hind’s niece, QarƯbah bint Rukayত b. AbƯ Ubaydah b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Zam‘ah. The descendants of al-ণasan, unlike the descendants of al-ণusayn, had ZaydƯ as opposed to ImƗmƯ inclinations. The ণasanids insisted that the Prophet’s descendants should rise and claim their right to rule according to ZaydƯ doctrine. The ণusaynids, however, insisted on patience and constancy and demanded pious dissimulation from their followers. The ZaydƯs were activists while the ImƗmƯs of the time were quietists While they opposed the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids, the ImƗmƯs viewed violent revolt as futile. They believed that the ruling authorities aimed at provoking the descendants of the Prophet into action to justify exterminating them. The fact of the matter, however, is that the ZaydƯ approach produced ShƯ‘ite states while the ImƗmƯ approach did not. Having witnessed the oppression to which the rulers of the age subjected their family, several of the sons of ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil played leading roles in a series of ShƯ‘ite revolts against the ‘AbbƗsids. The oldest son of ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil, Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, was promoted as the MahdƯ by his father and followers. When Abnj Salmah, a former ‘AbbƗsid, sought support from the ‘Alids, ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil was eager to advance his son, Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, as a contender for the caliphate. Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah revolted against al-Manৢnjr, the second ‘AbbƗsid caliph, in the year 762. Al-Manৢnjr responded by sending four thousand horsemen and two thousand soldiers from Knjfah along with the troops under the command of Muতammad b. Quত৬ubah. Overwhelmed by enemy troops, the forces of Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh were decimated, and the Pure Soul, as he was known, was decapitated and crucified. His head was sent to his father, ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil who, along with his older son, IdrƯs al-Akbar, and other eminent members of his family, descendants of the first four caliphs of IslƗm, and some famous companions of the Prophet, had languished in the ‘AbbƗsid dungeons since 761/762. If the ShƯ‘ite nature of the rebellion was not sufficiently clear, al-Manৢnjr had ৡadƯf b. Maymnjn, a ShƯ‘ite poet, buried alive for praising Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah in his poetry and for having contributed one thousand dinars to his cause. IbrƗhƯm, a second son of ‘Abd AllƗh al-KƗmil, also revolted against alManৢnjr in BaghdƗd and was likewise martyred in 763. A third son, YaতyƗ, and a fourth son, IdrƯs, played prominent roles in the battle of Fakhkh in 787, which was led by ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. The revolt was the result of repressive measures aimed against the Prophet’s descendants who had been forced to relocate to

154

Chapter 11

Medina from Iraq so that they could be kept under the watchful eye of the ‘AbbƗsid governor. Since the ‘AbbƗsids viewed the ‘Alids as a threat to their regime, they imposed a daily role call on all the descendants of the Prophet. If an ‘Alid failed to show up, his family and relatives would face retaliation through fiscal and physical sanctions. IdrƯs played a heroic role in the revolt, personally engaging in combat against the KhƗlid al-BarbarƯ, the ‘AbbƗsid governor or military leader of the region. IdrƯs succeeded in knocking him off his horse by a blow from his sword, and his brother YaতyƗ finished him off while he was on the ground. IdrƯs was injured numerous times during the battle, suffering wounds from stones and arrows, leaving his shirt soaked red in blood. As an indication of the prominent role that IdrƯs played in the revolt, ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. ণasan delivered a speech on the day of the battle while seated on the former’s donkey. Despite the zeal that they demonstrated, the partisans of ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh and IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh were outnumbered, and their small force of some three hundred fighters, mostly men from their own family, were soon overwhelmed and decimated by the ‘AbbƗsid army. In terms of casualties, the Battle of Fakhkh was second only to the Battle of KarbalƗ’. In the words of the eighth ImƗm, “Besides KarbalƗ’ there was no tragedy more severe and tragic than [the tragedy in] Fakhkh” (qtd. KiyƗ’iGilƗnƯ 66). As BƗqir SharƯf al-QarashƯ describes, At this horrible tragedy, the sacredness of the Prophet… was violated in respect with his family and his progeny. For at it the ‘AbbƗsids committed (crimes) and offences similar to those committed by the Umayyads during the tragedy of KarbalƗ’. They planted the heads of the ‘Alawids atop the spears, showed the prisoners of war all over the countries and the cities, left the pure bodies thrown on the surface of the earth, and did not bury them, that they might extremely quench their thirst for revenge on the ahl al-bayt. (np)

Fleeing to Mecca, IdrƯs I and YaতyƗ escaped by dispersing among the large crowds of pilgrims. Although YaতyƗ survived the slaughter of the ণasanids at Fakhkh, he was tracked down by the caliph HƗrnjn al-RashƯd who reportedly poisoned him while a prisoner in BaghdƗd (Benblal 78). Abnj al-ণasan YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib had been raised in the extended household of ImƗm Ja‘far alৡƗdiq, who taught him the IslƗmic sciences and appointed him as one of his testamentary trustees. When narrating traditions on the authority of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, he would precede them with the words: “My dear Ja‘far b. Muতammad, peace be upon him, related to me.” He also related traditions

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

155

on the authority of his father, ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan, Aban b. Taghlub, Mukawal b. IbrƗhƯm, Bakkar b. ZiyƗdah, YaতyƗ b. Muৢawir, and ‘Amru b. ণammad. Known for his knowledge and piety, YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh was respected by SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite scholars alike. When YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh would enter a room, MƗlik b. Anas would rise out of respect for him, and seat him next to him. IdrƯs, YaতyƗ’s younger brother, fled to Egypt in a returning ‫ۊ‬ajj caravan, and finally reached the Maghrib. Accompanied by RashƯd, his faithful AwrƗbah Berber retainer, IdrƯs found refuge among the AwrƗbah of WalƯlƯ, namely, Volubilis. IdrƯs was introduced to the AwrƗbah by their leader, Ibn ‘Abd al-ণamƯd, in RamaঌƗn of 789, who subsequently acclaimed him as their ImƗm. It seems erroneous to claim, as al-Ash’arƯ has done in his MaqƗlƗt and as al-Mas‘njdƯ in his Murnjj al-dhahab, that IdrƯs b. AllƗh was sent to the Maghrib by his brother, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh, to prepare the ground the latter’s ImƗmate (Beck 16, 17). Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan alMuthannƗ b. ণasan b. ‘AlƯ, known as Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah (Muতammad, the Master of the Pure Soul), was promoted by his father, ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan al-MuthannƗ, as the MahdƯ since his birth. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan al-MuthannƗ reiterated his claim during a meeting in AbwƗ’ outside of Medina, in which some ‘Alids and ‘AbbƗsids, including Abnj Ja‘far al-Manৢnjr, who later became the second ‘AbbƗsid caliph, gathered to plot the overthrow of the Umayyads. When ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq was informed of the plot, he advised against it, and rejected the claim that Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah was the MahdƯ. Muতammad’s father, ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan, accused ImƗm Ja‘far alৡƗdiq of jealously and envy. Disobeying the sixth ImƗm, the ‘AlawƯs and the ‘AbbƗsids joined ranks in a campaign to overthrow the Umayyads. As MuতarramƯ explains, “the first thing expressed by the ‘AbbƗsid campaigners was the superiority of ‘AlƯ” (142). Drawing from the strong sympathy most Muslims felt towards the Prophet’s family, the ‘AbbƗsid agents denounced their oppression at the hands of the Umayyads. For a short period, the ‘Alids and ‘AbbƗsids rallied around a common cause. As MuতarramƯ explains, During the Umayyad period, the HƗshimƯs -- including both the ‘AbbƗsids and the ‘AlawƯs -- were united, and from the time of HƗshim when the ‘AbbƗsid campaigns started and coordination with the uprising of Zayd and his son, YaতyƗ, they commenced their tasks based on ShƯ‘ism… After the stabilization of the ‘AbbƗsid rule, on the one hand a gap emerged between them, and the progeny of the Prophet and their ShƯ‘ah on the other. From the time of the ‘AbbƗsid caliph Manৢnjr, the ‘AbbƗsids adopted the attitude and policy of the Umayyads toward the progeny of

156

Chapter 11 the Prophet. In fact, they exceeded the Umayyads in their enmity toward the Prophet’s progeny. (137)

Shortly after seizing power, the ‘AbbƗsids, who had supported ShƯ‘ism for strategic reasons, decided that siding with a minority faith was a long-term political liability. As such, they reverted to Sunnism and turned against their ‘Alid allies, hunting them down ruthlessly. Deserted by his former supporters, Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah eventually gathered a rag-tag army of ‘Alids and turned against the ‘AbbƗsids in 762, briefly seizing the city of Medina. After leaving the city, he momentarily took Mecca and the Yemen, only to be killed a few months later. Since Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah had died outside Medina in 762, he was not a contender for the ImƗmate. His father, ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan alMuthannƗ, who had promoted him as the MahdƯ, died in the same year. Moulay IdrƯs, however, only fled to the Maghrib after the Battle of Fakhkh in 787. If Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah had ordered his brother to go to the Maghrib to prepare for his ImƗmate, why did IdrƯs wait twenty-five years before doing so? Since his brother had been dead for two and a half decades, it seems unlikely that he would have believed that he was the ImƗm and MahdƯ. The only individuals who held such a belief were extremists who insisted that Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah was in occultation in Mount ‘Ilmiyyah, between Mecca and Najd. There is no evidence, however, that IdrƯs was associated with this faction. It could also be argued, as Beck has done, that IdrƯs fled to the Maghrib much earlier, giving him years to do da‘wah among the Berbers before establishing himself as their leader (38). Ibn Khaldnjn has even gone so far as to claim that Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah had passed the ImƗmate on to his brother IdrƯs (Eustache 51; Benblal 182). This suggests that, like the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯyyah, who moved their ImƗmate from the Yemen to North Africa, the Zaydiyyah may have done the same. The sources, however, stress that IdrƯs was a prominent participant in the revolt of Fakhkh in 786. It was only after the massacre at Fakhkh that IdrƯs fled to the Maghrib. According to another source, the KitƗb al-marji‘Ư of ZaydƯ ImƗm alMansnjr bi-llƗh ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণamzah (d. 1217), IdrƯs was sent to the Maghrib as the dƗ‘Ư of his older brother YaতyƗ. ‘AllƗl al-FƗsƯ claims that, seeing his success, IdrƯs decided to reap the benefit of what he had sowed for his brother YaতyƗ, and claimed the ImƗmate for himself. In his work, Aতmad b. Sahl al-RƗzƯ claims to confirm this theory. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh could not have acted as a missionary for YaতyƗ. Why? Because YaতyƗ was reportedly murdered before IdrƯs reached the Maghrib. The fate of a fifth son, SulaymƗn, is the subject of various scenarios. According to al-Mas‘njdƯ, he was arrested and decapitated in Mecca (Beck

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

157

17). According to some sources, he migrated to KirmƗn, Iran, bringing ShƯ‘ism to Persia and, through his descendants, to India, a claim that is false. As Ibn AbƯ Zar’ and Moroccan historians and genealogists confirm, SulaymƗn rejoined his brother IdrƯs in Tlemcen (Beck 59-60). SulaymƗn, who had been in hiding in Egypt, was invited by IdrƯs to join him in the Maghrib (Benblal 81). SulaymƗn met up with IdrƯs in Tlemcen and, although IdrƯs invited him to WalƯlƯ, SulaymƗn preferred to settle in Ain elHut (Benblal 81). IdrƯs placed SulaymƗn as the governor of Tlemcen (81). SulaymƗn left many descendants in the region who acted as governors for the IdrƯsids for several generations (Benblal 81; Beck 59-60). On his way to the Maghrib, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, arrived in Egypt, where he was sheltered by WƗdiত, a fellow ShƯ‘Ư, who worked for the ‘AbbƗsid caliph al-Manৢnjr (754-775) as postmaster. Al-BalƗdhurƯ (d. 892), Ibn alFaqƯh (d. 902), al-৫abarƯ (d. 923), Aতmad b. IbrƗhƯm (d. 964), al-IsbahƗnƯ (d. 967), al-NuwayrƯ (d. 1333), al-DhahabƯ (d. 1347), al-SafadƯ (d. 1363), Ibn al-‘AthƯr (d. 1372), Ibn Khaldnjn (d. 1406), al-MaqrizƯ (d. 1441), Ibn TaghribirdƯ (d. 1469), and Ibn al-Kha৬Ưb (d. 1374) all confirm that WƗdiত was a ShƯ‘Ư. He arranged for IdrƯs to travel to the Maghrib through the postal service. According to Ibn al-FaqƯh al-HamadhƗnƯ’s KitƗb al-buldƗn and ৫abarƯ’s TƗrƯkh, WƗdiত was eventually decapitated and crucified, on grounds of treason, by order of caliph HƗrnjn al-RashƯd (786-809), who had succeeded caliph al-HƗdƯ (785-786) (Beck 13; ণaider 462). Al-৫abarƯ also recounts, in another version of the story, that it was al-HƗdƯ who ordered his execution (Beck 15). On his way to the Maghrib, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh deflected attention from himself by acting as the slave of RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, his Berber retainer. Rachid Benblal claims that RashƯd was the milk brother of IdrƯs (Benblal 78). If this was the case, he must have been the son of a Berber slave-girl, who must have breast-fed both IdrƯs and RashƯd. Still, since RashƯd was instrumental in helping IdrƯs escape to the Maghrib, and knew where he could find refuge, he was most likely a Berber slave or freeman. In any event, he passed through Tilimsan, moved to Tangiers, and finally reached WalƯlƯ, the ancient Roman city of Volubilis, located close to the city of Meknes, where he met Abnj Laylah IsতƗq or ‘Abd al-MajƯd b. Muতammad b. ‘Abd al-ণamƯd al-AwrabƯ al-Mu‘tazilƯ, in RamaঌƗn of 789. After Ibn ‘Abd al-ণamƯd pleaded the case of IdrƯs I, the tribal council acclaimed him as their leader. “Praise be to God who, through his glory and grace, has brought him to us. IdrƯs is our Lord and we are at his orders,” exclaimed one of the chiefs. “None of us will refuse to obey,” responded the representatives of the AwrƗbah (Benblal 86). After thanking them for their welcome, IdrƯs al-Akbar proclaimed: “Praise be to God and may his

158

Chapter 11

blessings be upon the Prophet. O people! Do not submit to anyone but us, for you will never find anyone with more rights than we have” (Benblal 86). As a result of his knowledge, piety, and moral authority, Moulay IdrƯs was embraced as the ImƗm of the ZanƗtah, Laoutah, Zouaghah, Sedratah, Nefzah, MiknƗsah, and GhumƗrah Berbers, among others. He proceeded to form an army and conquered the regions of TƗmasnƗ, ShƗlla, and TƗdla, bringing their mainly Christian and Jewish inhabitants into ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. Moulay IdrƯs then proceeded to convert the rest of the Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Berber tribes. According to GhulƗm-ণusayn MuতarramƯ, IdrƯs propagated his beliefs and spread his objectives, to the extent that the Berbers responded to him and pledged allegiance to him (139-140). The caliph al-RashƯd heard of that and was concerned about his affairs. Had IdrƯs promoted SunnƯ MƗlikƯ IslƗm, as some have asserted, he would not have posed any serious threat to ‘AbbƗsid authorities. Since his ideas, both religious and political, were viewed as subversive, they could only have been ShƯ‘ite in import. Concerned that ShƯ‘ism was spreading in the periphery of the ‘AbbƗsid empire, al-RashƯd set into motion a plot to poison Moulay IdrƯs. According to the first version, this was accomplished by an ‘AbbƗsid client, employing tainted tooth powder, and in return for political appointment in Egypt: a position as head of postal services. According to the second version, IdrƯs was poisoned by SulaymƗn b. JarƯr al-JuzrƯ, a treacherous ZaydƯ theologian. In any event, Moulay IdrƯs was murdered in 791 on orders of the ‘AbbƗsid caliph HƗrnjn al-RashƯd demonstrating the degree to which he was determined to eliminate the descendants of the Prophet even in the farthest reaches of the IslƗmic world. According to Chafik T. Benchekroun, scholars should set aside the versions of al-Mas‘njdƯ and al-Ash’arƯ, since they are the only ones who pretend that IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh arrived in the Maghrib as the propagator for his brother Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah and that he was assassinated upon the orders of al-Manৢnjr. As Benchekroun observes, al-Manৢnjr died in 755. So how is it possible, if IdrƯs arrived prior to 755, that most of the coins which were minted during his rule date from between 789 and 797? According to the first narrative, related by al-Ya‘qnjbƯ (d. 897), alBalƗdhurƯ (d. 892), Ibn al-FaqƯh (d. 902), al-৫abarƯ (d. 923), al-Ma‘snjdƯ (d. 956), Aতmad b. IbrƗhƯm (d. 964), al-IsbahƗnƯ (d. 967), al-NuwayrƯ (d. 1333), al-DhahabƯ (d. 1347), al-SafadƯ (d. 1363), Ibn al-‘AthƯr (d. 1372), al-MaqrizƯ (d. 1441), and Ibn TaghribirdƯ (d. 1469), IdrƯs was murdered by poisoned tooth powder. Although al-Ya‘qnjbƯ and al-Ma‘snjdƯ do not mention the murderer by name, the other historians point to al-ShammƗkh al-YamƗnƯ, a former agent of the caliph al-MahdƯ (775-785), as the culprit.

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

159

Although Moulay IdrƯs was unaware of the ruse, al-ShammƗkh had been sent by caliph HƗrnjn al-RashƯd to murder him. Pretending to be a medical doctor and a ShƯ‘ite, he gained the trust of Moulay IdrƯs by praising the virtues of the ahl al-bayt. As soon as he gained his confidence, he administered him poisoned toothache medicine. According to less reliable versions recorded by al-BakrƯ, al-SammƗkh poisoned IdrƯs with a piece of watermelon (Beck 25). According to the second narrative, related by Aতmad b. IbrƗhƯm (d. 964), al-IsbahƗnƯ (d. 967), and al-MaqrizƯ (d. 1441), al-RashƯd asked his vizier, YaতyƗ b. KhƗlid al-BarmakƯ to take care of the situation in North Africa where IdrƯs was spreading ShƯ‘ism. The latter summoned SulaymƗn b. JarƯr, a ZaydƯ theologian of the BatrƯ persuasion, and offered him a large sum of money in exchange for murdering IdrƯs I. Connecting with IdrƯs I based on their mutually shared ZaydƯ madhhab, SulaymƗn succeeded in poisoning the former by one or more of the following means: perfume, grilled fish, a half-poisoned knife/fruit, or tooth powder. The first narrative is related by proto-SunnƯs like al-BalƗdhurƯ, Ibn alFaqƯh, and al-৫abarƯ, as well as proto-ImƗmƯs like al-Ya‘qnjbƯ and alMas‘njdƯ while the second narrative is related exclusively by ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of the JƗrnjdiyyah persuasion. According to ণaider, the “traitorous theologian” account is the product of a ZaydƯ polemic in which the JƗrnjdiyyah ZaydƯs attempted to soil the image of SulaymƗn b. JarƯr, the founder of the Batriyyah or SulaymƗnƯ school of Zaydism (473). This second narrative, which is a JƗrnjdƯ attack against their BatrƯ or SulaymƗnƯ rivals, must be discarded as spurious and politically motivated. Madelung also views the involvement of SulaymƗn in the murder of IdrƯs I as “doubtful” and describes such accounts as “legendary” (ণaider 472, note 64). As ণaider summarizes, “modern scholars have affirmed the veracity of the poisoning account and… dismiss the reports of SulaymƗn b. JarƯr’s involvement” (472). The only thing which should be retained from the narrative was that the IdrƯsids appear to have been associated with the JƗrnjdiyyah faction of the ZaydƯs. In other words, they shared much in common with the ImƗmƯs. Although he died without seeing the birth of his son, IdrƯs II al-Azhar, IdrƯs I al-Akbar had left his successor in the womb of his wife Kanzah who was already seven months pregnant. Born in 793, the boy resembled his father so much that he was named IdrƯs in his honor and was granted the kunyah Abnj al-QƗsim. According to legend, IdrƯs al-Azhar was born with the profession LƗ ilƗha illƗ AllƗh [There is no god but God] and LƗ hawla wa lƗ quwwata illƗ billƗh [There is no might or power save in God] written between his shoulder blades.

160

Chapter 11

Due to the ‘AbbƗsid campaign to exterminate the descendants of the Prophet, Kanzah, the Berber spouse of IdrƯs I, and the mother of IdrƯs II, who is called KathƯrah in some sources, only fed him the food that she had prepared out of fear that he would also be poisoned (15). Raised by RashƯd, the faithful servant of his father, IdrƯs II learned to read at age four, write at age five, and memorized the entire Qur’Ɨn by the age of eight. Trained in the sunnah and the ‫ۊ‬adƯth, IslƗmic jurisprudence, Arabic grammar, poetry, and proverbs, he was also instructed in horseback riding, archery, and military strategy. With brawn that matched his brains, Moulay IdrƯs reportedly accomplished feats of strength and endurance that full-grown men could not duplicate. As beautiful as he was bright, and as pious as he was physically powerful, this courageous young man was the pride of the descendants of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. When he was old enough to assume authority and to receive the pledge of allegiance from his followers -- as the ZaydƯs, unlike the ImƗmƯs, did not recognize child leaders -- IdrƯs II insisted that political and religious authority was the exclusive right of the ahl al-bayt: “Do not submit to anyone other than ourselves for the establishment of God’s true ImƗmate [imƗmat al-‫ۊ‬aqq] that you seek is only to be found in us.” When Moulay IdrƯs II assumed office in 805, he expanded the city of Fez to the left side of the bank of the River Fez and commenced a campaign to unify all the Maghrib under ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. After devoting nineteen years to the spread of ShƯ‘ism, he died in 828, at the age of thirty-five. IdrƯs II, who had been married to a descendant of SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the brother of IdrƯs I and ruler of Tlemsen, was the father of twelve sons: Muতammad, ‘Abd AllƗh, ‘IsƗ, IdrƯs, Aতmad, Ja‘far, YaতyƗ, QƗsim, ‘Umar, ‘AlƯ, DƗwnjd, and ণamzah, who were sent by their grandmother, Kanzah, to spread ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid ZaydƯ IslƗm throughout Morocco. As per the will of IdrƯs II, his older son, Muতammad b. IdrƯs (828-836), assumed the ImƗmate of the IdrƯsid dynasty, sharing power with eight brothers who ruled over various regions. By creating several IdrƯsid statelets, Muতammad b. IdrƯs inadvertently weakened the central power of the dynasty. He was succeeded by ‘AlƯ b. IdrƯs, known as ‘AlƯ I (836-848), YaতyƗ b. Muতammad, known as YaতyƗ I (848-864), YayhƗ b. YaতyƗ, known as YaতyƗ II (864-874), ‘AlƯ b. ‘Umar, known as ‘AlƯ II (874-883), YaতyƗ b. al-QƗsim, known as YaতyƗ III (883904), YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs b. ‘Umar, known as YaতyƗ IV (904-917), al-ণajjam alণasan b. Muতammad b. al-QƗsim (925-927), al-QƗsim Ghannnjm (937948), Abnj al-‘AƯsh Aতmad (948-954), and al-ণasan b. Kannnjn, known as ণasan II (954-974).

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

161

As a ShƯ‘ite island of safety in North Africa, the sƗdah became familiar with the IdrƯsid settlement (MuতarramƯ 139). If the Prophet’s descendants settled in Qum and ৫abaristƗn, it was because they enjoyed good social standing in such regions. Knowing the esteem in which the Berbers held the descendants of the Prophet, the sƗdah were attracted to the IdrƯsid haven. It was to contain the spread of ShƯ‘ism, and to isolate the IdrƯsids, that the ‘AbbƗsids created the Aghlabid state in an area that encompassed eastern Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripolitania. The MuhƗllabids had ruled the region from 771-793 who showed themselves incapable of preventing the creation of the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid state in Morocco and the IbƗঌƯ KhƗrijite Rustamid state in central Algeria. Since the assassination of IdrƯs did not bring about the disintegration of his state, Harnjn al-RashƯd (r. 786-809) “invested IbrƗhim b. al-Aghlab with the government of IfrƯqiyyah and, four years later, encouraged him to establish the Aghlabid state, possibly to counteract the danger posed by the IdrƯsids” (ণussain). As the hereditary leader of IfrƯqiyyah, IbrƗhƯm I b. al-Aghlab (r. 800812) attempted to cut off contact between the North African ShƯ‘ites and KhƗrijites and their co-religionists in Egypt and the Middle East. To prevent ShƯ‘ites from moving to the Maghrib and supporting the IdrƯsids, the ‘AbbƗsid caliph, al-Mutawakkil (r. 847-861), ordered the governor of Egypt to expel the ‘AlawƯ sƗdah in exchange for thirty dinars for every male and fifteen dinars for every female (MuতarramƯ 139). The Prophet’s descendants were forcibly deported to Iraq from where they were transferred to Medina (MuতarramƯ 139). Since Egypt already had a strong ShƯ‘ite presence, the caliph feared that North Africa could fall under the orbit of the Prophet’s household. The authorities adopted a dispersal, attempting to scatter the sƗdah, separating the ShƯ‘ites so that they could not coalesce into a single body. Unlike his father, al-WƗthiq (r. 842-847), who had tolerated the tenth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ (827/30-868), al-Mutawakkil was a ruthless and callous killer of so-called unorthodox Muslims and non-Muslims. His reign was marked with the repression of the general ShƯ‘ite population, the destruction of the shrine of ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ, and the flogging and incarceration of YaতyƗ b. ‘Umar b. ণusayn b. Zayd b. ‘AlƯ b. Zayn al‘AbidƯn b. al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (d. 864-65), a ZaydƯ claimant to the ImƗmate. Al-Muntaৢir (d. 862), the successor of al-Mutawakkil, also gave the following order to the governor of Egypt concerning any remaining sƗdah in Egypt: “No ‘AlawƯ could own property; he could not ride on horse; he could not move away from the capital; and he could not have more than one attendant” (MuতarramƯ 139). By depriving the descendants of the Prophet

162

Chapter 11

of property ownership, freedom of mobility, and freedom of assembly, alMuntaৢir hoped to prevent them from organizing against the ‘AbbƗsids or joining the ranks of their ShƯ‘ite brethren in Morocco. It was thus as ShƯ‘ites, with varying degrees of devotion, that the IdrƯsids ruled modern-day Morocco, and parts of Mauritania and Algeria, until 985, losing power for short periods (922-25 and 927-937) to the MiknƗsah Berbers who were FƗ৬imid allies, and thus IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Muslims. Although the IdrƯsids of the Maghrib were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite Muslims, they were eventually compelled to become the strategic allies of the Umayyads of alAndalus, forming a ShƯ‘ite-SunnƯ coalition against the ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ FƗ৬imids. As such, the AdƗrisah sent delegates to Cordova during the reign of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III (Chejne 1974: 35). Religiously speaking, the IdrƯsids viewed the FƗ৬imids as a more formidable threat than the Umayyads of al-Andalus. If all that remained were ZaydƯ IslƗm and Umayyad IslƗm, they believed, the truth of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm would stand clear from falsehood. Were the FƗ৬imids, however, to take the upper hand, ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ism would be threatened with assimilation into IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, leading to the loss of what they viewed as IslƗmoriginal. As far as the FƗ৬imids were concerned, the IdrƯsids were turncoats and traitors to the greater interests of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. As for the ImƗmƯs, they had long adopted a quietist stance. They were concerned with survival. They hoped that they would become the dominant ShƯ‘ite denomination after the dust settled. After defeats by the FƗ৬imids in 917-920, the IdrƯsids were driven from Fez, and control of the city was given to the MiknƗsah Berbers. ণasan I briefly regained control over Fez for a couple of years. The IdrƯsids abandoned Fez for good in 926, withdrawing to the fortress of ণajar al-Naৢr in the valleys of the Rif Mountains where they were protected by the ৡanhƗjah Berber tribes of Sarif, Bannj Ynjsuf, and SumƗtah. They were protected by the elders of these tribes who refused to allow the extermination of the Prophet’s last remaining descendants at the hands of MnjsƗ b. AbƯ al-‘Afiyyah, the sworn enemy of the IdrƯsids who worked first for the FƗ৬imids and then for the Umayyads. The grave of Ibn AbƯ al‘Afiyyah is found in Fez, not far from the grave of Ibn al-GhazƯ, the jurist and mathematician. Reviled by the inhabitants of Fez to this day, it was the custom, until recently, for children to stone his tomb (Benblal 193). As a result of the persecution they were subjected to in the Maghrib, many IdrƯsids were forced to migrate to other parts of the world. Al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) relates that in the year 943, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. AbƯ ‘IsƗ, the IdrƯsite, qƗdƯ al-jama‘at or supreme judge of Fez, arrived in Andalus for the purpose of joining the

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

163

war against the infidels… There came also to Cordova during this reign two other members of the royal family of IdrƯs, whose names were ণasan, son of al-QƗsim, better known under the name of Jannjn, and ‘IsƗ b. ণƗnnjn b. Muতammad b. al-QƗsim. They made their entry into Cordova on Monday the 12th of ShawwƗl of the year 333 (May 27, A.D. 945). They were kindly received and hospitably entertained by ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn until the month of ৡafar of the ensuing year (Sept. or Oct. A.D. 945), when both returned with presents to their native country. (vol. 2: 145)

According to Ibn ণayyƗn, several other IdrƯsids migrated to al-Andalus for the sake of self-preservation, leaving behind many descendants who must have been well-aware of their personal family history and religious heritage: On Saturday the 9th of Rajab of the year 341 (Nov. 28, A.D. 952), ণasan, son of al-Fadhil, son of IbrƗhƯm, son of Muতammad, and Muতammad, son of ‘IsƗ, son of Ahmad, son of IbrƗhƯm, both descendants of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, arrived in Cordova; and on Wednesday the 26th of RƗbƯ‘ al-Akhar of the ensuing year (Sept 7, A.D. 953), ‘IsƗ, Abnj al-‘AƯsh, YaতyƗ b. ণasan, and ণasan b. Muতammad, also belonging to the royal family of IdrƯs. They fixed their dwelling in Cordova and left numerous descendants. YaতyƗ died in 349 (beginning March 2, A.D. 960), and ণasan in the following year: both were buried in the cemetery called Maqba al-Rabadh (of the suburb) of Cordova; the chief QƗdƯ of that capital, Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd alBnjlnjtƯ, reading the funeral service over their bodies, by the command of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn. As to Abnj al-‘AƯsh, it is well known that he met his death in an encounter with the Christians of the north. (vol. 2: 145)

Not only were ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids sayyids stationed in al-Andalus: they were also actively engaged in jihad against the Christians. In 974, the final IdrƯsid ruler, ণasan b. Qannnjn al-ণasanƯ, was forced to submit to the Umayyads and to invoke the name of al-ণakam II from his fortress in ণajjar al-Naৢr. He was captured by the Umayyads and brought to Cordova the same year along with other IdrƯsids. There, the IdrƯsids were forced to renounce all ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices, to embrace the MƗlikƯ madhhab, to acknowledge ণakam II’s caliphate, and to recognize that he was al-QƗ’im bi al-‫ۉ‬aqq, a title ShƯ‘ite reserved for ImƗm al-MahdƯ (Safran 2000: 42-43). ণasan b. Qannnjn was then exiled to Cordova, where he died in 985. After a series of discords, the remaining IdrƯsids were expelled from al-Andalus. As evidence that they remained ShƯ‘ites even after submitting to the Umayyads, the IdrƯsids sought refuge in Egypt, where they were warmly received by the FƗ৬imid caliph NƯzar al-‘AzƯz. It was the Umayyad caliph of Cordova, Muতammad b. AbƯ ‘Amir, better known as al-Manৢnjr (c. 938-1002), who commenced the systematic eradication of ShƯ‘ite symbols in Morocco. In 985, he ordered that the

164

Chapter 11

minbar of the Mosque of the Andalusians of Fez, be removed and replaced with one what was in line with SunnƯ orthodoxy and in favor of the Umayyad dynasty (Martínez Enamorado 284). The pulpit, which had been commissioned by BuluqqƯn b. ZƯrƯ (972-984), a subject of the FƗ৬imids, some five years earlier, included a “heterodox” inscription in favor of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs (284). The pulpit’s back was sent to Cordova as a trophy of war, symbolizing the Umayyad triumph over ShƯ‘ism. The ShƯ‘ite symbolism of the minbar from the Mosque of the Andalusians in Fez is reproduced in Jerrilynn Dodds Al-Andalus: The Arts of IslƗmic Spain: In addition to their artistic significance, these five panels [from a minbar made for the Mosque of the Andalusians in Fez] are a seminal document in the record of the struggle for political dominance during the second half of the tenth century in northwest Africa: the ShƯ‘ite FƗ৬imid dynasty attempted to control the region from Tunisia, and the SunnƯ Umayyad dynasty attempted to control it from Cordova in Spain. The key to the region was Fez, its chief city, which had been divided since the ninth century into the quarters of the QarawiyyƯn (émigrés from Kairouan in Tunisia) and the AndalusiyyƯn (Andalusians), émigrés from al-Andalus), each of which had its own congregational mosque. For several years in the middle of the tenth century, the FƗ৬imids controlled Fez but they then lost it to the Umayyads. In 955 the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III sent money to build a new minaret for the mosque of the QarawiyyƯn quarter (the tower, which still stands, is a reduced version of the tower he had just added to the congregational mosque of Cordova). In the following year, the Umayyad governor of Fez added a minaret to the Mosque of the Andalusians. The focus on patronage was no accident, for minarets were anathema to FƗ৬imids, who, following early IslƗmic precedent, believed that the call to prayer should be given from either the doorway or the roof of the mosque. In 956/60 (AH 348) the FƗ৬imids retook Fez, and their client BuluggƯn b. ZƯrƯ held it from them from 979 to 985 (AH 369-75). The inscription on a panel of the minbar states that it was made in 980 (AH 369), when BuluggƯn ruled Fez. BuluggƯn’s ordering of a minbar, a traditional symbol of sovereignty, for the mosque is no surprise. Panel b is inscribed with the basmala (invocation “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”) followed by Qur’Ɨn 24:36: “In temples God has allowed to be raised up, and His name to be commemorated therein; therein glorifying Him, in the mornings and [the evenings].” This is a clear allusion to the function of the minbar not only as the place from which the weekly sermon [khu‫ܒ‬bah] was pronounced, but also as the place within the mosque from which the second call to prayer (iqƗmah) was given. BuluggƯn’s name, however, does not appear, for the original backrest, on which the patron’s name would have been inscribed, was replaced in 985 (AH 375) with panels c, d, and perhaps e after the city fell to Askalja, the cousin of al-Manৢnjr, vizier to the new Umayyad caliph

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

165

HishƗm II. Askalja immediately took the Andalusian quarter; in its congregational mosque he undoubtedly saw BuluggƯn’s minbar, which probably had been damaged in the struggle for the city. Although the Umayyads had no objection to minbars, they probably did object to inscriptions on the backrest that would have included the names and titles of BuluggƯn, those of his FƗ৬imid suzerain, and ShƯ‘ite formulas and benedictions. Askalja probably ordered BuluggƯn’s backrest sent as a trophy to Cordova, much as the backrest of the minbar from AৢƯlah had been sent there six years earlier. (249-250)

11.3 The Ideological Affiliation of the IdrƯsids ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ al-ণasanƯ rose in revolt and commanded the recital of ‫ۊ‬ayya ‘alƗ khayr al-‘amal [Come to the best of deeds] in the adhƗn [call to prayer] in Medina. He called people to return to the Qur’Ɨn and the sunnah and to follow the progeny of the Prophet Muতammad. According to Abnj al-Faraj al-IsbahƗnƯ, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im supported his strategy but foretold that ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ would be martyred. As a result, many ZaydƯs kept aloof from him and less than five hundred men stood with him against ‘AbbƗsid army under the command of SulaymƗn b. AbƯ Ja‘far. Consequently, ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ, along with some his companions, met martyrdom in Fakhkh, a place situated between Mecca and Medina. As early sources confirm, the ণasanid shurafƗ’, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, and the rest of his family, were ShƯ‘ites. Some were partisans of ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ism while others were associated with ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism. They all had close links to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm Mnjsa al-KƗ਌im. It is therefore false to claim, as al-MuqaddasƯ has done, that the IdrƯsiyyah shared the same beliefs as the Qarmatians and the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯyyah (Beck 18). While this may have been the case during the final days of the IdrƯsids, when they were occupied by the FƗ৬imids and the Umayyads from Spain, such beliefs were the result of imposition, and not conviction, among the IdrƯsids. Although the IdrƯsids were composed of ZaydƯ and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, this reality has been long forgotten by most Moroccans. As Herman L. Beck has demonstrated, early historians such as al-Ya‘qnjbƯ, al-Mas‘njdƯ, alMuqaddasƯ, are unequivocally clear regarding the “heterodox” and even “heretical” ideological affiliation of Moulay IdrƯs, labeling him as an ‘Alid, a RƗfiঌƯ, a ZaydƯ, a FƗ৬imƯ, a Qarmatian, and a Mu‘tazilƯ (38). As al-Ash’arƯ confirms in his MaqalƗt, ShƯ‘ites were the majority in Qum, Knjfah and “the region of IdrƯs b. IdrƯs, notably ৫anjah and its surrounding areas” (Beck 16). Ibn ণawkal also mentions that the inhabitants of the Snjs and the Dra regions were ShƯ‘ites (Beck 19).

166

Chapter 11

Later sources, like al-NawfalƯ, attempted to present Moulay IdrƯs in an orthodox SunnƯ light, blaming the ShƯ‘ites for having murdered him in the same way that some SunnƯ scholars blame the ShƯ‘ites for the murder of ImƗm al-ণusayn. According to al-NawfalƯ, one of the sources used by alBakrƯ, SulaymƗn b. JarƯr al-JazarƯ, an eminent ZaydƯ theologian, was hired by HƗrnjn al-RashƯd to kill Moulay IdrƯs in exchange for a large sum of money (Beck 24). According to this version, the murder instrument was a flask of poisoned perfume (Beck 24). The idea that a ShƯ‘ite scholar, such as al-JazarƯ, would collaborated with his avowed ‘AbbƗsid enemies, seems implausible. By making the murderer of IdrƯs a “heretical” ShƯ‘ite, al-NawfalƯ means to imply that IdrƯs, himself, could not have belonged to the “heretical” ShƯ‘ite movement. AlNawfalƯ was the first in a long line of historians who sought to appropriate IdrƯs from the ShƯ‘ites by projecting his descendants as the embodiment of SunnƯ orthodoxy who opposed the ShƯ‘ites, the KhƗrijites, and the Mu‘tazilites. As Beck explains, Le premier écrivain à s’être efforcé de “délivrer” les IdrƯssides et notamment IdrƯs 1er de ce sceau “hérétique” a été al-NawfalƯ. Il a insisté sur l’appartenance d’IdrƯs 1er à l’ahl al-bayt et a fait de lui un sunnite orthodoxe, dont les descendants étaient, dans le Maghrib, aux côtés des Umayyades espagnoles, contre le Berbère MnjsƗ b. AbƯ al-‘Afiyyah, qui était d’intelligence avec les FƗ৬imides shi’ites hérétiques. (L’image d’IdrƯs II 42) [The first writer who strove to free the IdrƯsids and especially IdrƯs I from the stigma of “heresy” was al-NawfalƯ. He insisted that IdrƯs I belonged to the ahl al-bayt and turns him into an orthodox SunnƯ and whose descendants sided with the Spanish Umayyads against the Berber MnjsƗ b. AbƯ al-‘Afiyyah who was allied with the FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ite heretics.]

Later MarƯnid historians, such as ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ Zar’ al-FƗsƯ, completed the “process of purging the IdrƯsids from any ShƯ‘ite stain.” As part of his plan to project an orthodox image of the IdrƯsids, the author includes a spurious tradition attributed to the Prophet Muতammad in which he predicts that: Il y aura une ville du nom de FƗs, dont les habitants, des habitants du Maghrib seront les plus fermes pour ce qui est de la direction de la prière et de la ‫܈‬alƗt. Les habitants de la ville vivront selon la doctrine orthodoxe de l’islam et ils emprunteront toujours le chemin de la vérité. Qui a des opinions divergentes des leurs ne pourra leurs causer du tort, car Dieu les préservera jusqu’au jour de la Résurrection, de ce pour quoi ils ont de l’aversion. (Beck 65)

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

167

[There will be a city, known as FƗs, in the Maghrib, whose inhabitants will be the firmest regarding the qiblah and the daily prayers. The inhabitants of the city will live according to the orthodox doctrine of IslƗm [ahl alsunnah wa al jama‘ah] and will always follow the path of truth. Those who hold divergent opinions will be unable to harm them for God will protect them until the Day of Resurrection from that to which they are averse.]

This fabricated tradition, which is not found in any of the canonical books of prophetic sayings, attempts to associate the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids with the party they opposed: the SunnƯs. Since ImƗm ণasan and his followers represented the ahl al-bayt, the People of the Prophet’s Household, Mu‘Ɨwiyyah retorted that he represented the ahl al-sunnah, the People of the Sunnah, along with the jama‘ah or the consensus of the community. As Beck explains, the aim of the Qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs was “La ‘purification’ des IdrƯsides de leur ‘auréole’ d’hérétique” [The ‘purification’ of the IdrƯsids from their ‘heretical’ aura] (77). In the work, “IdrƯs I et IdrƯs II sont libérés de toute connotation hérétique, qu’elle soit rƗfiঌite, zaydite, fƗ৬imide ou mu‘tazilite” (77) [IdrƯs I, and IdrƯs II, are freed from any heretical connotation, be it RƗfiঌƯ, ZaydƯ, FƗ৬imid, or Mu‘tazilite]. The author air brushes the reasons that motivated IdrƯs to flee to the Maghrib from the Middle East. Not only does he fail to mention the existence of ShƯ‘ite groups in the Maghrib, such as the Bajaliyyah, he also claims that IsতƗq b. Muতammad b. ‘Abd al-ণamƯd, the Mu‘tazilite leader of the AwrƗbah, agreed with the views of IdrƯs when, in reality, IdrƯs and IsতƗq were drawn together due to ideological similarities between the ShƯ‘ah and the Mu‘taziliyyah (77-78). During the MarƯnid period in Morocco, any association with ShƯ‘ism or Mu‘tazilism was tantamount to heterodoxy. In an attempt to supplant the ShƯ‘ism of the IdrƯsids, the author of the Qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs presents IdrƯs I and IdrƯs II under an orthodox MƗlikƯ SunnƯ light. He claims, for example, that IdrƯs II, designated ‘Amir b. Muতammad b. Sa‘Ưd al-QaysƯ, a MƗlikƯ, as a judge (Beck 79). He also claims that he appointed another MƗlikƯ, Abnj al-ণasan ‘Abd AllƗh b. MƗlik al-KhazrajƯ al-AnৢƗrƯ, as his secretary (Beck 70). In short, the author imagines that an IdrƯsid government followed a MarƯnid model. However, the anachronism is inescapable, since MƗlikism was first spread in al-Andalus and the Maghrib by SidƯ DarrƗs b. IsmƗ‘Ưl (d. 942), followed by SidƯ Abnj ImrƗn al-FƗsƯ (d. 1015), and SidƯ ‘AlƯ b. Harzihim (d. 1116). It was only imposed as the official madhhab in Morocco by the Almoravids (1040-1147), kept in place by the Almohads (1121-1269), and reinforced by the MarƯniyynjn (12441398). Since IdrƯs I ruled from 788-791 and IdrƯs II ruled from 791-828, it is chronologically impossible for the early IdrƯsids to have followed, much

168

Chapter 11

less spread, the MƗlikƯ rite among their subjects. One of the most damaging aspects of the Qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs was its reformulation of what it means to be a member of the ahl al-bayt. Since the author could not ignore that IdrƯs was a descendant of the Prophet, he sought to separate the sƗdah or descendants of the Prophet from ShƯ‘ism when, ShƯ‘ites would argue, they form two sides of the same coin. The author of the Qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs, however, succeeded in freeing the term ahl al-bayt from directly ShƯ‘ite connotations. Cognizant that descent from the Prophet was no guarantee of piety and spiritual authority, Moroccan ৡnjfƯs combined IdrƯsid sharƯfism, IslƗmic piety, and Muতammadan sainthood to create the concept of “sovereignty of the saintly authority” in which the paradigmatic ৡnjfƯ saint assumes the characteristics of the ‘Alid ImƗm (Cornell, chapter 7). As a result of this two-fold process, regimes like that of the current ‘Alawites claim the political right to rule based on their sharƯfian descent. Basing themselves on anti-ShƯ‘ite sources that engage in historical revisionism, many historians continue to suppress the ShƯ‘ism of the IdrƯsids, insisting that they were simply ‘Alids (Eustache 63). With rare exceptions, Moroccan historians dismiss the ShƯ‘ism of the IdrƯsids and insist upon their supposed orthodox Sunnism. In his Histoire des idrissides, Benblal claims that IdrƯss I n’a jamais visé… à l’instauration du chiisme ni au Maghrib ni encore bien moins à l’échelle universelle. Être totalement fidèle à l’orthodoxie Sunnite tel a toujours été le dessein avoué des IdrƯssides. (219) [IdrƯs I never attempted… to establish ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and even less so on a universal scale. Complete and total adherence to SunnƯ orthodoxy was always the stated objective of the IdrƯsids.]

Like Marc Berge, who claims that the IdrƯsids were simply of ‘Alid origin, that they did not seek to spread ShƯ‘ite doctrines but only to establish respect for the family of ‘AlƯ, Benblal claims that “le Chiisme n’était au yeux des souverains IdrƯssides qu’une manière d’héritage culturel de leur famille” (220) [In the eyes of the IdrƯsids sovereigns, ShƯ‘ism was merely a part of their family’s cultural heritage]. Casting away chronology, Benblal claims that “Leur école doctrinale était le sunnisme Malékite qu’ils se faisaient un devoir de mettre au-dessus de la théorie Chiite” (220) [Their school of doctrine was MƗlikƯ Sunnism. They considered it their obligation to place it over and above ShƯ‘ite theory.] Benblal incorrectly claims that, even while in Medina, “IdrƯs el Akbar ne

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

169

souhaitait pas poursuivre un autre idéal que celui d’un ImƗm combattant pour l’orthodoxie” (85) [IdrƯs al-Akbar had no other objective than that of an ImƗm fighting for orthodoxy]. As all the evidence demonstrates, IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh did fight for orthodoxy: ShƯ‘ite orthodoxy. The ণasanid family was a ShƯ‘ite family with ZaydƯ leanings that was strongly associated with the Ja‘farƯ family which was ImƗmƯ in orientation. Except for revisionist North African literature from the MarƯnid period to the present, the earliest sources are unanimous in identifying IdrƯs and his extended family as members of the ShƯ‘ite movement. AkhbƗr Fakhkh, written by Aতmad b. Sahl al-RƗzƯ (d. 9th c.), makes it explicitly clear that IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh was a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite opponent of the ‘AbbƗsids. Al-DhahabƯ (d. 1348), the ‫ۊ‬adƯth scholar and historian, also admitted to his ShƯ‘ism. In fact, he devotes a disproportionate amount of time cursing Wadiত and IdrƯs I as ShƯ‘Ưs “destined for the hellfire” (ণaider 471; DhahabƯ 10: 36-37). The mistakes made by Benblal are major. He writes that “La pensée du chiisme zaidite est extrêmement éloignée de celle des autres branches chiites” (217) [ZaydƯ thought is extremely removed from that of other ShƯ‘ite branches], a false claim. Politically, the ZaydƯs are closer to Twelvers and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs than they are to SunnƯs. Benblal claims that: “Tous ont adopté des manières de voir proches de celles des Sunnites et principalement des Mu‘tazilites” (27) [They all adopted the points of view which were close to the SunnƯs, particularly those of the Mu‘tazilites]. Since the founder of the Mu‘tazilites, WƗৢil b. ‘A৬Ɨ’ (700-748), was associated with Zayd b. ‘AlƯ (695-740), it is not surprising to find philosophical similarities between the ZaydƯs and the Mu‘tazilites. Benblal also claims that “Pour certains chiites, l’ImƗm a un statut supérieur a celui du prophète” (27) [For certains ShƯ‘ites, the status of the ImƗm is superior to that of the Prophet]. He even asserts that ShƯ‘ites consider the ImƗm to be “prophète de son époque” [the prophet of his time] (217). Such claims are false. Though Seveners and Twelvers believe that the successor of the Prophet is the ImƗm of the Age, ShƯ‘ites believe that Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh was the final Messenger of God. They do not apply the term “prophet” or “messenger” to any of the ImƗms. Many Sevener and Twelver ShƯ‘ites believe that the Prophet and the ImƗms are equal except for prophecy. However, the Prophet is the head of the spiritual hierarchy of his household. As for whether the ImƗms are superior to all other prophets except for Muতammad, opinion is divided. One group insists that the ImƗms are superior and the other insists that they are inferior. The only individuals who have claimed that ‘AlƯ was superior to the Prophet were the GhulƗt, the so-called extremists who are considered

170

Chapter 11

heretics by the main body of ShƯ‘ites. To ascribe such beliefs to Twelver ShƯ‘ites, Seveners, and ZaydƯs is misguided. Benblal is correct in claiming that “IdrƯs I appartient a la branche des zaidites” (216) [IdrƯs I belongs to the ZaydƯ branch]. All evidence indicates that this was the case. Benblal’s knowledge of Zaydism, however, is lacking. For example, he claims that “Pour les zaidites, l’imamƗt s’arrête au 12ième ImƗm Moতammed el Qaim” (216) [For the ZaydƯs, the ImƗmate comes to an end with the twelfth ImƗm, Muতammad al-QƗ’im]. The author is confounding the ZaydƯs with the Twelvers. It is the shƯ‘ah imƗmiyyah ithnƗ’ ‘ashariyyah who believe that the ImƗmate comes to a close with Muতammad al-QƗsim, the twelfth ImƗm and awaited MahdƯ. Confusing his readers who might wish to understand the early development of ShƯ‘ism, Benblal claims that “Jaffar al-ৡƗdiq avait designé son fils IsmƗ‘Ưl comme son successeur. Il était le MahdƯ qui devrait un jour revenir pour faire regner la justice en ce monde” (182) [Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq had designated his son IsmƗ‘Ưl as his successor. He was the MahdƯ who would one day return to make justice reign in this world]. This is equally erroneous. There is no authentic evidence that the sixth ImƗm appointed his son IsmƗ‘Ưl as his successor. Such a designation not only does not exist; it was physically impossible for it to take place as IsmƗ‘Ưl died before his father. The testator cannot outlive the heir. While the Seveners believe that IsmƗ‘Ưl should have been the successor of the sixth ImƗm, they do not claim that he was the MahdƯ. If IsmƗ‘Ưl was the seventh ImƗm, how can Benblal claim that he was considered the MahdƯ when he states that the MahdƯ was supposed to be the twelfth ImƗm? Benblal’s mathematical mistakes are maddening. Finally, Benblal claims that “Parmi les chiites ismailiens, il en existe qui pensent que l’ImƗm doit etre choisi par des musulmans competents au lieu d’être designé par testament” (182) [Among the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘Ưtes, there exists a group which believes that qualified Muslims must choose the ImƗm instead of being designated by testament]. Concerning this claim, it is best to be concise: no IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs have ever held this view. Like the ImƗmƯs, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs believe in na‫ ܈܈‬or designation, as amply explained in their religious literature. A simple survey of the coins minted by the IdrƯsids confirms their commitment to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. In the Corpus des dirhams idrisites et contemporains by Daniel Eustache, we find numerous coins containing the honorific name of ‘AlƯ (186, 187, 238, 252, 254, 255, 332, 333, 336), [Aman] ‘AlƯ billƗh (276, 332), the combination of ‘AlƯ and Mu‫ۊ‬ammad (187, 305, 332), and the association between AllƗh and ‘AlƯ (254). There are also several IdrƯsid coins which profess ‘AlƯyyun WalƯ AllƗh or “‘AlƯ is the Friend

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

171

of AllƗh” (63; 276; P1 XXIX). As Eustache explains, ‘AlƯ est l’Ami de Dieu, c’est-à-dire attaché à la Divinité par le lien mystique de la wilƗyah, “proximité, amitié,” sens qui se développera bientôt en celui de “sainteté.” ‘AlƯ est le Saint de l’IslƗm par excellence, distingué de Muতammad qui est l’Envoyé de Dieu et Son Prophète. C’est un des dogmes du šƯ’isme. (63) [‘AlƯ es the Friend of God, namely, he is connected to the Divinity by means of the mystic bond of the wilƗyah, “proximity, friendship,” the meaning of which would soon develop into that of “holiness.” ‘AlƯ is the Saint of IslƗm par excellence, distinguished from Muতammad who is the Messenger of God and His prophet. This is one of the fundamental dogmas of ShƯ‘ism.]

We also find the profession ‘AlƯyyun khayru al-nƗs ba‘da al-nabƯ, kariha man kariha wa ra‫ڲ‬iya man ra‫ڲ‬iya or “‘AlƯ is the best of human beings after the Prophet despite the aversion of some and the pleasure of others,” in other words, “regardless of what people may think” (63, 186, 238, 252, 272, 337). This formula, which is found among the descendants of ‘IsƗ b. IdrƯs alAzhar b. IdrƯs al-Abkar, appears after the year 854/855 and affirms that ‘AlƯ was second only to the Prophet in excellence and virtue (63). According to Eustache, Cette formule est zaydite et plus précisément sulaymanite (une des subdivisions de la secte). Ceux-ci admettaient la légitimité du califat d’Abnj Bakr et de celui de ‘Umar, mais reprochaient aux Compagnons de les avoirs choisis. “‘AlƯ, disaient-ils, était l’homme le meilleur après le Prophète et le plus digne de l’imƗmat.’ (63) This formula is ZaydƯ, and, more precisely, SulaymƗnƯ (one of the subdivisions of the sect). This latter group recognized the legitimacy of the caliphate of Abnj Bakr and ‘Umar; however, they reproached the companions for having selected them. “‘AlƯ, they said, was the best man after the Prophet and the one who was the worthiest of the ImƗmah.”

The inscription in question is not merely a formula: it is an allusion to several prophetic traditions found in SunnƯ or ShƯ‘ite sources, including: “Verily! ‘AlƯ is the best of men;” “The most beloved of all men to me is ‘AlƯ;” “ ‘AlƯ is the best of those whom I leave behind me;” “The best of your men is ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib;” “‘AlƯ is the best of humankind, and he who denies this is an infidel;” and “He who does not say that ‘AlƯ is the best of humankind is surely an infidel” (Ordoni, Chapter 1).

172

Chapter 11

The formula in question, ‘Aliyyun khayru al-nƗs ba‘da al-nabƯ, kariha man kariha wa ra‫ڲ‬iya man ra‫ڲ‬iya or “‘AlƯ is the best of human beings after the Prophet despite the aversion of some and the pleasure of others” is also reminiscent of the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ adhƗn. The DƗwnjdƯ Bohra, who follow FƗ৬imid fiqh, recite the phrase Mu‫ۊ‬ammadun wa ‘AlƯyyun khayr al-bashar wa ‘i‫ܒ‬ratuhumƗ khayr al-‘i‫ܒ‬ar or “Muতammad and ‘AlƯ are the best of human beings and their progeny is the best of progeny” twice in the adhƗn, immediately after ‫ۉ‬ayya ‘alƗ khayr al-amal or “Come to the best of deeds.” This practice was passed down to them from Zoeb (al-Dhu’ayb) b. MnjsƗ alWadei (d. 1151), the first dƗ‘Ư al-mu‫ܒ‬laq, on the authority of Abnj al-QƗsim, the son of the twentieth FƗ৬imid ImƗm, Manৢnjr al-Amir Bi-AতkƗmillƗh, who ruled Egypt from 1101-1130. According to the DƗwnjdƯ-Bohra, this formula forms a fundamental part of the FƗ৬imid call to prayer. While it is true that only ShƯ‘ites would use such traditions as slogans, as they tend to be minimized, ignored, or repudiated by SunnƯs, this does not signify that the profession in question belongs to ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites in general or to the SulaymƗniyyah subdivision in particular. The belief that ‘AlƯ was the best of the companions of the Prophet is shared by all ShƯ‘ites: the Zaydiyyah, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯyyah, and the ImƗmiyyah IthnƗ-‘Ashariyyah. Another dirham, which dates to 812/813, contains the following shahƗdah or profession of faith: LƗ ilƗha ilƗ AllƗh / Mu‫ۊ‬ammadan Rasnjl AllƗh / wa al-MahdƯ IdrƯs b. IdrƯs which means “There is no god but AllƗh / Muতammad is the Messenger of AllƗh / and the MahdƯ is IdrƯs b. IdrƯs” (Eustache 140, 333). As Eustache explains, the title of MahdƯ has two meanings. In a general sense, it is applied as an honorary title to individuals who lived as righteous believers and were “rightly-guided by God,” such as Abraham, the Prophet Muতammad, ‘AlƯ, and al-ণusayn (140). It is applied, in a specific sense, to the Messianic figure that will appear towards the end of time to combat the Dajjal or Anti-Christ (140). In “The Hierarchy of Saints,” RnjmƯ writes that The Saint, then, is the living ImƗm, who appears in every age, Whether he be a descendant of ‘Umar or of ‘AlƯ. He is the God-guided one [MahdƯ] and the Guide [HƗdƯ]: He is both hidden and seated before you. (1996: 77)

As Nicholson explains, “The Qu‫ܒ‬b [the ৡnjfƯ “Pole of the Age”] is a ‘MahdƯ’ and a ‘Hidden ImƗm,’ but only in the sense that he is the Divinely-guided Perfect Man who makes others perfect (KƗmil nj mukmil)” (1996: 77 note 4). If IdrƯs b. IdrƯs adopted the title of MahdƯ, it might have been in the sense of divinely inspired mujaddid or “reviver” of the IslƗmic faith, and not in the specific sense that some Muslims reserve for ImƗm Muতammad al-

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

173

MahdƯ. As Eustache points out, the followers of IdrƯs may have been attempting to counter the claims of ৡƗliত, the leader of the BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers, who had proclaimed to be the MahdƯ (140). By asserting to be the MahdƯ, IdrƯs b. IdrƯs may have signaled that he was the “rightly-guided one” who followed the true religion of IslƗm. Furthermore, as Barbara Roggema has noted, “It is generally assumed that in the early IslƗmic era MahdƯ… was used as an honorific title, still devoid of messianic connotations” (71). The formula “IdrƯs b. IdrƯs is the MahdƯ” (333) is found on a single coin. Unlike the Umayyads, the ‘AbbƗsids and the FƗ৬imids, the IdrƯsids were not fond of pompous titles. The IdrƯsids were addressed as “sons of the Messenger of God,” and were only referred to as ImƗms, in the general sense of “leader,” as opposed to the specific Twelver ShƯ‘ite sense of infallible divinely-appointed ImƗms. The most common title applied to Moulay IdrƯs, and several of his sons, including ‘IsƗ, Muতammad and DƗwnjd, was alMunta‫܈‬ir billƗh or “The One who is Victorious on Account of God” (186, 187, 252, 336). They did not use the term khalƯfah [caliph] to describe themselves. Surely, there must be some significance to such facts. IdrƯs I and IdrƯs II also struck coins with the formula JƗ‘a al-‫ۊ‬aqqu wa zahnjqa al-bƗ‫ܒ‬ilu, ‘inna al-bƗ‫ܒ‬ila kƗna zahnjqƗn, namely, “Truth has come and falsehood has dissipated. Falsehood must be dissipated” which is drawn from the Qur’Ɨn (17:18) (Eustache 63). As Eustache points out, “On doit voir probablement là une allusion à la lutte idrƯsite contre les religiones juive et chrétienne, les cultes animistes et, surtout, l’hérésie ਏarižite” (63) [We should probably view this as an allusion to the IdrƯsƯ struggle against the Jewish and Christian religions, animistic cults, and mostly, the Kharijite heresy]. Although they left little to nothing in the way of literature, the IdrƯsids expressed their sovereignty through their abundant coinage. As Y.B. acknowledges, “The legends on IdrƯsid dirhams clearly reflected the dynasty’s Zaidite confession and helped to legitimize its power by insisting on its ‘Alid pedigree.” Finally, based on the formulae found in the corpus of IdrƯsid coins, their profession of faith seems to have been: LƗ ilƗha illƗ AllƗh / Mu‫ۊ‬ammadan Rasnjl AllƗh / ‘AlƯyyun WalƯ AllƗh / Mulay IdrƯs Mustan‫܈‬ir billƗh. Although the ideological inclination of IdrƯs I is the subject to divergent opinions, there is no doubt that he was a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite. The ZaydƯs believed that any descendant of the Prophet who raised the banner of revolt could become the ImƗm or caliph of the Muslim ummah. The ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, however, insisted that only the ImƗms from the direct line of ণusayn had the right to rule. Although Moulay IdrƯs was a ZaydƯ, Ibn KhurradƗdhbih points out that he insisted on being addressed as Ibn Rasnjl AllƗh or “Son of

174

Chapter 11

the Messenger of God” (Beck 13). The revisionist version of Moroccan history which was consolidated by Abnj al-ণassan ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ Zar’ al-FƗsƯ’s Raw‫ ڲ‬al-qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs continues to be believed and accepted to this date. When describing Moulay IdrƯs, La Gazette du Maroc describes him as the champion of SunnƯ orthodoxy: Par ailleurs et afin d’assurer le renouveau et la pérennité de la Sunna, il lutta victorieusement contre les mouvements extrémistes (les Khaouarij Assoufria, en particulier), ce qui aboutit, en fin de compte, à l’adhésion définitive des Marocains au rite malikite. (n. page) [Furthermore, and to ensure the revival and the continued existence of the Sunnah, he victoriously struggled against extremist movements (the Sufrite KhƗrijites in particular) which finally resulted in the definitive adherence of Moroccans to the MƗlikƯ rite.]

The issue is not one of interpretation. It is one of historical accuracy. To claim that Moulay IdrƯs was an orthodox SunnƯ who brought Moroccans into the MƗlikƯ madhhab is untrue. It is like claiming that St. Patrick was a Protestant. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh was a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite who was intricately connected to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. Not only did he fight for ShƯ‘ism in Arabia, where he occupied the Prophet’s mosque demanding that the ShƯ‘ite call to prayer be established and fought against the ‘AbbƗsids in the Battle of Fakhkh, he also struggled for ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib where he established a ShƯ‘ite state. After all that he, his family, and the partisans of the family of the Prophet endured, it is unfathomable that IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh would have abandoned his ShƯ‘ite ideals. He was born a ShƯ‘ite in a long line of ShƯ‘ites tracing back to the Prophet. He was raised as a ShƯ‘ite. He was indoctrinated into ShƯ‘ism. He shed blood for ShƯ‘ism in the ণijƗz. He rose up for ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and the ‘AbbƗsids eventually killed him for the simple fact that he was a ShƯ‘ite.

11.4 IdrƯsid Contributions to Scholarship Perhaps the most outstanding contribution to scholarship made by the IdrƯsids was the foundation of the University of al-QarawiyyƯn, which is the oldest continually operated university in the world. According to tradition, the construction of the mosque and institution of higher learning commenced in 859 under the rule of YaতyƗ b. Muতammad (846-864). Although some scholars like Chafik Benchekroun now call this into question, it is claimed that the construction of al-QarawiyyƯn was financed by FƗ৬imah al-Fihriyyah (d. 880), a native of QayrawƗn in Tunisia, who also

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

175

arranged for a well to be dug for public use. The daughter of a wealthy merchant named Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-FihrƯ, she is said to have settled in Fez after her parents died. While Ibn Khaldnjn reports that she belonged to the tribe of Quraysh, AbƯ Zera states that she was a Berber from the Houarah tribe. Known by the title of Umm al-BanƯn, FƗ৬imah al-Fihriyyah is said to have fasted during the entire construction of the al-Qarawiyyin. Her sister, Maryam, is said to have built the Masjid al-Andalus or Mosque of the Andalusians, another historical site in Fez. Historical tradition aside, physical evidence -- namely, the discovery of a wood panel -- indicates that al-QarawiyyƯn was founded in 877 by DƗwnjd b. IdrƯs. The issue remains contentious and scholars continue to debate whether they should believe the historical sources, or the wood panel found several decades ago while remodeling the arch on top of the masjid’s primitive minbar. The inscription, in ancient Knjfic script, was hastily covered in gypsum by the Almoravids to avoid the wrath of the puritanical Almohad fundamentalists who took over Fez. The Zaytnjnah mosque and university, which was built during the same period as al-QarawiyyƯn, also contains an inscription in the same style and placed in virtually the same place. While FƗ৬imah and Maryam al-Fihriyyah may have been fabricated, it remains possible that they existed and founded the two famous mosques in Fez. Instead of questioning their existence, one can call into question the accuracy of the claim that the mosque of al-QarawiyyƯn was founded in 859. Since the construction of such sites took time, the building may have begun in 859, only to be officially completed in 877, when the plaque was placed. In any event, the interesting aspect of the story of Fihriyyah sisters is their possible ShƯ‘ite connection. The name, FƗ৬imah is popular among ShƯ‘ite Muslims, in honor of the Prophet’s daughter, the wife of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, and the mother of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. While some say FƗ৬imah al-Fihriyyah was a Berber, others assert that she belonged to the tribe of Quraysh, another connection with the household of the Prophet. Although it was a MƗlikƯ SunnƯ stronghold, al-QayrawƗn was also a pre-FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ite center in which ImƗmƯ and ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites had established themselves. Why would two wealthy SunnƯ sisters move from IfrƯqiyyah to ShƯ‘ite Morocco, spend their family fortune on the construction of wells, mosques, and an IslƗmic university? If the Fihriyyah sisters ever existed, they seem to have been ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers. As Cidiuea writes in History of Arabs, The IdrƯsids remained in possession of the territory they had captured from 803 to 949 A.D. They stayed in a country which is greatly indebted to

176

Chapter 11 them. They founded the city of FƗs, the Mosque which became the most sacred monument for all the people living in the surrounding areas. It became well known within a very short span of time. The city contained a large number of schools and libraries which carried on the work by the Abbasids in the form of literary and intellectual movement in the east. This city therefore became a huge storehouse (of knowledge) between the Arabs of Spain and those of Africa.

The fact that the IdrƯsids were patrons of the arts and science is widely attested. As we read in “The ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid State,” the establishment of the IdrƯsid state in al-Maghrib led to grand consequences due to their efforts. IslƗm spread to every part of alMaghrib. Through their efforts, literary and intellectual movements started there, and schools and libraries were set up. Urbanization increased and cities were founded.

The only legacy they have left behind, however, resides in architecture and coinage. Overrun by anti-ShƯ‘ite Umayyads, Almoravids, and Almohads, who were themselves succeeded by anti-ShƯ‘ite MarƯnids and ‘Alawites, the ShƯ‘ite literature of the IdrƯsids stood no chance of surviving. The libraries of the IdrƯsids, like the FƗ৬imid library in Egypt, the library of al-ণakam alMuntaৢir in al-Andalus, and the library of the Bnjyids in Iraq, were purged of so-called heretical religious, philosophical, and scientific books by fanatical SunnƯ extremists. Styled after the ‘AbbƗsid libraries of BaghdƗd, the library of al-ণakam al-Mustanৢir (II) (r. 961-976) in the palace in Cordova reportedly contained some four hundred thousand volumes. As Claude Gilliot describes, “The splendor of the library was dimmed under al-ণakam’s son and successor, HishƗm, in order to please the orthodox MƗlikƯ religious scholars” (451). With the authorization of al-Manৢnjr, the MƗlikƯ scholars could remove and burn any books which displeased them (451). As Juan Vernet relates, Al-Manৢnjr expurgated al-ণakam’s library for political reasons, and it was sacked by the masses and sold in lots later, during the fitnah, or civil war, of the early eleventh century, which put an end to the Umayyad caliphate and gave rise to the ৫Ɨ’ifah kingdoms. (177)

In 1011, the major part of the remaining collection was sold by WƗdiত, a minister, to finance the war against the Berbers: “the rest of the books were despoiled” (451). The FƗ৬imid library at al-Azhar, which reportedly contained between one hundred and twenty thousand to two million books, was looted during

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

177

the civil wars in 1068 (Khemir 115). When ৡalƗত al-DƯn al-AyynjbƯ conquered Cairo in 1171, he sold the entire library collection, parts of which were repurchased by more enlightened individuals (Gilliot 451). Although the destruction of the Library of Alexandria is attributed to the ‘Umar b. alKha৬৬Ɨb, Bernard Lewis believes that it was destroyed by ৡalƗত al-DƯn who used the second caliph as a mythological model. According to Lewis, One of Saladin’s first tasks after the restoration of Sunnism in Cairo was to break up the FƗ৬imid collections and treasures and sell their contents at public auction. These included a very considerable library, presumably full of heretical IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ books. The break-up of a library, even one containing heretical books, might well have evoked disapproval in a civilized, literate society. The myth provided an obvious justification. According to this interpretation, the message of the myth was not that the caliph ‘Umar was a barbarian because he destroyed a library, but that destroying a library could be justified, because the revered caliph ‘Umar had approved of it.

The Bnjyids, a dynasty of ShƯ‘ite sympathizers that ruled over Iraq and western Persia, also reportedly amassed over two hundred thousand books, many of which were burned as heretical by Maতmnjd b. Sebüktigin of Ghazna, the “defender of SunnƯ orthodoxy” (452). Another BuyƯd library, which had been in charge of al-SharƯf al-MurtaঌƗ (d. 1044), the ShƯ‘ite poet and grammarian, and which reportedly contained somewhere between ten thousand to four hundred thousand volumes, was burned by Tughril Beg (c. 990-1063), the Seljuk Turk, during his march on BaghdƗd in 1059. In Morocco, like Egypt and al-Andalus, the physical presence of ShƯ‘ite sources all but disappeared, leaving only vestigial traces of ShƯ‘ism in the popular culture of these countries.

11.5 The FƗ৬imids (909-1171) Although little is known about ‘Abd AllƗh b. Maymnjn al-QaddƗh, it is known that he was a follower of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq and that he became one of the leaders of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. A Persian and a former Zoroastrian, he is believed to have founded a secret esoteric movement that sent missionaries throughout the Muslim world to spread the doctrine of the “Seveners” as they were called. According to the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ book, TƗrƯkh-eImƗmah, ‘Abd AllƗh, the son of Maymnjn al-QaddƗh, had served ImƗm Muতammad b. IsmƗ‘Ưl as his chief advisor and dƗ’Ư throughout his life. After the death of ImƗm Muতammad b. IsmƗ‘Ưl, he continued to be the advisor of ImƗm

Chapter 11

178

WƗfƯ Aতmad. He became ImƗm’s “ণujjah” (Chief DƗ’Ư), as well as his “ণijƗb” (Cover). (Chapter 2)

As Fletcher explains, In the eighth and ninth centuries, ShƯ‘ite propagandists recruited widely in the IslƗmic world, and secretly, which makes their progress hard to follow. It seems reasonably clear that one of these propagandists decided to “target” the Maghrib in the closing years of the ninth century. (54)

According to the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, Abnj ‘Abdullah al-ShƯ‘Ư was sent to the KutƗmah Berbers to help prepare the arrival of ImƗm MahdƯ in North Africa. Thanks to the efforts of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionaries, the Berbers of Libya converted to ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ IslƗm and accepted the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ImƗm as the Promised MahdƯ. With the help of the Berber masses, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs overthrew the SunnƯ AghlabƯs and established the FƗ৬imid caliphate, an Arab ShƯ‘ite dynasty that lasted from January 5, 909 to 1171. The dynasty was founded in IfrƯqiyyah, in what is now Tunisia and eastern Algeria, by ‘Abd AllƗh al-MahdƯ BillƗh, who legitimized his claim through purported descent from the Prophet Muতammad, his daughter, FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’, and her husband ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, the first ImƗm of the ShƯ‘ites. Although the FƗ৬imids were Arabs, they were able to establish themselves as a result of the support of the Berber marabouts (Lane-Pool 54). In 912, the FƗ৬imids founded a new capital, al-Mahdiyyah, between Sousse and Sfax on the coastline of modern Tunisia, and soon extended their control over the central Maghrib, an area consisting of modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. The FƗ৬imids entered Egypt in the late 900s and founded a new capital at al-QƗhirah or Cairo in 969. The caliph al-Mustanৢir (1036-1094) sent IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionaries into the remotest regions of the IslƗmic world (Aavani 2). As Chejne explains, “No doubt, the FƗ৬imids had hoped to rule the whole of North Africa and al-Andalus, for they had an able body of missionaries and propagandists in those areas” (1974: 34). According to Joseph F. O’Callaghan, ShƯ‘ite support in alAndalus was much stronger than many have supposed. Regarding the FƗ৬imids, he writes that: “Even Ibn ণafৢnjn had established communication with then and, if they had tried to enter the Peninsula, they probably would have found substantial support” (119).

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

179

11.6 The ZƯrƯds (973-1152) The ZƯrƯds were a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Berber dynasty of the KutƗmah tribe, the Algerian branch of the SanhƗjah Berbers. The KutƗmah had served as the vassals of the FƗ৬imids in the tenth century, defeating the KhƗrijite rebellion of Abnj YazƯd (943-947) under ZƯrƯ b. Manad (935-971) who was installed as governor of the central Maghrib with FƗ৬imid support. When the FƗ৬imids decided to move their political base from IfrƯqiyyah to Egypt in 972, they installed ZƯrƯ’s son BuluggƯn b. ZƯrƯ (971-984) as viceroy. The ZƯrƯds ruled IfrƯqiyyah, which roughly coincides with modern-day Tunisia, on behalf of the FƗ৬imids for approximately two centuries from their capital QayrawƗn. Like the FƗ৬imids, the ZƯrƯds systematically employed the ShƯ‘ite formula ‘AlƯ WalƯ AllƗh [‘AlƯ is the Friend of God] on their coinage (Elhadri 455). The relationship between the ZƯrƯds and their FƗ৬imid overlords was variable with the ZƯrƯds shifting back and forth between Sunnism and ShƯ‘ism. The fourth ZƯrƯd ruler, al-Mu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs, had a penchant for Sunnism which he showed from time to time. Towards the beginning of his rule, he had the habit of invoking the two Shaykhs, Abnj Bakr and ‘Umar, while riding his horse. Encouraged by his words, the cryptic SunnƯs rose up, publicly professed their Sunnism, and started slaughtering the ShƯ‘ites or RƗfiঌƯs as they called them. With the complicity of al-Mu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs, the SunnƯ revolt of 1016 reportedly led to the slaughter of some twenty thousand ShƯ‘ites. Although some ShƯ‘ites survived the slaughter, ShƯ‘ism itself never recovered in Tunisia. Feeling empowered by al-Mu‘Ưzz, the SunnƯs suppressed the words ‫ۊ‬ayya ‘alƗ khayr al-‘amal [come to the best of actions] from the call to prayer. Mu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs blamed the ShƯ‘ites for provoking the SunnƯs, and continued to read the Friday prayer in the name of the FƗ৬imid caliph. Although they did not respond militarily to the persecution of their fellow ShƯ‘ites in IfrƯqiyyah, the FƗ৬imid caliphs, Abnj al-ণasan ‘AlƯ al-਋Ɨhir li I’zƗz DƯn AllƗh (1021/1036) and Abnj TamƯm Ma‘d al-Mustanৢir BillƗh (1036-1094) encouraged the defection of Tripolitania from the ZƯrƯds. In 1048, however, al-Mu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs broke away from the FƗ৬imids, placing himself under the sovereignty of the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate of BaghdƗd, and imposing MƗlikƯ Sunnism as the sole school of law. The ShƯ‘ites of IfrƯqiyyah, who had treated the SunnƯs, the ৡnjfƯs, and the KhƗrijites, as well as the Jews, and the Christians, with relative tolerance, were left to the mercy of the SunnƯ Muslims who spared not effort in their attempt to exterminate them. In response to the attempted eradicating of the ShƯ‘ites of IfrƯqiyyah by the ZƯrƯds, the FƗ৬imids enticed the troublesome Arabs of the Bannj HilƗl and

180

Chapter 11

Bannj Sulaym, who were based close to the Nile valley, to migrate to IfrƯqiyyah and exact revenge on the ZƯrƯds, whom they decisively defeated in 1051-1052. Although al-Mu‘Ưzz b. BƗdƯs returned briefly to the allegiance of the FƗ৬imids (from 1054-1055), as did his successor TamƯm b. al-Mu‘Ưzz (from 1062-1108), he was forced to flee his capital, QayrawƗn, and seek refuge in Mahdiyyah as the ZƯrƯd domains broke apart into different principalities. An offshoot of the ZƯrƯds ruled Granada until 1090.

11.7 The ণammadids (1008-1152) The ণammadids were an offshoot of the ZƯrƯds. They were a Berber dynasty that ruled an area roughly corresponding to modern-day Algeria for approximately a century and a half. Although they were initially IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites loyal to the FƗ৬imids, they changed allegiance shortly after coming to power, embracing MƗlikƯ Sunnism and acknowledging the ‘AbbƗsids as the rightful caliphs. As a result, the FƗ৬imids sent the Arabs of the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym to punish the ণammadids for having rejected ShƯ‘ism. Unlike the ZƯrƯds, who were effectively destroyed by the Arabs loyal to the FƗ৬imids, the ণammadids were only weakened by the incursions of the Bannj HilƗl. Ultimately, the ণammadids were destroyed by the Almohads.

11.8 The ণammnjdids (1016-1073) Although the IdrƯsid dynasty disintegrated in the Maghrib, the descendants of the IdrƯsids founded the ণammnjdid dynasty in al-Andalus, named after their ancestor, ণammnjd, a descendant of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. As a result of the fall of the IdrƯsids in Morocco, ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and, along with is Berber forces, marched into Cordova in 1016, replacing the Umayyad caliph al-Musta‘Ưn, who had just been murdered, and became the first non-Umayyad Spanish caliph. After receiving the oath of allegiance from the population, ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd adopted the title al-NƗ‫܈‬ir li dƯn AllƗh or “The Defender of the Religion of God.” Since this title was also used by ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III, it has been suggested that ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd did not present himself to the population as a ShƯ‘Ư caliph but as a continuation of the Umayyad dynasty (Rosado Llamas 105). From a ShƯ‘ite perspective, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III had usurped the title of “Defender of the Religion of God” much as Mu‘Ɨwiyyah had usurped the title AmƯr al-Mu’minƯn or “Leader of the Believers” from ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Rather than reinforce his connection to Umayyad rule, ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd was most likely appropriating a title which belonged to the

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

181

household of the Prophet. One of ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd’s court poets, UbƗdah b. MƗ’ al-SamƗ’, “was well-known to profess the doctrines of the ShƯ‘ites” (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 233). He wrote the following verses in praise of AlƯ b. ণammnjd: Your ancestor ‘AlƯ began in the east What another ancestor has accomplished in the west Let them all invoke the favors of God on him and salute him For his empire is by right divine (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 233).

The implications of these verses are apparent. What ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib commenced, namely, the return to true IslƗmic rule under the ImƗmate of the ahl al-bayt, has finally been achieved by his descendant, ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd. Ibn DarrƗj (958-1030) also wrote a poem which addresses the ণammnjdids with fairly explicitly references to their ‘Alid ShƯ‘Ư connections. The ণammnjdids were attacked as ShƯ‘ites by Ibn Shuhayd (992-1035). He lamented ণammnjdid control of Cordova in the following terms: tabarbaru wa tagharrabu wa tamassaru (they became Berberized, mingled with Moroccans, and adopted the creed of the Egyptians) (Wasserstein 1985: 175). These three accusations all have ShƯ‘ite implications. The Berbers, as we have seen, were inclined to ShƯ‘ism, the Moroccan IdrƯsids were ShƯ‘ites, and the Egyptians were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. There are some Muslim authorities, however, who reject this fact. In his Muqtabis fƯ TƗrƯkh rijƗl al-Andalus, al-HumaydhƯ rejected the claim that al-QƗsim b. ণammnjd was a partisan of the ahl al-bayt: It has been said of him that he was a ShƯ‘ite; but this report is unfounded, since he never showed it in any of his acts; nor did he or any of the other members of his family, who held empire in Andalus, ever countenance, by their practice any other sect but the orthodox. (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: xi)

Since many orientalists embrace the SunnƯ version of history as authentic, they attempt to minimize the ShƯ‘ism of the ণammnjdids much in the same way they seek to minimize the ShƯ‘ism of the IdrƯsids. They also tend to assume the negative anti-ণammnjdid attitude of their sources. María Dolores Rosado Llamas, for example, recognizes that the vision of Dozy was “contaminated” by the work of Ibn ণayyƗn (16). Wasserstein, who shows more objectivity than his predecessors, claims that: the ণammnjdids actually made no attempt to impose ShƯ‘ism on the country. They took power in the name of a SunnƯ caliph, HishƗm II alMu’ayyad; they maintained the MƗlikƯ SunnƯ legal system intact, and they

182

Chapter 11 never acknowledged the pretensions to authority there on the part of the ShƯ‘ite FƗ৬imids of Egypt. (175)

He claims that “They seem, rather, to have been little interested in the religious tendencies of their subjects. As MakkƯ puts it, the ShƯ‘ism of the ণammnjdids was “pale and lacking spirit” (1954: 135). Wasserstein goes even further, claiming that the ণammnjdids were not strongly concerned about ShƯ‘ism themselves (1985: 175, note 30). If the ণammnjdids accepted the authority of the SunnƯ ‘AbbƗsid caliphs, they probably did so out of political necessity as did their predecessors the IdrƯsids who were compelled to ally themselves with the Umayyads to protect themselves from the FƗ৬imids. If the ণammnjdids maintained the MƗlikƯ legal code, it was out of respect for their MƗlikƯ SunnƯ subjects. The fact that the ণammnjdids did not impose ShƯ‘ism on their subjects does not prove that they were “bad ShƯ‘ites” as Wasserstein and MakkƯ seem to suggest. On the contrary, it could demonstrate that they were true ShƯ‘ites who faithfully followed the teachings of the ahl al-bayt in matters of religious tolerance, pluralism, and co-existence. Twelver ShƯ‘ite Muslims generally believe that only the ImƗm of the Age has the right to declare jihƗd. Accordingly, they tend to consider the wars of expansion conducted by Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, the Umayyads, the ‘AbbƗsids, and the Ottomans as illegitimate, as only the divinely-appointed ImƗm has the right to wage an offensive war. In the absence of the ImƗm, they claim that only defensive wars are allowable in IslƗm. As far as the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt were concerned, it seems that IslƗm should be spread by the word, not by the sword, the latter being reserved for those who adopt a hostile foreign policy towards the Muslim ummah. Although some sources suggest it was merely a rumor, Levi- Provençal al asserts that al-QƗsim secretly professed ShƯ‘ite ideas (Rosado Llamas 123; Lévi-Provençal 481 n. 33). Clement also points to some coins minted by IdrƯs al-‘AlƯ which might have alluded to ShƯ‘ism. The coins contain concentric formulas, in FƗ৬imid style, which include the titles of IdrƯs II and mention his son Muতammad as his successor (Rosado Llamas 180; Clement 66). IdrƯs al-‘AlƯ also assumed the title of AmƯr al-Mu’minƯn (Rosado Llamas 181). His ascent to power was described in Ibn Bassam’s (d. 1147) al-JazƯrah in the following terms: El favor divino no nos ha dejado, su recta senda ha fortificado a la comunidad de Mahoma -- sobre él sea la paz --, de manera que ha dispuesto su unidad bajo un ImƗm justo que la ha reunido junto a él y ella se ha refugiado en él, llevándole de padres a hijos, recibiéndole de

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

183

generación en generación. (Rosado Llamas 260) [Divine favor has not left us. Its straight path has strengthened the community of Muতammad, peace be upon him, which has been united under a just ImƗm who has brought it together and which has sought refuge with him, and which has been brought down with him, from generation to generation, from father to son.]

The words used by Ibn al-Bassam have a ShƯ‘ite sense. The blessing he speaks about is the barakah mu‫ۊ‬ammadiyyah, the Muতammadan blessing, which was passed down from generation to generation through the family of ‘IdrƯs al-‘AlƯ billƗh, the ণammnjdid caliph. Ibn Bassam expands upon the significance of the rise to power of this descendant of the Prophet: Ahora AllƗh nos ha permitido tener un imƗm hƗšimƯ, un rey fƗ৬imƯ, un príncipe ‘alawƯ: IdrƯs al-‘AlƯ billƗh b. YaতyƗ al-Mu‘talƯ billƗh b. ‘AlƯ NƗৢir li dƯn AllƗh b. ণammnjd b. AbƯ al-‘Ayš b. ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. (Rosado Llamas 260) [God has now allowed us to have a HƗshimƯ ImƗm, a FƗ৬imƯ king, an ‘AlawƯ prince: IdrƯs al-‘AlƯ billƗh b. YaতyƗ al-Mu’talƯ billƗh b. ‘AlƯ NƗৢir li dƯn AllƗh b. ণammnjd b. AbƯ al-‘AƯsh b. ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. ‘Umar b. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib.]

The poetry in praise of the ণammnjdids, produced by the likes of Ibn Bassam, Ibn MƗ’ al-SamƗ, and Ibn al-ণannƗt are all ShƯ‘ite in tone. For SunnƯ Muslims of the Umayyad persuasion, poetry in praise of the ahl albayt must have been unpalatable. The ণammnjdid dynasty ruled over several ‫ܒ‬awƗ’if or principalities after the decline of the Umayyad caliphate of Cordova including, Málaga, Algeciras, Tangiers, and Ceuta. Cordova was ruled by ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd from 1016-1018, al-QƗsim from 1018-1021, YaতyƗ from 1021-1022, and alQƗsim from 1022-1023. In Sevilla, they were ruled by al-QƗsim from 1016. In Algeciras, they were ruled by al-QƗsim and his heirs from 1039-58, and in Málaga, they were ruled by YaতyƗ al-MutalƯ and his heirs from 10221057. In 1035, the ‘AbbƗsids from Sevilla decided to exterminate the ণammnjdids, a plot that was only prevented by the intervention of the Birzalids (Glick 184). According to Reilly, “The ণammnjdid rulers of Algeciras continued to assert their own caliphal authority down until the absorption of that ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah by Sevilla in 1065, but no one seems to have paid any heed to them” (12). Had it not been for internal family feuding, the ণammnjdids may have been able to secure their rule over al-Andalus as well

184

Chapter 11

as Ceuta and Tangiers. Although their rule was short-lived, the ণammnjdids had controlled two thirds of the Iberian Peninsula during the days of ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd (Rosado Llamas 198, Fig 6). The ণammnjdids, however, were opposed by many Andalusians who objected to Berber-backed ‘Alid ShƯ‘ite rule and who longed for the caliphate to return to the hands of the Umayyads (Rosado Llamas 319). As al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) explains, “The people of Andalus…detested the rule of the BanƯ ণammnjd, the descendants of ‘AlƯ [b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib], owing to their deriving their chief support from the Berbers” (vol. 2: 234). Due to a combination of internal and external attacks, the ণammnjdid dynasty disappeared from al-Andalus and the Bannj ণammnjd spread to different countries in 1050 (Amara and Nef 122, 125). One ণammnjdid descendant in particular, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘AlƯ al-IdrƯsƯ, settled in Sicily at the end of the twelfth century (122, 123, 125). It was rumored that he was the MahdƯ as he bore the Prophet’s name and that of his father (122). As was the plight of the shurafƗ’ in most of the Muslim world, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh was persecuted by Ibn Thimnah, the self-proclaimed caliph, who adopted the title al-QƗdir BillƗh, who ordered that his name be included in the Friday prayers, and who sought to kill him (122). The Christians, led by Roger le Franc (1031-1101), soon conquered Sicily, and treated Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh with respect and generosity since he was a descendant of the Prophet. His son, Muতammad b. Muতammad, who was a scholar, a poet, and a geographer, formed part of Roger’s entourage. Since Muতammad named his three sons Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn, Jeremy Johns views this act as a probable indicator of his Sunnism (236). While this is possible it should be recalled that some of the children of the twelve ShƯ‘ite ImƗms bore such names, as well. ImƗm ‘AlƯ had a son named ‘Umar (MufƯd 1981: 268), as did ImƗm al-ণasan (MufƯd 1981: 290). Finally, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im and ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ had daughters named ‘A’ishah (459, 506). Consequently, names such as Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn are not necessarily signs of Sunnism. Regardless of whether they were SunnƯs or ShƯ‘ites, as members of bayt alkhilƗfah and bayt al-imƗmah, the ণammnjdid descendants of the Prophet were not safe in dƗr al-IslƗm. If some scholars have questioned IdrƯsƯ’s ShƯ‘ism, the comments made to him by Roger seem to confirm it. “You are a member of the caliphal family [that descended from Muতammad],” explained Roger. “For that reason,” he continued, “when you happen to be among Muslims their kings will seek to kill you, whereas when you are with me you are assured the safety of your person” (qtd. Bohlander 245). In other words, as a member

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

185

of the ahl al-bayt, IdrƯsƯ was viewed as a threat by those who had usurped their temporal authority.

11.9 The ণnjdid Dynasty The ণnjdids were an Arab Muslim dynasty that ruled over Zaragoza, their capital, and the regions of Lerida, Tudela, Huesca, Catalayud, and some other places in the south in the direction of Valencia. Not an overtly ShƯ‘ite dynasty per se, the ণnjdids did display a ShƯ‘ite slogan on some of their silver coinage, namely, the profession of the wilƗyah of ‘AlƯ: ‘AlƯ WalƯ AllƗh (Elhadri 447). The coin in question is a dirham which reads Mu‫ۊ‬ammad and ‘AlƯ WalƯ AllƗh, an abbreviated form of the formula Mu‫ۊ‬ammad Rasnjl AllƗh / ‘Aliyyan WalƯ AllƗh, on one side, and al-Musta‘Ưn, on the other, which stands for SulaymƗn al-Musta‘Ưn, the first ণnjdid ruler (r. 1039-1047) (448, 449, 450, 451). Moতamed Elhadri is right to recognize the significance of the statement ‘AlƯ WalƯ AllƗh: Il s’agit en fait de l’un des piliers de l’islam Shiite; la WilƗyah de ‘AlƯ est même considérée comme un complément de la Šahadah Shiite, et elle figure souvent sur les inscriptions et les monnaies fatimides dans la profession de foi après l’apostolat (la RisƗlah) de Muতammad; ce qui est aussi le cas sur notre monnaie. (454, note 24) [It is, in fact, one of the pillars of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. The WilƗyah of ‘AlƯ is even considered a complement to the ShƯ‘ite shahƗdah. It often appears on FƗ৬imid inscriptions and coins after the profession of faith right after the prophethood (RisƗlah) of Muতammad, which is also the case with our coin.]

After considering a few other options, Elhadri concludes that the use of the wilƗyah or guardianship of ‘AlƯ on dirhams attributed to Abnj Ayynjb SulaymƗn al-Musta‘Ưn is an expression of the constant search for legitimacy on the part of the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifahs, the various IslƗmic statelets in the Iberian Peninsula. What Elhadri fails to recognize, however, is that the regions over which the ণnjdids ruled were historically associated with ShƯ‘ism. Consequently, the ণnjdids may have been appealing to the ‘Alid sentiments that were present in their ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah. If subtle signs of ShƯ‘ism occasionally bubble to the surface in al-Andalus, it suggests that there was an ‘Alid undercurrent that has not previously been fully recognized.

186

Chapter 11

11.10 The Green Peninsula: Echoes of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus Long after the fall of the IdrƯsids in the Maghrib and the ণammnjdids in alAndalus, ShƯ‘ites from the Middle East circulated legends about the legendary JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’, the Green Island or Peninsula, located, according to some, in southern al-Andalus, Greenland, or the Atlantic ocean. Said to be the place of the occultation of Muতammad al-MahdƯ, the Hidden ImƗm, where he had married and had children, it functioned, psychologically, as the Land of Promise in the imagination of the now utterly dispossessed ShƯ‘ites. The legend of JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’ is narrated in its entirety by MajlisƯ in his Bi‫ۊ‬Ɨr al-AnwƗr in the following account: I found a manuscript in the AmƯr al-Mu’minƯn library of Najaf which was a treatise on the story of JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’. The author of this manuscript is Faঌl b. YaতyƗ ৫ayyibƯ. He has written that he heard the story of JazƯrah Khadra’ from Shaykh Shams al-DƯn and Shaykh JalƗl al-DƯn in the shrine of ImƗm ণusayn [in KarbalƗ’] on the 15th night of Sha‘bƗn 699 AH (1299). They related the story on the authority of Zayn al-DƯn ‘AlƯ b. FƗঌil MƗzandaranƯ. Thus, I decided to hear the story from him myself. Fortunately, in the beginning of the month of Shawwal of the same year it so happened that Shaykh Zayn al-DƯn traveled to the city of ণillah. I met with him in the house of Sayyid Fakhr al-DƯn. I asked him to tell me the story he had related for Shaykh Shams al-DƯn and Shaykh Jalal al-DƯn. He said: I was engaged in studying with Shaykh ‘Abd RaতƯm ণanafƯ and Shaykh Zayn al-DƯn ‘AlƯ AndalusƯ in Damascus. Shaykh Zayn al-DƯn was a pious man and held good opinion about the ShƯ‘ah and their scholars and used to respect them. I stayed with him for a while and benefitted from his lectures. It so happened that he had to travel to Egypt. Since we liked each other he decided to take me with him. We traveled together to Egypt and he chose to live in Cairo. We lived in the most favorable condition there for nine months. On one of the days he received a letter from his father requesting him to return because he was seriously ill and wished to see him before his death. The shaykh wept upon reading the letter and decided to travel to Andalusia. I also accompanied him in this journey. When we arrived in the first town of the peninsula, I became seriously ill and could not move at all. The shaykh became troubled over my condition. He entrusted me to the preacher of the town asking him to take care of me and he continued on his journey to his city. My illness lasted for three days and gradually I started getting better. I came out of the house and strolled in the streets. There I saw some

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus caravans that had come from the mountainous region with goods to sell. I engaged in conversation with them and they told me that they had come from the Berber region which is close to the islands of the RƗfiঌƯs. When I heard about the islands of the RƗfiঌƯs I became eager to visit them. They told me that the distance between this town and the islands was twentyfive days of journey of which for some two days there is no water or person to be found. To cross those two days, I hired a donkey and the rest of the journey I traveled on foot. I went on until I reached the islands of the RƗfiঌƯs which were fortified with a strong wall and tall sturdy watch towers. I entered the mosque of the city and it was a spacious mosque. I heard the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer in the way the ShƯ‘Ưs do and following the call he prayed for the deliverance of the community through the immediate return of the ImƗm. I was crying with happiness. The people started coming to the mosque and following the ShƯ‘Ư practice they performed their ablutions and entered. A handsome man entered the mosque and went towards the mi‫ۊ‬rƗb (the niche). The congregational prayer began and after it was over, they offered their supplications. Then they saw me and inquired about me. I told them my story and informed them that I was originally from Iraq. When they found out that I was a member of the ShƯ‘ah they respected me and fixed me a place in one of the rooms in the mosque. The leader of the prayer showed his respect to me and never left me alone at any time. On one of the days I asked him as to where the food and other needs of the people come from. He replied that their provision comes from JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’ which is located in the middle of the White Sea. Twice every year their food comes by ship from the JazƯrah. I asked him about the time when the ship was due to return, and he said that it would be in four months. I was sad to learn that it would take that long. However, after forty days seven ships anchored offshore. From the largest vessel a handsome looking person emerged. He came to the mosque and performed his ablutions in accordance with ShƯ‘Ư teachings and offered his noon and afternoon prayers. After the prayers were over, he came towards me greeted me -- mentioning me and my father’s name. I was surprised and said: “Did you learn my name during the journey from Damascus to Cairo or from Cairo to Andalusia?” He replied “No. Rather your name and your father’s name as well as your features and characteristics have reached me. I will take you to JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’ with myself.” He sojourned there at the island for a week and after completing his work we set off. After some sixteen days had passed on the sea, my attention was drawn by the clear waters in the middle of the sea. That man whose name was Muতammad asked me as to what had drawn my attention. I said that the waters of this region had a different color. At that he told me that this was the White Sea and that the JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’ was there. “These waters are a life fortification surrounding us and protecting us in such a way that by God’s help if the ships belonging to our enemies try to get closer to this

187

188

Chapter 11 point through the blessing of the ImƗm of the Age they are drowned.” I drank some of the water in that region. It was as sweet as the water of the Euphrates. After having crossed the white waters, we arrived at the JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’. We disembarked from the ship and went to the city. The city was prosperous and full of fruit trees. It had a number of marketplaces filled with goods and the inhabitants of the city lived most happily. My heart was filled with joy. My friend Muতammad took me to his house. After we had rested for a while we went to the congregational mosque. Large crowds had gathered in the mosque. In the midst of all these people was a prominent and aweinspiring person whose imposing features I cannot describe. His name was Sayyid Shams al-DƯn Muতammad. People were gathered around him studying the Arabic language the Qur’Ɨn and other religious sciences. When I came into his presence, he welcomed me and made me sit close to him. He enquired about my health and told me that it was he who had sent Shaykh Muতammad to fetch me. Then he ordered one of the rooms in the mosque to be prepared for my stay. I remained there and ate my meals with Sayyid Shams al-DƯn and his companions. Eighteen days passed in this way. The first Friday that I was there I went to offer the special service of the jumu‘ah. I saw Sayyid Shams al-Din reciting the two units of the Friday service as an obligatory act. I was surprised to observe this and when everything was over, I asked Sayyid Shams al-Din in private: “Is it now the period of the presence of the ImƗm that you offered the jumu‘ah as an obligatory act?” He said: “No. the ImƗm is not present but I am his special deputy.” I went on to ask: “Have you ever seen the ImƗm of the Age?” He said: “No. I have not seen him, but my father used to say that he used to hear his voice but could not see him. But my grandfather would hear his voice and see him too.” So, I asked him: “O my master. What is the reason that some people can see him, and some others do not.” He said: “This a special favor that God grants to some of His creatures.” Then the Sayyid took me by the hand and we went out of the city. I saw lush trees and fruit and flower gardens the like of which I had not seen in Syria and Iraq. While we were strolling, we met a handsome looking man who greeted us. I asked the Sayyid if he knew the man. He said: “Do you see this tall mountain?” I answered “Yes.” “In the middle of this mountain there is a beautiful home with a sweet water spring under the trees and,” he continued, “there is a dome made of bricks there. This man and his other companions are the servants of this dome and the court. Every Friday morning, I go there and meet with the ImƗm of the Age. After saying two units of prayer I find the paper on which all the problems that I need a response for are written. It is appropriate that you too should go there and meet the ImƗm in that dome.” Hence, I began to walk towards the mountain. I found the dome as he had said and saw the two servants I had seen before. I requested to see the

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus ImƗm (peace be upon him). They said it was not possible and that they had no permission to admit anyone. So I said to them: “Pray for me.” They agreed and prayed for me. I descended the mountain and went to the house of Sayyid Shams al-DƯn. He was not at home. I went to the house of Shaykh Muতammad with whom I had been on the boat and related to him my experience on the mountain and told him that the two servants did not permit me to see the ImƗm. Shaykh Muতammad told me that no one except Sayyid Shams al-DƯn had permission to go to that place because he was one of the sons of the twelfth ImƗm. Between him and the ImƗm of the Age, there was a distance of five generations, and he was his special deputy. After that I sought permission from Sayyid Shams al-DƯn to ask him about his rulings on some religious problems which I could then cite on his authority. I also asked him if I could read the Qur’Ɨn with him so that he could teach me the correct pronunciation. He agreed and told me that we should start with the Qur’Ɨn first. During my recitation I would mention the differences in the reading among the Qur’Ɨn reciters. The Sayyid told me that we do not recognize those variations and added: “Our recitation is in conformity with the Qur’Ɨn of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib (peace be upon him).” At that point he told me the story of how the Qur’Ɨn was compiled by ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. I asked him why some verses of the Qur’Ɨn had no connection with what was being said before and after. He agreed that the situation was as I described then related the story of how the Qur’Ɨn was compiled by Abnj Bakr and how the caliphs rejected the compilation that was made by ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. “It is for this reason that you see some verses not being related to those before or after,” he said. I asked the Sayyid’s permission and reported from him some ninety rulings which I cannot permit anyone to see except some very special individuals among the followers of the ImƗm... At this juncture the narrator introduces another story which he had witnessed: I asked the Sayyid about a tradition from the ImƗm of the Age that has been elated to us that anyone who claims to have seen the ImƗm during the occultation is telling a falsehood. “How is this ‫ۊ‬adƯth compatible with what some of you are able to see?” He replied: “This is true. The ImƗm has said thus. However, it was said for that time when he had many enemies among the ‘AbbƗsids and others. But at this time when the enemies have become disappointed and since our cities are distant from them where nobody can get close to us meeting the ImƗm does not pose any danger to him.” I then asked him if he knew about another tradition which is reported by the ShƯ‘Ư scholars from the twelfth ImƗm regarding the khums -- that the ImƗm has made it lawful for the ShƯ‘Ưs. He replied: “The ImƗm has given the permission in regard to the khums to his ShƯ‘ah.” Then the narrator quotes some more rulings given by the Sayyid who tells him: “Until now you too have seen the ImƗm twice without recognizing him.” The story ends with his declaration: “The Sayyid imposed upon me the duty of not extending my stay in the Maghrib and

189

190

Chapter 11 of returning immediately to Iraq. And I obeyed his command.” (AmƯni n. page)

The tradition of the Green Island or Peninsula is a legend. MajlisƯ, TihrƗnƯ, and SistƗnƯ, along with other authorities, agree that the story is a fabrication. Readers can refer to Al-ImƗm al-MahdƯ: The Just Leader of Humanity by IbrƗhƯm AmƯnƯ for an overview of the flaws in the chain of narration and the contradictory nature of the tradition. Still, legends often contain a mixture of fact and fiction. If the story of JazƯrat al-KhadrƗ’ was first recorded in the Middle East in 1148, it places the event particularly close to ShƯ‘ite ণammnjdid rule in southern al-Andalus which lasted from 1016-1073. It is possible that the legend originated during ণammnjdid times and was based on contact between Middle Eastern ShƯ‘ites and Andalusian ShƯ‘ites. If the event occurred shortly before 1148, it may have described contact between the remaining ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus. Since the ণammnjdid dynasty had only recently collapsed, ShƯ‘ites could still be found in the Iberian Peninsula. The existence of the “Island of the RƗfiঌƯs” in al-Andalus may point to a ShƯ‘ite settlement in the southeastern Iberian Peninsula. These RƗfiঌƯs, it is said, lived in an area which was surrounded by Berbers. As we know, some Berbers were staunch defenders of the descendants of the Prophet. Hence, it was among Berbers, and not necessarily among Arabs, that one would expect to find ShƯ‘ites who descended from the Prophet. The actual voyage from al-Andalus to JazƯrat al-KhadrƗ’ seems even more mythological than the trip to JazƯrat al-RawƗfi‫ ڲ‬which was on the Iberian mainland. Did the narrator of the tradition travel to Greenland or the Americas as some suggest? While it is remotely possible that some Muslims, including ShƯ‘ites, may have settled in the Americas, the evidence for such contact is exceedingly feeble. What is certain is that it is physically impossible for a ship from the twelfth century to travel from the southern Iberian Peninsula to Greenland or the Americas in sixteen days. The only islands they could have reached in such a short span of time were the Canary Islands or the Azores. If there was any green island inhabited by ShƯ‘ites off the coast of al-Andalus and the Maghrib, then the Canary Islands would be the prime location, particularly due to the presence of the Guanches, the indigenous inhabitants of the islands, who were of Berber stock. One of the earliest accounts of JazƯrat al-khadrƗ’ appears to be the one related by al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632). According to this historian, MnjsƗ sent a freedman of his, a Berber, whose name was TarƯf Abnj Zarah, with four hundred foot-soldiers and one hundred horsemen, with instructions to make an incursion into Andalus. TarƯf and his small army

ShƯ‘ite Dynasties in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

191

embarked in four vessels and landed on an island situated opposite to another island close to Andalus, and known by the name of JazƯrah alKhadrƗ’ (the Green Island), where the Arabs of the present days take their ships and their naval stores; it being their principal port to cross over to Africa. (vol. 2: 265)

Based on this information, Gayangos concludes that “‘The Green Island’… is the modern Algeciras, opposite to Gibraltar. A small island immediately facing its port is still called by the Spaniards, La Isla Verde” (37, note 23). Algeciras is not an island but a Peninsula. When reading accounts of the JazƯrat al-KhadrƗ’, many assumed that it was an island. However, the word jazƯrah in Arabic is also applied to peninsulas. JazƯrat al-KhadrƗ’ may have been Algeciras, which derives from al-JazƯrah, in southern Spain. Whether or not one wishes to believe in the mythical land of JazƯrat alKhadrƗ’ is not important: what matters is that some ShƯ‘ites in the Middle East believed in the existence of ShƯ‘ite communities in the Maghrib and alAndalus. However exaggerated the legend of JazƯrat al-KhadrƗ’ may have become, the belief that ShƯ‘ites had found safety in the extreme reaches of the western world was based on fact.

11.11 The Naৢrids Although the Naৢrids were not ShƯ‘ites, they were not devoid of ShƯ‘ite influence. In his survey of ShƯ‘ite religious influence in al-Andalus, Shafa Shojaeddin writes about the case of sultán Ynjsuf III (sic), soberano nazarí de Granada (1407-1417), era hombre de letras y poetra, del que muchas obras en verso o prosa reflejan de forma manifiesta sus tendencias šƯ‘íes. La razón podría ser la influencia de ŠarƯf ar-RaঌƯ, jurista y poeta del JorƗsƗn (970-1015). (362) [Sul৬Ɨn Ynjsuf III, Naৢrid ruler of Granada (1407-1417), was a man of letters and poet, who authored many works of poetry and prose which clearly manifest his ShƯ‘ite tendencies. This may be due to the influence of SharƯf al-RaঌƯ, the jurist and poet from KhorasƗn.]

Although Shojaeddin attributes this influence to SharƯf al-RaঌƯ, he fails to identify this individual. For ShƯ‘ites and Arabs who are fond of literature, the name is common knowledge: SharƯf al-RaঌƯ is the famous compiler of Nahj al-BalƗghah, the Peak of Eloquence, a collection of sermons, letters, and sayings of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. As far as ShƯ‘ites are concerned, this masterpiece of Arabic elocution comes second only to the Qur’Ɨn in religious and spiritual authority. It would appear that it played a significant role in

Chapter 11

192

spreading ShƯ‘ite teachings.

11.12 Conclusions As we have seen, the ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus established various dynasties. In the Maghrib, the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites established the IdrƯsid dynasty, while the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites established the FƗ৬imid, ZƯrƯd, and ণammadid dynasties. Due to the downfall of the IdrƯsid dynasty, the descendants of Moulay IdrƯs relocated to al-Andalus, where they founded the ণammnjdid dynasty, the sole ShƯ‘ite kingdom in IslƗmic Spain. Considering the powerful ShƯ‘ite presence in the Maghrib, in the guise of the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids, as well as the presence of the ণammnjdid ShƯ‘ites in al-Andalus, who occupied close to half the Peninsula, the presence of ShƯ‘ites in Spain is inevitable. In powerless, minority, situations, the spread of ShƯ‘ism is difficult. With dynasties, like those of the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids in particular, the spread of ShƯ‘ism was facilitated. If ShƯ‘ism was rooted in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, ShƯ‘ite teachings and traditions spread throughout the region.

CHAPTER 12 SHƮ‘ITE REVOLTS IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

12.1 Introduction Due to their belief that power, both religious and political, belongs exclusively to the progeny of the Prophet Muতammad, ShƯ‘ite Muslims are revolutionaries who view the leadership of all others as inherently illegitimate. Although rarely successful, the ShƯ‘ites opposed all forms of oppression, fighting the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids at every available occasion. In this regard, the situation in al-Andalus was no different than that of the Maghrib and the Middle East. In al-Andalus, los ‘abbƗsíes, jƗriǔíes y los šƯ’íes, por medio de sus agentes, que abastecían a los rebeldes de armas y dinero, intentaron derrocar al régimen omeya. Alentaban los ánimos de los jefes revolucionarios con la promesa de nombrarles virreyes en España. (MakkƯ 1968: 17) [through their agents, the ‘AbbƗsid, the KhƗrijites, and the ShƯ‘ites supplied rebels with money and weapons as part of their attempt to overthrow the Umayyad regime. They motivated the revolutionary leaders by promising to make them viceroys in Spain].

It was in the ‘AbbƗsid interest to foment instability in al-Andalus. It was also in the interest of the FƗ৬imids, who “often gave encouragement and support to Andalusian rebels” (Chejne 1974: 34). According to MakkƯ, A pesar de sus agentes, el éxito no coronó sus empresas. Ello se debe a lo muy arraigada que estaba la ortodoxia musulmana en España, que consideraba cualquier infiltración ši’Ư como herejía que debía ser eliminada. (1968: 20) [Despite the efforts of their agents, their plans were not successful. This was due to the deep-rooted nature of Muslim orthodoxy in Spain which viewed any ShƯ‘ite infiltration as a heresy which needed to be eliminated.]

194

Chapter 12

As the historical and literary evidence demonstrates, ShƯ‘ites, belonging to various denominations, were involved, to varying degrees, in the following revolts.

12.2 The Great Berber Revolt of Maysarah al-MatgharƯ (740-743) In the year 740, the Berbers of the Maghrib revolted under Maysarah alMatgharƯ, a member of the caliphal army. The Berbers were incensed at the racist treatment they received at the hands of ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. al-ণabতƗb (r. 734-741), the governor of North Africa who used to conduct slave raids in Morocco. Although they had converted to IslƗm, the Berbers were still treated like conquered infidels. Not only were they forced to pay tribute to the Arab conquerors, they were obliged to deliver Berber slaves, particularly women and young girls, as part of the payment. The levying human tribute was only outlawed during the rule of ‘Umar II (717-720), only to be reinstated with a vengeance in 720 by YazƯd b. AbƯ Muslim, the governor of IfrƯqiyyah who attempted to tattoo his name on his Berber guards’ arms, to mark them as personal property, resulting in his murder at the hands of outraged slaves (Savage 361). Dissent was deep in the caliphal army in which Berber units were placed in the most perilous and precarious positions while the Arab units were spared from any significant danger. In response to the racism to which they were subjected, the Berber divisions of the caliphal army rose up in Tangiers in 740, swept through the Maghrib, and slaughtered most of the Arab aristocracy at the Battle of the Nobles in 741. Since the caliphal army was composed almost exclusively of Berbers, the Arab commanders were defenseless. As a result, the caliph sent a force of Arab soldiers from Damascus under the command of Kulthnjm, finally bringing the revolt to an end at the Battle of QayrawƗn. Inspired by their Berber brethren in the Maghrib, the Berbers of alAndalus rose in revolt and ousted the governor, appointing a Berber as their ImƗm. The Berber Revolt in al-Andalus was finally suppressed by Balgh b. Bishr in 743. Although the egalitarian ideas of the KhƗrijites influenced many of the Berbers who participated in the Great Revolt, and the AkhbƗr majmnj‘ah asserts that “[t]hey were supporters of the IbƗঌiyyah and ৡufriyyah sects” (James 61), it is possible that some ShƯ‘ite Berbers also played a role. Although the Berbers who served in the caliphal army were often SunnƯ Muslims, KhƗrijism or ShƯ‘ism dominated among the Berbers of the Maghrib.

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

195

12.3 The Revolt of al-ণubƗb b. RawƗতah b. ‘Abd AllƗh alZuhrƯ al-KilƗbƯ and ‘Amir b. ‘Amr al-‘AbdarƯ (753-54) Shortly after the Great Berber Revolt of 740-743, the Yemenite Arabs revolted under the leadership of al-ণubƗb b. RawƗতah and ‘Amir b. al‘AbdarƯ. According to al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632), al-ণubƗb al-ZuhrƯ rose up in support of the ‘AbbƗsids. Although information on the revolt is scarce, Ibn al-AthƯr describes it as a sectarian movement. Although the leaders of the revolt belonged to the tribe of Quraysh, who are northern Arabs, they sought the support of the Yemenites, who are southern Arabs, in the same way that the ‘AbbƗsids sought the support of Yemenites tribes of KhurasƗn who were hostile towards the Umayyads. Since most of the Yemenites were ShƯ‘ites, the movement may have counted upon ShƯ‘ite support. According to al-‘IdhƗrƯ, the revolt also counted on the support of the Berbers, another fact that suggests that it was ShƯ‘ite in nature. As María Isabel Fierro has pointed out, the rebels directed their attacks against Zaragoza, the stronghold of al-ৡumayl b. ণƗtim, the grandson of Shamir or Shimr b. DhƯ al-JawshƗn, the infamous individual who murdered ImƗm ণusayn in KarbalƗ’ in the year 680. As Fierro observes, [c]onstituía por lo tanto el blanco más adecuado para un ataque lanzado en nombre de los ‘abbƗsíes, movimiento que en sus comienzos estuvo estrechamente influido por la doctrina šƯ’í, concretamente hƗšimí. (1987: 22) [it represented the ideal target for an attack launched in the name of the ‘AbbƗsids, a movement which at its onset was strongly influenced by ShƯ‘ite, specifically HƗshimite, doctrine.]

Moshe Sharon shares the same view in Black Banners (84-85, 103-140).

12.4 The Revolt of al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth In the 750 the ‘AbbƗsids overthrew the Umayyads and established their control over the Arab empire. In 756, however, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I, an exiled Umayyad prince, succeeded in defeating Ynjsuf al-FihrƯ, the governor of alAndalus, and his general, al-Sulaym b. ণƗtim, becoming the nominal AmƯr of Muslim Spain. When al-Manৢnjr, the ‘AbbƗsid caliph of BaghdƗd, realized that ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I had no intention of submitting to the caliphal authority, he granted the governor of Africa, al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth, known as al-YaতৢubƯ, al-ণaঌramƯ or al-JudhƗmƯ, authority over al-Andalus. The

196

Chapter 12

caliph provided him with all the necessary reinforcement to overthrow the usurper and take control of the western wing of the IslƗmic empire. He succeeded in large part due to the support he received from Yemenites and Berbers of al-Andalus. According to some sources, al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth was from al-Andalus, while others assert that he was from IfrƯqiyyah. In any event, his rebellion triumphed in Beja, Portugal, where he proclaimed the rule of Abnj Ja‘far alManৢnjr. After taking possession of the western part of the Iberian Peninsula, Ibn MughƯth directly threatened ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I. Eventually, however, Ibn MughƯth was defeated in Carmona. His head was cut off and sent it to al-QayrawƗn or to Mecca as a demonstration of his failure (Chejne 1974: 17). Although the ‘AbbƗsids claimed descent from the Prophet, they were not ShƯ‘ite Muslims. For strategic reasons, however, they appealed to ShƯ‘ite sentiment as well as the widespread discontent against the Umayyads to overthrow them. Shortly after assuming power, the ‘AbbƗsids disavowed the ShƯ‘ites who had supported them. With the elimination of the Umayyads, the ‘AbbƗsids viewed the ShƯ‘ites as their single greatest political threat. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn’s secession from the Arab empire, however, took place during the early years of the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate, the period in which they retained ShƯ‘ite support. Although al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth was not a ShƯ‘ite Muslim, he flew the black flag, the banner of the Prophet’s family and the symbol of the ShƯ‘ites, when he landed in southern Spain in an attempt to reclaim al-Andalus from the hands of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I. As Philip K. ণittƯ points out, “ShƯ‘ites, pro-‘AbbƗsids, self-seeking shaykhs, and foot-loose tribesmen eager for booty rallied around it” (1968: 66). Considering the hatred they felt for the Umayyads, little effort was required to enlist ShƯ‘ites into an army intent on exterminating the last remnant of Umayyad rule. The revolt, however, was crushed. As the AkhbƗr majmnj‘ah reports, “[s]even thousand decapitated heads were collected” (James 102). Relations between the ‘AbbƗsids and their ShƯ‘ite supporters soon soured, culminating in the ShƯ‘ite uprising in Mecca in 786. The ‘AbbƗsids turned against the ShƯ‘ites and attempted to exterminate the Prophet’s descendants, many of whom were forced to flee to the Maghrib where they established the IdrƯsid kingdom. Rather than reinforce their rule, the actions of the ‘AbbƗsids weakened their empire and within fifty years, they had lost control over, not only al-Andalus, but the Maghrib and Egypt as well.

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

197

12.5 The Revolt of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d was the grandson of ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, the famous companion of the Prophet and loyal partisan of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d became the sub-governor of Elvira in Spain during the rule of governor Ynjsuf al-FihrƯ, the final Umayyad governor of al-Andalus, who ruled independently until the year 750 when ‘AbbƗsids overthrew the Umayyads. Although he worked for the Umayyads, most scholars believe that ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d was a ShƯ‘ite.

12.6 The Revolt of Sa‘Ưd al-MatarƯ al-YaতsnjbƯ In 766, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn put down a revolt in Niebla which was headed by the Yemenite Sa‘Ưd al-Ma৬arƯ (Chejne 1974: 17). In his Ensayo, MakkƯ describes the revolt as being pro-‘AbbƗsid in nature. Since most Yemenites were ShƯ‘ites or at least ShƯ‘ite sympathizers, the revolt may have been ShƯ‘ite inspired or supported.

12.7 The ShƯ‘ite Revolt in Lusitania In 769, a ShƯ‘ite inspired revolt erupted in Lusitania, inspiring subsequent revolts in Tudmir, Barcelona, Zaragoza, and Algeciras (Chejne 1974: 17).

12.8 The Revolt of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ণabƯb al-SiqlabƯ Inspired by the ShƯ‘ite revolt of 769, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ণabƯb al-SiqlabƯ revolted in Tudmir in 776 in what Fierro describes as a pro-‘AbbƗsid insurrection.

12.9 The Revolt of al-RumƗতis b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz Inspired by the ShƯ‘ite revolt of 769, al-RumƗতis b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz started an insurrection in Algeciras and Medina Sidonia in 781.

12.10 The Revolt of ShaqyƗ b. ‘Abd al-WƗতid al-MiknƗsƯ al-FƗ৬imƯ ShaqyƗ b. ‘Abd al-WƗতid was Berber from the tribe of MiknƗsah. Some sources state that his name was ShaqyƗ b. ‘Abd al-WƗতid, and others that his name was SufyƗn. To occult his Berber origin, he changed his name to

198

Chapter 12

‘Abd AllƗh b. Muতammad and acquired the title al-FƗ৬imƯ. He claimed that his mother descended from FƗ৬imah, the daughter of the Prophet Muতammad, and the wife of ‘AlƯ, the first ImƗm of the ShƯ‘ites. According to some sources, he claimed to be a ণasanƯ sayyid. According to others, he claimed to be a ণusaynƯ sayyid. Before his revolutionary calling, he had worked as an elementary school teacher in what is now the province of Cuenca in Spain. ShaqyƗ found enthusiastic support among the Berbers of al-Andalus who demanded to be ruled by an ImƗm descended from the Prophet. ShaqyƗ’s movement was religious and political, as well as mystical and puritanical. According to Ibn al-Qu৬iyyah, the revolt originated among the HawwƗrah Berbers of Jaen. Other sources say the revolt had roots in the region of Santaver, where a Berber revolt had broken out in 767. Nevertheless, other sources claim that the revolt started in Mérida, Coria and Medellín in 768. A great revolutionary and a master at guerrilla warfare, ShaqyƗ’s rebellion lasted for nearly a decade, making him the master of the territory from the valley of Tage to the Guadiana river. From his citadel in Santaver, he conquered the strongholds of Coria, Medellín, and Mérida, establishing his headquarters in the Castle of Sopetrán, in the current province of Guadalajara. The Umayyads finally crushed his uprising in 776-777. Since the Umayyad forces were unable to route him, they implemented a divide and conquer strategy, lending their support to HilƗl al-MadyunƯ, the selfproclaimed “leader of the Berbers of Sharq al-Andalus.” Although the Umayyads were quick to divide the Berbers, it still took five years until they could physically eliminate ShaqyƗ. They bribed some of his followers to kill him, after which they sent his head and their submission to the Umayyad amƯr. As for the strategy employed against ShayqƗ, the Akhbar majmnj‘ah states that The emir oppressed and subjugated the area inflicting exemplary punishment on all who had supported him or participated in any way… no one was spared neither Berber nor Arab: all were put to the sword and there was a general massacred. Such a slaughter had not been known since the massacre of the ‘AbbƗsid partisans of al-‘AlƗ’. (James 105)

As Goran Larsson timidly expresses, “Given the descent claimed by him, it seems this action had a ShƯ‘ah origin” (75). Aguadé also asserts that ShaqyƗ’s claimed descent from al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ suggests that the movement was ShƯ‘ite (65). However, Larsson cautions that “the ShƯ‘ah connection could be used as a motive to revolt against Cordova and a motive for the Umayyads to oppose the movement” (75-76). According to Évariste LéviProvençal, ShaqyƗ was motivated by ambition and, perhaps, a sincere

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

199

mystical fervor (112). As far as Fierro is concerned, Los estudiosos de esta rebelión la han considerado de inspiración šƯ’í, habida cuenta de la genealogía que se atribuyó ŠaqyƗ: descendiente de FƗ৬imah, la hija del Profeta, aunque hay divergencias sobre si pretendía pertenecer a la línea তusayní o তasaní. El hecho de que ŠaqyƗ se atribuyese semejante genealogía indica, sin lugar a duda, que en al-Andalus había echado raíces la propaganda šƯ’í. Por la misma época, en 786-787, el তasaní IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, huyendo de los ‘abbƗsíes, encontró entre los beréberes del Magreb una acogida que le permitió dos años después (789) proclamarse ImƗm, dando así inicio a una dinastía šƯ’í en el Norte de África. (1987: 29) [Those who have studied this rebellion consider it to be of ShƯ‘ite inspiration, due to the genealogy ShaqyƗ attributed to himself: a descendant of FƗ৬imah, the daughter of the Prophet, although there is disagreement as to whether he pretended to descend from the line of ণusayn or ণasan. The fact that ShaqyƗ would claim such a genealogy indicates, without a doubt, that ShƯ‘ite propaganda had spread roots in alAndalus. During the same period, in 786-787, the ণasanƯ IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, fleeing the ‘AbbƗsids, found shelter and welcome among the Berbers of the Maghrib which permitted him to declare himself ImƗm two years later (in 789), initiating a ShƯ‘ite dynasty in the North of Africa.]

Fierro’s link between ShaqyƗ and the IdrƯsids is suggestive. She wonders whether ShaqyƗ was pretending to be the nephew of Moulay IdrƯs, namely, the son of his brother Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib who revolted in Medina in 762, and who was killed the same year for attempting to claim the caliphate. Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh had a son name ‘Abd AllƗh who was also killed by the ‘AbbƗsids in 768. Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh descended from the two sons of FƗ৬imah since he was a ণasanƯ sayyid from his father’s side, and a ণusaynƯ sayyid from his mother’s said. Considering that ShaqyƗ changed his name to ‘Abd AllƗh b. Muতammad, and that sources describe him both as a descendant of ণusayn and as a descendant of ণasan, it seems reasonable that ShaqyƗ had assumed a false identity around which he rallied the ShƯ‘ite Berbers who surrounded him. If this is the case, ShaqyƗ may have belonged to the JƗrnjdiyyah, a ShƯ‘ite sect that held that Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib had not been killed, and that he would return as the promised MahdƯ (Friedlander 43). Although it is true that the term shƯ‘Ư was a slur that the Umayyads applied to anyone they viewed as a threat, the evidence suggests that ShaqyƗ

200

Chapter 12

was a committed ShƯ‘ite Muslim. While his title al-FƗ৬imƯ may lead some to mistakenly believe he was an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, he was most likely an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘Ư as there is little evidence of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionary activity in the Maghrib and al-Andalus in the late 700s. The Arab chronicles which describe him as aldƗ’Ư al-fƗ‫ܒ‬imƯ or the FƗ৬imid missionary were written at a time when ShƯ‘ism and IsmƗ‘Ưlism were synonymous: hence, in their view, if ShƗyqa was a ShƯ‘ite, he must have been a FƗ৬imid. ShaqyƗ, it should be recalled, was a MiknƗsƯ Berber, and the MiknƗsah Berbers of the Maghrib were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite allies of the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids. Moulay IdrƯs, however, only arrived in the Maghrib after the Battle of Fakhkh which took place in 786, while ShaqyƗ revolted in al-Andalus in the year 768, which seems to suggest that ZaydƯ and/or ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite missionaries were sent to the Maghrib before the arrival of Moulay IdrƯs. The IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionaries became active in North Africa in the late 800s and early 900s. It was from their capital in Tunisia that they sent their missionaries into Morocco and al-Andalus. The reign of the caliph alMustanৢir (1036-1094) in Cairo was also a golden age of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ da‘wah in which missionaries were sent to the remotest regions of the IslƗmic world. The only ShƯ‘ites who were known to be active in the Maghrib and alAndalus during the early years of the IslƗmic conquest, however, were the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites: they were disciples of companions of the Prophet and partisans of ‘AlƯ, as well as descendants of the Prophet who were fleeing persecution from the Umayyads. If ShaqyƗ was, in fact, an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite, this alters our understanding of ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus. The fact that ShaqyƗ’s revolt found widespread support in al-Andalus also suggests that ShƯ‘ism was more entrenched in the Maghrib and al-Andalus than both Eastern and Western historians have supposed. The fact that ShƯ‘ites were present in al-Andalus from the moment of the conquest makes sense. Considering that the Umayyads persecuted them, and later by the ‘AbbƗsids, it is logical that many ShƯ‘Ưs would migrate as far away as possible from the power center of the caliphs in Damascus and BaghdƗd, fleeing to the Maghrib and al-Andalus in the west and to Asia in the east. As Roger Collins says, “there has been a tendency to secularize” men like ShaqyƗ “and to regard the role of ShƯ‘ism in their seizure of power as being marginal at best. However, what is clear from all three examples is that there was considerable potential amongst the Berbers for support of leaders held to be divinely inspired” (169). This was the case of the MiknƗsah Berbers who were attached to the household of the Prophet. As Fierro has observed,

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

201

El hecho de que esa rebelión tuviese por jefe a un bereber que se proclamaba descendiente del Profeta es un indicio del grado de penetración de la propaganda šƯ’í entre el elemento bereber, que no árabe, de la población andalusí. En la época en que se produce esta rebelión, unos diez años después de la victoria ‘abbƗsƯ, las discusiones acerca de la cuestión del imƗmato se habían centrado en la familia del Profeta (ahl albayt) y ello debió influir en las tendencias šƯ’íes que empiezan a aparecer entre las tribus bereberes, más o menos islamizadas, de ambos lados del Estrecho. (1987: 31) [The fact that this rebellion was spearheaded by a Berber leader who proclaimed that he was a descendent of the Prophet gives us an indication of the extent to which ShƯ‘ite propaganda had penetrated the Berber, if not Arab, sector of the Andalusian population. During the period in which this rebellion took place, some ten years after the ‘AbbƗsid victory, discussions regarding the ImƗmate centered around the family of the Prophet (ahl albayt), something which must have influenced the ShƯ‘ite tendencies which start to appear among the Berber tribes which were more or less IslƗmized, on both sides of the Straits.]

While Fierro does not consider ShƗyqa’s movement as ShƯ‘ite, she does admit that it contained some ShƯ‘ite elements: la rebelión bereber de ShaqyƗ al-FƗ৬imƯ, movimiento en el que cabe suponer un sustrato jariyƯ y cuyo cabecilla se atribuye una genealogía ‘AlƯ[da] que estaba entonces “de moda” por la propaganda ši’í / ‘AbbƗsí; viene a coincidir con la construcción en el Norte de África de principados ši’íes. (Fierro 1987: 171) [the Berber rebellion of ShaqyƗ al-FƗ৬imƯ, a movement which suggests a KhƗrijite substratum, whose leader attributed to himself an ‘Alid genealogy which was “in style” during that period due to ShƯ‘ite / ‘AbbƗsid propaganda, coincides with the establishment of ShƯ‘ite kingdoms in North Africa].

12.11 The Revolt of al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ According to MakkƯ, the rebellion of al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ which took place in Zaragoza in the year 782 was also a ShƯ‘ite movement. ণusayn b. YaতyƗ was the governor of Zaragoza from 774-781. In 774, he conspired with the Yemenites against ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I, proclaiming the rule of the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate in al-Andalus. In 777, SulaymƗn al-ArabƯ al-KalbƯ offered his own allegiance and the allegiance

202

Chapter 12

of ণusayn b. YaতyƗ to Charlemagne in Paderborn. When Charlemagne arrived in Zaragoza, ণusayn b. YaতyƗ refused to ally himself with an infidel. Since Charlemagne did not have the military might to take over the city, he was forced to retreat after one month. In 780, ণusayn b. YaতyƗ had SulaymƗn b. al-ArabƯ murdered after he returned to Zaragoza. In 781, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I sent his general Tsalaba b. ‘Ubayd to re-take Zaragoza. After a long siege, al-ণusayn finally agreed to a truce. According to one view, these historical events are the factual nucleus around which the Chanson de Roland, the medieval French epic poem, was constructed. According to another, the Song of Roland is a garbled history of Charlemagne’s retreat from Spain through the Pyrenees where his rear guard was attacked by Basque mountaineers mistaken for “Saracens.” Although Aguadé does not believe that the sources support the claim that this was a ShƯ‘ite rebellion, they do not prove that it was not. The sole source he relies upon is a SunnƯ source -- Ibn AthƯr -- who wrote four centuries after the fact. While nobody can categorically claim that the rebellion of al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ were ShƯ‘ite in nature, there is evidence to suggest that it was. Firstly, al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ were conspiring with the Yemenites against the Umayyads and the Yemenites were predominantly ShƯ‘ite during this period. Secondly, al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ declared his support for the ‘AbbƗsids and the ‘AbbƗsids came to power with the popular support of the ShƯ‘ites. During this period, it was natural for a ShƯ‘ite to support the ‘AbbƗsids against the Umayyads. Thirdly, besides demonstrating Arabic influence, the Chanson de Roland also includes specifically ShƯ‘ite symbolism, suggesting that the Arabs with whom the French came into contact were ShƯ‘ites as opposed to SunnƯs. Not only are the names of the swords mentioned in the Chanson de Roland of Arabic origin, they include names of the swords of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. It seems improbably that Arab Umayyad soldiers would have spoken about the swords of ‘AlƯ to Basque or French Christians. The only Arabs who could have done so were the Arabs who were allies of the French: and those were the Arabs of Barcelona who were loyal to SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ.

12.12 The Revolt of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ণusayn b. Aতmad b. Zakariyyah al-ShƯ‘Ư (d. 911) Originally a Twelver ShƯ‘ite, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư embraced IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, was trained by Ibn Hawshab, another former Twelver, in the Yemen, and commenced his missionary activity among the Berber pilgrims

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

203

to Mecca in the early 892. The KutƗmah Berber pilgrims, who came from the city of Qus৬an৬Ưnah or Constantine in the region of Lesser Kabylia in present-day Algeria, were so pleased with his personality and piety that they urged him to join their caravan back to the Maghrib where he arrived in 893. When he reached North Africa, he found that the politically fragmented region was composed of SunnƯs, ShƯ‘ites, and KhƗrijites. Selecting Ikdjan, a mountain stronghold near Satif as his base, he taught the Berbers about the attributes of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and his descendants, the ImƗms. It was there that he was joined by Abnj ZakƯ TammadhƯ b. Mu‘arik, a member of the IdjƗnah clan of the KutƗmah Berbers, who became his assistant. Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh’s educational and organizational activities among his Berber brothers alarmed the neighboring governor of Mila, forcing the dƗ’Ư to retire to Tazrut, where he was protected by al-ণasan b. HƗrnjn, the powerful leader of the Ghashman clan. Wary of Aghlabid inroads into their country, some KutƗmah leaders attempted to banish Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh, resulting in their own resounding defeat. Strengthened by his victory, the dƗ’Ư constructed a palace in Tazrut and embarked on a series of conquest that brought the KutƗmah clans under his control. As a result of these initial successes, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ImƗm, ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ BillƗh, who was based in Salmiya, Syria, decided to leave for the Maghrib in 902. Rather than join Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh in KutƗmah territory, he took refuge in southern Morocco, seeking to fulfill the prophecy that the MahdƯ would rise from the Maghrib. There, he was imprisoned by Ibn MidrƗr while Abnj al-‘AbbƗs Muতammad, the brother of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh, was detained by the Aghlabids. After consolidating his rule over the KutƗmah, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh commenced a second phase of conquest. Although he suffered some defeats, the dƗ’Ư regrouped, inflicting severe damage on the Aghlabids, decisively defeating them on March 19, 909. After establishing a new order of administration in IfrƯqiyyah, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh laid siege and then stormed SijilmƗsah to liberate the MahdƯ and his son. Perhaps hoping to maintain political power while ‘Ubayd AllƗh exercised spiritual power, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh was marginalized by the MahdƯ. Influenced by his brother Abnj al‘AbbƗs, and exploiting the discontent of KutƗmah tribal leaders who were dispossessed of power under the MahdƯ, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh incited a revolt. When the more politically astute ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ uncovered the plot, he had Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh put to death for treason in the year 911. Although he never reaped the benefits of the ShƯ‘ite revolution he sowed, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh was responsible for converting the KutƗmah Berbers of eastern Algeria to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism which lead to the overthrow of the pro-‘AbbƗsid Aghlabids and the establishment of the FƗ৬imid caliphate in North Africa. The power of the FƗ৬imids rested primarily on the

204

Chapter 12

strength of the KutƗmah Berbers who helped them conquer the Maghrib -which consisted of the modern countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya -- as well as Egypt, Syria, and even parts of Iraq, however brief. The FƗ৬imids ruled from Mahdiyyah, in North Africa, from 909-969, and then from Cairo, Egypt, until 1171. In typical ShƯ‘ite fashion, the FƗ৬imids did not impose IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism by force. As ণittƯ has noted: “IsmƗ‘Ưlism was but a thin crust over layers of Sunnah, and other forms of ShƯ‘ah” (1968: 106). This statement acknowledges that there were ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib long before the arrival of the FƗ৬imids. Although they did not coerce their SunnƯ subjects into embracing ShƯ‘ism, Halm notes that “numerous conversions did take place as a result of intensive propaganda” (1991: 175).

12.13 The Revolt of Ibn ণafৢnjn (885-899) The most significant ShƯ‘ite rebellion that took place in al-Andalus was that of ‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn (c. 850-917). A descendant of a Visigoth count named Alonso, Ibn ণafৢnjn belonged to a Muwallad family that had converted to IslƗm in the early years of the ninth century (Fletcher 46). Like Ibn MarwƗn, “‘Umar b. ণafৢnjn was not integrated into Cordovan society: he was mocked as a neo-Muslim by officials of Arab descent” (Fletcher 47). As a result of the systemic discrimination the indigenous Muslims faced at the hands of their foreign Arab invaders, and in response to the excessive taxation and humiliating treatment they received from ‘Abd alRaতmƗn and his descendants, Ibn ণafৢnjn initiated an insurrection that would last for over forty years from 885 to 928, finding support among disenfranchised neo-Muslims, Mozarabs, and Berbers. As the AkhbƗr majmnj‘ah relates, [T]he power of Ibn ণafৢnjn came to such a point, well known and recorded, that he became the master of the fortress of BulƗy, Poley/Aguilar, but a day’s march from Cordova. His cavalry invested the outlying areas, appearing every morning around the city, coming, and going ... without resistance. Matters came to such a state that as Ibn ণafৢnjn and his cavalry traversed the pass which overlooks Cordova, one of the bravest of his mess crossed over the bridge and hurled his spear which struck the status above the gate, then rode back to join his companions. (James 132)

To blacken his name, Ibn ণafৢnjn’s enemies claimed that he renounced IslƗm in 899, became a Christian, and changed his name to Samuel, something which is far from a fact. What is undoubtedly a fact is that Ibn ণafৢnjn offered allegiance to the FƗ৬imid rulers of North Africa in 910 (Wasserstein 2002: 269-97), reaffirming his commitment, not only to IslƗm,

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

205

but to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm in particular. He pledged allegiance in writing to ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ (Martínez Enamorado 287). When the FƗ৬imid caliph responded, he explained to him how to make the call to prayer, perform the ritual prayers, deliver the Friday sermon, and ordered him to establish these practices throughout al-Andalus (Fierro 1987: 122). Fierro doubts, however, that any of these ShƯ‘ite rituals were implemented by Ibn ণafৢnjn (1987: 122-123). However, for Martínez Enamorado, “there is no reason to mistrust the chronicle” (278). According to the testimony of the anonymous Dhikr bilƗd al-Andalus, [‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ] also indicated in his letter the way the call to prayer should be done, the prayers and the sermon to be said and he ordered that he establish these methods in al-Andalus. All of which was immediately observed by Ibn ণafৢnjn. (Martínez Enamorado 275)

As Martínez Enaromado explains, It would be natural to assume that Ibn ণafৢnjn obeyed an order that, coming directly from the caliph, required him to mention the name of the Prophet during the khu‫ܒ‬bah, together with the complete ahl al-bayt, that is to say, ‘AlƯ, FƗ৬imah, ণasan, and ণusayn. (276)

The specific order that was established by ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ, and which was applied by all FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, is as follows: After praying for the Prophet -- May God bless and save him! -- and for the amƯr al-mu’minƯn, ‘AlƯ, FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ’ and al-ণusayn, God be satisfied with them and with those who, among their sons, were imƗms! - O, my God, bless your servant and your friend and caliph, the one who is in charge of your servants, of your territories, the imƗm Abnj Muতammad ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ bi-llƗh, AmƯr al-Mu’minƯn in the same way you blessed … your orthodox caliphs, those who were led by you, those who made their judgments according your right and with it, they made it, O, my God, in the same way you have chosen him as your governor, you have also considered him as your caliph and you have made him to be the defense and column of your religion and your creatures’ refuge; Thus, make him appear as the supreme winner over your enemies those who are far from the orthodoxy. Conquer the east and the west of the Earth for him in the way you promised it and support him against the rebels since You are the obvious Truth. (qtd. Martínez Enamorado 276, note 24; Ibn alKha৬Ưb, vol. 3: 31)

Umayyad sources also confirm the fact that Ibn ণafৢnjn made ShƯ‘ite proclamations from his pulpit. Ibn ণayyƗn, the official Umayyad chronicler,

206

Chapter 12

is unequivocal that the pulpit from which ShƯ‘ism was preached was destroyed: We ordered the demolition of the mosque (masjid) that had been built by the unfaithful ‘Umar at the beginning of the times. He built it for the bad Muslims. This mosque had not been built up with feelings of piety but far from goodness… It was completely demolished, and we ordered to burn the minbar where the stray pig and his wicked followers had been called. In this same place, the ShƯ‘ite prevaricator’s sect had been proclaimed. This man was lord of IfrƯqiyyah (sƗhib IfrƯqiyyah) and he had joined this sect inflicting people from IslƗm with the worst of heresies. (Martínez Enamorado 278; Muqtabis V: 234 and trans: 179)

Ibn ণazm, in particular, leaves no doubt that ণafৢnjn’s call to prayer included the ShƯ‘Ư formula ‫ۊ‬ayya ‘alƗ khayr al-‘amal or “Come to the best of actions” (276): ‘Umar b. ণafsnjn said the khu‫ܒ‬bah in his territories of Rayya, mentioning IbrƗhƯm b. al-QƗsim [sic] b. IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ণasan b. ণasan b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, the ruler of Baৢrah [sic], and followed by ‘Ubayd AllƗh, the ruler of IfrƯqiyyah, and he called to prayer (adhƗn) in all his territories using the formula: “Come to the best of works!” (Martínez Enamorado 277; Ibn ণazm 179-80, and trans. 111)

As Martínez Enamorado observes, “the mere act of saying it out loud ratified the adoption of the shƯ‘ah by the rebel of Bobastro” (276). In short, “Ibn ণafৢnjn submitted to the ShƯ‘ah” (275). Whether he was always a ShƯ‘ite, perhaps of another school, cannot presently be confirmed, but the fact that he referred to IbrƗhƯm b. al-QƗsim, the grandson of IdrƯs al-Akbar and ruler of Baৢrah and ArzƯlah, is suggestive. Baৢrah, which is now an archeological site, was originally a summer capital of the IdrƯsids from the eighth to tenth centuries. Arzila, which is located nearby, is a fortified town on the northwest tip of Morocco. The fact that he invoked an IdrƯsid may suggest some type of connection between Ibn ণafsnjn and the ZaydƯ IdrƯsids. However, it remains odd that he would invoke a regional representative, as opposed to the head of the IdrƯsids, who was YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs b. ‘Umar (r. 904-917). Instead of a political move, Ibn ণafsnjn’s pledge of allegiance to the FƗ৬imid caliph may have been a reaffirmation of his ShƯ‘ite faith. Still, based on his acknowledgment of different overlords over a short period of time (Umayyads, AghlabƯs, ‘AbbƗsids, FƗ৬imids, and IdrƯsids), Ibn ণafsnjn may have been a political chameleon, a non-conformist who shifted allegiances to anyone who might assist his emancipatory agenda. Al-ঋabbƯ

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

207

even claims that Ibn ণafsnjn was a KhƗrijite, a term which, as Fierro suggests, may have been a generic term for a “rebel” (Martínez Enamorado 278; Fierro, 1987: 126). As Nicholson also notes, “The original KhƗrijites rebelled against ‘AlƯ in the year 37 AH. Afterwards, the name was given to a number of sects” (2001: 340). Some say that Ibn ণafৢnjn went as far as converting to Christianity for political purposes and as an act of protest the Umayyads, resulting in the loss of support of the neo-Muslims. It must be stressed that the earliest account of Ibn ণafsnjn, that of Ibn al-Qnjtiyyah, who may have been a contemporary witness, makes no mention of his alleged apostasy (Christys 103). In fact, the earliest accounts of Ibn ণafৢnjn renouncing IslƗm appear the Anonymous Chronicle of ‘Abd al-Ra‫ۊ‬mƗn III to al-NƗ‫܈‬ir, an extract of the work of Ibn ণayyƗn (103). It was Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ, writing in 1312, who provides elaborate details regarding Ibn ণafsnjn’s alleged apostasy, which was supposedly kept secret, and which was only revealed after his body had been exhumed (103). Those who claim that Ibn ণafsnjn was a Christian insist that he converted in 898/899 or earlier (285). This date makes little sense. Even if he pretended to convert to Christianity, hoping to win military support from Alfonso III de León (848-910), Ibn ণafsnjn publicly professed the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite faith in 910. Even though the pact with the FƗ৬imids did not fall through, there is no evidence that Ibn ণafsnjn renounced IslƗm or ShƯ‘ism before his death in 917. Curiously, nothing is mentioned of dissent among the neo-Muslims when Ibn ণafৢnjn pledged allegiance to the ShƯ‘ites of North Africa who were the opponents of the SunnƯs. Had his subjects and supporters been SunnƯs, one would have expected some objections. However, no such objections have been recorded. If they did not object, three possible explanations come to mind: 1) they embraced ShƯ‘ism along with their leader 2) they were already ShƯ‘ites or 3) they belonged to a culture in which religious syncretism was so current that it did not create any animosity or ill-will. In short, these Islamo-Christians lived in a gray zone in which they were not entirely one religion or another. In many cases, IslƗmization was more of a gradual process as opposed to a radical change (Fierro 1995: 245).

12.14 The Rebellion of MahdƯ b. al-Qi৬৬ and Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj (900-901) In the year 900-901, Aতmad b. Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, known as Ibn al-Qi৬৬, a member of the Umayyad family, rallied the Berber tribes from the Central Mesesta in Spain and called for jihƗd against the Christians. The spiritual leader behind this movement was a semi-legendary personality named Abnj

208

Chapter 12

‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj who appeared in the frontier region in 898 preaching jihƗd, ‘amr bi al-ma‘rnjf [promoting the good], and nahy ‘an al-munkar [forbidding the wrong] while condemning ‘Abd AllƗh, the Umayyad emir. According to Ibn HayyƗn, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj also attempted to form an alliance between Ibn ণafৢnjn and the Bannj QasƯ of Aragón in the year 898 (127-6). In the year 900, Ibn al-Qi৬৬ left Cordova, headed to Llano de los Pedroches and the Sierra de Almacén, where he established contact with the leaders of the Berber tribes. Ibn al-Qi৬৬ and al-SarrƗj succeeded in attracting thousands of Berbers to their cause: including the Berbers from the Valle de Pedroches, to the northwest of Cordova, and the Sierra de Almaden, as well as the NafzƗ and KutƗmah Berbers from the Guadiana valley. The opponents of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ claim that he presented himself as the MahdƯ while in NafzƗ, and that his followers considered him a prophet who could perform miracles. Ibn al-Qi৬৬, accompanied by Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj, led sixtythousand of his followers to the city of Zamora, which Alfonso III had rebuilt in 893 as part of his southward expansion. There, in July of 901, a violent battle took place between the ShƯ‘ites of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ and the Christians of Alfonso III, ending in the death of Ibn al-Qi৬৬, and the crushing defeat of his companions. According to M.A. MakkƯ and Pierre Guichard, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj was a FƗ৬imid da’Ư or missionary (MakkƯ 1954: 101; Guichard 2000: 385), a claim Aguadé rejects since “the fact that Abnj ‘AlƯ presented precisely an Umayyad as MahdƯ contradicts this assertion” (67). According to Aguadé, “It was, in reality, a messianic movement” (67). Fierro also expressed some doubts about the ShƯ‘ite nature of the movement. La figura de Abnj ‘AlƯ al-Sarray (nótese la kunyah) en principio bien puede levantar la sospecha de que se tratase de un propagandista fƗ৬imí, cuyo objetivo habría sido contribuir al debilitamiento del emir omeya, azuzando y apoyando a las distintas facciones rebeldes existentes en al-Andalus. Sin embargo, el hecho de que se ofreciese a hacer la da‘wah a favor de un príncipe omeya resulta cuando menos sorprendente, ya que mal parece encajar con la actividad de un propagandista ši’Ư. (1987: 110) [At first, the figure of Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj (note the kunyah) may raise the suspicion that he was a FƗ৬imid propagandist who objective was to contribute to weakening the Umayyad Emirate, encouraging and supporting the distinct rebel factions which existed in al-Andalus. Nonetheless, the fact that he offered to do da‘wah in favor of a Umayyad prince seems all the more surprising since it does not coincide well with the activity of a ShƯ‘ite propagandist.]

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

209

Despite her reservations, Fierro admits that “Abnj ‘AlƯ al-Sarray quizás fue un propagandista fƗ৬imƯ que procuró por todos los medios fomentar el desorden en al-Andalus (llegando al contrasentido de promocionar a un pretendiente omeya)” [Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj may have been a FƗ৬imid propagandist who used any and all means to foment disorder in al-Andalus (even reaching the point of contradiction by supporting an Umayyad claimant)] (1987: 111). Further ahead, she admits that “no es posible descartar que se tratase realmente de un propagandista ši’í cuyo objetivo fuese fomentar el desorden de al-Andalus para favorecer la implantación de otra dinastía” (1987: 12324) [the possibility that he was really a ShƯ‘ite propagandist whose goal was to spread disorder in al-Andalus to favor the establishment of another dynasty cannot be dismissed]. Finally, Fierro concludes that “el movimiento de Ibn al-Qi৬৬ tal vez fue fomentado por un propagandista ismƗ‘ƯlƯ, pero se materializó en un pretendiente omeya” [Ibn al-Qi৬৬’s movement may have been fomented by an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ propagandist, although it materialized in an Umayyad claimant] (1987: 172). Pierre Guichart describes Ibn al-Qi৬৬ as “an agitator of ShƯ‘ite inspiration” (1992: 684). In some of her more recent work, Fierro suggests that, inspired by the support the KutƗmah showed for Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư in the Maghrib, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj attempted to create a similar situation in al-Andalus (2004: 241). According to Fierro, al-SarrƗj’s support of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ as the MahdƯ may have simply been a move to deepen the crisis of the Umayyad caliphate, and cause it to collapse, only to reveal the true identity of the MahdƯ, namely, the FƗ৬imid caliph (2004: 241). If his goal was to destabilize the Umayyads, then Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj was most successful in his mission. Fierro describes Ibn al-Qi৬৬’s rebellion as one in which an Umayyad claimant took advantage of the widespread discontent of the Berbers from the central region of the Peninsula along with the weakness of the central government. He combined this with the Messianism that was “in style” during the period and which may have been the result of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ propaganda (Fierro 1987: 171). Simply because Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj and Ibn al-Qi৬৬’s movement was messianic does not stop it from being ShƯ‘ite since ShƯ‘ism, by nature, is a messianic movement. To claim that their movement was not ShƯ‘ite because it was messianic is as silly as saying that a movement is not Christian because it is messianic. Christianity, ShƯ‘ism, and Judaism are all messianic movements: they all await the messiah’s return. Furthermore, merely because Ibn al-Qi৬৬ was an Umayyad does not dismiss the ShƯ‘ite nature of the movement. Ibn al-Qi৬৬ was a descendant of HishƗm I, the son of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I, who all belonged to the tribe of

210

Chapter 12

Quraysh. Although they were not direct descendants of the Prophet, they were related to his tribe. The ShƯ‘ites, it should be remembered, believed that the ImƗmate belonged in the hands of the tribe of Quraysh for, as the Prophet Muতammad had supposedly said: “I will be followed by twelve caliphs from the tribe of Quraysh” (BukhƗrƯ). Hence, the various ShƯ‘ite movements of the time had different standards on the subject. Some held that any member of Quraysh could be the ImƗm. Others held that only direct descendants of the Prophet through ‘AlƯ and FƗ৬imah could be the ImƗms. It should also be noted that some ShƯ‘ite Muslims made a distinction between the spiritual ImƗm and the political ImƗm. Although scholars have ignored its significance, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj and Ibn al-Qi৬৬ rose up in the name of jihƗd [sacred struggle] ‘amr bi al-ma‘rnjf [enjoining the good], and nahy ‘an al-munkar [forbidden the evil], three fundamental pillars of twelve-ImƗm ShƯ‘ism. The SunnƯ fundamentals of faith include: Taw‫ۊ‬Ưd: Oneness of God Nubuwwah/RisƗlah: Prophethood and Messengership Kutub: Divinely Revealed Books MalƗ’ikah: Angels QiyƗmah: The Day of Judgment Qadar: Predestination ShahƗdah: Profession of Faith

The SunnƯs also combined faith and practice in their five pillars of IslƗm which consist of: ShahƗdah ‫܇‬alƗh: Prayer ‫܇‬awm: Fasting in RamaঌƗn ‫ۉ‬ajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca ZakƗh: Alms

The Twelver ShƯ‘ite theologians preferred to separate creed from practice, presenting two lists, the foundations of faith, and the branches of Faith. U‫܈‬njl al-dƯn Taw‫ۊ‬Ưd: Oneness of God ‘Adl: Divine Justice Nubuwwah/RisƗlah: Prophethood and Messengership ImƗmah/WilƗyah: ImƗmate or Guardianship QiyƗmah: Day of Judgment

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

211

Furnj’ al-dƯn ‫܇‬alƗh: Prayer ‫܇‬awm: Fasting in RamaঌƗn ‫ۉ‬ajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca ZakƗh: Alms Khums: Alms JihƗd: Struggle Amr bi al-ma‘rnjf: Promoting good Nahy ‘an al-munkar: Forbidding evil TawallƗ: Attachment to the ahl al-bayt TabarrƗ’: Separation from the enemies of the ahl al-bayt

The Zaydiyyah share the same beliefs of the IthnƗ’ ‘Ashariyyah. The main difference between the groups is in their concept of the ImƗmate, and the fact that Zaydiyyah fiqh is closer to SunnƯ ণanafƯ and ShƗfi‘Ư fiqh than it is to Ja‘farƯ jurisprudence. The IsmƗ‘Ưliyyah theologians have organized their beliefs into Seven Pillars of IslƗm, consisting of: WilƗyah: Guardianship ܑahƗrah: Purity ‫܇‬alƗh: Prayer ZakƗh: Alms ‫܇‬awm: Fasting in RamaঌƗn ‫ۉ‬ajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca JihƗd: Struggle

‘IbƗঌiyyah theologians have divided their beliefs into the following Five Pillars: Taw‫ۊ‬Ưd: Oneness of God ‘Adl: Divine Justice Qadr: Predestination WilƗyah/TabarrƗ’: Attachment to Muslims and separation from infidels Amr/Nahy: Promoting good and forbidding evil; implementing the ImƗmate when possible

As can be seen, the only Muslims who include ‘amr bi al-ma‘rnjf and nahy ‘an al-munkar as fundamentals of faith are the Twelver ShƯ‘ites and the ‘IbƗঌiyyah. And the only Muslims who include jihƗd as a fundamental of faith are the Twelver ShƯ‘ites and the KhƗrijites. Theologically speaking, the movement commenced by Abnj ‘AlƯ al-Faraj and Ibn al-Qi৬৬ can be considered either ShƯ‘ite or IbƗঌƯ. In the history of IslƗm, it was typically the ShƯ‘ites and the KhƗrijites who rose up with the slogan of enjoining good

212

Chapter 12

and forbidding evil. Considering the messianic tone of the movement, any association with KhƗrijism can be discarded. The KhƗrijites believed that any Muslim could become the ImƗm and rejected the claims made by the members of the household of the Prophet. Although no scholar has mentioned it to date, Abnj ‘AlƯ al-Faraj’s ShƯ‘ism is manifest in the ShƯ‘ite traditions which he narrated and which circulated on his authority for over five hundred years after his death. Among the ShƯ‘ite traditions which were circulating among the Moriscos centuries after the reconquest of 1492, we find a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth narrated on the authority of Abnj ‘AlƯ al-Faraj which seem to confirm his ShƯ‘ism and the ShƯ‘ite nature of his revolutionary movement.

12.15 The Revolt of Mas‘njd b. TajƯt (928-9) Mas‘njd b. TajƯt, a Masmnjdah Berber, holed himself up in a castle in Alanje in 928/29, only to be defeated and transferred to Cordova (Fierro 2004: 243).

12.16 The False Prophet from Lisboa In the year 944-45, a man professing to be a prophet appeared in Lisboa. He claimed to be a descendant of ‘Abd al-Mu৬৬alib and that his mother Maryam was a descendant of FƗ৬imah. He claimed that he was visited by the angel Gabriel. He gave his followers a sunnah and a sharƯ‘ah and ordered them to shave their heads. Then, he suddenly disappeared and was never heard of again. Evidently, from the point of view of so-called IslƗmic orthodoxy, people who claim prophecy cannot be considered Muslims. What is suggestive here, however, is the spread of ShƯ‘ite notions, including the importance of descending from the household of the Prophet. As for the shaving of the head, this practice is of KhƗrijite origin. However, it was also the custom of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Like ShaqyƗ’s movement, the movement of the so-called false prophet also spread in the southwest section of the Iberian Peninsula where Berbers abounded. The messianic movement of the so-called false prophet of Lisboa seems to have combined both ShƯ‘ite and KhƗrijite elements.

12.17 The Revolt of Abnj Rakwah WalƯd b. HishƗm (1004) WalƯd b. HishƗm was an Umayyad prince from al-Andalus who was exiled by the Manৢnjrids. He was given the name Abnj Rakwah or “the Man with a Leather Bottle” due to the gourd he carried, and the fact that he lived like a

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

213

Dervish. He traveled to Egypt, Mecca, Yemen, and Syria seeking support for the Umayyad family’s claims, evidence of discontent, and probabilities of stirring up civil strife. As Lacy O’Leary explains, the Umayyads had long passed out of the main current of IslƗmic life, and it did not seem that their name could anywhere be used as a rallying cry for the dissatisfied; there was no religious attachment to the Umayyads like there was to the ‘Alids.

When Abnj Rakwah came back to Egypt, he found that the Bannj QurrƗ were suffering under the chastisement they had received from the FƗ৬imid caliph al-ণƗkim, and this seemed to him to offer some promise. He headed west where he took refuge among the ZanƗtah Berbers of North Africa, the traditional enemies of the FƗ৬imids, where he obtained great esteem for his piety, acting as ImƗm at the mosque, and teaching the Qur’Ɨn to the children. Abnj Rakwah eventually managed to gather a following and proclaimed himself AmƯr under the title “He who is sent by the Order of God,” and “He who has Victory over the Enemies of God.” Although these titles were familiar enough among ShƯ‘ites, they sounded strange when applied to a claimant to the Umayyad throne. With support from the ZanƗtah Berbers and the Bannj QurrƗ, he launched his revolt in 1004 on the Egyptian border. After defeating the FƗ৬imid forces of al-ণƗkim in 1005, Abnj Rakwah occupied the town of Barqah, declaring himself AmƯr al-Mu’mimƯn (Leader of the Believers), adopting the title of NasƯr lƯ DƯn AllƗh (the Helper of God’s Religion), and supposedly establishing the Sunnah. He was forced to leave Barqah about a year later. He left the town on the verge of famine and plague. He then proceeded to besieged Alexandria for several months. The forces of al-Faঌl b. al-ণasan b. al-SƗliত eventually defeated those of Abnj Rakwah during a battle in Fayynjm, on the banks of the Nile just outside of Cairo. Abnj Rakwah fled to Sudan where he pretended to be an envoy of the FƗ৬imids. When the Nubian king discovered his identity, he turned him over to the FƗ৬imid general Faঌl when he came to the Sudan. According to some historians, Abnj Rakwah was taken back to Cairo to face the death penalty in 1007. His head, along with the heads of thirty thousand of his followers were paraded through all the towns of Syria, on the back of one hundred camels, and then thrown into the Euphrates. According to other historians, he died in custody. Although he is called “al-KhƗrijƯ” by some contemporary historians, it is unlikely that WalƯd b. HishƗm was a KhƗrijite. Since the ZanƗtah Berbers were always switching sects and alliances, it is difficult to determine to which branch of IslƗm they belonged. If anything, they were political and religious opportunists. As for Abnj Rakwah, some scholars have suggested

214

Chapter 12

that he was a ShƯ‘ite, but a strange one. If one thing is certain, he was a rebel, and an ambiguous one at that.

12.18 The Revolt of Ibn QasƯ (1142-1151) Ibn QasƯ appeared in southern Portugal between 1142 and 1151 towards the end of the Almoravid period. A mystic and skilled military leader, he fought the Almoravids and succeeded in unifying southern Portugal. The independence of the region, however, came to an end with the invasion of the Almohads. According to Aguadé, Ibn QasƯ “succeeded in having himself recognized as MahdƯ and preached a syncretistic doctrine, comprising of IslƗmic and Christian beliefs” (68). Ibn QasƯ, however, was not a MahdƯ: he was a mudƯr, a ৡnjfƯ leader. His beliefs were not a syncretistic doctrine of Muslim and Christian beliefs: he was an exponent of IslƗmic esoterism and was influenced by ShƯ‘ite ideas. As Henri Corbin has observed: Ibn QasƯ, que organiza a los adeptos de la escuela masarriana en los Algarbes (al sur de Portugal), en una especie de milicia religiosa que llevará el nombre místico de muridƯn. Tanto su doctrina teosófica como su organización presentan significativos rasgos en común con el ismailismo. Durante diez años, lbn QasƯ reina como ImƗm soberano en los Algarbes. (1994: 203-07)

[Ibn QasƯ organized the followers of the Massarite school from the Algarbes (in the south of Portugal) into a type of religious militia which bore the mystical name of the muridƯn. Both its theosophical doctrine and its mode of organization share common traits with IsmƗ‘Ưlism. lbn QasƯ ruled as sovereign ImƗm of the Algarbes for ten years.]

While Ibn QasƯ was a ৡnjfƯ, his ৡnjfƯsm was saturated with ShƯ‘ite notions. As Cecilia Cintra Cavaleiro de Macedo explains, “A sua obra Khal alNa’layn -- O Descalçar das Sandálias -- é de uma importƗncia capital para a compreensão da influéncia chiita no movimento ৡnjfƯ do Ândalus do séc. XII” (n. page) [His work Khal al-Na‘layn / Removing One’s Sandals is of great importance in helping us understanding the ShƯ‘ite influence on the ৡnjfƯ movement of al-Andalus during the eleventh century]. As Adalberto Alves acknowledges, “o ৡnjfƯsmo de Ibn QasƯ, em parte tributário das ideias dos IkhwƗn al-‫܈‬afƗ’, apresentava uma coloração cripto-ismaelita (36) [the ৡnjfƯsm of Ibn QasƯ, which is indebted in part of the ideas of the IkhwƗn al‫܈‬afƗ’, presents Crypto-IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ undertones]. Another indication that Ibn QasƯ traced his teachings back to ShƯ‘ism is the fact that his ‫ܒ‬arƯqah, unlike other ৡnjfƯ ‫ܒ‬uruq, did not have a chain of

ShƯ‘ite Revolts in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

215

transmission. As Cavaleiro de Macedo has observed, Ibn QasƯ’s chain of transmission may have deliberately been suppressed to occult the names of his ShƯ‘ite masters: “Outra explicação para a supressão dos nomes dos mestres é a possibilidade de forte influência do Ismailismo, corrente que atuou durante muitos períodos na clandestinidade” (n. page, note 18) [Another explanation for the suppression of the names of the teachers was because of the strong IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ influence, a current which relied on clandestinity during many periods]. According to Portillo Pasqual del Riquelmen, Ibn QasƯ cleverly combined both ৡnjfism and ShƯ‘ism to appeal to both sectors of the Muwallad population: Ibn Casi pretendió recoger el imamato dejado vacante flor la muerte de Ibn Barrayan (conocido come el “Algacel de al-Andalus”), y con su bien organizado ejército, en 1144 -- se apoderaba de Mértola, haciéndose proclamar ImƗm, en su doble significado de MahdƯ para los chíies, ismaílies y sufíes. (68) [Ibn QasƯ claimed the ImƗmate left vacant after the death of Ibn BarrajƗn (known as the al-GhazƗlƯ of al-Andalus), and with his well-organized army, he took over Mértola in 1144, declaring himself ImƗm in its dual sense of MahdƯ for the ShƯ‘ites, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, and ৡnjfƯs.]

Ibn QasƯ was a muwallad Muslim, a descendant of Arabized Iberian reverts to IslƗm. He organized the remaining followers of Ibn Masarrah who, as we have seen, shared many ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices. Interestingly, the supporters of Ibn QasƯ came from the muwalladnjn, the Spanish Muslims, who, as mentioned before, had always been inclined towards ShƯ‘ism. This applied to the common masses and especially to the leading Spanish Muslims families.

12.19 Conclusions As we have seen, al-Andalus was not the stable land of MƗlikƯ SunnƯ orthodoxy as many orientalists have supposed. On the contrary, the Umayyads in al-Andalus suffered repeated revolts from the discontented masses of Muslims who rallied around KhƗrijite, ShƯ‘ite, and ৡnjfƯ calls for insurrection. The first major revolt, which put the survival of the Arabs in danger, was the Great Berber Revolt of Maysarah al-MatgharƯ which lasted from 740-743. Although a mainly KhƗrijite revolt, the participation of ShƯ‘ites and other marginalized Muslims cannot be discounted.

216

Chapter 12

Al-Andalus faced a series of Yemenite-backed revolts, the most famous of which were those of al-ণubƗb b. RawƗতah and ‘Amir b. ‘Amr al-‘AbdarƯ, and that of Sa‘Ưd al-MatarƯ. Since many Yemenites were ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers, the ShƯ‘ite undertone of these revolts must be underscored. Al-Andalus also faced a series of pro-‘AbbƗsid revolts, including those of Ibn Mughith, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ণabƯb al-SiqbalƯ, and al-ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ. These revolts coincide with the early rise of the ‘AbbƗsids in the Middle East at a time they counted on ShƯ‘ite support. Al-Andalus also faced some more openly ShƯ‘ite insurrections, including those of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, ShƯ‘ite revolts in Lusitania, Tudmir, Barcelona, Zaragoza, and Algeciras, the ShƯ‘ite-inspired revolt of al-RumƗতis b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz, and the movements of Ibn ণafৢnjn, ShaqyƗ, Ibn al-Qi৬৬ and Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj, and Ibn QasƯ. In North Africa, the successful revolt of ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư sent repercussions throughout the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Even the Umayyad Abnj Rakwah appealed to ShƯ‘ite sentiments in his opposition to the FƗ৬imids. In the entire seven-hundred and eighty-one-year history of al-Andalus, from 711 to 1492, at least sixteen revolts were influenced by varying degrees by ShƯ‘ism: an average of approximately one insurrection per fifty years. Even if we dismiss half of the revolts, that will leave us with one ShƯ‘ite insurrection per century. Based on the historical evidence, ShƯ‘iteinspired revolts were far from sporadic in al-Andalus, clearly confirming the presence of ShƯ‘ite communities in the Iberian Peninsula.

CHAPTER 13 SHƮ‘ITE SCHOLARS IN THE MAGHRIB

13.1 Introduction Since IslƗmic scholarship revolves around a culture of authority, Muslims compiled biographical works about the companions of the Prophet, the companions of the companions, and legions of other scholarly figures. As such, we have a record of scholars even when their works have not survived into the present. Based on such biographical works in the field of ‘ilm alrijƗl or the science of men, as well as references found in other sources, we can obtain a picture of the scholarly scene in North Africa. As we will see, the Maghrib produced dozens of ShƯ‘ite scholars of Arab, Berber, and Andalusian origin belonging to the ZaydƯ, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, and ImƗmƯ branches of ShƯ‘ism. Since the presence of the companions of the Prophet and the ImƗms, along with the companions of the companions, in the Maghrib and al-Andalus has been examined previously, this chapter deals solely with the scholars who came after al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn, the two missionaries of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq in the Maghrib.

13.2 IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Naৢr al-Ma‘ƗdƯ IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Naৢr al-Ma‘ƗdƯ is said to have been converted to ShƯ‘ism by alণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25).

13.3 Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ was reportedly converted to ShƯ‘ism by alণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25; Nu‘mƗn 40).

218

Chapter 13

13.4 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ is said to have been converted to ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25; Nu‘mƗn 40).

13.5 Aflaত al-MalnjsƯ Aflaত al-MalnjsƯ was reportedly converted to ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25). He became a dƗ’Ư and qƗ‫ڲ‬Ư under the FƗ৬imids (Madelung 2000: 25).

13.6 Hurayth al-JƯmalƯ A KutƗmah Berber, Hurayth al-JƯmalƯ is said to have been converted to ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25). He belonged to the KutƗmah delegation that met Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư in Mecca and invited him to return with them to their homeland (Madelung 2000: 25; Nu‘mƗn 168).

13.7 MnjsƗ b. MakƗrim A KutƗmah Berber, MnjsƗ b. MakƗrim is said to have been converted to ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25). He belonged to the KutƗmah delegation which met Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư in Mecca, and invited him to return with them to their homeland (Madelung 2000: 25; Nu‘mƗn 168).

13.8 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan (d. 906-907) According to Abnj al-‘Arab’s ܑabaqƗt, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. alণasan was a moderate ShƯ‘ite scholar from Naf৬ah who died there in 906/907. He is said to have studied in al-QayrawƗn and “never said anything evil of any companion” (qtd. Madelung 1976: 95). This might suggest that he was a ZaydƯ of the SulaymƗnƯ persuasion. While it is possible that Muতammad b. al-ণasan and Muতammad b. al-ণasan b. Warsand represent the same person, it seems more likely that the two are not identical since the latter is known to have traveled to the Middle East to study IslƗm and is reputed to have cursed the companions, suggesting that he was a ZaydƯ of the Jarnjdiyyah inclination or an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite.

ShƯ‘ite Scholars in the Maghrib

219

13.9 Muতammad b. ণayynjn al-Mufattish In his ܑabaqƗt ‘ulamƗ’ IfrƯqiyyah, al-KhushanƯ speaks of a certain Muতammad b. ণayynjn as a scholar of QayrawƗn who embraced ShƯ‘ism. According to Ismail K. Poonawala, he was the father of al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, the famous FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ propagandist (Lindsay 53 note 6; Poonawala 572-79). He is said to have been converted to ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the missionary of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 25).

13.10 Ibn Haytham Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Ja‘far b. Aতmad b. Muতammad b. al-Aswad b. al-Haytham, the author of KitƗb al-Munaܲarat, was a dƗ’Ư of the FƗ৬imids. He had been a ShƯ‘ite prior to the advent of the FƗ৬imids, but not of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ persuasion (ণamdƗnƯ 7). Born into a ZaydƯ family, he became an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite, while maintaining links with various ShƯ‘ite schools (Madelung 2000: 51). Eventually, though, he succumbed to doubts regarding the successor of the eleventh ImƗm, ণasan al-‘AskarƯ (Madelung 2000: 50-51). When he finally met Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư, who had also been a former Twelver, Ibn Haytham had adopted a position of uncertainty regarding the line of ImƗms after Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (Madelung 2000: 51). Though ShƯ‘ites were few and far between in QayrawƗn, Ibn Haytham was close to Muতammad b. ‘Umar al-MarwadhƯ, whom he would recommend as judge of QayrawƗn to the FƗ৬imids. He was also close to several ShƯ’Ư scholars as well as prominent ণanafƯ SunnƯ scholars with ShƯ‘ite inclinations, many of whom came to embrace the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith (Madelung 2000: 24, 51). Upon the advent of the FƗ৬imids, Ibn Haytham was one of two IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ delegates sent to al-Andalus to meet Ibn ণafৢnjn (Martínez Enamorado 268). Although the date is unclear, Lévi-Provençal suggests that it took place within the same year of the proclamation of the caliphate in IfrƯqiyyah, namely, in 910 (Martínez Enamorado 274). In his KitƗb al-munƗܲarƗt, Ibn ণafৢnjn provides the following description of the diplomatic mission: the reasons for our leaving for al-Andalus, and what happened between us and the one who rose there against the Umayyads, and what we planted with those people and the inhabitants of Cordova with regard to the superiority of ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, the commander of the faithful, may God’s blessing be upon him, and the excellence of the family of Muতammad, peace be upon them. (Madelung 2000: 63-64)

Ibn al-Kha৬Ưb’s KitƗb al-a‘mal describes the journey in the following terms:

220

Chapter 13 [Ibn ণafৢnjn] contacted the ShƯ‘Ư kings in IfrƯqiyyah (mulnjk al-shƯ‘ah biIfrƯqiyyah), who were the enemies of the Umayyads. [The FƗ৬imids] sent him [Ibn ণafৢnjn] two men (rajnjlayn) who appeared in their robes of honor (al-khil‘a) before him. They addressed him, inciting him to accept an obligation of obedience (‫ܒ‬Ɨ‘ah) to them and to establish the da‘wah [in his domains]. They stayed with him [for many days] and were even present during many of his military expeditions (‫ۊ‬urnjb). [Ibn ণafৢnjn eventually] sent them home. And he ordered that the two [envoys] be provided with selected presents (intikhabuhƗ hƗdiyah) to bring to their ruler (ilƗ ‫܈‬Ɨ‫ۊ‬ibihimƗ).

13.11 Muতammad b. Khalaf Muতammad b. Khalaf was a pre-FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ite from QayrawƗn.

13.12 IbrƗhƯm b. Ma’shar IbrƗhƯm b. Ma’shar was a pre-FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ite from QayrawƗn.

13.13 Abnj al-ণasan al-Mu৬৬alibƯ Abnj al-ণasan al-Mu৬৬alibƯ was a pre-FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ite from QayrawƗn.

13.14 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư was an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ dƗ’Ư or missionary who was active among the KutƗmah Berber tribes in IfrƯqiyyah or North Africa. He uprooted the Aghlabid dynasty in 909 and handed the reins of power to ‘Abd AllƗh, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ImƗm.

13.15 Abnj al-‘AbbƗs (Muতammad b. Aতmad) Like his brother Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư, Abnj al-‘AbbƗs was a FƗ৬imid missionary. Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh, Abnj al-‘AbbƗs was the senior of the two, much revered by his younger brother. He arrived in the Maghrib in around 905 as part of the entourage of ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ. After the later was imprisoned in SijilmƗsah, he was dispatched to QawrawƗn where he was captured by the Aghlabids. He remained in captivity until his brother, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh, defeated them in 909. Abnj al-‘AbbƗs played a major role in spreading ShƯ‘ism in IfrƯqiyyah, engaging in spirited debates with the SunnƯ ‘ulamƗ’ of QayrawƗn (ণamdƗnƯ 9-12).

ShƯ‘ite Scholars in the Maghrib

221

13.16 Abnj Bakr al-QamadƯ Defeated in debate by Abnj al-‘AbbƗs, Abnj Bakr al-QamadƯ converted to the FƗ৬imid madhhab after having previously been a MƗlikƯ SunnƯ (ণamdƗnƯ 18).

13.17 ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr al-Saffar Formerly a SunnƯ, ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr embraced IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism upon the advent of the FƗ৬imids (ণamdƗnƯ 18).

13.18 ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Muতammad al-DabbƯ (Ibn al-Birdawn) The maternal cousin of ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr al-Saffar, ‘Abd al-MƗlik converted to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism from the ShƗfi‘Ư school (ণamdƗnƯ 18).

13.19 Ibn SabbƗgh Ibn SabbƗgh, a former MƗlikƯ SunnƯ, embraced IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism at the beginning of FƗ৬imid rule (ণamdƗnƯ 18).

13.20 RabƯ‘ b. SulaymƗn b. SalƯm (Ibn al-Kaততalah) Described as a modest, generous, and honorable man, RabƯ‘ b. SulaymƗn converted from the MƗlikƯ madhhab to the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ with the advent of the FƗ৬imids (ণamdƗnƯ 19).

13.21 Muতammad b. ণayyƗn Ibn ণayyƗn, the father of al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, converted to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism prior to the rise of the FƗ৬imids. Although a secret ShƯ‘ite, he was in charge of the Friday prayers in Snjs (ণamdƗnƯ 19).

13.22 Ishab b. Abnj MinhƗl Formerly a ণanafƯ qƗ‫ڲ‬Ư, Ishab b. Abnj MinhƗl converted to the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith upon arrival of the da‘wah in IfrƯqiyyah. He was appointed judge of Sicily and then of QaywarƗn (ণamdƗnƯ 19).

222

Chapter 13

13.23 Abnj ‘AlƯ b. Abnj MinhƗl Like his brother IsতƗq b. Abnj MinhƗl, Abnj ‘AlƯ was also a former ণanafƯ judge who embraced IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism. He was eventually tried for illegal confiscation of goods (ণamdƗnƯ 20; ܑabaqƗt 227-233).

13.24 Ja‘far b. Aতmad b. Wahb A former ণanafƯ, Ja‘far b. Aতmad was appointed to the maܲƗlim courts by IsতƗq b. Abnj MinhƗl (ণamdƗnƯ 19).

13.25 Aতmad b. Baতr A former ণanafƯ, Aতmad b. Baতr was appointed to the maܲƗlim and then as qƗ‫ڲ‬Ư of Tripoli by IsতƗq b. Abnj MinhƗl (ণamdƗnƯ 19).

13.26 Abnj Muতammad b. ShahrƗn Originally from Snjs, Abnj Hammad b. ShahrƗn embraced IsmƗ‘Ưlism when the ShƯ’Ưs arrived in QayrawƗn. He was subsequently appointed secretary of qƗ‫ڲ‬Ư al-qu‫ڲ‬Ɨt al-MarwadhƯ and ZurƗrah b. Aতmad (ণamdƗnƯ 19; ܑabaqƗt 224-226).

13.27 Al-MarwadhƯ Al-MarwadhƯ was one of the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ judges of QayrawƗn. He was eventually executed on orders of the FƗ৬imid caliph, al-MahdƯ (ণamdƗnƯ 20).

13.28 Abnj Sa‘Ưd Khalaf b. Ma‘mar b. Manৢnjr (d. 915/916) A former ণanafƯ SunnƯ from QayrawƗn, and the son of a scholar with ণanafƯ tendencies, he had been known for disparaging Mu‘Ɨwiyyah and proclaiming the virtues of ImƗm ‘AlƯ (Madelung 2000: 112, note 75). Even when he was a SunnƯ, he broke consensus with his community by denying the validity of ‫ܒ‬alƗq al-bid‘ah (2000: 112, note 75). As he was already inclined to ShƯ‘ism prior to the FƗ৬imids, he embraced the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ faith soon after the arrival of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư (Madelung 2000: 112, note 75). He died in QayrawƗn in 915/16.

ShƯ‘ite Scholars in the Maghrib

223

13.29 Muতammad b. al-Mahfnjd Muতammad b. al-Mahfnjd served as a judge in QayrawƗn until 919.

13.30 Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ (d. 922-23) According to al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ was a faqƯh or jurist of the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite madhhab. He is mentioned by both Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ and was quoted extensively by QƗdƯ al-Nu‘mƗn as his chief source of ZaydƯ traditions. Based on his nisbah, he may have originally come from Barqarnjd, a ShƯ‘ite region in HamadƗn (Madelung 2000: 112, note 78). According to Ibn Haytham, he had recently come from Sicily to QayrawƗn (Madelung 2000: 24, 112), probably between 898 and 903. Based on his nisbah, he may have lived for some time in Barqah prior to moving to QayrawƗn where he kept close ties to local ShƯ‘Ưs. Upon the advent of the FƗ৬imids, he was appointed as kha‫ܒ‬Ưb of the mosque of QayrawƗn by Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư (Madelung 2000: 112, note 78). He died in QayrawƗn in 922/23.

13.31 Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư (d. 924) Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư was a ShƯ‘ite scholar from Naf৬ah. He served as a qƗ‫ڲ‬Ư [judge] in ৫arƗbulus [Tripoli] and al-QayrawƗn during the reign of the first FƗ৬imid caliph, al-MahdƯ. As Madelung points out, “He may well have been originally, before the rise of the FƗ৬imids, a ShƯ‘Ư of the school of Ibn Warsand who then quickly joined the victorious IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ cause” (1976: 96).

13.32 ZurƗrah b. Aতmad ZurƗrah b. Aতmad was the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ judge in al-Mahdiyyah. He is described by al-KhushƗnƯ as being a fanatic ShƯ‘Ư (ণamdƗnƯ 19; ܑabaqƗt 224-226).

13.33 Conclusions Since the Maghrib and al-Andalus were intricately connected cultural and political entities for centuries at a time, there was contact between the Arabs and Berbers on both continents. As historians understand, goods are not the

224

Chapter 13

only things that are exchanged between populations. Trade and commerce also carry ideas. The presence of a ShƯ‘ite states in North Africa, the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids, was not only a source of fear and suspicion but also a source of spiritual and political inspiration for many Muslims. When individuals are not pleased with the powers that be, they turn towards the powers that could be, namely, the enemy of their enemy. In the twentieth century, rebels, dissenters, and revolutionaries in the capitalist West turned towards the communist East in search of solutions to their socio-political problems. Likewise, those who were oppressed by communist despots and dictators in the East found inspiration in the liberal democratic societies of the west. There can be no question, then, that a cultural and ideological exchange took place between the IdrƯsids and FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ites of North Africa and the surrounding SunnƯ States.

CHAPTER 14 SHƮ‘ITE SCHOLARS FROM AL-ANDALUS

14.1 Introduction Despite the claims of certain Western historians, orientalists, and aljamiadistas that IslƗmic Spain was entirely SunnƯ, both Ibn al-FaradƯ (962-1013) and al-MakkƯ cite many famous ShƯ‘ite personalities from alAndalus. Although not necessarily ShƯ‘ites, Muতammad b. Masarrah and his followers embraced many ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices. Although some have described him as a Mu‘tazilƯ or a ਋ƗhirƯ, Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd has also been described as a ShƯ‘ite. The poet Abnj al-YasƗr IbrƗhƯm b. Aতmad alRiyƗঌƯ was a ShƯ‘ite of probable ImƗmƯ affiliation, while Muতammad b. Aতmad b. HƗrnjn al-BaghdƗdƯ appears to have been a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ. In his attitude towards Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, at least, Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm b. ণayynjn al-ণijƗrƯ, seems to have been a ShƯ‘ite. Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn b. SimƗk alJudhƗmƯ is confirmed to have converted to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism. While Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ turned against the FƗ৬imids for political reasons, he appears to have maintained his ShƯ‘ite beliefs. Finally, more than a free thinker, Abnj al-Khayr, who was crucified by al-ণakam II, could be considered a ShƯ‘ite Muslim martyr.

14.2 Muতammad b. Masarrah (883-931) Muতammad b. Masarrah was initiated by his father, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Masarrah (who died in Mecca in 899) into the BƗ৬inƯ, Mu‘tazilƯ, and spiritual doctrines he has acquired in the East, namely Iraq, where he studied with Mu‘tazilƯ teachers. Muতammad b. Masarrah founded a small retreat for friends and companions in the caves of the Sierra de Cordova, where prayer and penitence were practiced. Due to the suspicions, the group awakened among the official establishment, Ibn Masarrah was obliged to spend several years in North Africa and the East, probably returning at the end of the fitnah or during the reign of ‘Abd AllƗh. According to Miguel Cruz Hernández, “The thought of Ibn Masarrah is a synthesis of Mu‘tazilƯ doctrines concerning the unity of God, divine

226

Chapter 14

justice and free will, and of ৡnjfƯ theory and practice as expounded by Dhnj al-Nnjn al-MiৢrƯ and al-NahrajnjrƯ.” What Cruz Hernández fails to mention is that NahrajnjrƯ was identified as being a member of the IkhwƗn al-SafƗ or Brethren of Purity, which in turn has been identified by some scholars as composed of ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. What Cruz Hernández equally ignores is that Dhnj al-Nnjn al-MiৢrƯ, the famous ৡnjfƯ mystic, was the student of JƗbir b. HayyƗn al-KnjfƯ, who was a student of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. As Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme has observed, the school of Ibn Masarrah “estaba muy difundida y sintonizaba con los bƗ‫ܒ‬iniyyah ismailíes” [was widespread and was in tune with the bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯ IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs] (86). Although Emilio Tornero agrees that Ibn Masarrah was a bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯ and a ৡnjfƯ, he believes that “it might be more appropriate to situate Ibn Masarrah closer to the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, as H. Corbin would have us do, or perhaps, even better, near the thought of the IkhwƗn” (16-17). Whether or not Ibn Masarrah was a SunnƯ, a ShƯ‘Ư, a ৡnjfƯ, a Mu‘tazilƯ or a combination thereof, he was influenced by ShƯ‘ism, and the teachings of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq since the founder of the Mu‘tazilƯ school, WƗৢil b. ‘AtƗ’ (700-748), had himself been a student of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that we find an “afinidad de las doctrinas de Ibn Masarrah y su escuela con las del esoterismo islámico, especialmente las doctrinas shƯ‘Ưtas e ismailíes” (Corbin) [an affinity between the doctrines of Ibn Masarrah and his school with those of IslƗmic esotericism, especially ShƯ‘ite and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ doctrines]. For example, Ibn Masarrah believed that the Qur’Ɨn was created. He interpreted the Qur’Ɨn and the a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth allegorically. Moreover, he spoke ill of the “pious predecessors.” Accused of bid‘ah [innovation], hawah, fitnah [sedition], zaygh, ‫ڲ‬alƗl, and il‫ۊ‬Ɨd, Muতammad b. Massarah was charged with zandaqah [heresy] by ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III and all Massarite books were ordered to be burned.

14.3 The Disciples of Ibn Masarrah The disciples of Ibn Masarrah were condemned by ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III and their persecution ordered on the basis that they were rƗfi‫ڲ‬Ưs, a term applied to ShƯ‘ites who reject Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn. Whether or not they self-identified as ShƯ‘ites, some Massirites had absorbed ShƯ‘ite ideas and practices in the same way they had adopted Mu‘tazilite, bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯ, and KhƗrijite ideas. As Fierro explains, La equiparación entre masarríes y rafidíes tal vez se explique por el hecho de que, como afirma al-MuqaddasƯ, los fatimíes (si’íes rafidíes) coinciden con los mu‘tazilíes en la mayor parte de los u‫܈‬njl de su religión. (1987:

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

227

140) [The similarities between the Massirites and the RƗfiঌites might be explained by the fact that, as al-MuqqadasƯ affirms, the FƗ৬imids (the RƗfiঌite ShƯ‘ites) share most of the u‫܈‬njl of their religion with the Mu‘tazilƯs].

The MassarƯs were divided into two groups: that of Cordova and that of Pechina. To the first belonged three members of the distinguished muwallad family of the Bannj Ballnj৬Ư while members of the second group included IsmƗ‘Ưl b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-Ru‘aynƯ (950-1040). Although the Cordovan group involved few notable divergences from the thought of Ibn Masarrah, one of their members was accused of tashrƯq fƯ al-‫܈‬alƗh or “praying in the eastern style” (Fierro 1987: 140). As Fierro explains, Por lo que se refiere a tashrƯq fƯ al-‫܈‬alƗh, no comparto la opinión de Asín que interpreta dicha frase como referida a la orientación de la qiblah: creo que es una referencia a que hacia la oración al estilo de los ši’Ưes. (1987: 140) [As regards the tashrƯq fƯ al-‫܈‬alƗh, I do not share Asín’s opinion who interprets it to mean the direction of the qiblah: I believe it refers to the ShƯ‘ite style of prayer].

Fierrro is correct. The expression does not refer to the direction of prayer for all Muslims pray in the direction of Mecca. It refers to performing the prayer in the eastern style as opposed to the western style. If the western style is clear, the manner of the MƗlikƯ madhhab, the eastern style is not so clear and could refer to any of the schools of jurisprudence practiced in the Middle East. Since the MƗlikƯs, the IbƗঌƯs, and the Twelver ShƯ‘ites pray with their hands by their sides, their style of prayer in quite similar. In fact, the MƗlikƯ form of prayer looks closer to the Ja‘farƯ style than it does to the other SunnƯ schools in which the hands are placed along the stomach. The accusation must then stem from other aspects of the prayer. The second group of MassarƯs, led by al-Ru‘aynƯ, appears to have embraced more ShƯ‘ite elements. Al-Ru‘aynƯ was considered the ImƗm of the group, he received the zakat, and proclaimed that only he knew the authentic esoteric significance of MasarrƯ thought. According to Ibn ণazm, “IsmƗ‘Ưl approved marriage or sexual unions contracted for a [specific] period of time as licit” (9-11; Cruz Hernández 779). Although the Prophet’s companions differed on the subject of fixedterm marriage or mu‘tah, the SunnƯs came to prohibit the practice, while the Twelver ShƯ‘ites continue to permit it. Since both ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ

228

Chapter 14

ShƯ‘ites prohibit temporary marriages, al-Ru‘aynƯ must have been influenced by twelve-ImƗm ShƯ‘ite IslƗm if he was not a Twelver ShƯ‘ite himself. Rather than try to make the Massarites fit into any extant ShƯ‘ite mold, it might be wiser to view them as a distinct ShƯ‘ite sect.

14.4 Muতammad b. ণamdnjn b. SimƗk al-JudhƗmƯ al-AndalusƯ Known by the kunyah Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ, Muতammad b. ণamdnjn was a close companion of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-MahdƯ, the famous FƗ৬imid missionary. As al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu’mƗn states in his IftitƗh al-Da‘wah, “Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ… adhered to ShƯ‘ism” (ণajƯ 53). Of Andalusian origin, this man from Bougie [Béjaïa, Vgaiet or Bejaya], a city in the Berber region of Kabylia in what is modern-day Algeria, was assigned the role of spreading ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus (Martínez Enamorado 287). Martínez Enamorado identifies him as the man who may have made the arrangements for the arrival of the two FƗ৬imid missionaries in al-Andalus, one of whom was Ibn Haytham (287-288). Muতammad b. ণamdnjn, along with members of his family, would hold important functions in the FƗ৬imid administration. Eventually, however, the family turned their loyalty to the Spanish Umayyads (ণajƯ 53).

14.5 Abnj Ja‘far al-BaghdƗdƯ Appointed as kƗtib by ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ, Abnj Ja‘far al-BaghdƗdƯ was a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ who appears to have lived in Cordova during the rule of ‘Abd AllƗh (846-912) (Martínez Enamorado 287-288). As Martínez Enamorado explains, “There is evidence that… it was his mission to contact any of the Cordovan scholars who passed by QayrawƗn on their journey to Mecca” (288). Martínez Enamorado believes that al-BaghdƗdƯ or ণamdnjn b. Simak may have helped organize the expedition of Ibn Haytham and his anonymous co-missionary to the country of Ibn ণafৢnjn in al-Andalus (288).

14.6 Abnj al-ণakam Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. QƗsim b. ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. NƗjiত al-BallnjtƯ al-KaznƯ (886-966) Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd was a Berber of the NafzƗ tribe who studied the IslƗmic sciences in Cordova, Mecca, and Egypt. Upon his return to al-Andalus, he was appointed as a judge in Cordova from 950 until his death in 966. Since

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

229

he was a faqƯh, he abandoned taqlƯd, and followed his own ijti‫ۊ‬Ɨd. He is said to have been inclined towards the ਋ƗhirƯ school, although he judged according to the MƗlikƯ madhhab, which was the official code of law in alAndalus. Since he did not follow any particular school, he has been described as either a Mu‘tazilƯ, a ਋ƗhirƯ, or a ShƯ‘Ư. Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd was a partisan of didactic theology [kalƗm] and was accused of professing an un-orthodox profession of faith. One wonders whether he may have professed the tripartite shahƗdah of the ShƯ‘ites or have organized the u‫܈‬njl al-dƯn [fundamentals of religion] and furnj‘ al-dƯn [branches of religion] in the ShƯ‘ite fashion. MundhƯr also asserted that the Paradise of Adam and Eve was of earthly origin, not the Paradise of eternal life, a belief held by many ShƯ‘ite scholars and Qur’Ɨnic commentators. As a Berber of the NafzƗ tribe, some of the relatives of Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd had been involved in the revolt of Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj and Ibn al-Qi৬৬ in the year 900. In fact, MundhƯr b. Sa‘Ưd is one of the three authorities who have documented the details of the revolt, the other two being ‘IsƗ b. Aতmad alRƗzƯ, and Muতammad b. HishƗm al-ShabinsƯ. MakkƯ believes that Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd was a ShƯ‘ite because he became angry when he read a poem by Ibn ‘Abd RabbihƯ in which he mentioned Mu‘Ɨwiyyah as the fourth caliph, omitting the name of ‘AlƯ, a claim that Fierro does not find convincing (1987: 142). For Fierro, love for the Prophet’s family is a mainstream SunnƯ attitude. Love for the family of the Prophet is certainly central to ৡnjfism; however, the same cannot be said of Sunnism as a whole. A distinction must be made between the SunnƯ IslƗm of the Umayyads, the ‘AbbƗsids, the Almoravids, the Almohads, the AyynjbƯs, the Ottomans, the SalafƯs, the Saudis, and the TakfƯrƯs and the SunnƯ IslƗm of the ৡnjfƯs and some traditional SunnƯs. Hatred of the ahl albayt was one of the fundamentals of faith of the early pro-Umayyad party. In fact, they used to ritually curse the family of the Prophet. And in terms of persecution and oppression, the ‘AbbƗsids were arguably worse than the Umayyads. One cannot love the family of the Prophet while oppressing and slaughtering them.

14.7 Abnj al-YasƗr IbrƗhƯm b. Aতmad (or Muতammad) al-ShaybƗnƯ al-RiyƗঌƯ (d. 910) Originally from Iraq, where he studied with al-JƗhi਌ (d. 869) and Ibn Qutaybah (d. 885), among others, Abnj Yasr introduced “modern” Arabic poetry to IfrƯqiyyah. He entered al-Andalus during the reign of Muতammad (852-886) where he was involved in a bizarre political intrigue in which he tried to convince the AmƯr Muতammad to restore Umayyad rule in the

230

Chapter 14

Middle East. While MakkƯ believes that al-RiyƗঌƯ was a FƗ৬imid propagandist, Fierro is not convinced. As Fierro explains, La hipótetis de MakkƯ de que era un propagandista fatimí mal parece sacar con su intento de convencer al emir Muতammad de iniciar la restauración del califato omeya en Oriente. [MakkƯ’s hypothesis that he was a FƗ৬imid propagandist does not coincide with his effort to convince the AmƯr Muতammad to initiate the restoral of the Umayyad caliphate in the west] (1987: 94).

However, this is precisely the type of propaganda war in which the FƗ৬imids were engaged. Their goal was to destabilize the Umayyads by any means. The FƗ৬imids may have sought to push the Umayyads of al-Andalus into war with the ‘AbbƗsids. RiyƗঌƯ’s activities in al-Andalus appear to be consistent with FƗ৬imid propaganda. Mission accomplished, al-RiyƗঌƯ quickly left al-Andalus, and was dispatched to Egypt, where he continued to engage in FƗ৬imid propaganda. He was the kƗtib of the AghlabƯs until their overthrow in 908. After they were overthrown, ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ made him his secretary until his death in 910. As far as Fierro is concerned, al-RiyƗঌƯ was a fortune seeker, willing to serve the highest bidder. Therefore, she believes, he sought to work for the Umayyads of Spain, the AlghabƯs, and then the FƗ৬imids. What she fails to appreciate, however, is how ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-MahdƯ made him his personal secretary after the FƗ৬imids took power. If anything, this might demonstrate that he was rewarded for his years of loyalty serving as a FƗ৬imid agent in al-Andalus, the Maghrib, and Egypt. Although Fierro implicitly accepts that al-RiyƗঌƯ joined the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites, she claims that “Nada sin embargo indica que ello fue debido a que hubiese compartido su ideología si’í en los años anteriores” (1987: 94) [There is no evidence, however, that it was due to the fact that he had shared the ShƯ‘ite ideology in earlier years]. Al- RiyƗdƯ, it should be recalled, was responsible for spreading ShƯ‘ite poetry in al-Andalus, including the works of Abnj TammƗm, al-BuতturƯ, ‘AlƯ b. al-Jahm, and Di‘bil al-KhuzƗ’Ư. The latter was a companion of ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im and ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-RidƗ. If al-RiyƗঌƯ was a SunnƯ, why did he not spread SunnƯ poetry throughout alAndalus, thus reinforcing the Umayyads? Why would a SunnƯ spread subversive ShƯ‘ite poetry in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, something that could only help solidify the spread of ShƯ‘ism in the region? Despite Fierro’s doubts, al-RiyƗdƯ’s ShƯ‘ism seems to have consistent throughout the years.

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

231

14.8 Muতammad b. Aতmad b. HƗrnjn al-BaghdƗdƯ (d. 932) According to Ibn al-FaradƯ (962-1013), Ibn HƗrnjn spent many years traveling through Spain and that, according to the historian SulaymƗn b. Ayynjb, Ibn HƗrnjn was a spy of the FƗ৬imids, spreading the works of alJƗhi਌ (d. 868) and Ibn Qutaybah (d. 889). The poet al-JƗhi਌ was well-known for his opposition to the Umayyads. The spreading of political poetry seems understandable. Promoting Ibn Qutaybah, however, is somewhat puzzling at first, since he was a SunnƯ. At closer glance, however, it seems that ShƯ‘ites like Ibn Harnjn used to spread the works of moderate SunnƯs to encourage tolerance towards the followers of the ahl al-bayt. The following passage from Ibn Qutaybah is particularly relevant: venerating the descendants of ‘AlƯ is not… reprehensible so long as it is not accompanied rejection, namely, with the belief in the preeminence of ‘AlƯ over the rest of the companions, in particular, the three preceding caliphs. Otherwise, the sentimental attachment to the descendants of ‘AlƯ is perfectly legitimate so long as one does not support their political claims, which is the deep motive of the rawƗfi‫ڲ‬. (Lecomte np)

As Fierro observes, Ibn Qutaybah’s work manifests “una actitud pues moderada, pero que tal vez pareciera ‘extremista’ a los andalusíes del s. X cuyo principal enemigo exterior era precisamente una rama de la š’Ưa, los fƗ৬imíes” (1987: 119-20) [a very moderate attitude which might have seemed ‘extremist’ to the Andalusians of the tenth century whose main enemy were the FƗ৬imids, a branch of the ShƯ‘ites]. If mainstream SunnƯ works like those of Ibn Qutaybah were used as subversive material by ShƯ‘ite missionaries, the simple fact of speaking positively about the Prophet’s family must have been potentially perilous in the Andalus of the Umayyads. Apparently, Ibn Harnjn was more successful than his predecessor, alRiyƗঌƯ. According to ‘Arib b. Sa‘d, the historian from Cordova, the first FƗ৬imid caliph, al-MahdƯ, appointed Ibn HƗrnjn as his secretary after the death of al- RiyƗঌƯ in 910, and placed him in charge of the Ministry of Propaganda, where he distinguished himself. According to Asín Palacios, Ibn HƗrnjn spread the esoteric ideas of the FƗ৬imid sect, and was also responsible for introducing Mu‘tazilƯ ideas with ShƯ‘ite tendencies (MakkƯ 1968: 19). Although she doubts that RiyƗঌƯ was originally a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, Fierro does suspect that Muতammad b. Aতmad had FƗ৬imid ties. As we have seen, however, Ibn Harnjn had more than ties to the FƗ৬imid: he became their master propagandist in their spiritual and intellectual war against the Umayyads of al-Andalus.

Chapter 14

232

14.9 Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm b. ণayynjn al-ণijƗrƯ (d. 917/18) Born in Guadalajara, Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm b. ণayynjn al-ণijƗrƯ studied the IslƗmic sciences in Cordova. He then set off on a fifteen-year trip throughout the IslƗmic world in search of prophetic traditions. During that time, he visited the Yemen, Mecca, BaghdƗd, Egypt, and QayrawƗn. According to his contemporary, Wahb b. Masarrah, Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm was not a MƗlikƯ. According to Ibn HƗrith al-KhushƗnƯ, he was a ShƯ‘ite because of his stance towards Mu‘Ɨwiyyah b. AbƯ SufyƗn (Fierro 1987: 120). Fierro believes that Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm was a traditionalist Muslim who viewed Mu‘Ɨwiyyah with contempt (1987: 120). What exactly a “traditionalist” Muslim was during this period is not defined by Fierro. According to ণussain Monès, Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm was accused of ShƯ‘ism for having deviated from the MƗlikƯ rite (1987: 21). Whether he was a ShƯ‘ite or not, the regions visited by Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm were hotbeds of ShƯ‘ite sentiment.

14.10 Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn b. SimƗk al-JudhƗmƯ Originally from Alcalá la Real in al-Andalus, Tha‘labah b. Hamdnjn converted to IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, changed his name to ‘AlƯ, and was named the judge of MasƯlah. The descendants of ‘AlƯ eventually shifted their allegiance back to the Umayyads.

14.11 Abnj al-Khayr During the reign of al-ণakam II (961-976), Abnj al-Khayr was accused of disbelief [kufr], heresy [il‫ۊ‬ad], and immorality [fawƗ‫ۊ‬ish]. The charges presented against Abnj al-Khayr included the following sixteen which are consistent with ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ beliefs: 1. 2.

3.

Cursing the companions of the Prophet, especially Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn; treating the Salaf and Khalaf with contempt, and cursing ‘A’ishah. Claiming that only six companions had been saved, including ‘AlƯ, ‘AmmƗr, and al-MiqdƗd, while the rest had chosen misguidance and lies, and had thus apostatized become kuffƗr. The Muslims who accept them are as misguided as them. Supporting rebellion against the caliphs; refusing to recognize the right of any caliph; insulting the caliphate and the judges.

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

233

Affirming that fighting the Umayyads is as meritorious as fighting the polytheists. Cursing the caliph ণakam II; wishing to kill the caliph and replacing him with al-Mu‘Ưzz; describing the FƗ৬imids as the ahl al-‫ۊ‬aqq wa alsunnah since they were the ahl al-bayt. Organizing a great propaganda campaign against the Umayyads in favor of the FƗ৬imids. Intending to mobilize an army of five thousand men to seize MadƯnat al-ZahrƗ’. Rejoicing at the victory of the FƗ৬imid general Jawharah in the Maghrib and at the capture of Fez. Asserting that wine was permissible. Questioning the integrity of the Qur’Ɨn. Failing to pray five times per day in the mosque; failing to perform the Friday prayer. Mocking prophetic traditions. Possessing a book which refuted the SunnƯs and mocked their religion. Practicing taqiyyah. Following the doctrines of the easterners (namely, the ShƯ‘ites). Transmitting fake prophetic traditions.

While condemned by some ShƯ‘ite scholars, cursing ‘A’ishah, as well as some companions and caliphs, is a customary practice among extremist ShƯ‘ite Muslims, and should always be seen as a response to the ritual cursing of ‘AlƯ implemented by the Umayyads who espoused an extreme brand of Sunnism. The belief some of the companions of the Prophet went astray after his death is standard ShƯ‘ite belief. Accordingly to a questionable tradition, ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq said that “Everyone rejected IslƗm after the death of the Prophet except three: al-MiqdƗd b. Aswad, Abnj Dharr al-GhifƗrƯ and SalmƗn al-FƗrisƯ” (KulaynƯ). According to ShƯ‘ites, however, the best, and most loyal of the companions of the Prophet also included ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir. ShƯ‘ite traditionists have compiled a long list of companions whom they view as sincere, insincere, and hypocrites. The tradition from the sixth ImƗm cannot be correct as many of the best companions have been excluded. Rejecting the authority of the caliphs, with the exception of the ImƗms from the ahl al-bayt, is one of the fundamentals of faith of the ShƯ‘ites known as tabarrƗ’ or rejecting the enemies of the household of the Prophet. Since, in the view of many Muslims, the Umayyads were destroying IslƗm from within, the ShƯ‘ites believed that fighting them was more meritorious than fighting the polytheists since hypocrites rank lower than unbelievers. Evidently, the same argument was deployed against the ShƯ‘ites. For the Ummayads, the ‘AbbƗsids, the Ottomans, and others, the ShƯ‘ites were

234

Chapter 14

worse than Jews and Christians. Considering that al-ণakam II was a publicly acknowledged pederast and persecutor of ShƯ‘ites, ShƯ‘ite Muslims considered it a good deed to curse him, and an even greater deed to kill him. As an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite, Abnj al-Khayr naturally supported the rule of the FƗ৬imid caliph al-Mu‘Ưzz. As a ShƯ‘ite activist, there can be no doubt that Abnj al-Khayr was behind a great campaign against the Umayyads in favor of the FƗ৬imids. It is quite likely that Abnj al-Khayr was attempting to amass an army of ShƯ‘ite Andalusian, seizing MadƯnat al-ZahrƗ’s as a first step in their military campaign in favor of the FƗ৬imids. As a partisan of the FƗ৬imids, Abnj alKhayr may have expressed his joy at FƗ৬imid military feats. As an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite, Abnj al-Khayr may have consumed wine. According to most Muslims, with the exception of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs and some ণanafƯs, alcohol is forbidden in IslƗm. The prohibition, however, was revealed in the following stages. At first, the Qur’Ɨn prohibited Muslims from attending prayers while they were intoxicated (4:43). Then, it stated that there was both good and evil in wine (2:219). Finally, intoxicants and games of chance were described as abominations of Satan’s handiwork and Muslims were ordered to abstain (5:90-91). Since the Qur’Ɨn is not organized chronologically, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ scholars take the earliest revealed verses as the final revealed verses. As such, although they discourage the use of alcohol, they do not prevent it. The NizƗrƯ IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs eventually abrogated the entire sharƯ‘ah. As such, they do not perform their ritual prayers, they do not fast during the month of RamaঌƗn, and their women go about unveiled. The NizƗrƯ IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs would counter that outward practices are temporal while inward practices are perennial. In other words, the emphasis should not be on rituals. The focus should be on improving the self. While it is true that some IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs consumed wine, it cannot be ignored that many SunnƯ Muslims consumed wine as well. Although the consumption of alcohol is prohibited by the MƗlikƯ, Shafi’Ư, and ণanbalƯ schools, the ণanafƯ school solely prohibits wine, permitting the consumption of other alcoholic beverages like beer which are only prohibited if one consumes them to the point of intoxication. However, even the MƗlikƯ Muslims used to distinguish between khamr or wine and nabƯdh. According to ImƗm MƗlik, khamr was ‫ۊ‬arƗm, and its consumer deserved the IslƗmic punishment. Although the ImƗm believed that nabƯdh was also prohibited, he ruled that its consumption was not punishable, especially when the alcohol content was low. Other SunnƯ scholars, however, hold that nabƯdh is both lawful and good. As a result, alcohol, in all its forms, was, and is, widely consumed in the Muslim world even where it is prohibited by

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

235

religious and secular law. Although some early scholars questioned the integrity of the Qur’Ɨn, most ShƯ‘ite scholars eventually concluded that it was divinely guarded and protected and has not been subject to any changes, additions, or deletions. While Abnj al-Khayr may have questioned the integrity of the Qur’Ɨn, as such a view was widely held among some of the ShƯ‘ites of his time, it is also possible that he was only questioning its interpretation and its application. In this sense, it is correct that the Umayyads altered the interpretation of the Qur’Ɨn. The FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, like the IthnƗ’ ‘AsharƯ, used to pray three times per day, combining the noon and afternoon prayers, as well as the sunset and night prayers, according to a practice permitted by the Prophet himself. The accusation made against Abnj al-Khayr is still made against ShƯ‘ites today. SunnƯs often accuse ShƯ‘ites of only having three prayers when they have the same five prayers as the SunnƯs. According to most Twelver ShƯ‘ite jurists, the Friday Prayer is only obligatory in an IslƗmic state under the ImƗmate of a Just ImƗm. The FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs held the same belief. Consequently, the Friday Prayer was not obligatory in Umayyad lands, and was typically avoided by even the ‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah and tƗbi‘njn, who refused to partake in the ritual cursing of ImƗm ‘AlƯ which formed part of the sermon. As for mocking prophetic traditions, Abnj al-Khayr may have been guilty of this charge. Evidently, he was not mocking authentic traditions of the Prophet Muতammad and was simply making fun of some of the ridiculous and absurd sayings which had been attributed to him in SunnƯ sources. The same criticism, however, could apply to ShƯ‘ite works. If Abnj al-Khayr was involved in da‘wah activities, he may have resorted to humor to point out the perverse absurdity of certain SunnƯ beliefs and practices. Obviously, SunnƯs could have done the same with regard to certain ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices. Since many ShƯ‘ite Muslim sects consider taqiyyah as a religious obligation, Abnj al-Khayr appears to have observed this protective practice to a limited extent. Had he fully practiced it, there would have been no grounds for the charges against him. Although SunnƯ Muslim polemicists condemn ShƯ‘ites for practicing pious dissimulation, the practice is endorsed by the Qur’Ɨn and the Prophet and was practiced by such notable companions such as ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir. Since it was illegal to be a ShƯ‘ite in al-Andalus, it seems absurd for ণakam II to condemn Abnj al-Khayr for trying to hide his religion. Paradoxically, being a ShƯ‘ite and pretending not to be a ShƯ‘ite were simultaneously forbidden in al-Andalus. Considering the fate that ShƯ‘ites faced in al-Andalus -- death by crucifixion in the case of Abnj al-Khayr -- it would have been foolish, and even suicidal, for a

236

Chapter 14

Muslim to be openly ShƯ‘ite. Abnj al-Khayr was also accused of imitating the ways of the people from the Middle East. This accusation is bizarre, as the Umayyads were themselves from the Middle East. In fact, all the Arabs in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were from the Middle East. The majority of ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were Berbers or neo-Muslims. Strangely enough, they were being accused of acting as Middle Easterners by Arabs of Middle Eastern origin. By imitating the Middle East, however, the Umayyads were probably referring to the FƗ৬imids who had extended their rule to Egypt. Finally, Abnj al-Khayr was accused of fabricating prophetic traditions. As a follower of the ahl al-bayt, Abnj al-Khayr was probably keen on promoting what he perceived to be the authentic teachings of the Prophet which had supposedly been safeguarded by the ImƗms from his Household. If the Umayyads viewed ShƯ‘ite a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth as fake, the ShƯ‘ites also held that SunnƯ a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth were fake. Although ShƯ‘ites are commonly accused of failing to follow the Sunnah, they claim to be as devoted to the Sunnah as SunnƯ Muslims. No era esa la Sunna que les hizo aparecer como heterodoxos, sino la sunna (literalmente, costumbre, conducta) convertida en sinónimo de ortodoxia… En el sentido de Sunna coma Tradición del Profeta, los Chía siempre fueren -- y son sunníes. Y que se les diera el nombre generalizado de chiíes, como si el chismo fuera algo comnacta y unívoco, condujo -- y conduce -- a errores de interpretación por parte de los analistas occidentales. (Riquelme 155) [It was not the Sunnah that made them seem heterodox, rather the sunnah (literally, custom and conduct) converted into synonym of orthodoxy… In the sense of Sunnah as the Tradition of the Prophet, the ShƯ‘ah have always been, and are, SunnƯs. If they were generally named ShƯ‘ites, as if ShƯ‘ism were a single entity, it led, and leads, to errors of interpretation on the part of Western analysts.]

In fact, scholars like Muতammad al-TijƗnƯ argue that the ShƯ‘ites are the real SunnƯs. If anything, this Umayyad accusation against Abnj al-Khayr corroborates the claim that ShƯ‘ite traditions were circulating in IslƗmic Spain. Besides these sixteen reasonable accusations, Abnj al-Khayr was also the victim of some absurd allegations. He was accused of believing that ‘AlƯ had greater rights to the prophethood than Muতammad, and that Muতammad has usurped the prophecy from him. He was accused of performing the ritual ablutions with wine. He was accused of believing that the angels were daughters of God, that sodomy was permissible, and rejecting the belief in

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

237

the intercession of Muতammad. He was even accused of saying: “I am a fornicator and a homosexual. I drink wine and I listen to the lute” (Fierro 1987: 150-52). If Abnj al-Khayr believed that ‘AlƯ was superior to Muতammad and that Muতammad deprived him of his prophetic role, then Abnj al-Khayr had adopted some GhulƗt or so-called Extremist ShƯ‘ite beliefs. As for sodomy with men, ShƯ‘ite jurists have prohibited it. As for anal sex with wives, some have permitted. it. In the case of Abnj al-Khayr, it appears he was being accused of being a homosexual. As for denying the intercession of Muতammad, the accusation is strange indeed. Most ShƯ‘ite Muslims insist upon it. Traditionally, it has been certain SunnƯs who have objected to the intercession of the Prophet. Abnj al-Khayr was crucified by al-ণakam II at the beginning of his reign on the grounds that he was a heretical sectarian political plotter, more specifically a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ agent of the FƗ৬imids (Fierro 1987: 901). Fierro, however, is not convinced that Abnj al-Khayr was working for the FƗ৬imids. Dachraoui califica a Abnj al-Khayr como un “misionero” si’i; de serlo realmente, cabe suponer que gran parte de las acusaciones fueron hechas para “cargar las tintas” contra él, presentándole como un ser depravado para negar cualquier valor a sus posturas doctrinales y políticas. En mi opinión, no acaba de parecerme convincente lo de “misionero si’i” que parece implicar que Abnj al-Khayr sería un enviado de los fatimíes; aunque no se especifica su lugar de origen, todos los indicios apuntan a considerarlo andalusí y conocedor de la lengua romance (‘ajamiyyah). (Fierro 1987: 153) [Dachraoui describes Abnj al-Khayr as a ShƯ‘ite “missionary.” If that were really the case, one would have to suppose that a large part of the accusations against him were made to frame him, presenting him as a depraved person to nullify the value of any of his doctrinal or political postures. In my opinion, the claim that he was a “ShƯ‘ite missionary” is unconvincing as it seems to imply that Abnj al-Khayr was sent from the FƗ৬imids when his place of origin is not specified, and when everything indicates that he was an Andalusian who was familiar with the Romance language (‘ajamiyyah).]

What Fierro fails to comprehend is that one can be an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionary without having any formal affiliation with the FƗ৬imid state. In fact, IslƗm considers it a collective obligation to be involved in da‘wah. Although it is possible that Abnj al-Khayr was a FƗ৬imid missionary or a “ShƯ‘ite agent of the FƗ৬imids” (Fierro 1992: 901), it might be more cautious to simply

238

Chapter 14

describe him as an Andalusian ShƯ‘ite revolutionary. As for a large segment of the charges made against Abnj al-Khayr, they were evidently trumped up to discredit his religious and political views. In all frankness, the man was framed. The accusations made against Abnj al-Khayr are hypocritical considering that his persecutor, the caliph al-ণakam II, was an exclusively homosexual man who openly kept a male harem. To produce a male heir, a resolution was reached: a female concubine was disguised as a boy, given the name Ja‘far, and introduced into the caliph’s harem. The ruse worked, and his successor was conceived, HishƗm II al-Mu’ayyad, the son of a homosexual and a transvestite sex slave. Although some scholars have cast doubts on the ShƯ‘ite ideology of Abnj al-Khayr, Shafa Shojaeddin confirms that this was the case. As he writes in De Persia a la España Musulmana: la historia recuperada, Un interesante estudio publicado en Al-Andalus, escrito a partir de un manuscrito de Ibn Sahl de Jaén y conservado en la Biblioteca General de Rabat, revela cómo fue reprimida una tentativa de infiltración šƯ‘Ư en la España musulmana con la condena a muerte del misionero al que debía incumbir el cargo de hacer propaganda šƯ‘Ư en al-Andalus. Tan sólo su kunyah (sobrenombre) es mencionada por Ibn Sahl: Abnj-l-Jayr, así como el hecho de que fuera ejecutado en Córdoba. (361) [An interesting study published in al-Andalus, based on a manuscript by Ibn Sahl of Jaén and housed in the National Library of Rabat, reveals how an attempt to spread ShƯ‘ism in Muslim Spain was repressed by means of the death sentence of the missionary tasked with spreading ShƯ‘ite propaganda in al-Andalus. Only his kunyah (or epithet) is mentioned by Ibn Sahl: Abnj al-Khayr, along with the fact that he was executed in Cordova.]

14.12 Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ In 971, Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ broke ties with the FƗ৬imids and allied himself with the ZanƗtah Berbers. Together, they kille ZƯrƯ b. Manad, the leader of the SinhƗjah and the governor of the FƗ৬imids in North Africa. Despite this victory, Ja‘far did not feel safe among his Berber allies, who were known for shifting sides in a second, and decided to take refuge in Cordova with his family where he pledged allegiance to the caliph alণakam II. Within three years, Ja‘far and his family fell out of the grace of the caliph. They were accused of maintaining ShƯ‘ite beliefs and remaining loyal to the FƗ৬imids. After spending some time in prison, they were released in 975, and named governors of the North African provinces which

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

239

had been conquered by the Umayyads. If anything, this episode illustrates that changing political alliance does not necessarily mean changing one’s religious beliefs.

14.13 ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. ShamƯt In the year 972, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. ShamƯt, known as Jannjৢ, was captured after deserting the Cordovan army and joining the ranks of al-Mu‘Ưzz, the FƗ৬imid caliph. He was imprisoned with his son al-QƗsim, who was also suspected of ShƯ‘ism or al-tashrƯq, namely, imitating Middle Eastern ways.

14.14 Muতammad b. SulaymƗn Also known as Walad Mu‘allim Hammu, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn deserted Cordova and joined the ranks of al-Mu‘Ưzz, the FƗ৬imid caliph. When he returned to al-Andalus, he was captured, claimed that he had not prospered at the side of al-Mu‘Ưzz, and had returned repentant. Shortly after, however, he went to the Frontera Superior where he returned to his ShƯ‘ite beliefs and was once again captured. This suggests that Muতammad b. SulaymƗn was involved in FƗ৬imid missionary activities in the northern frontier of alAndalus.

14.15 Ibn ণawqal al-NaৢƯbƯ (d. 977) Ibn ণawqal, the traveler and geographer, was also a FƗ৬imid spy. According to Dozy, he entered al-Andalus to provide the FƗ৬imids with an accurate assessment of the geopolitical situation there. This coincides with the period in which the FƗ৬imids needed to decide whether to expand towards the west or the east. Ibn ণawqal was extremely critical of Spain and its inhabitants to convince the FƗ৬imids to invade al-Andalus.

14.16 Ibn AbƯ al-Manৢnjr Ibn AbƯ al-Manৢnjr was a convert to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm from al-Andalus. To practice his faith freely, he was forced to move to North Africa where he acted as the judge in QayrawƗn during the rule of the third FƗ৬imid caliph, IsmƗ‘Ưl al-Manৢnjr (r. 945-952).

240

Chapter 14

14.17 Ibn HƗnƯ al-AndalusƯ (c. 934-38-c. 973) Muতammad b. HƗnƯ b. Sa‘dun was another ShƯ‘ite from Elvira in alAndalus. The town of Elvira was linked with many prominent ShƯ‘ites, including ণanash, the companion of ‘AlƯ, and ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir. Ibn HƗnƯ’s kunyah was either Abnj al-QƗsim or Abnj alণasan. His father was originally from North Africa and had resided in a village near Mahdiyyah. It is claimed that he migrated to al-Andalus because of his love for poetry and since he had lost all of his belongings. According to Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme, Ibn HƗnƯ’s father was an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ agent, a more logical explanation for his move to the Iberian Peninsula. In any event, it was there, in the town of Ishbiliyyah that Muতammad b. HƗnƯ was born in the year 932. Raised to love poetry like his father, Ibn HƗnƯ became a court poet. Due to his association with extremist bƗ‫ܒ‬inƯ philosophy, the local population became discontent with him, obliging him to relocate to the Maghrib in 958 at the age of twenty-seven. Besides learning poetry from his father, Ibn HƗnƯ’ learned IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism, the real reason he was forced to flee al-Andalus. “Branded depraved because of his leanings towards FƗ৬imid ideas,” Ibn HƗnƯ “had to flee to Egypt” claims Vernet (177) when in reality he sought refuge in North Africa. As JayynjsƯ explains, since he was “an ardent and extreme ShƯ‘ite… it was therefore natural that… he should elect to go to North Africa” (1992: 332). After briefly serving the courts of various rulers, Ibn HƗnƯ eventually attracted the generous patronage of ImƗm Mu‘Ưzz, the fourth FƗ৬imid caliph, and joined his entourage. From that point forward, he remained in the company of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ImƗm in Manৢnjriyyah and accompanied him on his journey to Egypt. Ibn HƗnƯ even participated in the conquest of Ceuta in 958. The fourth FƗ৬imid caliph, al-Mu‘Ưzz used to boast that he was a poet of Spanish origin who could rival all the great literary figures of the period. In fact, he reproached ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III, the Andalusian caliph, for the large number of Andalusians who had abandoned their country for religious reasons, seeking refuge in IfrƯqiyyah. Although some scholars have commented that there is no evidence that Ibn HƗnƯ’ and the Andalusian refugees who sought refuge in IfrƯqiyyah were IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs or converts to IsmƗ‘Ưlism, there is no formal process of embracing ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. While it is true that to become a Muslim one needs to profess the shahƗdah that “There is no god but God and Muতammad is His Messenger,” to become a ShƯ‘ite, it suffices to believe that ‘AlƯ is the WalƯ of God. If Ibn HƗnƯ and the numerous other Andalusian refugees to

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

241

IfrƯqiyyah were not IsmƗƯ‘lƯs, then what were they? They were not MƗlikƯ SunnƯs. They could have been followers of other SunnƯ schools of thought. They could also have been Twelver or ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites. Considering the deep love he demonstrates toward ImƗm Mu‘Ưzz and the FƗ৬imid dynasty in his DiwƗn, there no doubt that Ibn HƗnƯ professed to be an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite. JayynjsƯ acknowledges the “passionate and vibrantly expressed ShƯ‘ite affinities” found in his poetry (1992: 325). As Joaquin Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme observes, Ibn HƗnƯ’s “panagíricos hiperbólicos, llenos de claves secretas de la doctrina ismaílí-fatimí, tuvieron gran éxito propagandístico, desde Córdoba a Bagdad” [hyperbolic panegyric poetry, saturated with secret codes drawn from FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ doctrine, was a great success in terms of propaganda from Cordova to Baghdad] (87). It was precisely because he was an IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite that Ibn HƗnƯ was forced to flee the MƗlikƯ jurists from al-Andalus (87). Not only was Ibn HƗnƯ’ a committed IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, he was “Uno de los principales agentes de alMu‘Ưzz” [one of the main agents of al-Mu‘Ưzz] (72). As Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme has perceived, the mysterious travels of Ibn HƗnƯ’ had one goal: the destruction of the Umayyads of Cordova, and their substitution by the FƗ৬imids (72). Ibn HƗnƯ was murdered under mysterious circumstances on his way to Barqah. According to some sources, he was murdered by Umayyad or ‘AbbƗsid agents. According to other sources, his death was a crime of passion. In any event, ImƗm Mu‘Ưzz lamented the loss of Ibn HƗnƯ whom he considered the greatest poet in the IslƗmic world.

14.18 Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. SulaymƗn b. al-ণannƗ৬ al-Ru‘aynƯ al-QurtubƯ (d. 1038) Although he was protected for a time by the Bannj DhakwƗn, his religious convictions became the object of suspicion due to his love for logic [man‫ܒ‬iq]. He was also accused of corrupting IslƗm. As a result, he was expelled from Cordova towards the end of 1030, establishing himself in Algeciras under the protection of the ShƯ‘ite emir Muতammad b. al-QƗsim b. ণammnjd.

14.19 Maslamah b. Aতmad al-MajrƯtƯ (d. 1007-08) Maslamah al-MajrƯtƯ was an Arab Muslim astronomer, chemist, mathematician, and scholar from al-Andalus. Part of the RasƗ’il IkhwƗn al‫܈‬afƗ’ have been attributed to him.

242

Chapter 14

14.20 Ibn MƗ’ al-SamƗ (d. 1027) ‘Ubadah b. MƗ’ al-SamƗ, the ণammnjdƯ poet, was a known ShƯ‘ite (Rosado Llamas 318). He wrote the following qasƯdah in praise of al-NƗৢir ‘AlƯ b. ণammnjd, the ShƯ‘ite ণammnjdid ruler: Your ancestor, O ‘AlƯ, has established in the east The basis of your heirdom And his namesake resounds in the west as well Bless ‘AlƯ and grant him power Since it was given to him by a legal representative. (Rosado Llamas 318)

14.21 Ibn DarrƗj al-Qas৬allƯ (958-1030) A court poet at the service of many rulers, Ibn DarrƗj al-Qas৬allƯ took refuge among the ণammnjdid ShƯ‘ites of Ceuta when the fitnah erupted in alAndalus. This may suggest that he was sympathetic to ShƯ‘ism, if not a ShƯ‘ite himself. Ibn DarrƗj eventually settled in Zaragoza, in 1018, where he served MundhƯr I.

14.22 Abnj al-ণakam al-KirmƗnƯ Abnj al-ণakam al-KirmƗnƯ was a prominent philosopher and scholar from al-Andalus. He was a student of Malamah al-MajrƯtƯ. He fled to Morocco in the twelfth century. According to Abnj al-QƗsim b. Sa‘Ưd of Toledo, “when KirmƗnƯ returned to al-Andalus he brought with him the treatises known as the RasƗ’il IkhwƗn al-‫܈‬afƗ’and we know of no one before who had introduced them in al-Andalus” (Cruz Hernández 184).

14.23 Ibn al-SƯd or Badajoz (1052-1127) Ibn al-Sid was a famous philosopher from al-Andalus. As Cruz Hernández points out, “His philosophical education depended above all on the RasƗ’il IkhwƗn al-‫܈‬afƗ’…but he is also the first AndalusƯ to cite al-FƗrƗbƯ” (784). A Muslim polymath of Persian or Turkish origin, Abnj Naৢr Muতammad alFƗrƗbƯ is considered one of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the IslƗmic world. He also happened to be a Twelver ShƯ‘ite.

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

243

14.24 Ibn al-AbbƗr (1199-1260) Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. AbƯ Bakr b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. Aতmad b. AbƯ Bakr al-QuঌƗ’Ư was born in the Emirate of Valencia and died in Tunis. A historian, theologian, and humorist, this member of a prominent Yemeni family acted as the secretary to the Muslim governor of Valencia. After the fall of Valencia in 1238, he immigrated to Tunisia where he was the head of the chancellery for two ণafৢid rulers: Abnj ZakariyyƗ YaতyƗ and al-Mustanৢir. While in Tunisia, Ibn al-AbbƗr authored his Tu‫ۊ‬fat al-qadƯm, a major study of the IslƗmic poets of Muslim Spain. Ibn al-AbbƗr also authored Durar al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ ܒ‬or The History of the Travails of the ahl albayt, an Arabic maqtal which chronicles the martyrdom of ImƗm al-ণusayn and the crimes of the Umayyads. Considered by some to be a SunnƯ who loved the ahl al-bayt, many others argue that he was a ShƯ‘ite. Based on the book in question, it seems most likely that he was an ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite. A humorist and satirist, Ibn al-AbbƗr fell out of grace with the authorities and was ultimately executed. The reasons advanced for his death are numerous: 1) that he wrote a horoscope for the prince-in-waiting which displeased his father; 2) that he practiced astrology; 3) that he wrote a poem mocking the caliph al-Mustanৢir which included the verses: “In Tunis reigns a tyrant / who is stupidly called a caliph;” and, finally, 4) that he was a ShƯ‘ite. Could he have been killed for writing Durar al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar alsib‫ܒ‬, his anti-Umayyad and pro-ShƯ‘ite tract? Not only was he speared to death in Muতarram of 568 AH (6 January1260), his books were burned along with his corpse. If he was killed for professing and practicing ShƯ‘ism, Ibn al-AbbƗr can be counted among the ShƯ‘ite Muslim martyrs of alAndalus. As far as Shafa Shojaeddin is concerned, Ibn al-AbbƗr was one of the most eminent Andalusian ShƯ‘ites (361). As the author explains in De Persia a la España Musulmana: La historia recuperada, Ibn al-AbbƗr fue el primer autor andalusí que renegó abiertamente de los tres primeros califas y atacó de forma total los “usurpadores” omeyas. Él fue el primero también en confesar que esperaba el día en que el imam escondido (al-MahdƯ) viniera a hacer que la Justicia y el Orden reinasen, demostrando así su vinculación con la lucha liberadora de los šƯ‘íes… A propósito del opúsculo Durar as-Sim‫ ܒ‬de Ibn al-AbbƗr, al-MaqqarƯ escribe en su Naf‫ ۊ‬a‫ܒ‬-‫ܒ‬ibb: “Es un libro perfecto en su género, a pesar de que se nota en el cierto tinte de šƯ‘ísmo. ¡Dios le conceda, con Su misericordia, el perdón de su autor!” (362)

244

Chapter 14 [Ibn al-AbbƗr was the first Andalusian author who openly rejected the three first caliphs and attacked all of the Umayyad “usurpers.” He was also the first to confess that he awaited the day that the Hidden ImƗm (alMahdƯ) would return to usher in the rule of Justice and Order, demonstrating his ties with the liberating struggle of the ShƯ‘ites... In his Naf‫ ۊ‬al-‫ܒ‬ibb, al-MaqqarƯ describe Ibn al-AbbƗr’s short work, Durar alSim‫ܒ‬, in the following terms: “It is a perfect work in its genre despite the fact that it contains a tinge of ShƯ‘ism. May God, in His mercy, forgive its author!”]

Although Shafa Shojaeddin should be commended for acknowledging the ShƯ‘ite presence in al-Andalus, his claim that Ibn al-AbbƗr was the first to express his allegiance to the ImƗms openly is false. As this study shows, the ShƯ‘ite presence in al-Andalus predates Ibn al-AbbƗr, tracing back to its conquest in 711. The fact, however, that he only dedicated four pages to the subject shows that he barely scratched the surface. Most questionable of all, in the minds of ShƯ‘ite clerics, is the author’s depiction of the early origins of ShƯ‘ism. In his words, Desde un punto de vista histórico, el šƯ‘ísmo es un Islam calcado principalmente de las tradiciones preislámicas iraníes [sic]. El carácter de la transmisión hereditaria del poder espiritual, así como del temporal de los imames, es esencialmente una tradición persa, en cuanto a la concepción sunní de la elección del califa… es de carácter tribal árabe. Por otra parte, la noción del ‘ismat [sic] (impecabilidad) que pretende que un imam, a ejemplo del propio Muতammad, sea por naturaleza incapaz de cometer faltas, es la réplica perfecta de la “xvarna” (… esplendor divino) que en la Persia preislámica confería Ahura-MazdƗ, el Dios Supremo, a los reyes persas para preservarles de errores y no podían ser desposeídos a menos que se mostrasen indignos de esta gracia divina. Al igual que el concepto del MahdƯ-Salvador invisible y Señor del Tiempo -- se acerca mucho más al saušians zoroastra que al mesianismo judeo-cristiano, el culto a la luz, propio del šƯ‘ísmo, refleja el culto al fuego del mazdeísmo. (359) [From a historical point of view, ShƯ‘ism is an IslƗm that was primarily copied from pre-IslƗmic Iranian traditions. The nature of the hereditary transmission of spiritual power, as well as the temporal power of the ImƗms, is essentially a Persian tradition, as compared to the SunnƯ concept of the election of the caliph… which is an Arab tribal custom. On the other hand, the notion of ismah (infallibility) which pretends that an ImƗm, like Muতammad himself, is incapable, by nature, of committing mistakes, is the mirror image of the xvarna (… divine splendor) that in pre-IslƗmic Persia, Ahura-MazdƗ conferred upon the Persian kings to protect them from errors and which they could not be deprived of unless they

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

245

demonstrated that they were unworthy of such divine grace. Likewise, the concept of the invisible MahdƯ-Savior and Lord of the Age – is much closer to the Zoroastrian saušians than to Judeo-Christian Messianism, while the cult of light, uniquely ShƯ‘ite, reflects the Mazdean cult of fire.]

As far as ShƯ‘ite clerics are concerned, ShƯ‘ism is not Persian or Iranian IslƗm: it is the Arab IslƗm of the family of the Prophet. After all, the Persians were SunnƯs from the seventh century until they were converted to ShƯ‘ism by the ৡafavƯds between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. According to Twelver ShƯ‘ite belief, the appointment of the twelve ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt was made by Muতammad himself upon divine command. They also claim that the belief in the infallibility of the prophets, messengers, and ImƗms is derived from the Qur’Ɨn, as is the concept of divine light. Likewise, Twelver ShƯ‘ites argue that the concept of the MahdƯ or Savior, although shared by many world religions, is intrinsic to IslƗm and not a foreign accretion. For some Twelver ShƯ‘ite scholars, Shafa Shojaeddin’s supposed misrepresentation of ShƯ‘ism is not surprising. A close associate of Moতammad Re਌Ɨ PahlavƯ (1919-1980), he waged an intellectual war against ShƯ‘ite obscurantism from 1979 until his passing in 2010. Responsible academics, however, operate on the basis of facts and not faith. And while most ShƯ‘ite clerics might disagree with Shojaeddin, most objective academics would agree with him.

14.25 The Disciples of Ibn al-AbbƗr Since disciples almost invariably follow in the footsteps of their spiritual and scholarly masters, the disciples of Ibn al-AbbƗr can potentially be counted as Andalusian ShƯ‘ites. History has left records of seven or eight of such students, including SƗliত al-KinƗnƯ from Játiva (d. 1299) who passed the Durar al-sim‫ ܒ‬to al-‘AbdarƯ, the historian and mystic, among others. Ibn al-AbbƗr was also the teacher of Abnj al-MuhaymƗn al-HadramƯ, Abnj IsতƗq b. AbƯ al-QƗsim al-TujƯnƯ (d. 1262), a Tunisian public sector worker who defended him before his compatriots, as well as his son, Abnj al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ, who received a copy of Durar al-sim‫ ܒ‬from Ibn SƗliত (Martínez de Francisco). Considering the ShƯ‘ite content of the work, it would seem that only those with an interest in its preservation would potentially risk their lives to do so. If anything, the preservation of the Durar al-sim‫ ܒ‬suggests continued commitment to the ShƯ‘ite cause embodied in the doctrines of ‘amr bi al-ma‘rnjf wa nahƯ ‘an al-munkar [promoting the good and forbidding the evil] as well as tawallƗ wa tabarrƗ’ [love of the ahl al-bayt and repudiation and rejection of their enemies].

246

Chapter 14

14.26 Ibn Sab‘Ưn of Murcia (1216-1270) Ibn Sab‘Ưn of Murcia was a ৡnjfƯ philosopher from al-Andalus. Ibn Sab‘Ưn combined the mystical aspects of al-SuhrawardƯ with the philosophical stance of the RasƗ’il ikhwƗn al-‫܈‬afƗ’. As we have seen before, the RasƗ’il were reportedly produced by IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites. Although formally a ৡnjfƯ, SuhrawardƯ was suspected of being a ShƯ‘ite, and condemned to death on charges of heresy. As F.E. Peters observes, “The circumstances are murky, but through some combination of court intrigue and suspicion of (ShƯ‘ite?) heterodoxy, SuhrawardƯ was executed in Aleppo” (248). In fact, SuhrawardƯ’s doctrine combined the most important mystical-philosophical influences of Avicenna and the IkwƗn al-ৢafƗ, bringing together philosophy, mysticism, ShƯ‘ism, and ৡnjfism.

14.27 LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb (1313-1375) LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb, also known as Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd b. ‘AlƯ bin Aতmad al-SalmƗnƯ was born in 1313 in Loja near Granada. He was a poet, writer, historian, philosopher, and politician, whose poems adorn some of the walls of the Alhambra in Granada. He spent most of his life serving as vizier at the court of Muতammad V. However, he was exiled from Granada on two occasions, living for some time in the MarƯnid empire in Morocco (1360-62), and then in Ceuta, Tlemcen, and Fez (1371-74). LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb was executed in Fez at the end of 1375 at the instigation of his former lord and friend king Muতammad V of Granada. His accuser was the poet Ibn Zamrak, his former disciple, who accused him of impiety. LisƗn al-DƯn’s execution was motivated by both political and religious reasons, the pretext being the doctrines expounded in his book The Garden of Gnostic Knowledge of Divine Love. As Cruz Hernández point out, “the most curious aspect of Ibn al-Kha৬Ưb’s book is the large number of expressions taken from ShƯ‘ite thought, such as the theory of ‘Muতammadan Light’ (al-nnjr al-Mu‫ۊ‬ammadƯ) or that of the angelic malaknjk and jabarnjt” (799). The theory of Muতammadan Light was reportedly developed by the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, and was allegedly borrowed by Ibn ‘ArabƯ.

14.28 Conclusions Despite claims that “there were no ShƯ‘ites in IslƗmic Spain,” we have seen that al-Andalus produced many important scholars, poets, missionaries, and

ShƯ‘ite Scholars from al-Andalus

247

spies of the ShƯ‘ite persuasion. Although they were not the majority, the ShƯ‘ites from al-Andalus were a significant minority. And what is most startling is not only the existence of ShƯ‘ites in Spain but their diversity. This included the synthesis of ৡnjfism and ShƯ‘ism spread by the followers of Ibn Massarah as well as LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb who expounded upon ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq’s theory of the Muতammadan Light. The Andalusian ShƯ‘ite community included a number of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs such as Muতammad b. Aতmad b. HƗrnjn al-BaghdƗdƯ, Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn b. SimƗk al-JudhƗmƯ, Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ, Abnj al-Khayr, Ibn AbƯ alManৢnjr, Ibn ণawqal al-NaৢƯbƯ, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. ShamƯt, Ja‘far b. ‘AlƯ al-AndalusƯ, and Ibn HƗnƯ al-AndalusƯ. Among the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs or IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ sympathizers, the followers of the IkwƗn al-ৡafƗ’ such as Ibn Sab‘Ưn of Murcia, Abnj al-ণakam al-KirmƗnƯ, and Maslamah b. Aতmad al-MajrƯtƯ could be included. The ShƯ‘ite community of al-Andalus also included a number of ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites such as Ibn al-AbbƗr, Abnj al-YasƗr IbrƗhƯm b. Aতmad al-RiyƗঌƯ and Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm b. ণayynjn al-ণijƗrƯ, as well as ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of ণammnjdid-IdrƯsid ideology such as Ibn MƗ’ al-SamƗ and Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. SulaymƗn b. al-ণannƗ৬ al-Ru‘aynƯ al-QurtubƯ. There were also individuals such as Ibn al-SƯd and Ibn DarrƗj al-Qas৬allƯ who appear to have been influenced both by IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ and ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism to varying degrees.

CHAPTER 15 SHƮ‘ITE CENTERS IN THE MAGHRIB

15.1 Introduction Although ShƯ‘ites were spread far and wide in al-Andalus, they tended to be concentrated in the same cities and towns. While the IdrƯsids were ShƯ‘ites, they never imposed their faith on subjects who were already Muslims. As such, there were parts of Morocco where the Mu‘tazilah or the ahl alsunnah used to predominate. When converting Christians, Jews, Magians, and polytheists to IslƗm, the IdrƯsids introduced them to their version of IslƗm. Furthermore, the Friday prayer leaders would have been appointed by the IdrƯsid ImƗm. In Morocco, ShƯ‘ite communities were concentrated in Volubilis, Fez, Tangiers, Ceuta, Melilla, Chellah, Baৢrah, AৢƯlah, Taroudant, Igli, Tiyuywin, Zerhoun and Meknes. In Tunisia, the ShƯ‘ite communities were located primarily in Naf৬ah, TƗlƗ, al-Urbus, al-NƗznjr, Qus৬an৬Ưna, QayrawƗn, al-Mahdiyyah, ৡabrƗ al-Manৢnjriyyah, and Bougie.

15.2 Volubilis / WalƯlah The ancient Roman city of Volubilis, which is located close to Meknes, in Morocco, and which was inhabited by the linguistically, culturally, and religiously Latinized AwrƗbah Berbers, was IslƗmized in the mid-seventh century. Rejecting the Umayyad IslƗm of the Arab conquerors of their country, the AwrƗbah Berbers embraced Mu‘tazilƯ IslƗm as a result of contact with missionaries from this madhhab. It was the AwrƗbah Berber inhabitants of Volubilis, which is known as WalƯlah in Arabic, who accepted IdrƯs I as their ImƗm in 788. As such, Volubilis became the first solidly ShƯ‘ite city in Morocco. Although Berbers, the AwrƗbah employed the local Latin language as their lingua franca. It was only in the late seventh century that Arabic eventually predominated over the Latin language. As such, the early followers of Moulay IdrƯs were Latin-speaking Berber ShƯ‘ites. After consolidating his hold over the area of Volubilis, IdrƯs I founded a military settlement in Fez. After his death in 791, the community was ruled

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

249

by his retainer, RashƯd, until IdrƯs al-Asghar, the son of IdrƯs al-Akbar, attained the age of majority. Since the population had outgrown the city, the IdrƯsids and many of their followers founded Fez as their capital leaving the AwrƗbah in control of WalƯlah. The city continued to be inhabited until the thirteenth century when it was abandoned. Many of the inhabitants moved to the new town of Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun, which is located on two nearby hilltops. Volubilis was devasted by an earthquake in the mid-eighteenth century, after which it was looted to provide building materials for the palaces of Moulay IsmƗ‘Ưl (d. 1727) in nearby Meknes.

15.3 Fez The city of Fez was first founded by Moulay IdrƯs I in 789 and was continued by his son, IdrƯs II (791-828), starting in 808. As a result of the establishment of a ShƯ‘ite state in North Africa, Arab ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers flocked to Fez, gradually Arabizing what was initially a predominantly Berber city. Fez experienced large waves of Arab immigration: the first, which included eight hundred Arabs from al-Andalus who were expelled after a rebellion which took place in Cordova in 817-818, and the second, comprised of another two thousand families who were banned from QayrawƗn after another rebellion that occurred in 824. In the case of Cordova, the refugees in question had been expelled by the Umayyads for having supported a revolt against their rule. In the case of QayrawƗn, the refugees were Arab warriors who had been expelled by Ziyadat AllƗh I (d. 838), the third Aghlabid ruler of IfrƯqiyyah, for having revolted against him when he attempted to disband their units. While details are sketchy, there were tensions between the ruling SunnƯ dynasty and their jurists, on the one hand, and the Arab troops on the other hand. It seems probable that the individuals involved in both revolts were ShƯ‘ite or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers. The Andalusian rebels were enemies of the Umayyads. If they were SunnƯs, what prevented them from migrating to SunnƯ IfrƯqiyyah or the ‘AbbƗsid Middle East? If the rebels from IfrƯqiyyah were SunnƯs, why would they seek shelter and safety among the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids as opposed to the Umayyads of al-Andalus or the neighboring ‘AbbƗsids? Although the court contained many Arabs, the followers of the IdrƯsids were primarily Berbers. The rebels from IfrƯqiyyah had been crushed by Berbers loyal to the Aghlabids. If they were Arab SunnƯs, why would they relocate to a region dominated by Berber ShƯ‘ites? During the rule of ‘AlƯ b. ‘Umar or ‘AlƯ II, the seventh IdrƯsid ruler, who ruled from 874 to 883, the city of Fez fell into the hands of the Berber

250

Chapter 15

tribes of Madyunah, Gayathah, and MiknƗsah, Sufrite KhƗrijites who had formed a coalition to overthrow their ShƯ‘ite enemies. The KhƗrijites were driven out of Fez by YaতyƗ b. al-QƗsim or YaতyƗ III who ruled from 880 to 904. Like many major centers in Morocco, Fez would remain ShƯ‘ite until the rise of the Almoravids in 1040, who imposed MƗlikƯ Sunnism by force across the Maghrib. Instead of being destroyed, the IdrƯsid dynasty was split into a small series of emirates located mainly in the Rif region of Morocco which is situated in the north. Like Medina, Knjfah, KarbalƗ’, and Qum, Fez is one of the sacred cities of ShƯ‘ism. Although it passed into SunnƯ hands nearly one thousand years ago, it contains the resting place of Moulay IdrƯs II and the first ShƯ‘ite university ever established, al-Qarawiyynjn, in addition to the mosque which adjoins it, as well as the Andalus mosque, all established in 859 during the rule of YaতyƗ b. Muতammad or YaতyƗ I who ruled from 848 to 864.

15.4 Tudjah / Turjah / Dar’ah / Dargah Tudjah, which is mentioned on IdrƯsid coins but no longer exists, was also known as Turjah, Dar’ah and Dargah. It was a large city with many silver mines (García-Arenal 2001: 21). Although it shared the same name as a valley in southern Morocco, Dar’ah appears to have been in the region of SijilmƗsah (García-Arenal 2001: 21). Specifically, the city should be found among the gorges of Tudjah, close to Tinejir (2001: 22). Although the region was under the control of KhƗrijite Sufrites, the IdrƯsids appear to have negotiated arrangements with the rulers of Tudjah, authorizing them to mint coins in their name (2001: 22).

15.5 MƗsinah IdrƯs I (r. 789-791) conquered MƗsinah, a town which was located halfway between Fez and al-Baৢrah, in the region of TƗmisnƗ, and on the road east to TƗzah.

15.6 NiffƯs In the year 812, IdrƯs II organized a campaign against the Masmnjdah Berbers of the High Atlas and conquered the city of NiffƯs (García-Arenal 2001: 23) which is close to AghmƗt. NiffƯs was among the cities that were legated by IdrƯs II to his son ‘Abd AllƗh who, in turn, passed it on to his own son.

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

251

15.7 AghmƗt The town of AghmƗt, which was populated by Maghrawah Berbers, was also conquered by IdrƯs II during the successful military campaign of 812. By 813, he was having coins minted there (García-Arenal 2001: 29). After Taroudant fell under IdrƯsid control during the rule of Muতammad b. IdrƯs (r. 828-836), he appointed his brother, ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs, as governor over the Masmnjdah Berbers of the Snjs. Rather than rule from Taroudant, ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs governed from the town of AghmƗt which had been under IdrƯsid rule since 812. While the IdrƯsid dynasty disintegrated in 985, the city of AghmƗt was only conquered by the Almoravids on June 27, 1058. Due to population growth, the Almoravids decided to construct a new capital, Marrakesh, founded in 1070, situated approximately thirty kilometers west of Aghmat. With the rise of Marrakesh, Aghmat soon declined, and became a convenient backwater to exile people. Although ShƯ‘ism was suppressed in Aghmat, its spirituality resurfaced under the guise of ৡnjfism. The town of Aghmat contains the graves of numerous saints and is considered the cradle of Moroccan ৡnjfism. The city, which housed over six thousand families during its prime, and whose market saw the slaughter of one hundred cows and one thousand lambs every Sunday, was the home of only five thousand five hundred people by the middle of the nineteenth century, nearly one-fifth of whom were Jews. The excavation of the ruins of the ancient city, known as “Jouma’a Aghmat” commenced in 2005, leading to many remarkable discoveries.

15.7 Tlemcen In 814, IdrƯs II conquered the city of Tlemcen which is located in northwestern Algeria. Conquered by the Arabs in 708, the city contained a large Christian population for many centuries. From the late eighth century to the early ninth century, the city was controlled by the BƗnƯ IfrƗn, a ZanƗtah Berber tribe of KhƗrijite Sufrites. After the city was conquered by IdrƯs II in 814-819, the leader of the MaghrƗwah, Muতammad b. ণazar, fled the region (García-Arenal 2001: 28). According to García-Arenal, IdrƯs II placed the city under the control of his nephew, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, who founded the SulaymƗnid dynasty (2001: 28). According to James Edward Budgett Meakin, it was allotted to SulaymƗn, the brother of IdrƯs the Elder, namely, the uncle of IdrƯs II, who had settled among the ZanƗtah and joined his brother in the Maghrib (García-Arenal 2001: 39-40). Unable to maintain their rule, his SulaymƗnid descendants eventually relocated to the Snjs (2001: 40).

252

Chapter 15

15.8 Baৢrah The city of Baৢrah, which is nicknamed Baৢrah al-ণamrƗ’ or “Baৢrah the Red” due to its fortifications made of red earth, was founded by the IdrƯsids who commenced to mint coins there in 797. It was named al-Baৢrah in honor of its Iraqi namesake, which, historically, has been an important ShƯ‘ite city. As García-Arenal acknowledges, “le nom n’est certainement pas un hasard, car la ville homonyme d’Orient fut l’un des principaux foyers d’agitation šƯ’ite” (2001: 24) [the name is certainly not a coincidence since the city of the East which shares the same name was one of the may centers of ShƯ‘ite agitation]. Located on the road from Souq al-Arba to Ouezzane some forty kilometers from the Atlantic coast and twenty kilometers south of Ksar alKebir, the city was the summer capital of the IdrƯsid dynasty from the eighth to the tenth century. Once a flourishing commercial center, the city was in ruins by the sixteenth century. After Fez, Baৢrah was the second most important ShƯ‘ite center in the IdrƯsid Maghrib.

15.9 AৢƯlah / Arzilah / Arcilah Although its history traces back to Phoenician and Carthaginian times, the city of AৢƯlah, a town on the northwest tip of the Atlantic coast of Morocco, some fifty kilometers from Tangiers, was founded as an IdrƯsid city at the same time as Baৢrah. The city, which started minting dirhams in 824-825, was populated by LuwƗta and KutƗmah Berbers (García-Arenal 2001: 24). Like Fez, the city also attracted many Arab Andalusian refugees (24). The Normans attacked the city in 843-844 and on another undetermined date (2001: 24). This pushed the inhabitants to build a fortress which was manned by volunteers recruited in Ramaঌan, Dhnj al-ণijjah, and the Day of ‘AshnjrƗ’ (2001: 24). The dates are significant as they mark the three most sacred months to ShƯ‘ites: RamaঌƗn, the month of fasting during which the Qur’Ɨn was revealed, Dhnj al-ণijjah, the month of the pilgrimage, and ‘AshnjrƗ’, the tenth of Muতarram, the day on which ImƗm ণusayn was martyred. As far as ShƯ‘ites are concerned, one cannot imagine a more auspicious occasion to enroll volunteers for potential jihad. In 972, when the Umayyad troops occupied Arcila, a North African port on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, General Ibn Tumlus found a pulpit or minbar which was inscribed with the name of the FƗ৬imid caliph (Fierro 1987: 145, note 74). Although initially a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite center, its population later pledged allegiance to the FƗ৬imid caliphs. Located in a rich agricultural region, AৢƯlah was the main port of the IdrƯsids. As such, it could facilitate the travel of ShƯ‘ite missionaries into al-Andalus.

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

253

15.10 Tangiers Besides its ancient Berber and Phoenician past, Tangiers was ruled by the Romans, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the IdrƯsids, the FƗ৬imids, the caliphate of Cordova, the Maghrawah Emirate, the Almoravids, the Almohads, the Marinids, the kingdom of Fez, the Portuguese, the British, the French, and the Spanish. Like a prostitute being passed from client to client, the city of Tangiers was occupied by many political players. Although it contained ShƯ‘ite communities during the rule of IdrƯs II and FƗ৬imid rule, memories of these historical moments are as fleeting as a onenight stand. One of the only traces of the IdrƯsid presence of Tangiers can be found in a coin minted in the city in 821-822.

15.11 Wazeqqnjr The city of Wazeqqnjr, located south of Fez, was integrated into IdrƯsid territories by IdrƯs I (García-Arenal 2001: 26) and started minting coins in 812-813. Populated predominantly by Jewish Berbers, the city was rich in mineral resources (García-Arenal 2001: 26). Although the specific location of the site is subject to debate, some suggest that it is found in Jabal ‘AwwƗm While others point to another mine as its likely location, sources agree that Wazeqqnjr was found in the zone of al-FƗzƗz (García-Arenal 2001: 27).

15.12 MrƯrah / Mrirt The town of MrƯrah, now known as Mrirt, is located in Khenifrah Province, Meknes-Tafilalet. It started to mint IdrƯsid dirhams at the same time as Wazeqqnjr, namely, in the year 812-813 (García-Arenal 2001: 27, 23). Populated by Middle Atlas Berbers, Mrirt remains a rich mineral resource. The Jbel Aouam, Ighram Aoussar, Sidi Ahmed, and Tighza are sources of lead, zinc, silver, gold, and tungsten.

15.13 TƗgrƗgrƗ Located a little to the north of MrƯrah, the town of TƗgrƗgrƗ, started minting IdrƯsid coins in 838-839 (García-Arenal 2001: 27). The ancient site of TƗgrƗgrƗ may coincide with the modern towns of Tighzah, Tighassali, Timahdite, or Tinejdad, which are all located in the same general region. The most likely candidate would be Tighzah, the Berber word for “mine” which derives from taghouzi, “to dig.” To this day, most of the town’s

254

Chapter 15

population of over two thousand inhabitants consists of miners and descendants of miners.

15.14 Fanknjr Fanknjr, an ancient IdrƯsid town, was located at one league from Wazeqqnjr (García-Arenal 2001: 27).

15.15 Arshqnjl The port of Arshqnjl, located on the river Tafnah, was ruled by SulaymƗn, the brother of IdrƯs I (García-Arenal 2001: note 80). The port was later occupied by Abnj al-‘Aysh ‘IsƗ towards the end of the ninth century (GarcíaArenal 2001: note 80).

15.16 JarƗwah & TƗfargannƯt Due to political problems, Abnj al-‘Aysh ‘IsƗ, the nephew of Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, founded the new city of JarƗwah in 870 (García-Arenal 2001: 28). The city was named after the ZanƗtah Berber tribal confederacy that flourished in northwest Africa during the seventh century. The choice of the name was curious as this confederacy was led by Dihya al-KƗhinah (d. 703), the Berber warrior-queen, who fought against the Arab Muslim invaders in the late seventh century and early eighth century. Although Arabs sayyids and ShƯ‘ites, the SulaymƗnids identified themselves with the ZanƗtah Berbers who had embraced them and stood in opposition to the Umayyad Arabs. Located on the river KƯs, some two miles to the south-east of Muluyah, Jarawah was a walled city surrounded by a suburb devoted to the cultivation of cereals and animal husbandry (GarcíaArenal 2001: 28). The city had its own port, known as TƗfargannƯt, which appears to have been in contact with Oujda, the city in eastern Morocco which travelers from the east must pass on their way to SijilmƗsah (GarcíaArenal 2001: 28). The port of TƗfargannƯt may have been located on the Wadi Muluyah, a five-hundred-and-fifty-kilometer long river that flows from the Middle Atlas and empties near Saidiah on the Mediterranean Sea in northeast Morocco.

15.17 Ceuta Like Tangiers, the city of Ceuta has been ruled by many different powers. The city, under the short lived Bannj IslƗm dynasty of the Majkasah Berbers,

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

255

was briefly allied with the IdrƯsids until their rule ended in 931.

15.18 Melilla The city of Melilla, which has been subject to numerous local rulers, belonged, for a time, to the IdrƯsid dynasty and the ণammnjdid dynasty, both of whom were ShƯ‘ites.

15.19 SalƗ / Salé SalƗ, also pronounced as Salé, was an IdrƯsid settlement in northwest Morocco. Initially founded by the Phoenicians on the western bank of the Bou Regreg, its ruins, known as Chellah, are now located in the city of Rabat, which was known as New Sala. Like many other IdrƯsid towns, which were destroyed by the Almohads, the site was abandoned in 1154 in favor of nearby Salé, located on the eastern bank of the Bou Regreg.

15.20 Taroudant Taroudant is one of the most ancient and important cities in the history of Morocco. Located in the Snjs region in southern Morocco, the city came under Umayyad control. In 735, ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. al-ণabতƗb, the governor of IfrƯqiyyah from 734 to 741, who had supervisory authority over the Maghrib and al-Andalus, sent an army commanded by ণabƯb b. AbƯ Ubaydah al-FihrƯ to conquer the Snjs and the southern regions of Morocco, resulting in a booty that was so substantial that it replenished the state treasury. Having brought southern Morocco into the Umayyad empire, ‘Ubayd AllƗh b. al-ণabতƗb appointed his son, IsmƗ‘Ưl, as the governor of the Snjs. Sickened by the Arab slave raiders who stole their most beautiful and beloved women and incensed at being taxed like infidels, the Berbers revolted in 740. This Great Berber Revolt, the Berber tribes of western Morocco, including the GhumƗrah, the MiknƗsah, and the BarghawƗ৬ah, formed a coalition and appointed Maysarah al-MatgharƯ as their leader. Within a short period, all of Morocco, from Tangiers to Taroudant, fell into Berber hands, resulting in the death of IsmƗ‘Ưl, the governor of the Snjs. From this moment forward, Taroudant would no longer be subjected to the caliphs from the Middle East. The city of Taroudant, and the Snjs region of southern Morocco, came under the control of the BarghawƗ৬ah Berbers, who were KhƗrijites, until the time of Moulay IdrƯs II (791-828). Seeking to rout the traditional

256

Chapter 15

enemies of the ShƯ‘ites, and eager to control trans-Saharan trade and commerce, IdrƯs II set out to expand the borders of the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid State. As such, he directed his attack against the Masmnjdah Berbers in the south in 812, finally subduing them. Taroudant eventually fell under IdrƯsid control during the rule of Muতammad b. IdrƯs, who ruled from 828 to 836, and who appointed his brother, ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs, as the governor of the mountains of the Masmudas and the Snjs, ruling from AghmƗt, rather than Taroudant, which he made the capital of the Snjs. Although no longer the capital, Taroudant maintained a privileged economic position dominating the gold trade which connected Morocco and sub-Saharan Africa. During nearly a century of IdrƯsid power, the BarghawƗ৬ah KhƗrijites kept their eyes on the prize and eventually reestablished their control over the city. Taroudant, which had been a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite city under the IdrƯsids, returned to the KhƗrijite doctrine towards the end of the ninth century. As a result of the missionary efforts of Muতammad b. Warsand and his sons, ShƯ‘ite Bajalite doctrines started to spread in Taroudant and other cities in the Snjs. By the mid-tenth century, Taroudant had been transformed into a significant ShƯ‘ite island surrounded by hostile SunnƯ and KhƗrijite tribes. Under the influence of their SunnƯ jurists, the Berber tribe of Jaznjlah strived to confine their ShƯ‘ite enemies -- who belonged to the BajilƯ / WaqifƯ / MnjsawƯ sect -- to Taroudant. When ‘Abd AllƗh b. YƗsƯn al-JaznjlƯ, the disciple of WajƗj b. Zallnj, rallied the ৡanhƗjah Berbers to the call of the Almoravid movement, he succeeded, with the help of his ally Abnj Bakr b. ‘Umar LamtunƯ, to subdue Tafilalt and the Snjs. Incited by SunnƯ scholars to crush the ShƯ‘ites, he finally fulfilled their wishes by destroying the ShƯ‘ites of Taroudant in 1056.

15.21 TiynjywƯn TiynjywƯn, the second major town in the Snjs, which was close to Tfiriudnt and Tarfudnt, also adhered to the madhhab of MnjsƗ b. Ja‘far (Madelung 1976: 89).

15.22 Igli / MadƯnat al-Snjs Located in the region of Misour, not far from Ouarzazate, the inhabitants of Igli were MnjsawƯ ShƯ‘ites who followed the school of Ibn Warsand. After IdrƯs II died in Volubilis in 828-29, at the age of thirty-six, he divided his reign among seven of his older sons, as the other four were too young to rule. The Snjs al-AqsƗ or the Farthest Sous Valley, which had Igli as its

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

257

capital, was bequeathed to ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs. After his passing, the city continued to be ruled by his descendants, the Bannj ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs. This isolated city still exists today. It is estimated that one thousand five hundred people live within a seven-kilometer radius of the city.

15.23 TƗmdult / TƗmadalt Located at six kilometers south of Igli, the city of Tamdult was founded by the ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs in the first half of the ninth century for strategic commercial reasons. Since the Lamtah Berbers remained unconquered and controlled the north-south passage, ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs was cut off from the Saharan side of the Anti-Atlas, including its oases, produce, products, and trans-Saharan commerce. Since he was prevented from traversing the coastal plains, he decided to establish Tamdult, at the foot of the Jbel Bani, not far from the valley of Aqqah. This valley is located on the main Saharan access point or outlet on the central passage of the Anti-Atlas near the valley of Igherm and the Oued Aqqah. This was the traditional passage that allowed the Sous Valley to communicate with the oases of the central Bani, notably with Aqq and Tamdult. By founding Tamdult, ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs could control the northern termini of Saharan commerce. If ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs selected the site, it was not solely because of his concern with controlling part of the caravan trade. If he founded the city of Tamdult, it was because the area was exceedingly rich in mineral resources. Unlike other sites, which required extensive digging and tunneling to access the earth’s hidden treasures, the gold and silver at Tamdult were located on the surface (García-Arenal 2001: 29). The region was so littered with gold and silver that the precious metals were described as sprouting like plants which could be blow away by the wind. ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs ruled from Igli, situated between Tamdult to the south of the Anti-Atlas and Neffis to the North of the Upper Western Atlas. Located in the middle of these two cities, he was placed in a powerful position. Tamdult remained under the control of the descendants of ‘Abd AllƗh b. IdrƯs. By the end of the tenth century, this city, which now contained a citadel, belonged to YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs. The present city of Tamdult, which lies in ruins today, seems to have suffered the same fate as many other IdrƯsid cities. Once the Almoravids took it over in the fourteenth century, it was broken up, and the IdrƯsids disappeared beneath the sands of time. If one seeks signs of the IdrƯsid presence in the region, the city of Tizqui al-Haratin could provide some insights. The city of Tamdult was located among the villages of the Bannj Dara, namely, the People of the Blacks, who are known as Aït Dra in Berber, and Draoua in Arabic. However, most of

258

Chapter 15

the people of the region, belonged to the Bannj Targa or the Tuareg, who are of Caucasian ancestry. The city of Tizqui al-Haratin, which is mentioned in the tenth century and is found in a valley of the Bani Mountain, in the Foumm Aït Ouabelli, mid-way between Aqqah and Foumm el-ণassane, may have been founded by people from Tamdult and perhaps by YaতyƗ b. IdrƯs himself. In fact, many of the black shurafƗ’ or descendants of the Prophet in Morocco may descend from the black African bondmaids and wives of the IdrƯsid ImƗms. As clients of the IdrƯsids, it is possible that they identified their lineage with them for prestige. In other words, they were associated with them, not related to them.

15.24 MƗsah The city of MƗsah, now known as Massa or Messa, is a small Moroccan town located in the region of Sous-Massa-DrƗ in the province of Chtouka Aït Baha. Located forty-five kilometers to the south of Agadir and fifty kilometers to the north of Tiznit, MƗsah occupies the shore of the Oued Massa, three kilometers from the Atlantic Ocean. According to al-Ya‘qnjbƯ, boats built in Ubullah, the port of the Iraqi city of al-Baৢrah, could be found in Masah (García-Arenal 2001: 29). The famous geographer relates that these boats navigated to China for commerce (García-Arenal 2001: 29). It seems clear that the IdrƯsids were in contact with ShƯ‘ites in Iraq, not only through the major caravan routes through the Sahara, but via maritime contact which took place from its Atlantic ports of Masa Arzila, and Tangiers, and its Mediterranean ports such as Ceuta, Arshqnjl, and TƗfargannƯt. The ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids were not isolated from their brethren in the Middle East.

15.25 Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun Located several kilometers from Volubilis, Zerhoun is one of the most sacred sites in Morocco. The town was built around the tomb of Moulay IdrƯs I. His mausoleum forms the heart of the town and draws pilgrims from around the world. The town also hosts a yearly religious festival, the mawsim of Moulay IdrƯs, in honor of the founder of the IdrƯsid dynasty.

15.26 Meknes The city of Meknes, located in northern Morocco, is named after the MiknƗsah Berber tribe that settled there in the ninth century. The tribe in question was divided into several clans. The first supported the Umayyads

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

259

and participated in the conquest of al-Andalus, settling in the north of Cordova, and eventually founded the Aftasid dynasty in Badajoz in the eleventh century. The second clan embraced KhƗrijism during the early years of the Arab conquest, participated in the Great Berber Revolt (739742), and established the Emirate of SijilmƗsah. Allied with the caliphate of Cordova, this clan of the MiknƗsah fought off the attacks of the FƗ৬imids. When their chief, al-Mu‘tazz, switched alliances to the FƗ৬imids, they were driven out of SijilmƗsah by the forces of the Maghrawah Berbers, who were Umayyad allies. Another MiknƗsah clan allied itself with the FƗ৬imids against the Umayyads. Overthrowing the Rustamids of Tahert in 912, they succeeded in driving the Salihids from northern Morocco in 917. With the help of their FƗ৬imid allies, the ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ MiknƗsah inflicted severe blows on their ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid enemies in 917-920 and drove them from Fez. Weakened by their struggle against the pro-Umayyad Magrawah Berbers, this MiknƗsah clan was finally subdued by the Almoravids in the eleventh century. Once a great ShƯ‘ite center in Morocco, Meknes, like Fez, was purged of ShƯ‘ite influences by SunnƯ puritans.

15.27 Scores of Cities In his KitƗb al-buldƗn, published around 903, Ibn al-FaqƯত al-HamaঌƗnƯ provides a list of cities ruled by the descendants of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh. They include Madrak, Matrnjkah, MadƯnat Zaqqnjrah, Ghurrah, GhumƯra (GhummarƗ), al-ণajar, MajarƗjarah, Franknjr, al-KhadrƗ’, AwrƗs, the region of ZƗghƯ b. ZƗghƯ, along with cities in the Snjs al-AdnƗ, the Snjs al-AqsƗ and BilƗd AnbiyƗ’ which was said to be located seventy nights of travel away from the Snjs al-AqsƗ (Beck 13). If we examine caravan routes of the time, the only ones heading south of the Snjs lead to what is now Mauritania and parts of West Africa.

15.28 Naf৬ah The town and oasis of Naf৬ah or Nefta, which is located in Tunisia, near the Algerian border, and just north of the Chott el Djerid, contained the oldest known ShƯ‘ite community in the Maghrib. Initially brought into ShƯ‘ism by Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ, the two missionaries sent to the Maghrib by the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the city was also the birthplace of ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn al-Warsand al-BajalƯ, who founded the BajalƯ / MnjsawƯ / WaqifƯ madhhab in the Maghrib. The city harbored such a sizable ShƯ‘ite community that it was known as Knjfah al-‫܈‬ughrƗ or “Little Knjfah” (ণajƯ 42). Although the outer practices of ShƯ‘ism have long perished, its inner

260

Chapter 15

dimension has been maintained. To this day, Nefta is considered by many Muslims as the spiritual home of ৡnjfism.

15.29 TƗlƗ The city of TƗlƗ, which was located in the plain of MarmƗjanna, now known as Bermajna, on the banks of the Oued Sarrath in Algeria, was brought into ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism by Abnj SufyƗn, the companion of ImƗm al-ৡƗdiq.

15.30 al-Urbus [Lorbeus / Lares / Laribus] The city of al-Urbus, which was also located in the region of MarmƗjanna in Algeria, was also converted to ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism by Abnj SufyƗn commencing in 762-763.

15.31 al-NƗznjr The city of al-NƗznjr [Nador, near Guelma / Calama / Duvivier], in northern Algeria, was brought into ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism by al-ণulwƗnƯ, the companion of the sixth ImƗm in the middle of the eighth century.

15.32 Qus৬an৬Ưnah The city of Qus৬an৬Ưnah or Constantine in modern-day Algeria is in the region of Lesser Kabylia. This is a city from which many of the first followers of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionary, hailed. Consequently, it was one of the first ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ communities in the Maghrib.

15.33 QayrawƗn The city of QayrawƗn or Kairouan, located in Tunisia, is one of the holiest cities in IslƗm as it contains the graves of several companions of the Prophet. Although it lost its prominence to al-Mahdiyyah, the FƗ৬imid capital, many notable ShƯ‘ite scholars, including ZaydƯs, ImƗmƯs, and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, originated from al-QayrawƗn.

ShƯ‘ite Centers in the Maghrib

261

15.34 Al-Mahdiyyah The city of al-Mahdiyyah was founded by the FƗ৬imids in 921 and was subsequently made into the caliphate’s first capital. A ShƯ‘ite city from the start, the FƗ৬imids ensured its architecture and art reflected their confessional creed. Culturally, economically, and militarily, al-Mahdiyyah was one of the most important ShƯ‘ite center in the Maghrib, producing and attracting many ShƯ‘ite Muslims and scholars.

15.35 ৡabrah al-Manৢnjriyyah Al-Manৢnjriyyah, the royal residence of the FƗ৬imid caliphs and the seat of their government, was founded by IsmƗ‘Ưl al-Manৢnjr in 946. Styled after the city of BaghdƗd, the city was circular in construction, featuring royal residence at its center. Besides slaves, servants, and government officials, the city was inhabited by some fourteen thousand KutƗmah Berbers. A ShƯ‘ite city, al- Manৢnjriyyah would remain the second capital of the FƗ৬imids until they relocated to their third capital, Cairo, in the year 969.

15.36 Bougie Bougie, also spelled [Béjaïa, Vgaiet or Bejaya, is a city in the Berber region of Kabylia in what is modern-day Algeria. An IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite city, it was the home of Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ, a missionary assigned the task of spreading ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus.

15.37 Conclusions Since the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids ruled the Maghrib, the first of whom were ZaydƯs, along with some ImƗmƯs, and the last of whom were IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the existence of ShƯ‘ite centers in what is now modern-day Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, is an established fact. Considering that many of the Berbers and Arabs who settled in al-Andalus were of ShƯ‘ite stock, and that many Muwallads embraced ShƯ‘ism, it comes as no surprise that there were ShƯ‘ite communities in Spain. All the cities and towns that have been studied in this chapter, be they in the Maghrib or al-Andalus, have been associated with ShƯ‘ism. Some of these cities, like Fez, Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun, Baৢrah, al-Mahdiyyah, and alManৢnjriyyah, were founded as ShƯ‘ite centers. Others, like Taroudant, QayrawƗn, Naf৬ah, and Granada, had a much longer history. In some cases, they became the home of ShƯ‘ite settlers; in other cases, their inhabitants

262

Chapter 15

were converted to the ShƯ‘ite faith. The only centers we have included in this chapter are those which have been explicitly associated with ShƯ‘ism in historical sources. There are many other cities and regions, which have been implicitly associated with ShƯ‘ism due to the presence of certain Arab and Berber tribes which tended to be ShƯ‘ite in profession. Except for certain cities, most of the sites we have mentioned in alAndalus, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, have not been surveyed for evidence of their ShƯ‘ite past. It can only be hoped that scholars will follow these leads and conduct archeological surveys of some of them. The ruins of Volubilis and Baৢrah may provide insight into the early IdrƯsid dynasty. The city of Taroudant, the town of Igli, and the ruins of TiynjywƯn, could offer information regarding the Bajalite ShƯ‘ites. The entire region of MarmƗjanna, in Algeria, which was converted to ShƯ‘ism by disciples of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, deserves serious study, with a focus placed TƗlƗ, alUrbus [Lorbeus / Lares / Laribus], and al-NƗznjr. The city of Naf৬ah, in Tunisia, also merits attention. If ever uncovered, the graves of al-ণulwƗnƯ and Abnj SufyƗn, the companions of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, or the burial place of Ibn Warsand or his sons, could illuminate scholarly circles. The same applies to the burial places of the successors of IdrƯs I and IdrƯs II. Markings on their tombs, and the potential contents of their graves, including copies of the Qur’Ɨn or other books, would be spectacular finds. The location of the grave of ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, said to be buried in Zaragoza, could also provide information regarding early ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus. Just as IdrƯsid coins have confirmed their ZaydƯ creed, engravings on the tombs of early ShƯ‘ite figures in the Maghrib and al-Andalus could also establish their adherence to the school of the ahl al-bayt. Paper graves of the importance of the one found in the Great Mosque of ৡana‘Ɨ’ in 1972 await discovery in many parts of the Maghrib and alAndalus. Regrettably, Arab, and Muslim leaders and governments have shown little to no interest in funding excavation, restoration, and preservation projects and, when they have, they sometimes seek to suppress or destroy the evidence which surfaces. While Western countries have been found to be far more generous in supporting such major projects, the orientalists working for them are accused of using their findings to undermine and destroy the foundations of IslƗm. Although hundreds of thousands of manuscripts are located in libraries and archives throughout the Muslim world, they have aroused little interest. For most Muslims, it would seem, manuscripts are worthless scraps of parchment. Graves are valued for robbing, not for the priceless knowledge they provide. Such a dismal situation is a source of great despair to scholars and scientists.

CHAPTER 16 SHƮ‘ITE CENTERS IN AL-ANDALUS

16.1 Introduction If there were many islands of ShƯ‘ism spread throughout the Maghrib, such was also the case across the Strait of Gibraltar. In al-Andalus, evidence points to ShƯ‘ite communities in Sevilla, Cordova, Pamplona, Alange, and Zaragoza, as well as Bobastro, Los Pedroches, La Serena, Puerto de Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, MiknƗsah, and NafzƗ. In some of these communities, the ShƯ‘ite presence dates back to the time of the companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. Others were connected to the IdrƯsids and ণammnjdids and yet others were associated with the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. In most cases, the existence of ShƯ‘ite communities coincides with the presence of Yemenite Arabs and traditionally ShƯ‘ite Berber tribes.

16.2 Sevilla Populated by a large number of Yemenites, the city of Seville was one of the centers of ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus.

16.3 Elvira The city of Elvira had one of the oldest ShƯ‘ite communities in Spain. The city is associated with ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib who is said to have arranged the qiblah for the mosque in Elvira (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 4). The city is also connected to ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, the grandson of the Prophet’s famous companion and supporter of ImƗm ‘AlƯ who was the sub governor of the city. The city was the site of the anti-Umayyad revolt of Abnj ‘UthmƗn (al-MaqqarƯ, vol. 2: 90) for which the population was punished in exemplary fashion. Ibn HƗnƯ, the famous FƗ৬imid poet, along with his father, who was a missionary for the FƗ৬imids, were two famous IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs ShƯ‘ites from Elvira. The city of Elvira, it should be noted, was inhabited by KutƗmah Berbers, associated with the

264

Chapter 16

IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ite revolt of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ (r. 888-912). As a result of civil conflicts, the city of Elvira was destroyed by the Spanish Umayyads in the year 1010. After the city was reconstructed, its Christian name, Elvira, was dropped and replaced with Gharnáta, the name of the Jewish suburb, was applied to the entire city.

16.4 Cordova, Pamplona, Alange and Zaragoza ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the ShƯ‘ite companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ is associated with the cities of Cordova and Pamplona. He is reported to have built the mosque in Zaragoza, the city where his tomb is said to be found. The city of Alange, which derives from the Arabic ণanash, is said to have been named in his honor.

16.5 Bobastro The Spanish city of Bobastro, located some four kilometers from Ardales in the area known as Mesas de Villaverde, was the base of operation of Ibn ণafsnjn. A muwallad revolutionary who revolted against the Umayyad caliphate of Cordova, Ibn ণafsnjn was a convert to the FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ cause.

16.6 Los Pedroches, La Serena, Puerto de Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, MiknƗsah, and NafzƗ All these Spanish cities, some of which may no longer exist, are associated with the revolt of Ibn al-Qi৬৬ in the year 901. Populated by NafzƗ and MiknƗsah Berbers, these regions contained communities of ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers who were receptive to the call of this self-proclaimed MahdƯ.

16.7 Conclusions If ShƯ‘ites represented the majority of the population of Morocco during the time of the IdrƯsids, and continued to represent a minority during the dynasties that followed, the followers of the Prophet’s household were always a minority in al-Andalus. If there were over forty communities associated with ShƯ‘ism in North Africa, evidence suggests that there was only a dozen or so in al-Andalus. Not only were they a minority, the ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus appear to have been fragmented. If the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs appear to

ShƯ‘ite Centers in al-Andalus

265

have formed the largest part of the ShƯ‘ite population, there were also ImƗmƯ and ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites in their midst. The ShƯ‘ite community was further splintered along racial, linguistic, ethnic, and cultural lines. The Yemenite ShƯ‘ites of ZaydƯ persuasion congregated mostly in major cities. The Berber ShƯ‘ites of IdrƯsid-ণammnjdid orientation formed their own micro-kingdoms while the muwalladnjn ShƯ‘ites, namely, the Muslims of Iberian stock, tended to live on the periphery in regions isolated from the centers of Arab power. Whether ShƯ‘ism drew these divergent populations together or divided them is hard to say. If anything, they seem to have been willing to drop minor issues of doctrine and practice for the greater good, the struggle of ShƯ‘ism, as a whole, in the face of a common Umayyad enemy. This may explain why so many Spanish ShƯ‘ites sided with the ‘AbbƗsids and the FƗ৬imids against the Umayyads of al-Andalus.

CHAPTER 17 THE MƖLIKƮ INQUISITION IN THE MAGHRIB AND AL-ANDALUS

17.1 Introduction From the Prophet’s death to the present, the ShƯ‘ites of the ahl al-bayt or the followers of the Prophet’s family have been persecuted in all parts of the Muslim world. The ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib and al-Andalus were no exception. In IslƗmic Spain, however, the ShƯ‘ites were not alone. Along with non-MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, ৡnjfƯs, and Mu‘tazilƯs, the ShƯ‘ites were subject to various attempts to suppress them. As Fierro explains, One of the methods available to AndalusƯ MƗlikƯs to rid the region of new doctrines was to dismiss them as innovations and heresies; and this they did. The accusation of zandaqa, moreover, could lead to the death penalty. (1992: 903)

As MakkƯ explains, “el Estado no transigió con las tendencias ši’íes y sofocaba cuantas surgían, con la mayor severidad” [the State did not tolerate ShƯ‘ite tendencies and would suffocate them as soon as they surfaced with the utmost severity] (1968: 173). As Cano has keenly observed, the purpose of imposing MƗlikism in al-Andalus was to counter the dangers of ShƯ‘ite doctrine which was so popular among Spanish Muslims and Berbers (28). Although many Muslims and IslƗmophiles view al-Andalus as a land of diversity and religious tolerance, this view is as idealized as it is erroneous. Although there were periods of peace between Muslims, Christians, and Jews from 900 to 1200, there were also periods of persecution throughout IslƗmic rule. The MƗlikƯ Muslims of al-Andalus may have had a privileged position. However, with the imposition of MƗlikƯ Sunnism as the sole legal school of thought in al-Andalus -- by the Umayyads, the Almoravids, the Almohads, many kingdom-states, and the Naৢrids -- life was perilous for non-MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, ৡnjfis, KhƗrijites, and ShƯ‘ites. ‘Abd AllƗh, the last king of the ZƯrƯds, was known for his hatred of Berbers. As relatively tolerant they may have been towards Jews and

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

267

Christians, “Muslim authorities … were very sensitive to transgressions committed by their own subjects in departing from the predominant MƗlikƯ doctrine in al-Andalus” (Vernet 177).

17.2 The Umayyad Hatred of the Ahl al-Bayt Al-Andalus was conquered in 711 by the Umayyads, avowed enemies of the ahl al-bayt. In 743, the Syrians revolted against ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Qa৬an al-FihrƯ, the emir of al-Andalus, whom they defeated. Although Ibn Qa৬an was an Umayyad, the Syrians demanded that he be put to death for attempting to defend Medina from YazƯd’s army during the battle of alণarrah in 682. During this battle, the troops of YazƯd sacked Medina, slaughtered the companions of the Prophet, and raped approximately one thousand Muslim women. When the Umayyads were overthrown by the ‘AbbƗsids, Umayyad prince ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I sought refuge in al-Andalus. Over a thirty years, he assumed a tenuous control over much of the Iberian Peninsula. There, he was helped by al-ৡumayl b. ণƗtim, the grandson of Shamr b. DhƯ alJawshan (d. 685), the man who murdered ImƗm al-ণusayn in the year 680. In 687, however, Mukhtar al-ThaqƗfƯ (d. 687) rose in revolt to avenge the death of al-ণusayn, succeeded in slaying Shamr, and forcing his family to flee to Syria where they were protected and honored by the Umayyads. To escape the rage of the ShƯ‘ites, al-Sumayl enrolled in the Syrian army which was sent to al-Andalus in 742. Sumayl’s hatred of ShƯ‘ites led him to support ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I in al-Andalus. The Umayyads were happy to count on his help, considering how grateful they were for his grandfather’s actions. By 929, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III was sufficiently secure in his power as to proclaim himself caliph in defiance of the FƗ৬imids and the ‘AbbƗsids. Considering the wholesale slaughter of the Prophet’s family and their followers enacted by the Umayyads in the Middle East, it comes as no surprise that their extermination policy would continue to be pursued in alAndalus. As Larsson explains, “To the Cordova caliphate any suspicion of ShƯ‘ah sympathies was a threat” (Larsson 76). Judges like Ibn ণamdƯn from Cordova even condemned al-GhazƗlƯ’s writings to burn (Cruz Hernández 780; Urvoy 867). MuqadassƯ, who wrote towards the end of the tenth century, reported that if the inhabitants of al-Andalus “find any ণanafƯ or ShƗfi‘Ư, they banish him, while if they come upon a Mu‘tazilƯ or a ShƯ‘Ư or anyone of those types they kill him” (236; Wasserstein 1985: 176-77). The history of al-Andalus is rife with examples of rebellions against the Umayyads. Far from being a popularly acclaimed caliph, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn imposed his rule through force. As al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) admits,

268

Chapter 17

“‘Abd al-RaতmƗn had to reduce many… of the principal Arabian tribes, who, during his reign, rose in various parts of his dominions” (vol. 2: 84). As the historian implies, many of these insurrections were led by ShƯ‘ites, “if their number can be counted” (vol. 2: 84). On revolt that stood out was that of ShaqyƗ b. ‘Abd al-WalƯd al-MiknƗsƯ al-FƗ৬imƯ. As al-MaqqarƯ relates, he was a Berber who passed himself off as a descendant of FƗ৬imah, the daughter of the Prophet. This man raised the standard of revolt at the town of Santa María, and the mischief lasted for two years, until one of his own followers treacherously slew him. (vol. 2: 84)

Al-MaqqarƯ mentions many other rebels, including ণusayn al-AnৢƗrƯ, who, along with his principal supporters, had their heads fixed on stakes on the orders of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn (vol. 2: 89). Al-MaqqarƯ also mentions Abnj ‘UthmƗn, an Arabian chieftain, who, along with his nephew, revolted in one of Elvira’s castles, only to be taken captive and beheaded (vol. 2: 90). Since Elvira was a ShƯ‘ite stronghold from the days of ণanash, the companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, and ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, the grandson of the famous companion of the Prophet and faithful follower of the first ImƗm, it seems possible than the revolt in question was rationalized on ShƯ‘ite grounds. The Umayyad opposition to the ahl al-bayt was manifested in all manners: from personal matters of dress to public policy. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn, for example, always dressed in white, and wore a turban of the same color (Whishaw 66). As Bernard and Ellen Whishaw observe, “The Sunnites wore white; the ShƯ‘ites black, in token of their perpetual mourning for the murder of ‘AlƯ” (66). ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I even encouraged scholars to fabricate prophetic traditions in support of his reign. On one occasion, a partisan of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I invented a ‫ۊ‬adƯth in which the Prophet said that the Umayyad dynasty of al-Andalus would last until the appearance of the Dajjal or the Antichrist. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn I was so happy to hear this ‫ۊ‬adƯth that he made its forger a feudal lord as an act of gratitude (MakkƯ 1968: 192). ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III was so fanatical in his hatred of the followers of the ahl al-bayt that he ordered that the ShƯ‘Ưs be cursed publicly from all the minbars in al-Andalus in 955 (Safran 2000: 36-37). Although many SunnƯ Muslims ignore it, the Umayyads did not accept ImƗm ‘AlƯ as one of the rightly-guided caliphs. The ahl al-sunnah wa aljama‘ah initially accepted Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, and Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, as the four rightly guided caliphs. It was only much later, due to the pressure of scholars like Aতmad b. ণanbal, that ‘AlƯ was restituted as the fourth rightly-guided caliph. Muতammad, the emir of al-Andalus, claimed to have

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

269

been visited in his dreams by Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘UthmƗn (Fierro 1987: 120). He never made any mention of ‘AlƯ. The great Andalusian court-poet, Ibn ‘Abd RabbihƯ used to sing the praises of Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘UthmƗn, and Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, demonstrating SunnƯ doubts regarding the status of ‘AlƯ (Fierro 1987: 120). Fierro, however, views this as an aberration, insisting that “en el propio sunnismo tuvo siempre predicamento la aceptación de ‘AlƯ como cuarto califa” (Fierro 1987: 142) [in Sunnism, it was always accepted that ‘AlƯ was the fourth caliph], a claim which is false when referring to early SunnƯ IslƗm.

17.3 The Imposition of MƗlikism The MƗlikƯ madhhab was officially adopted by HishƗm I (788-796) and his son al-ণakam I (786-822). As Urvoy mentions, “His son… very quickly made it clear to the members of the hierarchy around him that they should give their juridical opinions (fatwƗs) and their judgments solely according to the school of MƗlik” (852). During the rule of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn II, “the MƗlikite rite was officially recognized, and an influential school of jurists and theologians grew up in Cordova” (Read 59). From the ninth century onwards, “MƗlikism… became the sole official school” in al-Andalus (850). Consequently, In the space of thirty years or so a privileged class… came to be established, imposing a very rigorous inquisition both on the actions of the sovereign, when he showed signs of ceasing to consult his scholars, and on the faithful in their daily lives and their respect for practices. As for tributaries, those with an official role found themselves being harassed, and the ‘ulamƗ’ hunted down anything which might be considered hostile to IslƗm. (852-854)

As Jan Read has observed, The lasting significance of MƗlikism was that by insisting in a rigid orthodoxy discouraging free discussion of religious matters, it shielded alAndalus from the disruptive consequences of more liberal and speculative doctrines, like KhƗrijism and ShƯ‘ism, which were at the root of growing unrest in North Africa and the ‘AbbƗsid empire in the east. (59)

As a result of the imposition of MƗlikƯ Sunnism as the only school of law in al-Andalus, other SunnƯ schools of jurisprudence were suppressed and SunnƯs, ৡnjfƯs, and ShƯ‘ites faced persecution. At first, the works of individual authors were targeted. The books of the ਋ƗhirƯ Ibn ণazm were

270

Chapter 17

set ablaze in Sevilla. The books of al-GhazƗlƯ were burned. Massarite and Mu‘tazilite books were destroyed throughout al-Andalus. Eventually, entire libraries were targeted. As Read explains: “Ibn AbƯ ‘Amir… sought to placate the MƗlikites by publicly burning all of al-ণakam II’s books which they considered heretical -- the larger part of the magnificent library” (87). When al-Manৢnjr (d. 1002) assumed power, the caliphal library was purged, and all those who pursued the so-called non-IslƗmic sciences were persecuted. Aতmad b. Sabir, the secretary to Muতammad I, used to raise his hands next to his head when proclaiming the takbƯr during the ritual prayers, unlike the MƗlikƯs who raise them only to the side of the shoulders. As a result, Muতammad I threatened his secretary that unless he conformed to MƗlikƯ practice, he would hack off his offending hands (Harvey 1990: 3637). Aতmad b. Sabir refused to conform and was forced to flee from alAndalus. He finally settled in Egypt where he observed that “The sunnah of the Prophet is dead in al-Andalus” (Harvey 1990: 37). In the year 860, Abnj ‘Umar al-Lubb al-৫alamankƯ, a muwallad Muslim, was accused of being a KhƗrijite by several jurists in Zaragoza for daring to challenge the official orthodoxy (Urvoy 860; Fierro 1992: 902). BaqƯ b. Makhlad (816-889) was prosecuted by the MƗlikƯ jurists. According to Fierro, it was because he belonged to the ahl al-‫ۊ‬adƯth (1992: 900). According to Watt, it was because he was a ShƗfi‘Ư. For Mones, it was because he did not follow any standard rite, but his own individual path (6869). In other words, he dared to exercise independent ijtihƗd. In 979, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd al-BallnjtƯ was crucified for being a Mu‘tazilƯ. And Abnj al-Khayr was crucified on the orders of al-ণakam II, the pederast, for being a ShƯ‘Ư. ‘Abd al-A‘lƗ b. Wahb was charged with zandaqa or heresy for adhering to rationalistic Mu‘tazilƯ views (Fierro 1992: 900). During the reign of HishƗm II, scholars and poets interested in theology, philosophy, and logic, like Ibn al-IflƯlƯ (d. 1050) and Sa‘Ưd b. Fathnjn al-Saraqus৬Ư, were accused of zandaqa (Fierro 1992: 900). Abnj alWalƯd HishƗm b. Aতmad al-WaqqashƯ (1017-95), and al-ণannƗ৬ al-KafƯf (d. 1045) were regarded as suspect in their religion merely because they showed an interest in logic (Fierro 1992: 901). So much for the myth of the Muslim utopia in al-Andalus.

17.4 The ShƯ‘ite Resistance While many Western historians speak of the Great Berber Revolt of 740743 as an insurrection against the Arabs, it can also be seen, in part, as a ShƯ‘ite insurrection against the SunnƯs. Although historians assert that most

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

271

of the Berbers who followed Maysarah al-MatgharƯ’s revolt were KhƗrijites, some of the participants in the revolt, like SƗliত b. ৫Ɨrif of the Bargawatah Berbers, held syncretic religious beliefs that were a combination of SunnƯ, ShƯ‘ite, and KhƗrijite IslƗm, with elements from Judaism and paganism. Although the racial, linguistic, and cultural element has traditionally been stressed, the religious element cannot be ignored. For all intents and purposes, many Berber rebels were superficially IslƗmized individuals who embraced a veritable gumbo of “orthodox” and “heterodox” ideas, including an unmistakable ShƯ‘ite component. Since the Arabs despised the Berbers for both racial and religious reasons, their response to the insurrection was ruthless. As Lane-Pool relates, “the Arabs of Andalusia put the Berbers to utter rout, hunted them like wild beasts through the country to their mountain fastnesses, and gratified their vengeance to the full” (56). ‘Abd al-MƗlik, the emir of Andalusia, actually sent ships to the Middle East and brought over Syrians to help wipe out the Berbers (Lane-Pool 55). Although the Berber rebels from the 740s were predominantly KhƗrijites, it is possible that they counted on some ShƯ‘ite support. Although this would seem paradoxical in terms of the Middle East, where KhƗrijites and Sunnites were enemies, the situation in the Maghrib and al-Andalus was different. The Berbers may have disagreed on some aspects of the IslƗmic faith; however, they all belonged to the same people, spoke the same family of languages, and faced the same common enemy: the Arab SunnƯ invaders who oppressed, exploited, and enslaved them. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that all Berbers – KhƗrijites, ShƯ‘ites, Sunnites, Jews, Christians, and pagans -- would join together to oust the Arabs. As Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme explains, both KhƗrijism and ShƯ‘ism “seguirán asumiendo… la oposición al orden establecido por los omeyas” (44) [continued to represent … opposition to the rule established by the Umayyads]. Although ShƯ‘ites and KhƗrijites were enemies in the Middle East, in the North African and Andalusian context, they could, in some cases, become allies against the same common enemy. Though the ShƯ‘ite role in the Great Berber Revolt of the 740s may have been minimal, the ShƯ‘ite contribution to the Yemenite, pro-‘AbbƗsid, Messianic, and ৡnjfƯ revolts seems more significant, and appears to have been a considerable factor in the revolts of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, ShaqyƗ, Ibn al-Qi৬৬ and Abnj ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj, Ibn ণafৢnjn, and Ibn QasƯ. The rebellions of these last four seem to have been especially influenced by the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism of the FƗ৬imids. As Martínez Enamorado explains, it was the FƗ৬imid’s intention to create a ShƯ‘Ư power in al-Andalus that could challenge the Umayyads. This was the reason why they initially

272

Chapter 17 turned their eyes to the ণafৢnjnids, and, when this initial plan fell through, they kept looking for alternatives throughout the tenth century. (275)

17.5 The Umayyad Strategy against the ShƯ‘ites The Umayyad response against the ShƯ‘ite threat is exemplified in ‘Abd alRaতmƗn’s response to Ibn ণafৢnjn’s revolt. The caliph’s policy was cruel and exemplary as if he deliberately wished to violate the law of ‘AlƯ, namely, the IslƗmic code of war, which the fourth caliph and first ImƗm had been so keen to observe. Bernard and Ellen Whishaw believed that one could distinguish between SunnƯs and ShƯ‘ites based on their behavior in war. If they observed the just war theory, they were followers of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. If they violated the just war theory, then they were followers of Mu‘Ɨwiyyah (75). As Bernard and Ellen Whishaw stress, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III categorically rejected the law of ‘AlƯ in the course of his campaign against Ibn ণafৢnjn in 917 (77). In 918, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III sent a force from Cordova against Archidona, one of the towns within Ibn ণafৢnjn’s power. He crucified the garrison commander, who was a neo-Muslim like Ibn ণafৢnjn, between a dog and pig (Fletcher 48). If Ibn ণafৢnjn, and his followers had been SunnƯ Muslims, one could hardly imagine such a response. The Iberian ShƯ‘ites in question were treated as ritually impure infidels by the Arab SunnƯ Umayyads. Both the dog and pig and considered najis or ritually impure by most Muslim jurists. To be called a dog or a pig is insulting in the Arabic language. The message sent by the caliph was clear: Ibn ণafৢnjn and his followers were filthy disbelievers who merited the harshest Qur’Ɨnic chastisement: death by crucifixion. Although Ibn ণafৢnjn’s revolt lasted for some forty years, his coalition crumbled apart after his death in 917. Although his sons Ja‘far, ‘Abd alRaতmƗn, and HƗfs tried to continue the resistance, they eventually succumbed to the plots of ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III. With the fall of the city of Bobastro in 928, the last stronghold of the resistance, the Umayyads were eager to destroy the minbar from the mosque of Ibn ণafsnjn, which may have been a symbol of ShƯ‘ism associated with the call to prayer and the invocation of the FƗ৬imid caliph (Martínez Enamorado 284). No sooner had the minbar been destroyed that the Umayyads turned their wrath toward the remains of Ibn ণafৢnjn and his slain sons, exhuming them and posthumously crucifying them outside of the Mosque of Cordova. As Coope and Martínez Enamorado point out, the haste with which the Umayyads removed the corpse of Ibn ণafsnjn demonstrates a desperate attempt to prove that his body would rot like any other as opposed to being

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

273

miraculously preserved from decay (Coope x; Martínez Enamorado 279). As Martínez Enamorado has perceived, this notion that saints did not decompose was shared by Christians and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs (279). Fearing that Ibn ণafsnjn would become a symbol of ShƯ‘ite martyrdom, the Umayyads were eager to destroy his grave to prevent it from becoming a center of pilgrimage and a source of intercession. This desecration of graves is a characteristic of Umayyad IslƗm, Salafism, and WahhƗbism. Even in death, the followers of the Prophet’s descendants were viewed as symbols which had to be destroyed lest they lead the Muslim masses to ShƯ‘ism. ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn’s war against the ShƯ‘ites was both military and symbolic. In the words of the AkhbƗr majmnj‘ah, He conquered al-Andalus city by city and killed their defenders, humiliated their citizens and destroyed their forts, imposing heavy fines on those who survived and oppressed them severely by appointing tyrannical governors until the land submitted to him and troublemakers gave in to him. (James 134)

On Friday, 16 January, 929, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn III solemnly adopted the title of khalƯfah or successor of the Prophet in response to FƗ৬imid pretensions. He also adopted the title of commander of the faithful or amƯr al-mu’minƯn. Although the SunnƯs applied the title to the four rightly guided caliphs, it was also used by the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsid caliphs. For the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, however, the title applies exclusively to ‘AlƯ and the ImƗms who succeeded him. The adoption of the title by ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn was meant to provoke the ShƯ‘ite community. Although it has been suggested that ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn’s adoption of the title was intended to mark a break with the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate, Fletcher has pointed out that there would have been little sense in breaking with distant BaghdƗd in 929 since al-Andalus had enjoyed de facto independence from Middle Eastern IslƗm for nearly two centuries. As Fletcher explains, “It is more likely that the new titles were intended to assert claims upon the religious loyalties of those who might be ‘poached’ by the FƗ৬imids. The people in question were the Berber inhabitants of the western Maghrib” (1993: 55). If ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn feared that the Muslims of North Africa might switch their alliance to the FƗ৬imids, he must have feared that the Muslims of al-Andalus could do the same as well. To bring stability to al-Andalus, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn believed in homogenizing the country religiously, racially, and linguistically. His domestic policy involved the physical extermination of non-MƗlikƯ Muslims, including KhƗrijites, ৡnjfƯs, and ShƯ‘Ưs, suppressing all schools of jurisprudence except for the MƗlikƯ school, and promoting the cultural and

274

Chapter 17

linguistic assimilation of the Imizaghen or Berbers. As Lane-Pool explains, It was only by skillfully working upon the sectarian schisms, and consequent insurrections, which divided the Berbers of Africa, that the Sul৬Ɨn succeeded in keeping the FƗ৬imites at a distance… A great part of the Spanish revenue was devoted to building a magnificent fleet, with which ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn disputed with the FƗ৬imites the command of the Mediterranean. (115-116)

‘Abd al-RaতmƗn’s foreign policy was both monetary and military. As Fletcher explains, he cultivated good relations with the Berber chieftains in North Africa to prevent them from drifting into a FƗ৬imid orbit (55-56). He cultivated positive ties with the powerful Berber tribes in North Africa such as the ZanƗtah, the leaders of the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsids, and the KhƗrijite ‘IbƗঌiyyah (Fletcher 55-56; Chejne 1974: 34).The IdrƯsids even had delegates in Cordova (Chejne 1974: 35). According to Chejne, the FƗ৬imids moved east and established their headquarters in Egypt because ‘Abd alRaতmƗn had secured the allegiance of the leading Berber tribes in Morocco (1974: 35). Although FƗ৬imid power had shifted eastwards rather than westwards after their armies overran Egypt in 969, founding Cairo as their new capital, Cordova’s prudent rulers remained alert to the potential threat of ShƯ‘ism coming from the Maghrib. The Umayyads, however, soon found themselves at the center of a ruinous civil war that lasted from 1009 to 1013. The caliphate of caliphate of Cordova effectively collapsed, being finally abolished in 1031.

17.6 The Rule of ܑawƗ’if From 1031-1085, the once-mighty Umayyad caliphate of al-Andalus, splintered apart into a series of kingdom-states. With the destruction of the Umayyads, the ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus were able to establish the ণammnjdid dynasty, founded after their ancestor, ণammnjd, who descended from IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh of the IdrƯsid dynasty in Morocco. The ণammnjdids ruled over Cordova, Sevilla, Algeciras, Malaga, and Melilla. Although it was not the only ‘Alid dynasty during the ‫ܒ‬Ɨ’ifah period, it was the only dynasty that was ShƯ‘ite.

17.7 The Almoravids By 1085, the Almoravids were on the scene. These Berber religious extremists conquered the various kingdom states and ruled al-Andalus until 1145, ruthlessly imposing SunnƯ MƗlikƯsm as they had done in the Maghrib,

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

275

where they had attempted to slaughter all the ShƯ‘ites, both Berbers and Arabs. If the Umayyads had used propaganda, the courts, and military force, to impose MƗlikƯ Sunnism, the Almoravids were even more extreme in their methods, killing all those who refused to convert. Much like the WahhƗbƯs, the Almoravids, sought to “purify” religious practice. Their goal was to convert the pagans or semi-pagans of the Sahara, struggle against the Christians, and fight so-called heretical Muslims. The spread of MƗlikƯsm commenced around the year 1040 with the help of ‘Abd AllƗh b. YƗsƯn, a zealous MƗlikƯ missionary from Tunisia brought to the country by Almoravid leader YaতyƗ b. IbrƗhƯm. However, the conversions were not without compulsion and by 1054, the Moroccan ShƯ‘ites who failed to practice taqiyyah had all been exterminated. ShƯ‘ism was forced to go underground due to persecution, only timidly and cautiously resurfacing in the country in the twenty-first century. If the Muslims of al-Andalus had coexisted in relative peace with the Jews and the Christians during the previous centuries, the Almoravids put this period of religious freedom to an abrupt end. Besides persecuting the People of the Book, the Almoravids of al-Andalus attacked non-MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, ৡnjfƯs, and ShƯ‘ites. Like all fundamentalists, both past and present, they were opposed to art, culture, science, and scholarship. As Read writes: “poets, philosophers, and scientists soon felt the full force of the MƗlikite Inquisition. The works of the mystic al-GhazƗlƯ, among the most original and inventive of IslƗm, were burnt in public” (148). As a result of their oppression, the Almoravids faced numerous ৡnjfƯ uprisings throughout al-Andalus in the 1130s. In a desperate attempt to quell uprisings, they executed two prominent ৡnjfƯ leaders in 1141: Ibn BarrajƗn and Ibn al-‘Arif (1088-1141). Rather than break the spirit of the ৡnjfƯs, these punitive extra-judicial executions emboldened it, leading to a revolt in the city of Silves in 1145 led by Ibn QasƯ, the muwallad mystic, and his ৡnjfƯ disciples. Inspired by Ibn QasƯ, other cities revolted, often lead by their judges. It should be noted that Ibn BarrajƗn, Ibn al-‘Arif, and Ibn QasƯ, had revived the doctrines of Ibn Masarrah. As we have seen before, Ibn Masarrah and his early disciples followed many ShƯ‘ite beliefs and practices and appear to have been influenced by the esoteric teachings of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. It comes as no surprise then that the Almoravids accused them of holding heterodox beliefs. As a result of murdering spiritual authorities, al-Andalus descended into chaos. It was only with the arrival of the Almohads in 1147 that order was restored in the Iberian Peninsula.

276

Chapter 17

17.8 The Almohads If the Almoravids had reportedly outdone the Umayyads in their intolerance and extremism, the Almohads surpassed both previous dynasties in their fundamentalist outlook. Led by Ibn Tnjmart (c.1080-c.1130), a Berber who proclaimed himself to be the MahdƯ and infallible ImƗm, the Almohads resembled the Salafiyyah, WahhƗbiyyah, and TakfƯriyyah in their theological concept of taw‫ۊ‬Ưd and their brutal imposition of so-called IslƗmic law. After his death, Ibn Tnjmart was succeeded by ‘Abd al-Mu’min (1094-1163) who offered Jews and Christians the option to convert to IslƗm or die, a luxury rarely given to ShƯ‘ite Muslims who were killed outright since they were considered worse than infidels. As might be expected, the ৡnjfƯ scholar and spiritual authority, Ibn ‘ArabƯ, was imprisoned by the Almohads, and the books of Averroes (d. 1198) were prohibited by Ya‘qnjb al-Manৢnjr (1195). Although the Almohads had their ideology, which was opposed to the MƗlikites, “they had little or nothing to offer by way of amending the laws as administered in courts of justice. They, therefore, fell back on the entrenched MƗlikites, offering various concessions to them as the price of cooperation and therefore losing popular support” (Read 172-173). The Almohads forces of six hundred thousand were eventually defeated by the Christians at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1238, resulting in the loss of all Muslims possession in al-Andalus within the next few years, except for the Emirate of Granada which was taken over by the Naৢrids after the last Almohad prince returned to Morocco. In Morocco, the Almohads did not fare much better, and were soon overrun by the MarƯniyynjn who would rule from 1244 to 1465.

17.9 The NasrƯds The NasrƯds ruled the Emirate of Granada from 1238-1492. Although ৡnjfƯsm was cultivated under NasrƯd rule, it was counterbalanced with the strict imposition of MƗlikƯsm. As L.P. Harvey has observed, “the orthodox MƗlikƯ theological stance… became… an important part of the propaganda of the Naৢrid dynasty in its later period” (1990: 30).

17.10 Conclusions Whether it was the Umayyads, the Almoravids, the Almohads, or the Naৢrids, they all had one thing in common: a relative distaste for religious diversity. While it has been claimed that al-Andalus was a golden age in which Muslims, Christians, and Jews coexisted in peace, harmony, and

The MƗlikƯ Inquisition in the Maghrib and al-Andalus

277

prosperity or else that the Muslims in al-Andalus persecuted and oppressed Jews and Christians, neither version is entirely accurate, and neither can be applied to the entire period of IslƗmic rule. There were periods of general peace between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and there were periods of persecution that were not always unprovoked. However, if we judge the rulers of al-Andalus, it should not be exclusively based on their treatment of non-Muslim minorities. They should also be judged on how they treated the Muslim minorities within their midst. If we do so, the picture of al-Andalus as some ecumenical IslƗmic utopia becomes increasingly gloomy as the faded or forgotten image of ShƯ‘ite rule in the Maghrib and al-Andalus becomes suddenly illuminated. Whether it was FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ or ZaydƯ IdrƯsid rule, the subjects of the ShƯ‘ites were generally granted a greater degree of freedom of religion, thought, and expression. It was under FƗ৬imid rule, not under Umayyad Andalusian rule, that Muslims of all schools of thought, as well as Christians, and Jews, lived in a more multi-religious, multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, and multilingual society. Some scholars have even asserted that the diversity found under FƗ৬imid rule was not replicated elsewhere until the development of cosmopolitan cities like Toronto, New York, and London in the modern Western world. Despite the claim that it was a land of co-existence and pluralism, alAndalus was relatively intolerant in certain regards. From the time of the Umayyad conquest in 711, to the fall of the Naৢrid kingdom in 1492, the only form of IslƗm that was tolerated was SunnƯ IslƗm, and eventually, MƗlikƯ Sunnism. Except for early Umayyad rule, in which the schools of alAwzƗ‘Ư, Abnj ণanƯfah, and al-ShƗfi‘Ư, were tolerated, the only form of Sunnism accepted in al-Andalus was MƗlikƯ Sunnism. After a series of unsuccessful revolts, the KhƗrijites were all but exterminated. Besides a few obstinate souls, most ণanafƯs and ShƗfi‘Ưs assimilated into the MƗlikƯ SunnƯ majority. Although many ৡnjfƯs formed part of ‫ܒ‬arƯqahs which were based on the spiritual teachings of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms, they gave preference to matters of the spirit as opposed to matters of politics and jurisprudence. Hence, most ৡnjfƯs in SunnƯ lands followed the fiqh of the majority. Unlike the KhƗrijites, the Sevener and Twelver ShƯ‘ites were able to resort to taqiyyah or pious dissimulation to avoid oppression and physical elimination. The Sevener and Twelver ShƯ‘ite Muslims in al-Andalus, like the ShƯ‘ite Muslim minorities throughout the world, would have had no problem praying in MƗlikƯ SunnƯ mosques and following MƗlikƯ jurisprudence in public. It is possible that, over the centuries, ShƯ‘ite jurisprudence disappeared in part or whole, producing a population of people who shared ShƯ‘ite beliefs but who were MƗlikƯ SunnƯ in practice.

278

Chapter 17

It is also possible that the ণasanid ShƯ‘ite Muslims from the Maghrib and al-Andalus had their own fiqh which was similar to the fiqh of ImƗm MƗlik. Although the ShƯ‘ites may have objected to some SunnƯ beliefs, they would not necessarily have objected to ImƗm MƗlik’s fiqh, since ImƗm MƗlik, like ImƗm Abnj ণanƯfah, had studied jurisprudence under ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. The fact that ShƯ‘ites follow SunnƯ fiqh should not come as a surprise since the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites follow a fiqh that is essentially ণanafƯ. Likewise, there are SunnƯ Muslims who follow ShƯ‘ite fiqh since they live in predominantly ShƯ‘ite regions and wish to avoid conflict and reinforce IslƗmic unity. Simply because Muslims follow SunnƯ rituals does not necessarily make them SunnƯs. What makes a person a ShƯ‘ite is the belief that ImƗm ‘AlƯ and the ImƗms from his descendants were supposed to lead the IslƗmic ummah.

CHAPTER 18 THE MYSTERY OF THE SHƮ‘ITE MORISCOS

18.1 Introduction In 1492, the Emirate of Granada finally fell to the Christian forces. Of the five hundred thousand original inhabitants of Granada, one hundred thousand died or were enslaved fighting the Christian crusaders (or liberators, depending on one’s perspective), two hundred thousand fled (mostly to North Africa), and two hundred thousand stayed behind. Although the Treaty of Granada, signed and ratified between the king of Granada, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad Boabdil (c. 1460-1533) and the Catholic Kings, Ferdinand (1452-1516) and Isabella (1451-1504), granted the Muslim population religious, cultural, and linguistic freedom, the treaty was soon broken by the Christian rulers.

18.2 The Forced Conversion of the Spanish Muslims The terms of surrender negotiated by the Muslims in the Capitulation of 1492 contained sixty-seven articles, including the following: That their laws should be preserved as they were before, and that no-one should judge them except by those same laws; that their mosques, and the religious endowments appertaining to them, should remain as they were in the times of IslƗm; that no Christian should enter the house of a Muslim, or insult him in any way; that all Muslim captives taken during the siege of Granada, from whatever part of the country they might have come, but especially the nobles and chiefs mentioned in the agreement, should be liberated; that such Muslim captives as might have escaped from their Christians masters, and taken refuge in Granada, should not be surrendered; but that the Sul৬Ɨn should be bound to pay the price of such captives to their owners; that all those who might choose to cross over to Africa should be allowed to take their departure within a certain time, and be conveyed thither in the king’s ships, and without any pecuniary tax being imposed on them, beyond the mere charge for passage; that after the expiration of that time no Muslim should be hindered from departing,

Chapter 18

280

provided he paid, in addition to the price of his passage, the tithe of whatever property he might carry along with him; that the Christians who had embraced IslƗm should not be compelled to relinquish it and adopt their former creed; that no Christian should be allowed to peep over the wall, or into the house of a Muslim or enter a mosque; that no badge or distinctive mark be put upon them, as was done with the Jews and Mudéjares; that no muezzin should be interrupted in the act of calling the people to prayer, and no Muslim molested either in the performance of his daily devotions or in the observance of his fast, or in any other religious ceremony; but that if a Christian should be found laughing at them he should be punished for it.

As Wiegers explains: According to the capitulations drawn up by Ferdinand and Isabella when the Christian troops entered Granada, the new subjects of the Crown were promised that they would be allowed to preserve their mosques, and religious institutions, to retain the use of their language and to continue to abode by their own laws and customs. But within the space of seven years, these generous terms had been broken. (10)

After the Catholic clergy was unsuccessful in peacefully converting the Muslim population, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436-1517) started to forcibly convert Muslims, burn IslƗmic books, and persecute the Muslims of Granada. As a result, the Muslims of Albaicín, Granada revolted in 1499. The Christians took advantage of this revolt to claim that the Muslims had broken the treaty and no longer had to honor it. In 1500, many Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity upon threat of death. In the Capitulations of 1500-1501, Muslims were prohibited from ritually slaughtering animals and were banned from bathing. On October 12, 1501, all Arabic and IslƗmic books were burned in Granada. In 1501, the Spanish authorities gave the remaining Muslims of Granada an ultimatum: convert to Christianity or be expelled. Although most Muslims were compelled to convert, becoming known as Moriscos -- a term they never accepted, always describing themselves in private, and in their literature, as Muslims or believers -- their conversions were superficial. Many continued to practice IslƗm secretly, recurring to the use of taqiyyah or pious dissimulation. As al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632) admits, Such of the Moslems as still remained in Andalus, although Christians in appearance, were not so in their hearts; for they worshipped AllƗh in secret and performed their prayers and ablutions at the proper hours. The Christians watched over them with the greatest vigilance, and many were discovered and burnt. (391-392)

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

281

Although a few Moriscos converted sincerely, or eventually became sincere Christians, the majority of Moriscos remained crypto-Muslims. As Bernard Vincent explains: “the most widespread attitude in the Morisco community -- in both men and women, but implicitly among more women than men -was that of taqiyyah, or careful secretiveness, which leads to clandestine practices” (Vincent xiii). As Thomas Glick confirms, “all the documentary evidence indicates that most (not all) of them continued until the end to be crypto-Muslims who would have rejected the conversion if they had been at liberty to do so” (Harvey, 1990: 3). As Roger Boase puts it: “For the most part, conversion was merely nominal: they paid lip-service to Christianity but continued to practice IslƗm in secret” (10). Or as J.N. Lincoln affirms: “many who claimed to be converts were still secretly loyal to their own religion” (1939: 483). As Consuelo López-Morillas explains, “The Moriscos remained, for the most part, unshakably attached to IslƗm and its related cultural traditions” (1995: 196). In observing taqiyyah, the Moriscos were observed the Qur’Ɨn which states: Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with God, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And God warns you of Himself, and to God is the [final] destination. Say: Whether you conceal what is in your breasts or reveal it, God knows it. And He knows that which is in the heavens and that which is on the earth. And God is over all things competent. (3:28-3:29)

The Moriscos were also responding to the rulings they had received from jurists in North Africa. Al-WansharƯshƯ (d. 1508) wrote a collection of fatwas about Muslims living under Christian rule entitled KitƗb al-Mi‘yƗr. The most relevant rulings regarding the Moriscos are found in a document written in 1503 by Aতmad al-MaghrawƯ, a muftƯ from Oran to whom the Moriscos turned for an edict (Barletta xxix; Harvey, 1987: 13). In 1502, the ultimatums were extended to the Mudéjares of Castile and León. In 1508, Arabic and IslƗmic dress was prohibited by law. Between 1511 and 1513, a series of decrees were passed prohibiting the production, sale, and consumption of ‫ۊ‬alƗl meat. The Mudéjares of Navarra and Aragón were forced to convert or leave Spain by 1515 and 1525. In 1525, forced conversions were declared to be legally and religiously valid, and Charles V (1500-1558) extended the decree of expulsion or conversion to Muslims in all his kingdoms. In 1526 and 1527, he introduced even more restrictive legislation. Everything associated with IslƗm and Arab culture was outlawed: IslƗmic clothing, amulets, jewelry, circumcision... (Chejne 1983: 9). The Moriscos were prohibited from possessing weapons of any sort and

282

Chapter 18

IslƗmic marriages were outlawed. In 1565, Felipe II (1527-1598) outlawed speaking, reading, and writing in Arabic; nullified all contracts written in Arabic; obliged the Moriscos to dress like Christians; prohibited Morisco women from wearing the headscarf or the veil; banned Morisco music and dances; outlawed all celebrations on Friday; forbade the use of Muslim names; prohibited Morisco women from wearing henna; and banned and destroyed public baths (Bernabé Pons 3435). The ritual of ‘aqƯqah was outlawed, Morisco children were forcibly baptized, and Moriscos were obliged to attend mass. As Gerard A. Wiegers mentions, the new legislation “was directed not only against religion, but against all manifestations of traditional culture, such as all oral and written use of Arabic” (1994: 10). Besides prohibiting IslƗmic books, all customs connected with IslƗm, such as bathing, continued to be outlawed (1994: 10). The simple possession of a book written in the Arabic alphabet was viewed by the Inquisition as possible corpora delicti (1994: 11). To add insult to injury, Philip II decreed that all Morisco children were to be turned over to Christian priests to be educated, leading to the Alpujarras uprising which lasted from 1568 to 1571. The uprising was brutally suppressed by Don Juan de Austria (d. 1578). The town of Galera “was razed to the ground and sprinkled with salt, and all its 2,500 inhabitants, including women and children, were slaughtered” (1994: 11). After the revolt was crushed, the Spanish Crown forcibly deported and resettled eighty-four thousand Moriscos from Granada and Castile, seeking to separate them from their brethren, thus ensuring their eventual assimilation into Christian culture.

18.3 The Final Expulsion of the Moriscos In 1609, the final decision to expel the Moriscos was taken on the grounds of national security. The Moriscos were accused of conspiring with the Muslims of North Africa and the Ottomans to invade Spain. Unlike the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, which was completed in one step, the expulsion of the Moriscos was done in stages. The Moriscos of Valencia were the first expelled in 1609, followed by the Moriscos of Castile in 1614. Under threat of death, the Moriscos were forced to leave Spain without their money or goods. They were even forced to leave their children behind. Morisco children under the age of seven were to serve the religious establishment, while Morisco children over the age of seven were to be sold as slaves to Old Christians (Boase 13). Between October 1609 and July 1611, it is calculated that “over 50,000 Moriscos died resisting expulsion, while over 60,000 died during their

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

283

passage abroad by land or sea, or at the hands of their co-religionists after disembarking on the North Africa coast” (Boase 12). A total of three hundred thousand Moriscos, most of whom were from modern-day Aragón, Catalonia, and Valencia, were expelled from Spain during this second wave, eventually reaching the Ottoman empire and Morocco. Of the five hundred thousand Muslims from Granada, only ten to fifteen thousand remained after the expulsion of 1609. According to the lowest estimate, one-fifth of the Morisco population perished in the space of a few years. According to other writers, two-thirds to three-quarters of the Morisco population perished (Boase 12). According to other calculations, “110,000 Moriscos left Andalusia, Murcia, and Hornachos; some 50,000, Catalonia, 120,000, Aragón; 250,000 Castile, Mancha, and Estremadura” for a total of about half a million (Chejne 1983: 13).

18.4 The End of the Moriscos Unlike the cryptic Jews, who survived in Europe and the Americas, the cryptic Muslims of Spain did not have the resilience to survive into the present. After 1610, all of Spain had been officially “cleansed” of Muslims. The few Moriscos who remained organized networks with the didactic aim of educating crypto-Muslims about their faith. Some traveled to North Africa where they procured IslƗmic books, in Arabic and Aljamiado, which they disseminated among Spain’s secret. Between 1622 and 1662, the Inquisition of Valladolid tried one case for Muতammadism while in Toledo such cases were much more common (Dominguez Ortiz 258). In 1667, a Morisco was flogged in Almaden for mocking the sacraments. In 1680, a man from Cádiz was burned alive for rejecting Christianity, embracing IslƗm, and joining the Corsairs (258). Although the crypto-Muslims of Spain may have survived into the late 1800s, the latest mention of secret Muslims in Spain dates to 1727, when the Spanish Inquisition burned five Catholic Bishops from Granada to death for secretly practicing IslƗm (TemƯmƯ 216). Although descendants of Jews and Muslims were forbidden from settling in the New World, the influence of the Moriscos is seen throughout Spanish America in architecture, customs, traditions, gastronomy, and family names. In 1560, Álvaro González, originally from Hornachos, was burned alive in Cuzco, Peru, for being a Muতammadan (Domínguez Ortíz 226). In 1596, María Ruíz, originally from Albolote, Granada, confessed to the Mexican Inquisition that she had preserved the IslƗmic faith of her ancestors. Since she now claimed to be a faithful Christian, she was let go with a fine (226).

284

Chapter 18

The descendants of the Moriscos who settled in the Ottoman empire and Morocco fared better than those who remained behind in Spain. They were not well received by the Muslims of North Africa. As they arrived wearing Spanish clothing and speaking Spanish, the North African Muslims viewed them with suspicion and even called them “Christians from Castile.” Although they were now in an Arabic-IslƗmic environment, the Moriscos were not welcomed by their so-called brethren. The North Africans viewed the Moriscos with suspicion because they wrote in Spanish, using both Arabic and Latin letters. The North Africans also suspected them of religious hybridism, namely, combining IslƗm with Christian elements, and holding heretical beliefs. If they were suspected of being fake Christians in Spain, the Moriscos were suspected of being fake Muslims in North Africa. They were not Christian enough for the Christians, nor were they Muslim enough for the Muslims. They were in a religious, cultural, and linguistic limbo. It is estimated that some forty thousand Moriscos settled in Morocco, mostly in Ceuta and Tétouan. Thousands of Moriscos joined the army of Moulay ZaydƗn, participating in the conquest of Timbuktu. The rest gradually integrated into the general population in Rabat-Salé, Tangiers, Tétouan, Xauen, Fez, and other cities. The Moriscos who settled in Algeria were the most unfortunate of all. No sooner had they reached Oran and Algiers that they were robbed, raped, enslaved, or murdered by the local tribes. Despite the difficulties they faced, Andalusian exiles founded an IslƗmic seminary in Tunis in 1625. They included two government employees: ‘AlƯ al-NiwƗlƯ, known as Ibn al-SarrƗj, and Sayyid Muতammad b. Maতfnjz, the shaykh of Testour -- as well as another person, undoubtedly of Spanish descent as well (Wiegers 2001: 220). The seminary would play a seminal role in shaping and Andalusian identity. According to Morgan, the descendants of the Moriscos who lived in Testour, Tunisia, were still reciting Spanish poetry from memory, drawn from the Libro de las luces, in the year 1715 (Vásquez 2007: 219, 220; Viguera Molíns 10; Ticknor 422). The Spanish writer Francisco Ximénez, who lived in Tunisia from 1720 to 1735, wrote about the Spanish-speaking Moriscos he found in Testour: “Hay muchos de estos moros andaluces, tagarinos y aragoneses” [There are many Moors from Andalusia, Taragón, and Aragón] (Bernabé Pons 23). In fact, as Bernabé points out, the terms Andalusian, Taragonese, and Aragonese, all refer to Moriscos from Aragón. As Francisco Ximénez notes, the neighboring village of Gressi Luat, also known as Los Catalanes, was populated by Catalan-speaking Moriscos who were probably of Valencian ancestry (Bernabé Pons 23). Writing in Arabic

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

285

in the city of Tunis in the seventeenth century, Ibn ‘Abd al-RafƯ‘ al-AndalusƯ (d. 1643) recalled that as a Morisco child growing up in Spain, he went to a Christian school to be catechized in Spanish, while his parents secretly taught him IslƗm and Arabic at home (Viguera Molins 15). Eventually, though, the Moriscos lost the Spanish language, and became completely Arabized, introducing many Spanish words into the colloquial Arabic dialects of the Maghrib. Although their Spanish was lost by the 1800s, the descendants of the Moriscos in the Maghrib did maintain their traditional music, as well as many of the culinary dishes from al-Andalus.

18.5 Aljamiado Literature In a desperate attempt to preserve the vestiges of their outlawed Muslim religion, literate Moriscos started to secretly copy IslƗmic books into aljamiado, which is Spanish written in the Arabic alphabet. The choice of language was easy. During the early days of the Arab conquest, the Romance language was the language of administration and even higher education (Cano 92). Although Arabic eventually became the language of education, culture, law, religion, and administration, the Muslims of alAndalus were speakers of Romance, the language that had evolved from Vulgar Latin and was evolving into Castilian or Spanish, Aragonese, and Catalan. Although Arabic was the official language of IslƗm, “all strata of the Muslim population of al-Andalus spoke Romance” (Wiegers 1994: 29). As Thomas Glick points out, Mozarab men were bilingual Arabic-Romance speakers, while Mozarab women were monolingual Romance speakers (1979: 177). According to Francisco Javier Simonet, No solamente los mozárabes, sino también los muladíes o españoles islamizados, conservaron durante algunas generaciones el idioma propio de la raza a que pertenecían; más estos no debieron conservarlo como lengua erudita y culta, sino como dialecto vulgar. Este lenguaje vulgar latino-hispano se infiltró entre los moros y árabes españoles. (xxxv) [It was not only the Mozarabs, but also the Muladis or IslƗmized Spaniards who preserved the language of their race for generations. However, they preserved it as a common language, instead of a language of erudition and culture. This colloquial Hispanic-Latin language spread among the Spanish Arabs and Moors.]

As Wiegers explains, “the Romance vernacular (called ‘adjamƯ or sometimes latiniyyah in the sources) was not only spoken by the common people, but also by the educated elite” (1994: 29). As Lomax elaborates,

Chapter 18

286

Arabic was normally spoken by the Umayyads and the aristocracy who prided themselves on their real or supposed Arabic ancestry. Hebrew, Berber, and Basque would be spoken by specific groups; but almost everyone could and would speak the Vulgar Latin, which was now turning into Old Spanish. However, as part of the IslƗmic world which used Arabic as its common language, al-Andalus also used Arabic for religion, literature, the law courts, civil service and business, and Latin almost disappeared from all of these. The division between those who knew Arabic and those who did not lay not between Muslims and Christians but between the educated and the illiterate; thus, almost all the inhabitants of al-Andalus could speak Spanish and almost all who could read and write would do so in Arabic. (22-23)

According to Chejne, Romance and Arabic at the literary and colloquial levels were both in common use and remained so for centuries and their presence is documented by various testimonies, indicating that their use transcended religious affiliations, for Muslims knew Romance, and Christians were at home in Arabic. (1973: 83-84)

In fact, all authorities agree that al-Andalus was a bilingual society. A.N. Poliak wrote that “l’emploi prolongé de l’arabe comme seule langue littéraire par la classe dominante ne réussit point à arabiser le gros de la population” (35-36) [the prolonged use of Arabic as the sole literary language of the dominant class was not sufficient to Arabize the majority of the population]. Regarding the Romance language, C. Sánchez Albornoz writes that “todos la empleaban en la España musulmana: los cristianos, los muladíes o neomusulmanes y los mismos islamitas de orígen oriental” (173) [everyone used it in Muslim Spain: the Christians, the Muladies or neoMuslims, and even the IslƗmites of Middle Eastern origin]. Lévi-Provençal wrote that the use of the Romance language “est attesté dans al-Andalus parmi toutes les classes de la société, en particulier parmi les classes rurales, à cote de l’arabe hispanique” (416a) [is seen in al-Andalus among all social classes, particularly among the rural class, alongside with Hispanic Arabic]. Rather than the exception, E. García Gómez estimates that bilingualism was the norm in al-Andalus (xix). The language was even used in courts of law (Cano 92). The use of Romance was so widespread that some Muslims in alAndalus spoke little to no Arabic and used to read the Qur’Ɨn in its Romance translation. As Leopoldo Peñarroja Torrejón points out, the works of Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ, Ibn Sa‘Ưd, and Ibn al-FaradhƯ all testify to the fact that many members of the upper class failed to master colloquial Arabic (134-135).

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

287

Based on the works of al-FaradhƯ, Ibn BashkwƗl and Ibn al-AbbƗr, the same can be said of classical Arabic (135). Peñarroja Torrejón provides many examples of Andalusians who were bilingual and unilingual Romance speakers (135-36). In regions that fell under Christian control, Arabic was of much lesser importance. As J.N. Hillgarth explains, “The Crown of Aragón was plurilingual. Five languages attained cultural expression, Catalan, Aragonese, Provençal, Latin, and Hebrew. Arabic, by 1300, was of less importance in both Aragón and Castile than Hebrew” (13). Of all the languages, Catalan was the most important (13). In fact, it was a custom of Aragonese Muslims to send their children to Valencia so that they could further their Arabic education (López-Morillas 1995: 197). In Castile, the Muslims had long lost the use of the Arabic language. As the evidence indicates, many Muslims in al-Andalus recited the Qur’Ɨn in its Romance translation in the early twelfth century (Wiegers 1994: 30-32). The practice was sufficiently common for jurists to pass edicts prohibiting the recitation of the Qur’Ɨn in ‘ajamiyyah (31). In some extreme cases, Andalusian Muslims expressed hostility towards the Arabic language (Wiegers 1994: 30-31; Peñarroja Torrejón 137). The linguistic situation among the Moriscos has been described by Antonio Vespertino Rodríguez as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Moriscos del reino de Granada. Eran arabófonos y probablemente no llegaron nunca a dominar bien la lengua romance… Moriscos del reino de Valencia. También hablaban árabe y apenas si conocían el romance. Utilizaban esporádicamente el aljamiado… pues no sabían escribir ni leer tal vez lengua romance. Moriscos de Aragón que, desconocedores del árabe en su inmensa mayoría, hablaban romance, dialecto aragonés, pues eran mudéjares ya desde hacía siglos y tal vez nunca aprendieron bien el árabe. Moriscos de Castilla. Hispanófonos también, constituyen un grupo cada vez más numeroso por las obligadas migraciones desde el sur a las dos Castillas, sobre todo a partir de la Guerra de las Alpujarras. (1999: 91)

[1) The Moriscos from the kingdom of Granada. They were Arabic speakers and probably never fully mastered the Romance language… 2) The Moriscos from the kingdom of Valencia. They were also Arabic speakers and barely knew the Romance language. They used aljamiado sporadically… since they did not know how to read or write the Romance language. 3) The Moriscos of Aragón, in their immense majority, were ignorant of the Arabic language. They spoke the Aragonese dialect of the

Chapter 18

288

4)

Romance language since they had been Mudéjares for centuries and probably never learned to speak Arabic well. The Moriscos of Castile. They were also Spanish speakers. They represent an increasingly large group due to the forced migrations from the south to the two Castiles, especially since the War of the Alpujarras.]

With the prohibition of the Arabic language in 1567, the Arabic-speaking Moriscos of Granada and Valencia found themselves ill-equipped at preserving their religion and culture. As López-Morillas mentions, “One of the consequences of the daily use of Arabic in Valencia was that the Muslims of this region never adopted the custom of writing in Aljamiado, or Spanish in Arabic characters” (1995: 198). In fact, rather than resorting to Spanish to maintain their IslƗm, they viewed the Spanish language with varying degrees of dislike (Vespertino Rodríguez 1999: 92). Without a mastery of the the land’s dominant, the Arabic-speaking Moriscos did not have a vehicle to pass down their beliefs to their monolingual, Spanishspeaking, children. Interestingly, it was the Spanish-speaking Moriscos of Castile and Aragón, those who had been accustomed to living under Christian rule, who were best equipped to preserve their IslƗmic faith. Even when they were bilingual Arabic-Spanish speakers, the Moriscos of Castile and Aragón favored the Spanish language over the Arabic language. They translated the Qur’Ɨn, ‫ۊ‬adƯth, and prayers into Spanish as it was more pleasant and easier on the ear (Wiegers 1994: 206-207). For all practical purposes, this was the sound thing to do since most Moriscos who spoke Arabic were not familiar with classical Arabic, speaking only the MaghribƯ-AndalusƯ dialect which was distant from the literary language of the Arabs. According to alMuqqaddasƯ, who wrote during the second half of the tenth century, Andalusian Arabic was unintelligible to the Arabs from the Middle East (239). The dialect must have diverged even more over the next five hundred years of Arabic presence in al-Andalus. As Luce López Baralt confirms, “aunque ya eran incapaces de manejar el árabe clásico de sus cultísimos antepasados de al-Andalus, se aferraban a los carácteres de esta lengua, que estaba vedada oficialmente” [although they no longer had mastery of the classical Arabic of their highly cultured ancestors from al-Andalus, they remained attached to the letters of the language which was officially outlawed] (1984: 42-43). As an anonymous Morisco translator of the Qur’Ɨn admits at the end of his translation: “they know how to read Christian but not Muslim letters” (López- Morillas 1983: 500). If the Arabic-speaking Moriscos of Granada and Valencia did not defend their dƯn, the Spanish-speaking Moriscos created aljamiado literature

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

289

to preserve their IslƗmic culture. With the prohibition of speaking Arabic, the language could not be maintained and would eventually be lost. Unlike some immigrant Muslim communities in the west, who place more importance on preserving language and culture than religion, the crypto-Muslims of Spain were determined to protect their IslƗm, even if it meant losing their language, culture, and customs. Selecting the Arabic script was both symbolic and practical. From a symbolic point of view, the Moriscos considered the Arabic alphabet as something sacred which linked them to IslƗm and the Qur’Ɨn. Even if they lost their ability to speak Arabic, they may have wished to preserve their ability to read the Arabic script, thus allowing them to recite the Qur’Ɨn. Once the Arabic script was lost, some feared that their contact with the Qur’Ɨn, the essence of IslƗm, would be lost. However, others recognized that it was the meaning of the Qur’Ɨn that mattered and focused on reading the scripture in Spanish. Practically speaking, many educated Moriscos could only write in Arabic and had not yet mastered the Latin script. They may also have been following a previously established tradition of writing the Romance language with the Arabic script (Wiegers 1994: 29-67). As Vespertino Rodríguez describes, aljamiado literature was produced in three phases. The first phase was the Mudejar period which took place before to the forced conversions of 1502-1525. The earliest known Aljamiado manuscript dates of 1424; however, some undated ones must go back to the 1300s (95; López-Morillas 198; Wiegers 1990: 178-183). The second phase was the Morisco period which commences after the forced conversions of the Muslims and coincides with the time of taqiyyah. It was during this period, which dates from 1502 to 1609, that most aljamiado manuscripts were produced. As Vincent Barletta explain: If Inquisition records are any indication of the extent to which Moriscos in Aragón were engaged in the production, purchase, and use of IslƗmic books in aljamiado and, to a lesser extent, Arabic, one can legitimately speak of a definable book culture among the Aragonese Moriscos: of the 900 guilty verdicts handed out by the Inquisition of Zaragoza between the years 1568 and 1620, 409 were due to the possession of books in “Arabic” (it is unclear whether Christian authorities were aware that the largest number of books that they were finding were actually written in Castilian) or having to do with IslƗm. (76)

The final phase in the production of aljamiado literature was that of the Morisco Diaspora to North Africa. This period, which starts in 1609, and ostensibly continued up to the late 1600s, marks several changes. Rather

290

Chapter 18

than writing Spanish solely with Arabic letters, the Moriscos started to write Spanish using Latin letters, in response to the fact that most of the Moriscos in Spain, for whom much of their work was destined, no longer knew the Arabic alphabet. Rather than writing for themselves, as they did in Spain, they were now writing for their Muslims brothers and sisters who stayed behind. Although the Morisco literature produced in North Africa circulated among the exiled refugee community, it was also destined to be sent to Spain to help the Moriscos preserve their faith and encourage them to migrate to the Muslim-majority world. More than a literature of selfpreservation, the final phase of Morisco literature is more missionary and militant in nature, including scathing attacks against the Christian faith. Not only did they keep Muslims within the fold of IslƗm, they also convinced Christians to embrace IslƗm (Wiegers 2001: 207-223).

18.6 The Value of Aljamiado Literature The literature produced by the Moriscos is rich and diverse but almost always religious in the IslƗmic sense of the term. As Verpertino Rodríguez has observed: La literatura aljamiada encierra, en cierto modo, todo el saber islámico de sus autores y refleja un espíritu islámico, y aunque existen ciertos textos con materias, diríamos, profanas, se puede afirmar que la producción literaria aljamiada es fundamentalmente de índole religiosa, en el sentido que lo religioso tiene en el pensamiento musulmán: totalizador. (95) [In some respects, Aljamiado literature contains all the IslƗmic knowledge of its authors and reflects and IslƗmic spirit. Although it includes certain texts with, one can say, secular content, one can affirm that the Aljamiado literary production is fundamentally religious in orientation, religious in the all-encompassing sense used in Muslim thought.]

The body of aljamiado literature includes translations of and commentaries on the Qur’Ɨn, works on the life of the Prophet Muতammad, compilations of prophetic traditions, epic literature about the exploits of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, stories of the prophets, eschatological literature, ascetic-mystical works, treatises on IslƗmic jurisprudence, anti-Christian polemics, prayers and supplications, poems in praise of God, the Prophet, and IslƗm, books on magic, and literary works of European and Arab origin including legends, fantastic narratives, travel literature, and didactic prose. As Domínguez Ortíz and Bernard Vincent put it:

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

291

Aljamiado literature was inclusive in that it could satisfy all the emotional, spiritual, and social needs of the Morisco. It encompassed IslƗm as a whole way of life -- customs, daily conduct, food, drink, marriage, burial, and other practices -- and was nourished and inspired by a strong historical consciousness of IslƗm as a religion, a state, and a culture. In other words, Aljamiado literature started from an Arabo-IslƗmic base and adhered to the fundamental values of IslƗm, notwithstanding the change in language from Arabic to Romance. (47)

Attitudes regarding the literary value of Aljamiado literature ranges from praise to loathing. When Aljamiado literature was first discovered, it was received with great excitement. In 1848, Don Serafín Estébanez Calderón, the Spanish writer, referred to Aljamiado literature as “las Indias de la literatura española, que están casi por descubrir, y que ofrecen grandes riquezas a los colonos primeros que la visiten” [the West Indies of Spanish literatura, which are still to be discovered, and which offer great riches to the first settlers who visit them] (qtd. Valera Cuadra 55). For Gayangos, Aljamiado literature was a real revelation: Descubrí [en los libros aljamiados] que no sólo su contenido era castellano y en algunos casos con levísima mezcla de palabras árabes, sino que conservando todo el laconismo y robustez de nuestro idioma y la elegancia, riqueza y brillantez del arábigo, había trozos de singular mérito, como composiciones y versos que debieran publicarse como otros tantos monumentos, que atestiguan el enlace y aproximación de los dos idiomas patrios, y que manifiestan a las claras el sinnúmero de voces e idiotismos, que nuestro romance tomara de la lengua de Yemen. (qtd. Guillén Robles, 1888: xiv-xv) [I discovered (in Aljamiado literature) that not only was its content Spanish or, in some cases, Spanish with a light mixture of Arabic words, but that it preserved all of the terse nature and strength of our language combined with the elegance, richness, and brilliance of the Arabic language. I discovered that some selections were of singular merit which should be published as compositions or verses as many other literary monuments which attest to the link between the two languages of our country, and which clearly manifest the countless number of words and idiomatic expressions which our Romance language borrowed from the language of Yemen.]

D. Antonio Cánovas del Castillo wrote of “el dulce sabor arcaico, castizo, ingenuo, delicioso en verdad, que bajo la pluma de los escritores moros, cobraba nuestra lengua” [the pure, ingenious, archaic and delicious flavor of our language expressed by means of the pens of Moorish writers] (61).

292

Chapter 18

D. Eduardo Saavedra observed that “la lengua castellana sale de las plumas aljamiadas con especiales giros, ya en el estilo, ya en la sintaxis, ya en el vocabulario” [the Spanish language emanates from Aljamiado pens with special twists, in style, syntax, and vocabulary] (56). Álvaro Galmés de Fuentes (1924-2003) remarked that “la literatura aljamiado-morisca ofrece un abundante fondo de obras literarias, dignas en si del más atento interés, de acuerdo con los actuales principios de la crítica lingüística y literaria” [Aljamiado-Morisco literature offers an abundant body of literary works, worthy of the closest attention, in accord with the current principles of linguistic and literary criticism] (1978: 190). Vespertino Rodríguez admitted that “los moriscos fueron también en ocasiones poetas notables” [at times, the Moriscos, were notable poets] (1998: 108). And Barletta pointed to the power and beauty of the traditional stories of the Moriscos of Castile and Aragón (5). There are others, however, who hold Aljamiado literature in little esteem. They believe that Aljamiado literature is unoriginal and that it is merely a literature of translation and republication. As far as Pino Valero Cuadra is concerned: “Por lo que se refiere al valor literario de los textos aljamiado-moriscos… éstos poseen, en términos generales, un escaso valor estético” [as regards the literary value of Aljamiado-Morisco works…, they have, in general terms, little aesthetic value] (54). This is also the opinion of Chejne, who describes the literature of the Moriscos as “dull and sterile” (1969: 79). There are, without doubt, Morisco works that have little to no aesthetic value. However, it is an overgeneralization to dismiss all aljamiado literature as lacking literary value. In fact, the Moriscos produced works that could be considered Spanish masterpieces.

18.7 The Diversity of the Morisco Muslims Since most orientalists and specialists in Aljamiado literature have traditionally insisted that there were no ShƯ‘ites in al-Andalus between 711 and 1492, it is only natural that they insist that there were no ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos after 1492. Regarding the Moriscos, Harvey wrote that “All Spanish Muslims, with insignificant exceptions in this period, were SunnƯs of the MƗlikƯ madhhab” (1987: 12). Despite the claims made by specialists on the subject, the Moriscos, like their Moorish ancestors, were not a monolithic SunnƯ MƗlikƯ mass. While many Moriscos followed the MƗlikƯ rite, there was a great deal of diversity among the Morisco community. In his KitƗb al-anwƗr alnabawiyyah fƯ ƗbƗ’ khayr al-bariyyah, Ibn ‘Abd al-RafƯ‘ writes that sometime after 1604:

The Mystery of the ShƯ‘ite Moriscos

293

Some of us secretly began to leave (Spain), some for the Maghrib, some for the Mashriq, pretending to profess the religion of the unbelievers (muܲhiran dƯn al-kuffƗr) -- may AllƗh eliminate them. Some of our beloved brothers, such as the honored faqƯh and teacher (mudarris) Abnj al-‘AbbƗs Aতmad al-ণanafƯ, known as ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz al-QurayshƯ, and one of his (maternal) uncles, went to the city of Belgrade (Balighrad), in the province of great Constantinople, and had a meeting with the minister, MurƗd PashƗ, one of the wazƯrs at the court of the great and regretted Sul৬Ɨn Aতmad KhƗn. (qtd. García-Arenal 2001: 213)

According to García-Arenal, Abnj al-‘AbbƗs Aতmad al-ণanafƯ may have written books for Spanish-speaking Muslims of the ণanafƯ madhhab (2001: 214) demonstrating the existence of ণanafƯ SunnƯ Moriscos. If the Moriscos were all MƗlikƯ Muslims, rulings regarding their plight should have been issued solely by MƗlikƯ jurists, just as Morisco MƗlikƯs would likely have discarded rulings from others schools of law. However, Van Koningsveld and Wiegers unearthed a particularly forbearing fatwƗ issued by four judges in Cairo, representing the ণanafƯ, ShƗfi‘Ư, ণanbalƯ, and MƗlikƯ schools of thought. If the four SunnƯ schools of jurisprudence issued a joint ruling, they wanted to ensure that Moriscos of all legal orientations would receive it. Even a superficial examination of aljamiado manuscripts shows the diversity which existed among the Morisco community. Some of the manuscripts are MƗlikƯ SunnƯ. Some manuscripts contain traditions fabricated by the pro-Umayyad nawƗ‫܈‬ib, an extremist self-identified SunnƯ sect based on the hatred of household of the Prophet. Some manuscripts were the work of ৡnjfƯ Muslims. Some manuscripts were seemingly written by Twelver ShƯ‘ites. Some manuscripts were produced by ZaydƯ or IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites. Others are an eclectic mélange of SunnƯ, ShƯ‘ite, and ৡnjfƯ sources. There are also manuscripts which show a strong pagan element, saturated with sorcery and superstition, and others which were influenced by Christian ideas. The literary evidence does not support the claim that the Spanish Moriscos were all MƗlikƯ SunnƯs.

18.8 Conclusions Based on the evidence examined so far, it can be concluded that the ShƯ‘ites were among the first Muslims to proselytize among the Berbers of North Africa; that ShƯ‘ism and KhƗrijism were the first forms of IslƗm embraced by the Imazighen; that some prominent companions of the Prophet, who were ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ, participated in the conquest of North Africa; that some distinguished ShƯ‘ites of ‘AlƯ, who were followers of the companions,

294

Chapter 18

spread ShƯ‘ism in both the Maghrib and al-Andalus; that many Berber tribes in the Maghrib were ZaydƯ or IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites; that most of the Muslims who settled in al-Andalus were Berbers, hence, many of them were ShƯ‘ites; that many of the Arabs who settled in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were ShƯ‘ites, particularly the Yemenites and the HƗshimites; that there were numerous ShƯ‘ite-inspired rebellions in the Maghrib and al-Andalus; that al-Andalus produced many ShƯ‘ites scholars, poets, and missionaries; and that many Morisco manuscripts contain ShƯ‘ite traditions.

CHAPTER 19 VESTIGES OF SHƮ‘ISM IN THE MAGHRIB

19.1 Introduction If ShƯ‘ism remained rooted in the Maghrib for centuries, from the time of the Arab conquest to the rise of the Almoravids, it must have left traces. Besides the historical evidence of ShƯ‘ism in Morocco, which is wellestablished, other vestiges can be found in Arabic calligraphy, the architecture of cities such as Fez, Taroudant, and al-Mahdiyyah, gravestones and burial sites, idiomatic expressions, onomastic evidence, religious invocations, religious practices such as the Mawlid al-NabƯ and ‘AshnjrƗ’, modes of dress, and memories of mu‘tah.

19.2 Scriptural Evidence As minor as it may seem, the style of Arabic script can be something that is telling to some scholars. Among the many styles of Arabic writing, we find the ‫ۊ‬ijƗzƯ, makkƯ, nashq, ‘uthmƗnƯ, mƗ’il, knjfƯ, thuluth, ta‘lƯq, nasta‘lƯq, dƯwƗnƯ, bihƗrƯ, andalusƯ, maghribƯ, and ‫܈‬ƯnƯ styles. Since these scripts originated at different times, and prevailed during different dynasties, they can sometimes be employed to establish the origin of certain manuscripts. One of the oldest forms of Arabic calligraphy is the KnjfƯ style which was cultivated and perfected by ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and which was used to write some of the earliest copies of the Qur’Ɨn. Since it originated in Knjfah, Iraq, which was a ShƯ‘ite stronghold, the script is connected with ShƯ‘ism. As IslƗm spread, the Knjfic style developed regional variants such as Western Knjfic in Morocco, Arabian Knjfic, Iranian Knjfic, KhorasƗnƯ Knjfic, Qaznavid Knjfic, QurƯ Knjfic, Andalusian Knjfic, and various other decorative styles of Knjfic. As Sabiha Khemir explains, Western Knjfic evolved directly from standard Knjfic… It is known as Western Knjfic because it developed in the Maghrib (modern Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia), the western part of the IslƗmic world. Kairouan, a town in present-day Tunisia first established by the Arabs in 670 (AH 50),

296

Chapter 19 played an important role in the evolution of western IslƗmic calligraphy. (115)

“The only cursive script directly derived from Knjfic is MaghribƯ,” explains Khemir, “which reached its full development by the beginning of the twelfth century in Spain and North Africa” (116). The MaghribƯ script and its AndalusƯ variant are less rigid, and more curvaceous, versions of Knjfic which is distinguished by its clean, geometric, horizontal style. This early geometric style was replaced by cursive styles of calligraphy during the tenth century to facilitate reading. The six cursive scripts include nashkƯ, a simple cursive which is the basis of modern Arabic print, and which was popularized by the Umayyads; thuluth, a monumental and energetic style with elongated verticals used by the Mamluks during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and later refined by the Ottomans; tawqƯ‘, a little used script which appeared during the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate; riq‘ah, a miniature version of tawqƯ‘ used by the Ottomans for handwriting; mu‫ۊ‬aqqaq, an ample script; and rƯ‫ۊ‬ƗnƯ, its miniature version. Other cursive scripts that appeared after the fourteenth century include nasta‘liq, the suspended style developed in the Persian world, which was refined under the name of ta‘liq by the Ottomans. In more informal contexts, the Persians employed the shikasteh or broken style. The Turks also developed the decorative and communicative style known as dƯwƗnƯ and its variant, dƯwƗnƯ al-jalƯ, which is rich in diacritical and ornamental marks. If the Indians developed the BihƗrƯ script, the Chinese invented the ‫܈‬ƯnƯ script which was influenced by Chinese calligraphy. While it would be improper and misleading to use a specific script to identify the religious persuasion of the region in which it predominated, nonetheless, the spread of certain scripts is somewhat suggestive. Knjfic, for example, was prevalent in Iraq, Iran, and the Maghrib, three of the early centers of ShƯ‘ism. The spread of Knjfic into these regions indicates early allegiance to IslƗm and the geographic origins of its early settlers. Case in point: all western IslƗmic manuscripts produced in Spain or in North Africa follow the system of colored dots to indicate vowels not represented in the text (Khemir 116). For example, “the hamzat al-qat’ (disjunctive hamzah) is marked by an orange dot, whereas hamzat al-wa‫܈‬l (connective alif) is noted by a green dot” (116). These orthographic marks, known as taskhƯl or vocalization, were reportedly introduced by Abnj al-Aswad al-Du’alƯ (d. 688), the legendary founder of Arabic grammar (116) who also happened to be a faithful companion of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. The system of taskhkƯl is associated with Knjfic and its derivatives which in turn are associated with ImƗm ‘AlƯ and ShƯ‘ism. Although early Muslims employed the Knjfic script,

Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib

297

and much of what predates the caliph ‘UthmƗn was written in that style, ShƯ‘ites, remained particularly attached to it due to its connection to Knjfah, the scholarly center of ShƯ‘ism, and its association with ImƗm ‘AlƯ.

19.3 Architectural Evidence While an entire volume could be devoted to the subject, the architecture of MaghribƯ cities such as Fez, Taroudant, and Tangiers, show a strong Iraqi influence. Since the city of Fez and Tangiers, among others, were under IdrƯsid and then FƗ৬imid rule, they attracted many ShƯ‘ites of Iraqi origin who influenced their respective architecture. Taroudant -- which was ruled by the IdrƯsids, but dominated religiously by the Bajaliyyah ShƯ‘ites, who followed ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and later influenced by the FƗ৬imids -- also attracted many Iraqi ShƯ‘ite merchants who built their homes, not only in the Iraqi style, but using materials imported from Knjfah. In Tunisia and Egypt, the FƗ৬imids ensured that their architecture reflected their confessional creed. As the Museum with No Frontiers describes, The FƗ৬imid dynasty made great efforts to construct, furnish, and maintain mosques in order to disseminate their ShƯ‘ite beliefs. Whether at Mahdiyyah, or in their splendid capital Cairo -- with imposing complexes like the mosques of al-Azhar and al-Aqmar -- or in regions as far afield as Sicily, FƗ৬imid mosques were designed to shine, like beacons, of ShƯ‘ite propaganda. Architecturally the FƗ৬imid mosque is distinct: a protruding entrance reminiscent of Roman “victory arches;” a carved, stone dome, and a facade with inscriptions (ShƯ‘ite in content) written in Knjfic script, but most notable of all, is the absence of a minaret. (n. page)

The influence of the FƗ৬imids extended, not only to the Maghrib, but to alAndalus as well. According to Bernard and Ellen Wishaw, the Yemenites of al-Andalus always looked towards Egypt, namely, the FƗ৬imids, for artistic inspiration (16). The city of Seville is but one example of Yemenite or ShƯ‘ite art and civilization” (16).

19.4 Gravestones and Burial Sites As a result of gravestone studies in Egypt, we can confirm the migration of many ণusaynid ShƯ‘ites to Cairo during FƗ৬imid times, and establish that most of the converts to ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘Ưlism were, in fact, women. Unfortunately, similar studies have yet to be conducted in the Maghrib. This is regrettable because grave markers provide invaluable information to a historian. They serve as permanent indicators of the origins and religious

298

Chapter 19

beliefs of buried individuals. It can only be hoped that scholars will devote some study to the subject and survey graveyards, burial sites, and shrines in cities and towns that were historically ShƯ‘ite for centuries.

19.5 Idiomatic Expressions In his study on “Popular ShƯ‘ism in Medieval Egypt,” Devin J. Stewart suggested that certain Egyptian expressions are vestiges of IslƗmic sectarian polemics. These include ‘amal ‘Ɲsha or “he did (as) ‘A’ishah did,” which means that someone acted cowardly after feigning courage (41-43). They also include the proverbs illi fƯh ‘Ɲsha taxdu umm il-xƝr, “What ‘A’ishah gets (from a certain situation), Umm al-Khayr would get too (if she were in the same situation),” and gama’ ‘Ɲsha ‘ala umm il-xƝr or “He added ‘A’ishah to Umm al-Khayr” (43). As Stewart explains, The combination of names in these proverbs is intriguing, for the name ‘Ai’shah is either contrasted or equated, depending on one’s interpretation, with the name Umm al-Khayr, which literally means “the mother of goodness” or, as an ironic inversion of an underlying appellation Umm ash-Sharr, “the mother of evil.” In either case, ‘A’ishah denotes not just any woman, but especially a difficult or unpleasant woman and an undesirable wife. These two proverbs both use the kind of depreciation of the name ‘A’ishah one would expect to find in a ShƯ‘ite environment. (43)

Stewart further corroborates his interpretation based on other expressions such as xƝbit amal rakba gamal or “a disappointment riding a camel” (43). Although it is employed to express a colossal failure, “it is also possible that the expression… was originally intended to refer to ‘A’ishah’s scandalous role in the Battle of the Camel, citing her in particular as the epitome of shame and failure” (44). Stewart also cites the proverbial maxim min algamal lil-baghla tiwwidd il-wa‫ܒ‬ya ti’la or “from the camel to the mule, the lowly woman desires to raise herself” (44). Although I could not locate any pejorative expressions directed at Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, or ‘UthmƗn in the thousands of Arabic and Berber sayings that I surveyed, I did find a remarkably similar expression referencing the shameful scandal caused by ‘A’ishah during the burial procession of ImƗm al-ণasan. The expression in question is ‘Isha l-mqelqa katerkeb bla serwal or “‘A’ishah, in her haste, mounted her animal without putting on her pants” (Quitout 42). It is also recorded as ‘Aisha l-mqƗllqa laterkeb bla serwal which Edvard Alexander Westermarck translates as “The impatient ‘A’ishah is riding without drawers” (239).

Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib

299

While the original meaning seems to have been lost, and the expression is used to poke fun at people who are in a hurry, its ShƯ‘ite origin hardly needs to be stressed. The origin of the expression traces back to the time of ‘A’ishah during which many such sayings developed. When ImƗm al-ণasan was murdered, his family wanted to bury him next to his grandfather, the Prophet Muতammad, in accordance with his wishes. As if fighting ‘AlƯ at the Battle of the Camel did not suffice, ‘A’ishah rose in revolt to prevent ImƗm al-ণasan from being buried next to his grandfather. Mounting a mule, ‘A’ishah -- with the help of MarwƗn b. al-ণakam and armed members of the Umayyad clan -- blocked ImƗm ণusayn, his followers, and the funeral procession, from entering the house of the Prophet. Her grandson, QƗsim b. ‘Abd AllƗh, objected to her actions, saying YƗ ‘ammatu ma ghasalnƗ ru’njsanƗ min yawmi al-jamali al-a‫ۊ‬mar. A turƯdina an yuqƗla yawmu albaghlati al-shahbƗ’, namely, “Oh aunt! We have not yet washed our heads from the battle of the Red Camel. Do you want people to say: ‘the Battle of the Gray Mule?!” (Stewart 44). Although blood was not shed, ‘A’ishah did succeed in her plans, namely, forcibly preventing ণusayn from burying his brother ণasan next to the Prophet. Poking fun at the problematic widow of the Prophet, someone stated fa yawman ‘alƗ baghal wa yawman ‘alƗ jamal or “One day (she was) on a mule, one day (she was on a camel)” (Stewart 44; Balagh 38). One ShƯ‘ite poet spoke of both the camel and the mule in reference to this incident: tajammalti tabaghghalti wa law ‘ishti tafayyalti or “You have mounted a camel, you have mounted a mule, and if you lived long enough, you would have mounted an elephant” (44). Another ShƯ‘ite expression found in Morocco is N-nsƗ nƗqi‫܈‬Ɨtu (or qillƗtu) ‘Ɨqlin wa dƯn “Women are defective in understanding and religion” (Westermarck 65). This expression, which, in reality, is a ‫ۊ‬adƯth attributed to ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib which is found in Nahj al-BalƗghah, the second most important book after the Qur’Ɨn in the eyes of Twelver ShƯ‘ites, is local to Fez and Tangier, two of the most important ShƯ‘ite cities during the rule of the ZaydƯ IdrƯsids. However, the authenticity of this saying has been rejected by some SunnƯ and ShƯ‘Ư scholars who view it as a misogynistic forgery (Inloes 2015). I can only concur. Another seemingly ShƯ‘ite expression is L-‫ۊ‬ay ibƗn ibƗn alu ‫ܒ‬Ɨl zzamƗn or “He who is alive will certainly appear, even though it take a long time” (109). Although it is employed by people who long for the return of a loved one, and as a means of promoting patience, the expression might be ShƯ‘ite in origin. The title al-‫ۊ‬ay or “the Living One” is applied by the shƯ‘ah ithnƗ ‘asharƯ to ImƗm Muতammad al-MahdƯ, the Hidden or Occulted ImƗm, whose return is eagerly awaited. He is also known as ImƗm al-zamƗn or “the

300

Chapter 19

ImƗm of the Age.” While ShƯ‘ites ask God to hasten the return of ImƗm MahdƯ regularly, they are also encouraged to maintain patience during the greater occultation. While the expression L-‫ۊ‬ay ibƗn ibƗn alu ‫ܒ‬Ɨl z-zamƗn might be Twelver ShƯ‘ite in origin, or could conceivably trace back to other similar sects, the saying kebret dar ‫ۉ‬usai u rj’u ifatru marrtayn or “The family of ণusayn grew and came back to breakfast twice” (Westermarck 186), sounds like a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite saying. During the early days of IslƗm, the various branches of the Prophet’s family contented with each other for power, both spiritual and mundane, over the Muslim community. Although they belonged to the greater ShƯ‘ite family, the ‘AbbƗsid branch, the ণasanid branch, and the ণusaynid branch acted like rivals. Although initially ShƯ‘ite, the ‘AbbƗsid branch turned to Sunnism to consolidate and legitimize its power. While they remained ShƯ‘ite, the ণasanid branch was primarily ZaydƯ in orientation while the ণusaynid branch developed into the Twelvers and eventually came to dominate. While there was a working relationship between the ণasanids and the ণusaynids, there was also rivalry, occasionally leading to family feuds. Since most of the sƗdah or descendants of the Prophet in the Maghrib belonged to the ণasanid branch of the family and were affiliated with ZaydƯs as opposed to the ImƗmƯs, there was a degree of resentment towards the quietist ণusaynids. Viewed in this light, the expression, kebret dar ‫ۉ‬usai u rj‘u ifatru marrtayn or “The family of ণusayn grew and came back to breakfast twice” may in fact echo the conflict between the ণasanid ZaydƯs and the ণusaynid ImƗmƯs. There are Moroccan expressions which appear rooted in anti-ShƯ‘ite sentiment. These include, Ida dhal l-mu‫ۊ‬arram ‫܈‬addaq men malek u qul ya rubbi r‫ۊ‬am or “When Muতarram sets in, give alms from your wealth and say, ‘O God be merciful’” (Westermarck 301) and Ida jat ‘ashora n-nƗs ifarhu b uladhum fe l-mdun u l-qora which means “When the day of ‘ashurƗ’ comes, the people with their children rejoice in towns and villages” (304). Historically speaking, ‘AshurƗ’ was first commemorated by the family and followers of ImƗm al-ণusayn. ZaydƯs, ImƗmƯs, and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs observe it. If the practice of ‘AshurƗ’ spread to the Maghrib, this was due to the IdrƯsids, the BajalƯs, the ImƗmƯs, and the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. Rather than mourn the martyrdom of ণusayn, the Umayyads, and the dynasties that followed in their footsteps, decided to celebrate the event with joy. They employed their ‫ۊ‬adƯth factories to churn out spurious sayings of the Prophet to support the practice. In the case of Morocco, it appears to have been the Almoravids, SalafƯ-style SunnƯ extremists, who, after physically exterminating the ShƯ‘ites, attempted to eradicate all remnants of ShƯ‘ite practices. Following

Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib

301

in the footsteps of the Umayyads, the Almoravids attempted to turn ‘AshurƗ’ into a celebration.

19.6 Onomastic Evidence Like family names, which indicate origin, given or personal names are identity markers. In much of the Arabic and IslƗmic world, a person’s first and last names often help to identify the religious community to which one belongs. Most of the Prophet’s descendants in Morocco, and the current day ancestors of these predominantly ShƯ‘ite families, can be identified by their family names. Although a study of family names would require a volume, it is possible to provide an overview of the most popular given names in Morocco. The most common names currently given to baby boys in Morocco include: 1) Mohamed; 2) Ahmed; 3) Mohammed; 4) Said; 5) Rachid; 6) Mustapha; 7) Youssef; 8) ণassan; 9) Abdeslam; 10) Ali; 11) Abdellah; 12) Abdelaziz; 13) Omar; 14) Abdelkader; 15) Mimoun; 16) Khalid; 17) Hicham; 18) Driss; 19) Brahim; 20) Mhamed; 21) Jamal; 22) Hamid; 23) Aziz; 24) Mostafa; 25) Abderrahim; 26) Abdelilah; 27) Abderrahman; 28) Lahcen; 29) El ণassan; 30) Abdellatif; 31) Karim; 32) Bilal; 33) Noureddine; 34) Abdelkarim; 35) Adil; 36) Hamza; 37) Samir; 38) Ayoub; 39) Abdelhamid; 40) Fouad; 41) Yassine; 42) Farid; 43) Ibrahim; 44) Ismail; 45) Younes; 46) Abdelhak; 47) Abdelmajid; 48) Tarik; 49) Mourad. (Family Berry n. page)

The most common names given to baby girls in Morocco include: 1) Fatimah; 2) Khadija; 3) Aicha; 4) Malika; 5) Naima; 6) Rachida; 7) Nadia; 8) Karima; 9) Amina; 10) Saida; 11) Zohra; 12) Samira; 13) Latifa; 14) Fatiha; 15) Hafida; 16) Najat; 17) Bouchra; 18) Rahma; 19) Hanane; 20) Jamila; 21) Souad; 22) Hanan; 23) Laila; 24) Fatimah Zohra; 25) Fatna; 26) Sara; 27) Hayat; 28) Habiba; 29) Yamina; 30) Siham; 31) Mariam; 32) Zahra; 33) Ikram; 34) Fadma; 35) Halima; 36) Salma; 37) Amal; 38) Farida; 39) Loubna; 40) Iman; 41) Aziza; 42) Hajar; 43) Rabia; 44) Mina; 45) Sanae; 46) Mimount; 47) Hakima; 48) Yasmina; 49) Imane. (Family Berry n. page)

The eighth most common baby name given to boys in Morocco is ‫ۉ‬asan which is given in honor of the Prophet’s grandson. The name al-‫ۉ‬assan, which includes the Arabic article, comes in twenty-ninth place. The tenth most popular name is ‘AlƯ, the son-in-law of the Prophet, and the husband of his daughter, FƗ‫ܒ‬imah al-ZahrƗ’. In Libya, ‘AlƯ is the third most popular

302

Chapter 19

name while ণasan is the ninth. ‘AlƯ is the fifth most popular in the Arab world. The popularity of the names ‘AlƯ and ণasan are reflective of the esteem in which most MaghribƯs hold for the family of the Prophet in general, and the descendants of the ণasanid line in particular. This explains, in part, why the name ণusayn, is not prevalent in the Maghrib. In fact, it is mainly used, along with ণasan, to name twins. The fact that Mehdi is the most popular name in Tunisia is also intriguing since the MahdƯ is generally downplayed in Sunnism. Its prevalence in Tunisia may be rooted in the FƗ৬imid subconscious. The most common name for baby girls in Morocco is FƗ৬imah, namely, the daughter of the Prophet Muতammad, and the wife of ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, and the mother of ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm al-ণusayn. Her fullname, FƗ৬imah Zohra, comes in twenty-fourth place while her title ZahrƗ’ comes in thirty-second place. The second most popular name is that of KhadƯjah, the Prophet’s first and favorite wife, which is followed by ‘A’ishah, the daughter of Abnj Bakr, and the only virgin who wed Muতammad. In Libya, ‘A’ishah is the ninth most popular female name. While these statistics may seem insignificant, they acquire greater meaning when compared to name usage in other Arab and Muslim countries. In predominantly SunnƯ Pakistan, where individuals are regularly murdered for bearing the names of ‘AlƯ, ণasan, or ণusayn, the most popular male names are Azlaan, Rayaan, Arshuman, Rohail, Zayan, Yoaan, Akraash, Eshaan, Afaan, Rohan, Ather, and Asharib, names which speak little of one’s religious identity (Entertainment Hits n. page). For many Pakistani SunnƯs, the names of the Prophet, his family, and his companions are “old-fashioned.” The most common baby names in SunnƯ Turkey include Arda, Ynjsuf, Mehmet, Muৢ৬afƗ, and Emirhan for boys, and Elif, Zeynep, Irem, Busra, and Merve for girls. In the Arab world, which is predominantly SunnƯ, the most popular names are Lamar, Tala, Dana, Farida, Fara, Rudaina, Reem, Zainab, Layan, Retal, Hana, Judi, Remas, Shahd, Juri, and Zahra’. Apart from Zaynab and Zahra, these names are disconnected from the IslƗmic tradition. Compared to historically SunnƯ countries, name usage in the Maghrib more closely resembles that which is found in traditionally ShƯ‘ite regions. The most popular male names in Iran are Moতammad, ‘AlƯ, ণossein, Abolfazi, MahdƯ, Reza, Ehsan, Amirali, Amirmohammad, and Abbas, while the most prized female names include Fatemeh, Zahra, Sara, Zeinab, Elham, Maryam, Mahsa, NegƗr, Hasti, and YaldƗ (Baby Name Facts n. page). In Iraq, the most popular male names are ‘AlƯ, Muতammad, ণusayn, ণaydar, Aতmad, Omar, ণasan, KƗ਌im, and ‘Abd AllƗh. As can be noted, FƗ৬imah is the most popular name in Morocco, Iraq, and Iran. If ণasan is the eighth

Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib

303

most popular name in Morocco, it is the seventh most popular in Iraq. If ‘AlƯ is the most popular name in Iraq and the second most popular name in Iran, it comes in tenth place in Morocco. Although this may seem like a significant disparity, it is not when compared the popularity of ‘AlƯ in SunnƯ countries.

19.7 Religious Invocations If Moroccans have a predilection for applying the names of the ahl al-bayt to their children, they are also distinguished by their use in religious invocations. Besides the large body of AllƗh expressions they employ, and which Barbara Castleton and I have studied in Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon, Moroccans are known for calling upon the Prophet and his family as part of daily life (Morrow 2006). Besides calling upon the Messenger of God, which many do profusely, Moroccan women regularly invoke his daughter, saying a lala FƗ‫ܒ‬imah al-ZahrƗ’ or “Oh my Lady FƗ৬imah alZahrƗ’,” in times of distress or pain, including childbirth. Although accepted by the ahl al-sunnah, invoking saints and prophets is prohibited by SalafƯs and other religious extremists. As such, except for ShƯ‘ites in Iraq and Iran, it is unusual to hear Muslims invoke FƗ৬imah. The invocation, a lala FƗ‫ܒ‬imah al-ZahrƗ’, may have originated during the time of the IdrƯsids or the FƗ৬imids, having been reinforced and passed down for centuries.

19.8 Religious Practices Moroccan IslƗm is known for the importance it places on Mawlid al-NabƯ, the celebration of the Prophet Muতammad’s birthday. While it eventually became widespread in the SunnƯ world, the mawlid was originally a ShƯ‘ite practice which was celebrated in private. The first public celebrations of the Prophet’s birth reportedly took place in FƗ৬imid Egypt in the late tenth or early eleventh century. Even Maribel Fierro admits as much (2020: 149). The first public SunnƯ celebration reportedly took place in twelfth-century Mosul, under the rule of Nnjr al-DƯn ZangƯ (1118-1174). From there, it spread to Irbil, where it was officially endorsed by Mu਌਌afar al-DƯn KokburƯ (d. 1232) in 1207. In The Birth of the Prophet Mu‫ۊ‬ammad: Devotional Piety in SunnƯ IslƗm, Marion Holmes Katz claims that the custom of celebrating the Mawlid in Morocco was established in Ceuta by Abnj al-‘AbbƗs al-AzafƯ (1162-1236) and was propagated throughout the Maghrib by his son Abnj al-QƗsim (10). Besides the Mawlid al-NabƯ, Moroccans are also known for their commemoration of ‘AshurƗ’. “Although there is no evidence of ShƯ‘ah

304

Chapter 19

beliefs having taken permanent root in Morocco,” Kenneth L. Brown believes that the “celebration of the ‘ƗshnjrƗ’ may represent a remnant of ShƯ‘ah influences” (234, note 8; Strothmann, “ShƯ‘ah”). According to IslƗmic sources, ‘AshurƗ’ was initially a Jewish celebration which was adopted by the Prophet Muতammad, something which is denied by some Jewish scholars and rejected by some ShƯ‘ite savants. It is also possible that ‘AshnjrƗ’ was some sort of pagan celebration, which Muslim scholars would deny. Excluding any pre-IslƗmic influence, the ‘AshnjrƗ’ celebration in Morocco appears to have a ShƯ‘ite base, upon which ৡnjfƯ and Umayyad SunnƯ ideas were superimposed. This eclectic mixture of Sunnism, ৡnjfƯsm, and ShƯ‘ism, can be observed in the ‘AshurƗ’ celebrations found among the Muslims in modern-day Morocco. Since many of the early Muslims in Morocco were ShƯ‘ites, the ‘AshnjrƗ’ commemoration must have initially been one of mourning. Rather than a celebration, as found in other parts of the SunnƯ world, ‘AshnjrƗ’ in Morocco is a day of mourning and the rituals involved involve an outpouring of grief. Unlike the SunnƯs do in other countries, the Moroccans do not fast on ‘AshurƗ’. In Serving the Guest: Food for Remembrance, Kathleen Seidel observes that: In Morocco, ‘AshnjrƗ’ is mainly observed by women and children. In the Maghrib, the practice of mourning the death of an old year and celebrating the birth of the New Year predated IslƗm; the extension of the practice into an IslƗmic context likely began in ShƯ‘Ư communities that existed there between the 9th-12th centuries, and was perpetuated by the SherƯfs, the descendants of the Prophet. Though the custom of mourning persists, it no longer has a specific focus. For the occasion, women make special raisin and nut sweets called krishlat, couscous made with the preserved tail of a sacrificial ram, and special fritters, flat cakes and porridges, eggs, and poultry dishes. (n. page)

Although Moroccan women prepare special dishes, they are not celebratory in any sense. As various Moroccan women explained to me, the sweets they prepare on ‘AshnjrƗ’ are given to children to prevent them from crying. Most Moroccans have no idea what they are mourning or why they would have to keep their children from shedding tears. It should also be remembered that it is customary to prepare food when a person dies in Berber culture. It is a form of charity. The family comes together, mourns together, and eats together, to reinforce family ties. Although the reason they are mourning is no longer evident to many Moroccans, it seems obvious to informed observers: they appear to be observing the remnants of a ShƯ‘ite mourning ceremony.

Vestiges of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib

305

19.9 Dress Clothing is an expression of social identity which conveys class, culture, ethnicity, and religion. One distinctive form of dress which has long been associated with ShƯ‘ism and the shurafƗ’ is the haik, also known as the ksa, a draped outer garment consisting of a large piece of cloth worn by women in North Africa. While the women’s haik has almost disappeared, “different versions continue to be worn in Essaouira, Taroudant, and the Tafilalet oasis” (Becker 194). As Becker explains, Arab women in the Tafilalet oasis wear dark-colored fabric (considered to be more modest than white), draping the fabric to cover their entire bodies and exposing only one eye. This conservative style of covering is due to the large number of shurfa, people who trace their ancestry to the Prophet Muতammad. The women pride themselves in their strict style of covering, which they believe reflects the practices of the Prophet Muতammad, and inspires a high level of respect. (194)

19.10 Memories of Mut‘ah The legality of fixed-termed pleasure marriages is limited to Twelver ShƯ‘ism. SunnƯs prohibit the practice along with IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ and ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites. References to mut‘ah or temporary marriages are found in traditional Moroccan folk-songs in Arabic and Berber languages. Since the FƗ৬imids and ZaydƯs outlawed the practice, it suggests that there were also Twelver ShƯ‘ites among the Arabs and Amazigh of Morocco.

19.11 Conclusions Since we speak of traces and echoes of a lost ShƯ‘ite legacy, it is not always possible to provide empirical evidence. While some of the evidence provided may be strong, some is weak and would never convince scholarly skeptics. Still, when considered in the context of all the arguments advanced in this work, the evidence presented remains suggestive. The historic popularity of Knjfic script; the architecture of cities such as Fez, Taroudant and al-Mahdiyyah with distinctive ShƯ‘ite features; the ShƯ‘ite prayers and invocations found on gravestones and burial sites; idiomatic expressions mocking ‘A’ishah’s role in the Battle of the Camel; the popularity of sayings from ImƗm ‘AlƯ’s Nahj al-BalƗghah in regions historically inhabited by ShƯ‘ites; the existence of an expression alluding to the return of a longawaited one; the prevalence of anti-ShƯ‘ite sayings in areas historically inhabited by the enemies of ShƯ‘ism; the popularity of the names of

306

Chapter 19

FƗ৬imah, ণasan, and ণusayn; the invocations of FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ; the celebration of Mawlid al-NabƯ and the commemoration of ‘AshnjrƗ’; the use of the haik, a type of chador associated with the shurafƗ’ and sƗdah; and references to mut‘ah or fixed-term marriage in folksongs, all seem to emanate from a period during which ShƯ‘ism prevailed or at least was present in parts of the Maghrib.

CHAPTER 20 THE SHƮ‘ITE REVIVAL IN THE MAGHRIB

20.1 Introduction The fact that there are followers of the ahl al-bayt in the Maghrib should come as no surprise considering the fact that wherever there are Muslims, there are ShƯ‘ites. As we have seen, the history of IslƗm in the Maghrib traces back to the year 683 when ‘Uqbah b. NƗfi‘, the commander of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus conquered the region. While many Berbers were quick to embrace IslƗm, this did not guarantee their support for their Arab conquerors who taxed them heavily, treated converts as second-class Muslims, and, in the worst cases, even enslaved them. As a result, many Berbers became inclined to the teachings of KhƗrijism, as well as ZaydƯ, ImƗmƯ, and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism.

20.2 ShƯ‘ism in Morocco It was only in 788, with the arrival of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh, the founder of the IdrƯsid dynasty, that ShƯ‘ism spread significantly throughout Morocco. Moulay IdrƯs, as he was respectfully known, traced his ancestry back to ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib and FƗ৬imah al-ZahrƗ. As a ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite, he was persecuted by the ‘AbbƗsids. As one of the few survivors of the battle of Fakhkh, in which many ‘Alids were slain by the ‘AbbƗsids, IdrƯs fled to the Maghrib. There, he was embraced by Muslim Berbers as their ImƗm, converted the remaining Berber tribes to ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite IslƗm, and created the first autonomous IslƗmic state in Morocco. Moulay IdrƯs established the sharƯfian tradition in Morocco, by which the claim of descent from the Prophet was the basic requirement for monarchic rule. His dynasty was also the first to incorporate both Berbers and Arabs. The IdrƯsids would rule Morocco until 985, losing power for short periods (922-925 and 927-937) to the MiknƗsah, who were FƗ৬imid allies, and thus IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Muslims. In the tenth century, the IdrƯsid dynasty fell apart, and Morocco was divided into smaller kingdoms. The entire country was re-united once again by the Almoravids (1062-1145), who were

308

Chapter 20

followed by the Almohads (1145-1248), the Marinids (1248-1554), the Saadians (1554-1660), and, finally, the Alawites (1660 -present). Every dynasty that has ruled Morocco -- except the Almoravids and the Almohads -- has claimed to descend from the Prophet and followed a ShƯ‘ite political model. Regarding theology, philosophy, and jurisprudence, Moroccan rulers have traditionally espoused the MƗlikƯ madhhab, officially and obligatorily imposed by the Almoravids. Much like the WahhƗbƯs, the Almoravids, sought to “purify” religious practice. Their goal was to convert the unbelievers of the Sahara, struggle against Christians, and fight so-called Muslim heretics. The spread of MƗlikism commenced around the year 1040 with the help of ‘Abd AllƗh b. YasƯn, a zealous MƗlikƯ missionary from Tunisia brought to the country by Almoravid leader YahyƗ b. IbrƗhƯm. The conversions, however, were not without compulsion and by 1054 the Moroccan ShƯ‘ites who failed to practice taqiyyah had all been exterminated. Due to persecution, Moroccan ShƯ‘ites were forced to go underground until the 21st century. The situation for ShƯ‘ites in Morocco has improved sufficiently for them to present themselves timidly in the public sphere. In April of 2003, the daily Assabah revealed a ShƯ‘ite presence at the core of the PJD, alYaqadha wa al-fadhila, a Muslim political party. According to the article, more than fifty ShƯ‘ites participated in the first assembly of the movement. The report was denied by Saâd Bouaachrine, one of the founders of the movement. His denial seemed odd, indeed, since for more than one year the movement’s official publication, al-Asr, had devoted a column to Driss HƗnƯ, the head of the Moroccan ShƯ‘ite community, titled “Tahta’ chams.” Besides participating in political debate, ShƯ‘ite Moroccans have also established religious organizations like Attawassoul in al-Hoceima, alInbiaat in Tangiers, and al-GhadƯr in Meknes. This latter group, whose founding members include Mohsinne HƗnƯ, was cited in the 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, published on March 31, 2003, by the American Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The report mentions that in May of 2002, the GhadƯr organization asked for official status (n. page). It was the first time an association of ShƯ‘ite citizens asked for official recognition. As of 2006, no response had been received from the authorities. While the ShƯ‘ite community awaits official recognition from the Moroccan government, other associations are being organized discreetly in Agadir, Marrakesh, and Tétouan, without revealing their religious affiliation (‘Abd al-Salam n.page). If the Moroccan government, which is known for its omnipresence and omniscience, can confirm the existence of some three hundred Baha’is in the country, the ShƯ‘ites in the same country must have lived in such deep dissimulation that no number for them exists

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

309

(‘Abd al-Salam n. page). The majority of Moroccan ShƯ‘ites are educated and young, rarely reaching forty years of age. They are engineers, medical doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, teachers, and students. It is the latter who form the core of the ShƯ‘ite movement in Morocco. Some of them supposedly come from ShƯ‘ite families which have been deep in taqiyyah for over one millennium. Others are converts who studied abroad in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, and returned with the faith of the ahl al-bayt. And yet others embraced ShƯ‘ism thanks to the inspiration of KhomeinƯ (d. 1989), as well as ণizbullƗh’s alManƗr television network. This station finds more and more viewers in Morocco, an audience which continues to increase with its new broadcasts in French aimed at the Francophone intelligentsia in the Maghrib. Finally, we must also mention the important role of ShƯ‘ite literature in the spread of ShƯ‘ism in Morocco. ShƯ‘ite literature became readily available in many bookstores throughout Casablanca, Rabat, and Marrakesh in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the early 2000s, the International Book Fair in Casablanca was marked by exceptional fanfare around the stands of two Iranian and Lebanese publishers who offered a wide selection of books on ShƯ‘ite IslƗm at rock bottom prices. Starting in 1999, there was even a bookstore specializing in ShƯ‘ite scholarship in downtown Casablanca. The founder of the library is a convert to ShƯ‘ism who at the time was in his forties. He has a degree in business management and has become a defender of ShƯ‘ite philosophy. He openly discusses religious matters but insists on remaining anonymous, possibly fearing “problems” with the authorities. If Moroccan ShƯ‘ites remain discreet about their faith, they have reasons to do so. Many of them remember the late 70s and early 80s when the Moroccan government sought support from Saudi Arabia to counter the “IslƗmic” revolution of Iran. As a result, WahhƗbism, which had merely been a marginal movement introduced in Morocco in the nineteenth century, found state-support. By accepting Saudi oil money, which helped counter Iranian efforts to export the revolution, and finance the war against the Polisario in the south, the Moroccans were obliged to accept Saudi scholars. With the help of the Saudis, a full-scale propaganda campaign against ShƯ‘ism was launched on the country’s state-controlled media. The situation reached a critical point in 1984 with the “pro-KhomeinƯ” demonstrations which resulted in many arrests. At this time, the Moroccan court-‘ulamƗ’ passed a fatwƗ declaring that KhomeinƯ was an infidel. Rather than speak in Modern Standard Arabic as was the norm in Arabic countries, broadcasters spoke in colloquial Arabic to ensure the message would reach the masses.

310

Chapter 20

With the help of the Saudis, WahhƗbƯ religious schools spread throughout Morocco, extremist literature was distributed to thousands of students, and scholarships were given to study in Saudi-supported universities. Morocco, which was known for its moderation, was soon confronted with the surrogate prodigal sons of the Saudis: WahhƗbƯ-trained preachers who returned home to spread their violent, intolerant, and womanhating ideology. These WahhƗbƯ theorists rejected the modern, openminded MƗlikism of Morocco and denounced ShƯ‘ites as apostates. As a result, since the establishment of the “IslƗmic” Republic in 1979, many Moroccan ShƯ‘ites, men, women, and children, have left the country and moved to Europe or Iran where they could practice their religion freely. In Belgium, ShƯ‘ites of Moroccan ancestry number in the tens of thousands. It was only in the late 1990s, with the democratization process initiated by King ণassan II, that ShƯ‘ites found a degree of religious freedom. The Moroccan Constitution of 1996 establishes IslƗm as the state religion and guarantees freedom of religion to all its citizens (Article 6). It also guarantees its citizens freedom of expression and association (Article 9). Despite these newly acquired constitutional rights, ShƯ‘ite Muslims still felt obliged to meet semi-secretly to discuss and debate the future of their faith in the Maghrib. It was only after the tragedy of 9/11 that the Moroccan state started to shift its policy, officially breaking from WahhƗbism due to the Casablanca bombings in 2003. While the real culprits were soon apprehended, all members of the Salafia Jihadia, the government initially suggested that ShƯ‘ites were responsible for the attacks, subjecting six ShƯ‘ites from the PDJ to investigations according to the Minister of Justice himself. It was only in November 2002 that the continued existence of Moroccan ShƯ‘ites came to light through an interview with ণujjat al-IslƗm Sayyid DrƯs HƗnƯ, the so-called spiritual leader of the Moroccan ShƯ‘ites, which appeared in Maroc Hebdo. As of 2015, he was living peacefully in Salé with his wife and well-to-do family. Apparently, DrƯs HƗnƯ discovered ShƯ‘ism as a teen and moved to Syria at the age of eighteen to study in the ণawzah. Upon his return to Morocco, he felt invested with a mission: to struggle for the recognition and respect of the minority ShƯ‘ite community. In his interview with Maroc Hebdo, he stated that “Morocco was a ShƯ‘ite country” and that ShƯ‘ism was the rule but Sunnism was the exception. He explained that there was no need to make Morocco a ShƯ‘ite country, because it already was one. He also hoped that the community could create a political party like the ণizbullƗh but adapted to Moroccan reality. Due to pressures placed on him by the Moroccan authorities, always eager to ensure national unity through uniformity -- God, King, and Country,

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

311

one religion, one language, and one madhhab -- he was “requested” to retract his statements. In subsequent interviews, he took back many of the statements which had been attributed to him, even his title of ‫ۉ‬ujjat alIslƗm, made a vow of silence, and then returned to the scene speaking of IslƗmic ecumenism and the need to unite the Muslim ummah. In his words, Sunnism and ShƯ‘ism are two complementary currents, and all Muslims, be they SunnƯ or ShƯ‘Ư, share the same fundamental beliefs. Despite the fact that Moroccans were forced to embrace SunnƯ IslƗm after the fall of the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids, they retained many aspects of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm: the love for the Prophet and his Family; the respect for descendants of the Prophets, known in Morocco as the shurafƗ’; the celebration of ‘Id al-Mawlid, an originally ShƯ‘ite custom; the common invocations of intercession made to the Prophet and FƗ৬imah; the reverence for saints; the rich ShƯ‘ite-inspired spirituality of the ৡnjfƯs; and the commemoration of ‘AshurƗ’. In Morocco, these mourning ceremonies are observed mainly by women and children. They seem to trace back to the ShƯ‘Ư communities that existed in the country between the ninth and twelfth centuries and were perpetuated by the sharƯfs, the descendants of the Prophet. As DrƯs HƗnƯ explains, “Even countries which claim to be SunnƯ are, in fact, ShƯ‘ite, since they all share the same respect for the ahl al-bayt. It is just a question of their degree of ShƯ‘ism.” As many Moroccans say, “We are SunnƯs in practice, but ShƯ‘ites at heart.” As ShƯ‘ism continued to spread throughout Morocco, and people were reportedly converted by the tens of thousands, the Moroccan monarchy made a monumental change to its new policy of “openness” and appreciation for “religious pluralism.” In short, the Royal Regime and its subservient parliament and politicians returned to their old ways and commenced to clamp down on Moroccan ShƯ‘ites. Many ShƯ‘ites in Morocco had been wary about government attempts to entice ShƯ‘ites to come out of the closet. Unfortunately, many were duped and wrongly believed that the current king was different from his father. An Iraqi private school, run by Iraqi SunnƯs, was closed under the pretense that it was a crypto-ShƯ‘ite educational establishment (Bivouac n. page). ShƯ‘ite bookstalls were shuttered; ShƯ‘ite literature was banned; and the staff at bookstores were instructed to report any individuals seeking to purchase such material (Bivouac n. page). Moroccan ShƯ‘ite newspapers and magazine were outlawed (Bivouac n. page). Thousands of Moroccans were rounded up and imprisoned for professing the ShƯ‘ite faith. The statecontrolled media bombarded the country with anti-ShƯ‘ite diatribe. Government ministers publicly declared that one could not be both Moroccan and ShƯ‘ite at the same time since ShƯ‘ites are only loyal to their

312

Chapter 20

Hidden ImƗm and believe that all other governments are illegitimate. All Moroccans ShƯ‘ites were openly denounced as traitors to Crown and Country, were warned of the reality of “civil death,” namely, the loss of all their rights and freedoms, and were even threatened with being tried as apostates under article 220 of the Moroccan penal code. Rather than denounce Morocco’s human rights abuses, both religious and secular forces in the kingdom encouraged the state of paranoia. Newspapers like Actuel printed photos of extremist ShƯ‘ites slashing their heads while soaked in blood, a deviant practice denounced by any scholar worth his turban. One wonders why they did not publish photos of the ‘IsƗwiyyah, a Moroccan ৡnjfƯ group which engages in similar pre-IslƗmic practices. In its delusional frenzy, Actuel promoted panic by claiming that “the ShƯ‘ites are moving their pawns” as if the Iranians were planning to invade Morocco. The publication alleged that Iran planned on extending the supposed “ShƯ‘ite Crescent” to Morocco. The intellectually-challenged journalist even wondered whether Morocco would one day be a ShƯ‘ite country (Actuel n. page). In March of 2009, the kingdom of Morocco closed the embassy of the “IslƗmic” Republic of Iran in Rabat, expelled its staff, and broke diplomatic relations with the ShƯ‘ite state. Officially, the Moroccan government said that their actions were a show of solidarity for the SunnƯ king of Baতrayn who rules over a predominantly ShƯ‘ite population. The Moroccan government also made it clear in its communiqué that it accused Iran of belittling the “commander of the faithful,” Moতammed VI, and the MƗlikƯ madhhab, as well as promoting ShƯ‘ite proselytism. In short, the kingdom of Morocco stressed that it would not tolerate the dissemination of ShƯ‘ism on its soil. Political analysts, however, were not oblivious to the fact that Morocco’s break with Iran came immediately after a visit from Charles David Welch (born 1953) from the US State Department. As a pro-Western country that never broke ties with Israel, Morocco has always acted according to the interests of the United States. It is also reasonable to speculate that Russia might be providing clandestine support to the ShƯ‘ah in Morocco and elsewhere, or at least keeping this as a contingency plan, given Russia’s support for Iran and Aleksandr Dugin’s participation in the Arba‘Ưn pilgrimage in Iraq. In any case the CIA probably believes that this is happening or thinks it wise to nip it in the bud before it begins. For US think tanks, Morocco’s move was a sign that Arab states would take a much stronger stance against Iran. In other words, the United States was promoting the polarization of the IslƗmic world between the pro-Saudi party and the pro-Iranian party. As the unraveling in the Middle East has

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

313

shown, they seem to have succeeded in their strategy. Although the Moroccan government made overtures toward its ShƯ‘ite citizens in 2015, reports were also received that it remains concerned about the spread of ShƯ‘ah IslƗm among Moroccans in Europe, notably Belgium, where tens of thousands of them have embraced Twelver ShƯ‘ism.

20.3 ShƯ‘ism in Tunisia If ShƯ‘ism has been spreading in Morocco, the same phenomenon has been taking place in Algeria and Tunisia. Due to the repressive nature of the Tunisian autocrats, ShƯ‘ism was never allowed to germinate, much less sprout, grow, and flower, as it has done elsewhere. Scholars who embraced ShƯ‘ism, such as Muতammad TijƗnƯ, were soon forced to flee the country, often to France, for the sake of their safety. Before the “IslƗmic” revolution of Iran, there were only dozens of ShƯ‘ites in Tunisia. However, after the overthrow of the ShƗh, ShƯ‘ism spread as a symbol of freedom and social justice. Within three decades of the triumph of the revolution in Iran, ShƯ‘ism had established itself in many towns and cities in Tunisia, especially Qafsa, Sousa, al-Mahdiyyah, and the capital city of Tunis (ImƗm Reza Network n. page). The Tunisian ShƯ‘ite community, which is predominantly composed of intellectuals, produced its ShƯ‘ite scholars, the products of the seminaries in Iran and Syria, the most prominent of which are Sayyid Muতammad al-TijƗnƯ al-SamƗwƯ and Shaykh Mobarak Baghdash. The pressure placed upon ShƯ‘ites during the dictatorship pales in comparison to the violent campaign directed towards this tiny minority since the Arab Spring. SalafƯ psychopaths, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, have been actively inciting violence against Tunisian ShƯ‘ites since the onset of “democracy.” As numerous newspapers have reported, ShƯ‘ites are not welcome in Tunisia (Tuniscope n. page) since they are considered a “threat” to monolithic MƗlikism. Like Nazi propagandists, they publicly declare that it is “open season for hunting ShƯ‘ites” (Tekiano n. page), a crime in any civilized society under the rule of law. Like the Moroccan government, the Tunisian government insists that national unity depends on adherence to the MƗlikƯ madhhab. SunnƯ scholars from Tunisia have denounced ShƯ‘ites as “heretics” who “threaten the MƗlikƯ school of jurisprudence” (Tajine) while SalafƯs have called for a “jihad” against these “foreign invaders who are outside the fold of IslƗm” (Tajine n. page). Adel Almi, the president of the Association centriste de la Sensiblisation et de la Réforme, claims that “les chiites sont un cancer à combattre” [ShƯ‘ites are a cancer that must be fought] (Tajine n. page; Tuniscope n. page). His movement even calls on its thugs to mobilize

314

Chapter 20

themselves against the RawƗfi‫ڲ‬, a derogatory slur directed against ShƯ‘ite Muslims (Tuniscope n. page). Speaking of ShƯ‘ites, Salafist leader Abou Yadh has warned that “Les non-musulmans… n’ont pas de place dans notre pays” [non-Muslims… have no place in our country] (Tajine n. page). If Aতmed ben ণassana, the president of La ligue pour la lutte contre le chiisme [The League for the Struggle against ShƯ‘ism], calls for closing the Iranian Cultural Center, others, like “Cheik” Bechir Ben Hassen, the spokesperson for the SalafƯs of Tunisia, state that the extermination of Tunisian ShƯ‘ites as the sacred obligation or all committed SunnƯs (Boulaaba n. page). Inspired by such hate-speech, SalafƯ terrorists have attacked unarmed ShƯ‘ites in Bizerte and Gabès in 2012. Some even attacked an Iranian ৡnjfƯ music troupe on grounds that they were “ShƯ‘ites” (TijƗnƯ n. page). Rather than showing some sympathy towards the innocent victims of extremist SalafƯ attacks, the media in Tunisia attempted to justify such actions, alleging that Iran funded the ShƯ‘ites in question as part of a plan to “export ShƯ‘ism” to Tunisia and take over the country (Media Arabe n. page). Although some leaders of Ennahdha, such as Rached Ghannochi, do not hide their admiration for KhomeinƯ, they all appear to place “international considerations” and petrodollars before any IslƗmic principles.

20.4 ShƯ‘ism in Algeria In Algeria, however, the spread of ShƯ‘ism has gone more smoothly. It comes, in great part, as a refutation of both traditional Arab culture and the obscurantist expression of IslƗm which erupted during the Algerian Civil War in which TakfƯrƯ JihƗdist SalafƯs, on the payroll of foreign powers, committed some of the most sickening crimes against God, IslƗm, and human dignity. The terrorists in question raped women by the thousands, slaughtered small children, and hacked to death entire villages with axes. While both genders embraced ShƯ‘ism, women in particular benefited from a different interpretation of IslƗm. By embracing ShƯ‘ism, Algerian women were supposedly rejecting the culturally contaminated version of IslƗm of their ancestors which prohibited women from working, removed their rights to freedom of movement, education, and to select their spouse freely. The Iranian revolution triggered the resurgence of ShƯ‘ism in Algeria. Viewed as a form of “functional IslƗmism” (Ghersallah 4), Iran became a model for many who were in search of the power of IslƗm. Under the leadership of KhomeinƯ, the Iranians had shown the Muslim world that it was possible to overthrow oppressors, and revive IslƗm, by the sheer will of the people. Not only did Iran serve as a source of inspiration, so did the

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

315

ণizbullƗh in Lebanon, whose acts of defiance against “Zionist occupation” mesmerized the Muslim world. ShƯ‘ite IslƗm, as a religion of protest, became a model for many Muslims. For them, the world was divided between good and evil, and right and wrong, as represented by the epic battle between ণusayn and the Umayyads. In his study on the ShƯ‘ite community in Algeria, Abdelhafidh Ghersallah found that most Algerian converts were attracted to ShƯ‘ism because of its socio-political emphasis and its tradition of ‘irfƗn or mysticism. In other words, they were seeking a socially committed form of IslƗm that presented an alternative to Salafism and a spiritually rooted form of IslƗm that stood in opposition to the arid expressions of SunnƯ fundamentalism. With the exception of conversions of entire families, the path to ShƯ‘ism is the product of a long intellectual march in which SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite beliefs are subjected to scrutiny (7). The mystical dimension of ShƯ‘ism, known as ‘irfƗn, is, in most cases, the subject of particular fascination (7). Most converts to ShƯ‘ism found the literalist approach of Sunnism distasteful compared to the intellectually and philosophically based hermeneutic tradition of the ShƯ‘ites (7). Among the Kabyle and Amazigh populations, ShƯ‘ism is viewed as a means of renewing their ties to their FƗ৬imid past (4). It offers them a source of pride which distinguishes them from the Arab population (4). In the words of Ghersallah, Le chiisme s’est en effet développé principalement dans les zones kabyles par le biais d’une remobilisation de la mémoire du passé fatimide du pays. En effet, la mémoire collective, les liens de descendance ethnique, la persistance de la popularité de noms clé dans l’imaginaire chiite comme ‘AlƯ, FƗ৬imah, ণassan et ণussein, ont représenté un capital culturel efficace pour permettre au chiisme d’enter en Algérie sans se présenter comme idéologie religieuse étrangère et se proposer comme l’un des répertoires possibles des compositions identitaires propres à l’Algérie. Ainsi, ce converti de 33 ans d’origine amazigh considère que ses ancêtres étaient fatimides et qu’ils ont embrassé le credo chiite avant de fonder l’État fatimide et de construire Le Caire et l’université d’Al-Azhar. (9) [ShƯ‘ism has developed mainly in the Kabyle areas as a return to the memory of the country’s FƗ৬imid past. In fact, collective memory, ethnic ancestry, the persistent popularity of key names in the ShƯ‘ite imagination, such as ‘AlƯ, FƗ৬imah, ণasan, and ণusayn, have represented an effective cultural capital which permits ShƯ‘ism to enter Algeria without appearing as a foreign religious ideology and presenting itself as one of the possible options available for Algerian identity. Such is the case of the thirty-three year old convert of Amazigh origin who considers that his ancestors were FƗ৬imids and that they embraced the ShƯ‘ite creed before the FƗ৬imid State

316

Chapter 20 was established and prior to the construction of the Cairo and the University of al-Azhar.]

Besides its appeal to the Berber populations of Algeria, ShƯ‘ism has also attracted families of Arab origin who happen to be descendants of the Prophet. Although faith is the main motivator, Ghersallah believes that some of these families “ont été sensible au prestige social et aux avantages matériels que la tradition chiite confère à ces familles” (9) [have been susceptible to the social prestige and material advantages which ShƯ‘ite tradition confers on these families]. In short, Gersallah believes that the respect that ShƯ‘ites grants to the shurafƗ’ and sƗdah, along with the possibility of benefiting from khums, has helped entice descendants of the Prophet into the ShƯ‘ite camp. While I doubt that this played a significant role in their conversion to ShƯ‘ism, it may have played a minimal part. They might have decided to buy the cake; the icing that came with it was just an extra bonus. Besides intellectuals, members of the middle and upper classes, and descendants of the Prophet, ShƯ‘ism has also attracted a large number of ৡnjfƯs. “Quant au soufisme” [As for ৡnjfism], writes Ghersallah, “il partage avec le chiisme son penchant pour une religiosité ésotérique, le ‘ilm albƗ‫ܒ‬in, la science de la connaissance intime du divin, du soufisme, faisant écho au ‘irfƗn, la gnose du chiisme” (10) [it shared with ShƯ‘ism its leaning towards an esoteric religiosity, the ‘ilm al-bƗ‫ܒ‬in, the science of intimate knowledge of the divine, of ৡnjfism, which echoes the ‘irfƗn or gnosis of ShƯ‘ism.] For a university professor who lives in the medina of Oran, both ShƯ‘ism and ৡnjfism share the same respect for holy sites and the tombs of saints (10). Even before embracing ShƯ‘ism, the scholar in question had a passion for visiting the tombs of saints, particularly the mausoleum of ImƗm al-HarawƯ in Oran (10). By making a transition into ShƯ‘ism, this professor has maintained his reverence for saints while giving priority to the twelve ImƗms of ShƯ‘ism (10). Curiously, the classes among which ShƯ‘ism has spread are the same which have traditionally been targeted by SunnƯ IslƗmists: the educated middle and upper classes, often from rural backgrounds and which, in most cases, are irreligious (9). Contrary to popular assumption, IslƗmism is not usually the product of poor, uneducated people. IslƗmism attracts middle and upper-class individuals who, despite their education, have been prevented from making any social or professional progress. Intelligent and well-informed, they soon conclude that the root of their problem is systemic; namely, it is the socio-political and economic system that is at fault. After seeking various alternative modes of opposition, they often return to their IslƗmic roots, joining the SunnƯ Muslim movement or the ShƯ‘ite one.

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

317

Seeing the shortcomings of militant Sunnism and extremist Salafism, with all of its excesses and atrocities, many opt for the more religiously-rooted form of IslƗmic opposition: ShƯ‘ism, which they view as a revolutionary religion. In explaining his move from the Muslim Brotherhood to revolutionary ShƯ‘ism, an Algerian professor had the following to say, J’ai été éduqué… dans une cellule dévotionnelle -- usrah -- des Frères musulmans au début des années 1980 lorsque l’organisation des Frères a été formée en Algérie. J’ai reçu ma formation à l’idéologie du changement et du coup d’État et à la nécessité de changement culturel et spirituel. J’ai adopté les idées du martyr ণassan al-Bannah lequel m’a fait prendre conscience que l’islam était un système complet de vie. Quant à Sayyed Qu৬b, j’ai retenu de lui la nécessité du combat pour la justice (al-sira’ min ajl al-‫ۊ‬aqq) et je n’ai trouvé personne qui incarne cette posture mieux que l’imƗm KhomeinƯ qui a réussi à réaliser la République islamique, rêve de tout islamiste à ce moment-là. Et cela n’a pu se faire qu’avec l’esprit et la tutelle des imâms des Âhl al-Bayt. Le chiisme, cela représente dans l’histoire la victoire de la justice, celle-là même dont les références et les symboles sont effacés par les sunnites. Ce sont les imâms des Âhl al-Bayt qui sont les dépositaires de la Prophétie et les agents du changement. À l’inverse, la pensée des Frères n’est guère plus qu’une idée capable de susciter l’adhésion, mais incapable d’affecter concrètement la situation des musulmans. (12-13) [I was educated… in an usrah, a devotional cell of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the 1980s when the organization of the Brothers was formed in Algeria. I received my training in ideological change and the coup d’État, as well as the need for cultural and spiritual change. I adopted the ideas of the martyr, ণasan al-BannƗ, which helped me realize that IslƗm was a complete way of life. As for Sayyid Qu৬b, I retained the need to fight for justice (al-sira’ min ajl al-‫ۊ‬aqq) and I did not find anyone who embodies this posture better than ImƗm KhomeinƯ who was able to create an IslƗmic Republic, the dream of any IslƗmist during those days. And that could not have been accomplished without the spirit and teachings of the ImƗms from the ahl al-bayt. ShƯ‘ism, in history, represents the victory of justice, the very symbols of which are erased by the SunnƯs. The ImƗms from the ahl al-bayt are the depositories of prophecy and the agents of change. On the other hand, the thoughts of the Muslim Brotherhood are merely an idea that can garner support, but which is incapable of concretely changing the plight of Muslims.]

After sixty years of activism and militancy, the Muslim Brotherhood could not achieve any of its structure and systemic goals. However, the Iranian example provided a concrete example of how to succeed in establishing a so-called IslƗmic State. The Muslim Brotherhood did eventually attain

318

Chapter 20

power in 2012. However, they only did so because the US State Department instructed Hosni Mubarak to step down and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to assume power. The conditions placed upon them were clear: side with the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs against Iran. By 2013, however, the Muslim Brotherhood was forced out of power by mass protest. If Ghersallah argues that the Iranians have made a strategic mistake by siding with the Syrians, and suspects that this may turn many North Africans against ShƯ‘ism, history remains to be written. If anything, the positions adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may serve to discredit them even more in the eyes of committed Muslims. It should be stressed, however, that the move from the Muslim Brotherhood to revolutionary ShƯ‘ism was not an out-right rejection of ণasan al-BannƗ, Sayyid Qu৬b or Malek Bennabi. On the contrary, ShƯ‘ite activists in Algeria have embraced many of their ideas and enhanced them with those of ShƯ‘ite scholars such as ‘AlƯ SharƯ‘atƯ, RnjতullƗh KhomeinƯ, and Muতammad BƗqir al-ৡadr, among others (13). For Algerian ShƯ‘ites, this represents a natural evolution towards the mode of leadership of the Prophet and the ImƗms. Even in political matters, some ShƯ‘ites strive for unity with the SunnƯs, an attitude that is rarely reciprocated. Besides spiritual and socio-political motivations, Ghersallah explains that many Algerian Muslims view conversion to ShƯ‘ism as a means of cultural and civilizational progress (6). They do not view their embracing of ShƯ‘ism as some form of rupture or break with tradition but as an upgrade or a step up the ladder of socio-spiritual perfection (6). They consider their journey to have two dimensions: a personal, spiritual one; and a collective, political one (7). In short, they feel a sense of spiritual elevation and a sense of belonging to a special community that shares the same love and devotion for the Prophet’s household. While the Algerian government was slow to respond to the spread of ShƯ‘ism in their country, the situation seems to have changed. Algerian ShƯ‘ites who seek visas to travel to Iran to complete their seminary studies speak of tense relations between the students and Algerian officials (8). Some Algerians opposed the adoption of a new constitution that protects religious freedom because it would serve ShƯ‘ite interests (Actuel n. page). According to the Algerian press, the spread of ShƯ‘ism in Algeria is concentrated in cities that are located close to the Moroccan border, leading to the easy deduction that the “evil” originates in Morocco (Actuel n. page). Such claims are so silly that they are comical. The border between Morocco and Algeria has been closed for decades. The border is heavily guarded, mined, and protected by soldiers with orders to shoot to kill. While some

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

319

donkeys are used to pass contraband across the border, only a fool would risk his life trying to cross the border for any reason, the least of which is “trying to spread ShƯ‘ism.” For such nonsense to appear in the press makes a mockery of the media. From the small ShƯ‘ite intelligentsia that existed prior to the “IslƗmic” revolution of Iran, the ShƯ‘ites in Algeria have become a bona fide community that is homogeneous in beliefs and practices and remains relatively endogamous (4-5). The Algerians now have their ShƯ‘ite scholars. They are represented in universities, hospitals, public education, government administration, the legal system, and even national religious affairs (14). From the onset, their slogan was “IslƗm is the solution,” and they were determined to use ShƯ‘ism to develop a civil society. The aim was to IslƗmize Algerian society by practicing what they preached. As the IslƗmist movement gradually grew in Algeria in the form of the Front Islamique de Salut [The IslƗmic Salvation Front], ShƯ‘ites assumed positions at every level of the movement to the consternation of some extremist Salafists as well as Ali Belhadj, the leader of a KhƗrijite faction of the FIS. It was hoped, however, that the WahhƗbƯ/KhƗrijite current would not take the lead and that the SunnƯs and the ShƯ‘ite would win the upper hand. This endeavor, which Iran supported, soon met with monumental failure with the WahhƗbƯ/KhƗrijites highjacking the movement. Soon, other groups appeared on the scene, such as the GIS or Groupe Islamique Armé [Armed IslƗmic Group], which engaged in senseless atrocities to soil the image of the entire Muslim movement. As a result of the tsunami of terror that devastated Algeria in the 1990s, and the subsequent rise of scores of Salafist sects, the second wave of ShƯ‘ite conversions started to surface. As the second millennium commenced, many young Algerians embraced ShƯ‘ism to express their opposition to the obscurantist ideas of the WahhƗbƯs. Intellectualism and Salafism were incompatible in the thoughts of most young Moroccan students and intellectuals. As another university professor expressed, Bien avant ma conversion au chiisme, j’étais déjà en guerre ouverte avec le wahhabisme. Pensée obscurantiste, le wahhabisme c’est le problème de l’islam dans le passé proche comme encore aujourd’hui. Moi, comme intellectuel, le chiisme et le salafisme, nous sommes deux contraires qui ne peuvent se rencontrer. Pour moi, le droit chemin et la religiosité correcte, c’est celle de l’école de Âhl al-Bayt. Aucun point de comparaison possible entre l’imƗm al-KhomeinƯ, le martyr Bâqer al-Sadr, le penseur ‘Ali Shar‘ƯatƯ, le leader de la résistance Sayyed ণassan NaৢrallƗh d’un côté et, de l’autre, Moতamed ‘Abdel-WahhƗb qui a avalisé les massacres et les accusations en apostasie, et ses suivants comme les shaykhs alUthaimin ou encore al-AlbƗnƯ, lequel promulgua une fatwƗ appelant les

320

Chapter 20 Palestiniens à quitter la Palestine. Pas de point de comparaison entre la nuit et le jour, entre l’Iran défiant l’Occident et l’Arabie saoudite agente des ennemis de l’IslƗm. (16) [Well before my conversion to ShƯ‘ism, I was already in open war with WahhƗbƯsm. An obscurantist ideology, WahhƗbƯsm is the problem of IslƗm stuck in the past as it remains to this day. As an intellectual, Salafism and I are two opposites which cannot meet. For me, the straight path and true religion is the school of the ahl al-bayt. There is not point of comparison between ImƗm KhomeinƯ, the martyr BƗqir al-ৡadr, the thinker ‘AlƯ SharƯ‘atƯ, the leader of the resistance Sayyed ণasan NaৢrallƗh, on the one hand, and Muতammad b. ‘Abd al-WahhƗb, who supported massacres and accusations of apostasy, and his followers, like the shaykhs al-Uthaimin or al-AlbƗnƯ, who issued a fatwƗ calling for Palestinians to leave Palestine. There is no point of comparison between day and night, between Iran which defies the west and Saudi Arabia which is the agent of the enemies of IslƗm.]

As Ghersallah explains, ShƯ‘ism is not merely an ideology of resistance, it is a means of promoting reason, modernity, and philosophy in a society still traumatized by the extreme violence of the 1990s. As a young, universityeducated, ShƯ‘ite woman explained, Le dogme wahhabite représente un danger non seulement pour nous, mais pour la communauté musulmane et l’IslƗm dans son ensemble. Il est à l’origine de la violence, du terrorisme, du meurtre des civils en Algérie et en Irak. Le wahhabisme et le mode de vie bédouin sont barbares de la même façon: pantalons à mi-mollet, barbes hirsutes, pensée figée et obsession pour les interdits. Moi, j’ai choisi l’école de pensée des Âhl alBayt, car elle exprime le vrai IslƗm, l’IslƗm de la civilisation, j’ai choisi l’Iran contre l’Arabie saoudite, la civilité contre la bédouinité. (17) [WahhƗbƯ dogma represents a danger, not only for us, but also for IslƗm and the entire Muslim Community. It is at the root the violence, terrorism, and murder of civilians in Algeria and Iraq. WahhƗbƯsm and the Bedouin way of life are barbaric in the same fashion: pants half-way up their calves, bushy beards, thoughts frozen in time, and an obsession for prohibitions. Me, I chose the school of thought of the ahl al-bayt because it expresses True IslƗm, the IslƗm of Civilizations. I have chosen Iran against Saudi Arabia; and civility against Bedouin barbarity.]

Although the “IslƗmic” Republic of Iran has not lived up to all of its expectations, the Lebanese ণizbullƗh remains a legend in the ArabicIslƗmic imagination. As Ghersallah explains, “ণassan NaৢrallƗh fut érigé en sauveur et chef libérateur de la Nation arabe et musulmane. ণassan

The ShƯ‘ite Revival in the Maghrib

321

NaৢrallƗh incarnait l’image du chef arabe inspiré et le symbole religieux de la tradition chiite victorieuse” (18) [ণasan NaৢrallƗh was acclaimed as savior and liberator of the Arab and Muslim Nation. ণasan NaৢrallƗh embodies the image of the inspired Arab leader and the religious symbol of the victorious ShƯ‘ite tradition.] The ণizbullƗh defense against the Israeli invasion of 2006 triggered what is described as the third wave of ShƯ‘ite conversions in Algeria. Considering that there have been several succeeding generations of Algerian ShƯ‘ites, all home-bred and home-grown, that they have produced their own scholars, religious centers, social service agencies, and seminaries, ShƯ‘ism is not an outside phenomenon or the product of foreigners or immigrants. Like Morocco and Tunisia, the ShƯ‘ism in Algeria is authentically North African. As Ghersallah has stated, “le chiisme ne se présente pas comme un produit d’importation, mais comme un retour aux racines” [ShƯ‘ism is not a product of importation; instead, it is a return to one’s roots” (9). While the number of ShƯ‘ites in Algeria remains unclear, with estimates ranging from three thousand to over half a million, and the truth found somewhere around thirty thousand, the ShƯ‘ites of Algeria are firmly rooted and will represent a permanent presence for generations to come.

20.5 Conclusions Whether it is Morocco, Algeria, Libya, or Tunisia, ShƯ‘ism has been resurfacing after centuries of suppression. At least, this is the way that many of the ShƯ‘ites of these countries justify their adherence to ShƯ‘ism. For many of them, it is not a question of conversion but reversion, reverting to the traditional religion that was ripped away from them when their ancestors were forcibly converted to Sunnism under threat of immediate execution. Like African Americans, Hispanics, or Amerindians who had lost their culture, becoming more colonial than the colonials, and who, for one reason or another, later decided to reaffirm their identity, many Muslims from the Maghrib have been doing the same for decades. While it is unlikely that any of these reverts to ShƯ‘ism were parts of families that practiced taqiyyah for hundreds of years, many of them indeed belonged to families which, though SunnƯ in jurisprudence, had maintained many elements of ShƯ‘ism: the love and admiration for the Messenger of God and his Family -- FƗ৬imah, ‘AlƯ, ণasan, and ণusayn -- the commemoration of ‘AshnjrƗ’, the veneration of saints, the respect for the descendants of the Prophet, their inclination towards ৡnjfƯ spirituality, among many other subtle manifestations of ShƯ‘ism. As far as many Muslims from the Maghrib are

322

Chapter 20

concerned, they were always ShƯ‘ites: they simply did not know it. As one ShƯ‘ite stated, “Nous considerons le Royaume comme un pays historiquement chiite depuis l’arrivée de IdrƯss 1er, descendant de FƗtima ZohrƗ’, au Maroc. Il existe des pratiques chiites culturellement visibles mais rares sont ceux qui en connaissent l’origine” (Actuel n. page) [We consider the kingdom a historically ShƯ‘ite country since the arrival of IdrƯs I, who was a descendant of Fatima al-ZahrƗ’, to Morocco. There exist culturally visible ShƯ‘ite practices although few people are familiar with their origin].

CHAPTER 21 THE LITERARY LEGACY OF SHƮ‘ISM

21.1 Introduction As a result of their animosity towards the Prophet’s household, the Umayyads, the ‘AbbƗsids, the Almoravids, the Almohads, and other minor dynasties attempted to eradicate ShƯ‘ism from their midst. Besides physically exterminating those who adhered to the ShƯ‘ite faith, they strived to remove any trace of it by destroying minbars and mosques, razing entire cities to the ground in their anti-ShƯ‘ite scorched earth policy, burning thousands of ShƯ‘ite books, and re-writing history. Considering the campaign against the IslƗm of the ahl al-bayt, it is miraculous that any signs of ShƯ‘ism have survived in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Although people plan, says the Qur’Ɨn, God plans better (3:54). Besides the physical evidence of ShƯ‘ites past, the ShƯ‘ite Muslims of the Maghrib and alAndalus left us glimpses of their literary legacy in the form of Arabic and Spanish manuscripts.

21.2 Durur al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ܒ‬. / The Epic of the ‘Alids A prolific author, Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-AbbƗr al-AndalusƯ (11991260) produced a poignant work that suggests his ShƯ‘ite creed: the Durur al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ܒ‬. Translated as the Epopeya de los alƯes or The Epic of the Alids by Santiago Martínez de Francisco, the work relates the historic confrontations between ShƯ‘ites and SunnƯs. The tone of this beautiful work is pro-ShƯ‘ite. The author’s love for the ahl al-bayt is evident as is his repudiation of their enemies. The Durur al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ ܒ‬is an Andalusian, Arabic-language, maqtal al-‫ۉ‬usayn, a genre cultivated almost exclusively by ShƯ‘ite Muslims. Al-MaqqarƯ (c.ௗ1578-1632), the author of the History of Mu‫ۊ‬ammadan Dynasties in Spain, implied that he was a ShƯ‘ite. ণasan alAmƯn, the author of the Shorter ShƯ‘ite Encyclopedia, has included him in

324

Chapter 21

his list of ShƯ‘ite authors. Not only does Santiago Martínez de Francisco categorize Ibn al-AbbƗr as a ShƯ‘ite, he views his Durur al-sim‫ ܒ‬fƯ khabar al-sib‫ ܒ‬as a “Obra clave del shi’ismo en al-Andalus” [key work of ShƯ‘ism in al-Andalus]. As such, there can be little doubt that this Andalusian scholar, who was martyred for his writings, was a partisan of the household of the Prophet.

21.3 El libro de las batallas / The Book of Battles El libro de las batallas or the Book of Battles is an epic book of chivalry which chronicles the major battles in which ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib participated. As much as it dramatizes events for literary effect, the skilled author remains faithful to history. A beautifully written work, the Book of Battles should be considered a classic of Spanish literature which is equal or even superior to many of the works which have been admitted to the Castilian canon. Whether the work was originally authored in Spanish -- as its striking style seems to suggest -- or was translated from an Arabic original, which is either no longer extant or else awaits rediscovery, remains to be established. What cannot be questioned, however, is the ShƯ‘ite nature of the work.

21.3 KitƗb al-anwƗr / The Book of Lights Al-AnwƗr fƯ mawlid al-NabƯ or The Lights of the Prophet’s Birth was one of the most popular books recited by the Moriscos on the occasion of the Prophet’s birthday. A work of sƯrah, the KitƗb al-anwƗr relates the ancestry and life and the Prophet Muতammad in lavish literary detail. The KitƗb alanwƗr and its author al-BakrƯ have been the subject of debate since the early days of IslƗm. As Marion Holmes Katz summarizes, “al-BakrƯ’s sƯrah work was the object of a great deal of scholarly opprobrium; it was denounced by scholars as eminent as al-DhahabƯ, Ibn KathƯr, Ibn ণajar al-‘AsqalƗnƯ, Ibn ণajar al-HaytamƯ, al-QalqashandƯ, and al-ৡafadƯ” (9). Boaz Shoshan provides a summary of the scholarly attitude towards al-BakrƯ: “Liar and swindler (al-kadhdhƗb, ad-dajjƗl)… inventor of stories (wƗ‫ڲ‬i ‘l qi‫܈‬a‫)܈‬,” whose books, however, were read (or sold) in bookshops. This is how Shams al-DƯn adh-DhahabƯ (1274-1348), a Damascene historian, characterized Abnj’l ণasan al-BakrƯ. He was not the only one to write about al-BakrƯ in this manner. Other fourteenth and fifteenth-century writers also evoked al-BakrƯ’s name in a clearly negative sense. Ibn KathƯr (ca 1300-73), a Damascene also, mentioned SƯrat Dhi’l-himm wa’l-Ba‫ܒܒ‬al, SƯrat ‘Antar, al-BakrƯ’s biography of the Prophet (SƯrah al-BakrƯ), and

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

325

SƯrat ad-Danif, in one and the same stroke. He stresses that “the lies produced in al-BakrƯ’s sƯrah are an offence and a grave sin; their fabricator has fallen into the category of those warned by the Prophet: “He who reports lies about me deliberately shall be condemned to Hell.” Ibn ণajar al-‘AsqalanƯ (d. 1449), a leading Egyptian scholar, copied from adh-DhahabƯ almost verbatim; to the works attributed to al-BakrƯ, he added what he considered al-BakrƯ’s most famous piece, the biography of the Prophet, already mentioned by Ibn KathƯr. Al-‘AsqalanƯ also remarked that “there is not [by al-BakrƯ] even one accurate description of a single one of Muতammad’s expeditions (ma sƗqa ghazwatan minhƗ ‘alƗ wajhihƗ); whatever al-BakrƯ related was full of falsification, corruption, or additions.” Another Egyptian, al-QalqashandƯ (1355-1418), chose alBakrƯ as an archetype of liars in his chapter on historically famous (or infamous) characters. IbrƗhƯm b. Muতammad BurhƗn al-DƯn, known as Sib৬ b. al-‘AjamƯ (d. 1438), an Aleppin savant, warned emphatically against al-BakrƯ and quoted adh-DhahabƯ to the effect. Other medieval writers followed suit. The repeated references to al-BakrƯ suggest that his works made popular reading yet were condemned in scholarly circles of the late medieval period. The popularity of al-BakrƯ in Egypt, specifically among the various IslƗmic regions, can be argued from a query addressed to Ibn ণajar al-HaythamƯ, a sixteenth-century scholar, most likely while he was in Cairo. Al-HaytamƯ was asked about the value of al-BakrƯ’s works; the scholar’s legal opinion (fatwƗ) forbade their reading, since they mostly included “lies and falsehood, a hodgepodge of things.” And “since the truth cannot be distinguished from the lies, the whole book is forbidden.” (23)

The identity and even the existence of al-BakrƯ have been called into question by many scholars. As Shoshan notes, “Al-MajlisƯ, the famous ShƯ‘ite author (1627-1698), identified al-BakrƯ as a sixteenth-century scholar” (35). He wrongly believed that he was the teacher of ShahƯd alThƗnƯ (Shoshan 38). As Shoshan has shown, al-BakrƯ cannot have lived in the sixteenth century since an extended passage of al-AnwƗr is found is Abnj RifƗ‘a UmƗrah b. WathƯmah al-FƗrisƯ’s KitƗb bad’ al-khalq wa qi‫܈‬a‫ ܈‬alanbiyƗ’ which dates from the ninth century (25-36). “The inevitable conclusion,” writes Shoshan, “is that the AnwƗr, or at least parts of it, were in circulation by the latter part of the ninth century at the latest” (36). As Katz explains, parts of al-AnwƗr are found in IthbƗt al-wa‫܈‬iyyah lƯ al-ImƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ܑƗlib, a tenth-century work attributed to al-Mas‘njdƯ. (Katz 1617). As Katz keenly observes, “The narrative is introduced by the words rawat al-khƗ‫܈܈‬ah wa al-‘Ɨmmah, “the elite and the commoners have transmitted,” which, in the context of an ImƗmƯ work, alludes to ShƯ‘ites and SunnƯs (Katz 17). The word ‘Ɨmmah is a ShƯ‘ite code word for SunnƯs while

326

Chapter 21

the word khƗ‫܈܈‬ah is a code word for ShƯ‘ites. Either Mas‘njdƯ was a ShƯ‘ite or the work was attributed to him by an anonymous ShƯ‘ite narrator. “There are good reasons,” she continues, “to associate ‘al-BakrƯ,’ or at any rate, the creation of the AnwƗr, with early Muslim storytellers or compilers of qi‫܈‬a‫ ܈‬al-anbiyƗ’ (‘Stories of the Prophets’) books” (Shoshan 37). Al-BakrƯ, it appears, belonged to the body of early narrators that played “a major role in the formation of the standard sources on the rise of IslƗm: Ibn IsতƗq’s SƯrah, al-WƗqidƯ’s MaghƗzƯ, and Ibn Sa‘d’s ܑabaqƗt” (Shoshan 37). Why was al-BakrƯ the victim of so much negative attention on the part of SunnƯ scholars? Was it because he included legendary material? Such stories are also found in Ibn KathƯr, Ibn IsতƗq, and WƗqidƯ. As Shoshan recognizes, ““there is no substantial difference between the AnwƗr and ‘scholarly’ sƯrahs. The difference seems to be one of measure, not of principle” (37). Many modern scholars would place the KitƗb al-anwƗr into the category of “folk-IslƗm.” This, however, is an injustice. As Katz comprehends, only steadfast commitment to the conviction that certain “historical” texts define the normative content of IslƗm could lead one to deny that, for large bodies of Muslims (including some scholars) and for long periods of time, the narratives associated with al-BakrƯ may well have been in all meaningful sense the normative version of the story of the Prophet’s life - that is, the one that was known to most people, accepted as true, and taken as a background for the religious ideas and aspirations of a large body of the faithful. (208)

Why, then, was al-BakrƯ’s work the subject of such severe censure? Was it because it is devoid of complete chains of narration, often only providing the names of Ka‘b al-AতbƗr, Wahb b. Munabbih, and Ibn ‘AbbƗs? If that is the case, then this is a sign, not of forgery, but of antiquity. When pondering upon the sectarian leanings of al-BakrƯ, Katz has this to say: Given the early ShƯ‘ite interest in the births of the Prophet and the ImƗms, it is worth nothing that al-BakrƯ’s sƯrah as a whole may be considered somewhat ambiguous from a sectarian point of view. In one of the stories leading up to the Prophet’s birth, for instance, a soothsayer pointedly pairs the Prophet’s mother with ‘AlƯ’s mother, FƗ৬imah bint Asad; he foretells the births of both Muতammad and ‘AlƯ. Despite this exaltation of ‘AlƯ, which would surely appeal to ShƯ‘ite listeners, the story carefully avoids overtly sectarian language; it hails ‘AlƯ merely as a hero and a defender of IslƗm, which would be unlikely to alienate SunnƯs. Conversely, the text does not contain any obviously SunnƯ features. (9)

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

327

Even though the work is not emphatically ShƯ‘ite it has long been popular among ShƯ‘ites. As Katz notes, The seventeenth-century ImƗmƯ scholar Muতammad BƗqir al-MajlisƯ remarks of al-BakrƯ’s sƯrah that: “it is well known among our scholars, who recite it in the month of RabƯ‘ al-Awwal in sessions and gatherings until the day of the noble mawlid” (10). Contrary to the negative SunnƯ approach to “al-BakrƯ,” it is worthy to note that al-MajlisƯ, the seventeenth-century ShƯ‘ite writer, incorporated the AnwƗr in its complete form in his famous opus Bi‫ۊ‬Ɨr, praised its reliability, and presented it to ShƯ‘ite ‘ulamƗ’ as a worthy reading material in the Prophet’s mawlid sessions. (10)

Addressing the popularity of the work, Shoshan has this to say about its ShƯ‘ite aspects: One reason could be its insistence on the nnjr Mu‫ۊ‬ammadƯ, a concept possibly developed in the circle of the ShƯ‘ite seventh imƗm, MnjsƗ b. Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq (d. 799); it is mentioned by famous tenth-century ShƯ‘ite writes such as KulaynƯ and Ibn BƗbawayh. Another reason could be ‘AlƯ’s dominant role in six of al-BakrƯ’s alleged works. Also, in the AnwƗr Abnj ܑƗlib, ‘AlƯ’s father, has an important role to play… One further note on the question of al-BakrƯ’s “ShƯ‘ite connection:” there is an interesting similarity between passages in the AnwƗr and passages in IthbƗt alwa‫܈‬iyyah lƯ’l-imƗm ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ܑƗlib….(38)

When debating with Spanish scholars, who dogmatically believe that there were no ShƯ‘ites in Spain, the KitƗb al-anwƗr was brought up. Their response was always the same: love for the Prophet is not exclusively ShƯ‘ite. Plus, the KitƗb al-anwƗr is a SunnƯ mawlid that is commonly recited in Egypt, a SunnƯ country. This position, however, is full of fallacies. As Shoshan has shown, it was only in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries that the AnwƗr gained currency in SunnƯ circles (39). As Katz explains, it is not a mawlid but was adopted as a mawlid (Katz 81). In other words, it has been read, copied, and recited for centuries by the Moriscos. It was popular among the Moriscos of Spain before it was a success among the SunnƯs of the Middle East. Furthermore, as Katz has explained, the AnwƗr is not a regular devotional. In fact, “the text of al-AnwƗr is one of the earliest and most influential elements in the complex of narratives that underlie the mawlid genre” (Katz 10). It is not a mawlid but one of the ancient sources upon which the composers of devotional works relied upon. Not only was Abnj al-ণasan Aতmad b. ‘Abd AllƗh al-BakrƯ a ShƯ‘ite, he may have been somewhat extreme in his ShƯ‘ism in the eyes of SunnƯ

328

Chapter 21

scholars. Drawing on ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq’s theory of Muতammadan Light, he produced a work in praise of the luminous origins of the Prophet’s lineage. For some scholars, the existence of such a work in Spain simply shows that the Moriscos used to read ShƯ‘ite literature and the fact that they did does not imply that they were ShƯ‘ites. When faced with Protestant books in Spain, these same scholars would eagerly argue that their presence provides proof of Protestantism. The double standard cannot be greater. While the popularity of al-AnwƗr fƯ mawlid al-NabƯ in Spain does not prove that all Moriscos were ShƯ‘ites; it suggests that there were some ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos. It may be true that some SunnƯs read ShƯ‘ite books and that some ShƯ‘ites read SunnƯ books; however, they do not employ the literature of their opponents in ritual contexts. You will not find ShƯ‘ites reciting the works of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) in their mosques, nor will you find SunnƯs reciting ShƯ‘ite texts in their mosques. Considering the anti-ShƯ‘ite atmosphere that reigned for centuries in al-Andalus, it seems quite baffling that SunnƯs would congregate to listen to the works of alBakrƯ, a ShƯ‘ite scholar who was denounced as an inveterate liar by SunnƯ ‫ۊ‬adƯth authorities. I have, in my possession, a thirteenth century Arabic copy of the KitƗb al-anwƗr [The Book of Lights] that was provided to me by María Luisa Lugo Acevedo and which she obtained from Eulogio Pacho, a priest who specializes in San Juan de la Cruz, and who is also a friend of Luce LópezBaralt. Based on the style of the script and the age of the manuscript, it appears to be the oldest and most important Arabic copy of the KitƗb alanwƗr. Considering that it was written down in Denia, Spain, by a Muslim scribe who lived in Hispanic territory, is of fundamental importance as it demonstrates the interest that the Muslims of Spain, and eventually the Moriscos, had for this popular but discredited work of al-BakrƯ who exalted the household of the Prophet to cosmological levels. Aljamiado versions of the KitƗb al-anwƗr [Book of Lights] include the one from the Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid 4955, the one from the Palacio Real 3225, the one from Urrea de Jalón, the one from the Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia T-18, and the best and most complete one of all, the manuscript from the Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia T-17. All these Aljamiado versions resemble one another. Some are incomplete. There are others that skip parts. Others than are missing the beginning. The most important differences are linguistic. For example, the oldest versions employ more Aragonese words whereas the more recent editions are more modernized in their use of Castilian. Compared to the Aljamiado translations, the original Arabic versions of KitƗb al-anwƗr

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

329

[Book of Lights] contain poems that are absent from the Spanish versions without taking anything away from the beauty of the text. Curiously, if over thirty Aljamiado copies of the Libro de las luces [Book of Lights] have been uncovered in Spain, showing the value the Moriscos placed on the book, the work reappeared in North Africa, in Tunisia, specifically, among the community of exiled Spanish Muslims. According to Moran, Moতamad RabadƗn’s poetic version of The Book of Lights, a famous ShƯ‘ite text, was still being recited by the descendants of Moriscos in the town of Tessatore in the kingdom of Tunisia. The grandfather of Luis Alberto Vittor, the Argentine author of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy, reportedly had the privilege of knowing some of the last ণasanid Twelver ShƯ‘ites from Tunisia when he was a young boy, showing that small numbers of ShƯ‘ites survived into the twentieth century. Known in the Arab world as the Anwar fƯ mawlid al-nabƯ Mu‫ۊ‬ammad, the Book of Lights remains a popular work among ShƯ‘ites and has been amply cited by both ancient and modern authors. There are numerous modern editions published mostly in Lebanon and Iraq. Some of the most recent editions were printed in 1965, 1986, and 1999. It is a ShƯ‘ite work by a ShƯ‘ite author that has circulated in ShƯ‘ite communities since its creation. Considering the popularity of al-BakrƯ among the Moriscos, and the fact that, unlike other Muslims, they had preserved some of the earliest sources of IslƗm, it is possible that many of the traditions I have identified as potentially deriving from ShƯ‘ite sources were drawn from some of his other books. As Shoshan notes, there are thirty-six manuscripts attributed to alBakrƯ (Shoshan 97-99). Others may exist as well. The extant copies exist in complete form, fragments, or citations. Since I did not have access to any of these sources, I can only hope that a subsequent scholar will survey them in search of the source of many of the traditions that the Moriscos cited with such respect and reverence.

21.4 Discurso de la luz / Discourse of Light The Discurso de la luz or Discourse of Light is a poetic version of the traditional Libro de las luces or Book of Lights which deals with the mystical genealogy and childhood of Muতammad. The work survives in several manuscripts, including Ms. Harley 7501, housed in the British Library along with Ms. Esp. 254, which is archived in the Bibliotèque Nationale de France, both of which date to the seventeenth century.

330

Chapter 21

21.5 Crónica y relación de la esclarecida descendencia xarifa / Chronicle and Account of the Noble SharƯfian Descendants If the Moriscos of Tunisia used to gather together to listen to the recitation of the Book of Lights, a ShƯ‘ite book on the luminous origin of the Prophet and his progeny, they also used to congregate to commemorate the martyrdom of ImƗm ণusayn during the month of Muতarram. In a time of limited literacy, several Spanish language ShƯ‘ite books circulating in the Hispano-Tunisian community: El libro de las luces or The Book of Lights, the Discurso de la luz or The Discourse of Light along with La crónica y relación de la esclarecida descendencia xarifa, namely, The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants. The significance is striking. The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants is a maqtal of ImƗm ণusayn which was translated into Spanish in 1639 for the benefit of the Morisco community. Although the identity of the individual who translated, edited, and perhaps adapted the work is subject to dispute, the work is generally attributed to the Hispano-Tunisian Morisco IbrƗhƯm TaybilƯ. In his preface, the translator of the work mentioned that he had read many other books on the subject of the martyrdom of ImƗm ণusayn, suggesting that ShƯ‘ite literature was available in Spain and the Maghrib in the seventeenth century. As Cutillas Ferrer suggests, it is possible that TaybilƯ “tuvo contactos con los chiíes en alguna parte del imperio otomano, bien en los Santos Lugares de La Meca y Medina, o en las regiones de Anatolia, BilƗd al-Šam o Bulgaria (área ésta donde fueron expulsados los QizilbƗš, de tendencia chií)” (1198: 8) [had contacts with ShƯ‘ites in some part of the Ottoman empire, perhaps in the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina, in parts of Anatolia, BilƗd al-ShƗm or Bulgaria (the area from which the ShƯ‘ite oriented Qizilbash were expelled)]. It should be noted that the North African route to Mecca was inaccessible to the Moriscos who had to pass through France, Italy, Venice, Albania, Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon to reach Arabia. As Cutillas Ferrer notes, the ShƯ‘ite madhhab was well represented in the Holy Land and ShƯ‘ite scholars used to teach SunnƯs and grant them diplomas (1998: 23). The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants provides brief sketches of the lives of the twelve ImƗms with an expanded focus on the martyrdom of ImƗm ণusayn at KarbalƗ’. The manuscript, which is found in Bologna, Italy, reasserts the legitimate rights of the family of the Prophet, with a focus on ImƗm ণusayn. For Roma J. Penella, this defense of the ShƯ‘ite line of ImƗms by the Moriscos was either conscious

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

331

or unconscious (qtd. Cutillas Ferrer 1998: 7). Most Moriscos were SunnƯ Muslims of the MƗlikƯ school of law. Like their cousins in the Maghrib, many Moriscos were also adherents to ৡnjfƯ paths of spirituality. In this context, it is difficult to conceive that a SunnƯ Morisco would defend the foundations of ShƯ‘ism, the twelve ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt, as the rightful successors of the Prophet. The author, translator, and audience of the work could only have been ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite sympathizers. Containing prose, poetry, and traditions from the Prophet and the ImƗms, the work draws from ShƯ‘ite, SunnƯ, and ৡnjfƯ sources. Numerous elements appear to have been inserted into the work by the translator, perhaps for the sake of taqiyyah. As José Francisco Cutillas Ferrer has explained, The text is surprising for we would never have expected to find such a work in a supposedly SunnƯ context and in Spanish. The text is also important for if there was a ShƯ‘ah tradition among the Moriscos then perhaps ShƯ‘ah and ‘Alid elements were also present in al-Andalus between the eighth and sixteenth centuries. (1998: 50)

As for the traditions the work contains, some of them are found in SunnƯ and ৡnjfƯ sources while others, however, “son exclusivamente originarias de la chía” 1198: (35) [are exclusively ShƯ‘ite in origin]. Cautious as always, the Spanish scholar does not feel that these coincidences are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the author or translator intended to disseminate ShƯ‘ite doctrines. For some, this is like saying that Christians who clandestinely published Martin Luther (d. 1546) in Spain and France at the same period were not promoting Protestantism. The origin of The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants has yet to be determined despite diligent efforts on my part. Having consulted scholars far and wide, including Dr. Muতammad-RezƗ Fakhr-RohƗnƯ, a leading expert on ‘AshnjrƗ’ literature, I have, so far, been unable to uncover the original source of the work. Despite being well-versed in maqƗtil literature, neither I nor any of my colleagues have found an Arabic or Persian work which resembles the Chronicle and Account. Since Tunisia was under the control of the Ottomans at the time, it makes one wonder whether the work was not of Turkish origin. The BektƗshƯs and AlevƯs of Albania and Turkey produced a rich body of ‘AshnjrƗ’ literature in Albanian and Turkish. The ‫ۉ‬adƯqat al-Su‘adƗ or Garden of the Blessed of Muতammad b. SulaymƗn FuঌulƯ (c. 1483-1556) is only one example of a Turkish maqtal al-‫ۉ‬usayn. Rather than have an Arabic-language origin, The Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants may have a Turkish BektƗshƯ-AlevƯ origin. Since the

332

Chapter 21

BektƗshƯs and the AlevƯs revere the twelve ImƗms yet embrace aspects of Sunnism and ৡnjfism, The Chronicle and Account could conceivably be the product of such religious syncretism. It is also conceivable that The Chronicle and Account represents the views of a distinct sect of ণasanid ShƯ‘ites, one that accepted the four first caliphs as well as the twelve ImƗms. In fact, there was a faction of ZaydƯs who held such a belief. They were willing to accept the twelve ImƗms; however, they insisted on including Zayd b. ‘AlƯ as an additional ImƗm. This explains the existence of prophetic traditions which speak of thirteen ImƗms (AmƯr-MoezzƯ 180, note 38). In fact, even some ImƗmƯ scholars like HibƗt AllƗh b. Muতammad al-KƗtib “had included Zayd b. ‘AlƯ … the founder of the Zaydiyyah… among the ImƗmite ImƗms” (Sachedina 55). Initially, I suspected that the work was a Spanish translation of Ibn ৫njlnjn’s al-AҲimmah al-ithnƗ ұashar [The Twelve ImƗms]. Since Ibn ৫njlnjn was a ShƗfi‘Ư SunnƯ who was influenced by ৡnjfism, I considered his work, which is an introduction of the twelve ImƗms to a SunnƯ audience, a possible source for the Crónica y relación. I read this rare book by Ibn ৫njlnjn at the Library of Congress and soon discarded it as a potential source. Similar in style and presentation as the Crónica y relación, al-AҲimmah al-ithnƗ ұashar is even shorter than the former, offering brief one to two-page overviews of each ImƗm, relying mostly on prophetic traditions, as opposed to detailed account of events, such as the martyrdom of ImƗm ণusayn. As Cutillas Ferrer observes, the maqtal of Turkish origin stresses the bravery of ImƗm ণusayn in the face of his enemies whereas the Persian maqtal the focus is on his death: it is salvation through sacrifice (1998: 30). The Spanish scholar proceeds to describe the similarities that the Morisco maqtal shared with the Persian taziyeh (1998: 29-30) but concludes that the Crónica y relación is in reality a precursor to the traditional Persian ShƯ‘ite theatre of mourning (1998: 30). For Cutillas Ferrer, Mulla ণusayn WƗ‘iz KƗshifƯ’s Raw‫ڲ‬at al-ShuhadƗ’ [The Garden of the Martyrs] is the immediate precedent to the Crónica and relación (1998: 32). I also posit an early origin for the Morisco maqtal based, not only on its style and content, but also on the fact that many of the sources of Aljamiado literature are quite ancient. There were not simply citing the scholarly best-sellers of the time: they were quoting from the earliest sources of IslƗm, including many that never survived the vicissitudes of time in the rest of the Muslim world. For many reasons, including its distance and relative independence from the rest of the Muslim world, al-Andalus, and early modern Spain, was a repository for sources that were neglected, ignored, forgotten, or systematically destroyed on the dictates of oppressive rulers.

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

333

For Cutillas Ferrer, the Chronicle and Account possesses “evidentes rasgos chiíes” (1998: 7) [obvious ShƯ‘ite traits] and the author had “cierta afinidad con la chía” (1998: 29) [a certain affinity for the ShƯ‘ites]. Regardless of its origin, The Chronicle and Account is a Twelver ShƯ‘ite work. More precisely, it is a maqtal, “obra eminentemente chií” (1998: 8) [an eminently ShƯ‘ite genre]. Cutillas Ferrer concludes that some of the learned Moriscos were familiar with the commemoration of ‘AshurƗ’ which suggests that they may have witnessed them in person in Anatolia, Lebanon or Syria or they had access to another maqtal (1998: 23). “Judging from the text,” writes Cutillas Ferrer, “the Corónica was read mainly on the day of ‘AshnjrƗ’” (2012: 55). As the critic explains, The third chapter of the Crónica has the same structure and the same purpose as a maqtal, which is to create an intense emotion. Perhaps this kind of literature reminded the Moriscos of the theatre performances they had witnessed during the Golden Age in Spain. In addition to this, the Crónica has all the doctrinal elements of a maqtal, in particular, the elements of martyrdom and imitation (tashƗbuh). (2012: 55)

As inquisition records indicate, the Moriscos used to carry out theatrical performances about the Prophet and his companions while in Spain (2012: 63, note 16). The nature of such plays has been studied by RiঌƗ MamƯ, Francisco Yndurain, J. Fournel-Guérin and F. Fernández y Gonzáles. Considering the love and admiration that many Moriscos held towards ‘AlƯ, as expressed in the Book of Battles, it seems possible that ShƯ‘ite Moriscos would have commemorated the tragic events of ‘AshnjrƗ’. If many Moroccans still observe a diluted form of ‘AshnjrƗ’ as a remnant of a ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid and FƗ৬imid past, the situation may have been similar in Tunisia as well as al-Andalus. While more work has to be completed on the subject, there might be a connection between the ShƯ‘ite commemoration of ‘AshnjrƗ’ and the Catholic rites of the Penitents which take place during semana santa or Holy Week. It is possible that the Catholics adopted the self-flagellation rituals of extremist ShƯ‘ites or extremist ShƯ‘ites integrated a Christian practice into their folk-ShƯ‘ism. José Francisco Cutillas Ferrer also makes another interesting point. He notes that the taziyeh commences with short, simple, text, and it was only over time that they became more elaborate and refined (1998: 33). To this base were added Biblical and Qur’Ɨnic accounts along with aspects drawn from Persian history (1998: 33). The commemoration of the tenth day of Muতarram was eventually expanded to encompass the entire month (1998: 33). It reached a point where the date of birth or death of any personality was offered as an excuse to read a taziyeh (1998: 33). Over time, theatrical

334

Chapter 21

troupes were organized to dramatize the events (1998: 33-34). I wonder if the characteristic Spanish exaltation of romantic death does not ultimately stem from the fate of the exiled and massacred ShƯ‘ah of alAndalus, whose martyrdom re-enacted the martyrdom of ণusayn and thereby partook of the same spirit. Even the corrida, with its momento de la verdad, is like a live, theatrical, and potentially literal dramatization of a martyrdom, though it is associated with Christian Spain and is built on some archaic pagan foundation, Roman at one point, perhaps originally Cretan or Carthaginian. As Cutillas Ferrer notes, “Lo más sorprendente de las taziyeh es que en su evolución parecía indicar la formación de una tradición teatral a la manera europea” (1998: 34) [The most surprising aspect of the taziyeh is that its evolution appears to indicate the formation of a European-style theatrical tradition]. While Cutillas Ferrer did not connect the dots or recognize the implication of these words, it suggests to me that the Moriscos, who had a long European theatrical tradition, played a role in dramatizing the maqtal, thus turning it into the modern form of taziyeh that we are familiar with today. How could the Moriscos from Spain and Tunisia have helped develop the Persian-style taziyeh? First, by realizing that the Moriscos lived not only in Spain, France, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia but also that they were settled, according to the imperial orders of Beylerbey of Tunis around Adana, Azir, Sis, Tarsus and Kar (1998: 24). These were, and remain, regions with the highest concentrations of AlevƯs in Turkey. What is more, Kusun, near Tarsus was the historical home of the QizilbƗsh, GhulƗt ShƯ‘ites linked to the ৡafavids. Considering that IbrƗhƯm TaybilƯ translated the Chronicle and Account for al-ণajj Muতammad Rubio de Villafeliche, a wealthy and influential leader of the exiled Morisco community in Tunisia, the work was not a mere curiosity. As Cutillas Ferrer notes, “esta obra es expresión de una determinada realidad social que influyó en nuestro autor, y que por supuesto también influyó en el conjunto de la comunidad a la que pertenecía” (1998: 25) [this work is the expression of a specific social reality that influenced our author and which influenced the entire community to which he belonged]. For Cutillas Ferrer, however, the fact that Muতammad Rubio asked IbrƗhƯm TaybilƯ to translate the work from Arabic into Spanish does not mean that he embraced ShƯ‘ite doctrine (1998: 25). The work may simply have drawn his attention (1998: 25). If Muতammad Rubio was not a ShƯ‘ite, he was, at least interested or inclined to ShƯ‘ism as were members of his community. Whether or not the Moriscos and the ShƯ‘ites were the same,

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

335

Cutillas Ferrer admits that “Los moriscos y la chía no estuvieron, a la luz de estos datos, alejados” (1998: 26) [The Moriscos and the ShƯ‘ites were not, in light of this information, far apart]. For me, the answer is more obvious. If one were to find Protestant books hidden in the walls and floors of ancient homes in a Catholic country, I would conclude that the inhabitants had been Protestants. If, in a sea of Sunnism, I find people with a thirst for ShƯ‘ism, I can only conclude that they were ShƯ‘ites. The fact that they recited a maqtal for ণusayn, and continued to do so for centuries to come, bridges faith and practice, and theory and reality. As Cutillas Ferrer acknowledges himself, “la expresión literaria de esta obra es un reflejo muy particular de la comunidad morisca en el exilio” (1998: 26) [the literary expression of this work is an important reflection of the Morisco community in exile]. Mercedes García-Arenal recognizes the significance of the Crónica y relación in her study on the shurafƗ or descendants of the Prophet in late Spanish IslƗm: Why would a Tunisian Morisco translate a ShƯ‘ite work? It is clear that neither the translator nor Muতammad Rubio, who financed the translation and the entire collection of works gathered in the miscellaneous volume, saw anything suspicious or reprehensible in it…. [W]hat does it mean when the two most important works on the genealogy of the Prophet and his family found among the Moriscos have such a markedly ShƯ‘ite character? (2012: 178)

In her mind, “part of it must surely have had to do with the Morisco need to emphasize their prophetic lineage, the figure of Muhammad and his own holy descendants” (2012: 178). In addition, “The exaltation of the martyrdom of the Prophet’s descendants must have been especially moving to members of a harassed and persecuted minority” (2012: 178). Finally, she explains the presence of the Crónica y relación as an expression of “the messianic beliefs that were so widespread among the Moriscos,” namely, “the arrival of a mahdƯ called ‘el-FƗ৬imƯ,’ who would bring them salvation” (2012: 178-179). As García-Arenal explains, For the Moriscos of Aragón, el-FƗ৬imƯ was a “sleeping” and “hidden” (in ghaybah?) emperor who would reappear riding a green horse to save the Moriscos and defeat the Christians… The belief of a hidden “encubierto” savior of the Moriscos appears in aljamiado texts. (2012: 179)

Although other heroes “such as King Arthur, Roderick the Goth, Don Sebastian of Spain, Bruce of Scotland, Holger the Dane, Frederick Barbarossa, Siegfried, Owen Glendower and AlfƗ৬imƯ the Moor all sleep in

336

Chapter 21

enchanted slumbers awaiting the call to battle for the powers of light or some noble cause” (Cooper 108), the case of the Morisco MahdƯ must also be viewed from an IslƗmic perspective. As García-Arenal notes, the chronicler of the revolt of the Alpujarras described the rise of the Awaited One in the following terms: At that time God will send a king of great stature, hidden… and they will enter Fez and they will find the hidden one in the mosque with the sword of IdrƯs in his hand and dressed as a Moor; having seen which, all the Christians will become Moors. (2012: 179)

García-Arenal rightly recognizes that [t]he sword of IdrƯs was that of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ (d. 175/791), the brother of Muতammad Nafs al-Zakiyyah, the founder of Fez and of the first dynasty of shurafƗ of the Maghreb, the first ruler of the Maghreb to call himself mahdƯ. (2012: 179)

However, she fails to acknowledge that the sword of IdrƯs I, which adorned the roof of the IdrƯsid mosque in Fez, is said to have originally belonged to ImƗm ‘AlƯ. It was the sacred symbol of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗmate. This is significant in a ShƯ‘ite context for the ZaydƯs always insisted that the true and legitimate ImƗm was the descendant of the Prophet Muতammad who rose up with the sword for the cause of social justice. This ZaydƯ belief was still being invoked by the Moriscos who rose in revolt in the mountains of southern Spain between 1499 and 1501 as well as 1568 and 1571. Ibn ‘ArabƯ shared the belief that ImƗm MahdƯ was of IdrƯsid ণasanid origin. As he explains in the Futnj‫ۊ‬Ɨt al-makkiyyah: Know! God will help us, for He has a viceregent who, when the earth is filled with injustice, will appear to fill it with justice... His vicegerent… is from the Holy Prophet’s household, and FƗ৬imah’s offspring, and his ancestor is ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib… His enemies are the followers of the scholars (mujtahids) who will go to him reluctantly out of fear from his sword and for the wealth which will be with him… He is now among us and I knew him in the year 595 [AH]… (qtd. Kazemzadeh and Davarnia 67, 68) God revealed it for me in the city of Fez and I saw the stamp of wilƗyah on him. He was the seal of absolute prophethood. Many people do not know him, and they have even undertaken to deny him… In the same way that God, the Exalted, put an end to the prophetic laws by him, He communicated His divine message and put an end through the

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

337

Muতammadan sealing. This is that which results from the family of Muতammad and no other divine prophet. (qtd. Kazemzadeh and Davarnia 66)

Consequently, the Morisco belief that ImƗm MahdƯ, the descendant of the IdrƯsids, namely, from the progeny of ImƗm al-ণasan, would surface in Fez, rising up with the sword of Moulay IdrƯs, which had previously belonged to ImƗm ‘AlƯ himself, was shared by both ShƯ‘ites and ৡnjfis from North Africa and Spain. As Marya T. Green-Mercado notes in “The MahdƯ in Valencia,” “the legend of El Moro AlfƗ৬imƯ (AlfƗ৬imƯ the Moor)… circulated widely among the crypto-Muslims of the Crown of Aragón throughout the sixteenth century” (205). In fact, “The tradition… was recorded in nearly all the chronicles of the expulsion of the Moriscos written during the first two decades of the seventeenth century” (205). As Wilson Dallam Wallis writes, The Moors of Almoncir, Spain, after the decree of expulsion (1526), fortified themselves in a castle near Saragossa and placed their hopes in a succor from Africa in the promised resurrection of the Moor AlfƗ৬imƯ, who was to return mounted on his green horse. [H.C. Lea, The Moriscos of Spain, 90. Philadelphia, 1901]. The belief in a mounted Moতammedan warrior of great or magic power, hidden away in some recess of the country, to reappear latter, was a common belief of the Spanish Moors. [Cf. Washington Irving, Legends of the Alhambra. Philadelphia, 1910; and The Alhambra]. (223; see also Lea 90, Fonseca 160, Harvey 2008: 313)

Was Irving’s Headless Horseman an obscure and distant echo of the beheaded Husayn, somehow conflated with AlfƗ৬imƯ? And what of the Green Knight from the Gawain and the Green Knight romance by the Poet of the Pearl, who also rides a horse while holding his severed head in his hand? Scholars have associated him with Khiঌr the Green Man, the immortal prophet and patron of the ৡnjfƯs -- but, seeing that his horse is as green as he is, he could just as likely be an incarnation of AlfƗ৬imƯ the Moor. The fact that his weapon is an axe rather than a sword suggests a Persian influence, as if he were a traveling dervish or qalandar bearing an axe and a kashkul, a begging-bowl made from the shell of a sea-coconut, which will do nicely for the severed head. The Green Knight, when he unexpectedly rides into Arthur’s court, challenges Gawain to behead him, and then to rendezvous with him at the Green Castle in a year and a day and bare his own neck to the axe. Gawain succeeds in beheading is adversary, but instead of falling the Green Knight picks up his severed head, mounts his horse, tells Gawain, “I’ll see you in a

338

Chapter 21

year,” and rides off. Beheading, in ৡnjfƯ symbolism, represents the sacrifice of the headstrong ego, a notion that might well be an esoteric hermeneutic of the beheading of ImƗm Husayn. The Morisco belief in a coming savior was well-known even to their Christian foes. Writing in 1612, Pedro Aznar Cardona, a Catholic priest, noted that the Moriscos “firmly believed, through infallible tradition, that on that occasion, el Moro Al-FƗ৬imƯ [the FƗ৬imid Moor] would rise up to defend them and kill the Christians while riding on his green horse” (11). As Cardona explains, Al-FƗ৬imƯ had fought the army of King James I and had gone into hiding in the mountains of Aguar (11). The connection between the MahdƯ of the Spanish Moors and James I of Aragón (1208-1276), known as the Conqueror, is curious. Would the Muslim MahdƯ fight alongside Christians? Why not? Khiঌr himself is said to fight with both Muslims and non-Muslims, always siding with truth. After all, James I was fighting the Almohads, the ancient version of the WahhabƯs, who were staunchly anti-ShƯ‘ite, subjecting the partisans of the household of the Prophet to genocide. Most interesting of all, however, is the fact that James, as a young boy, was entrusted to the care of Guillem de Montredó, the leader of the Knights Templar in Spain who, in the mind of some, including Charles Upton and myself, appear to have been associated with or influenced by ShƯ‘ism (Upton and Morrow 2017). According to Morisco belief, this savior was occulted in a cave in the Spanish Sierra de Aguar and would rise up to avenge wrongs and destroy tyrants (Falcones 784; Howey n. pag.; Hartland 206). He was simultaneously the MahdƯ of the Muslims and the Anti-Christ of the Christians; Anti-Christ, however, in the sense of being anti-Christian (Castries 64). The notion of a Hidden ImƗm traces back to the time of Muতammad b. al-Hanafiyyah (c. 637-700), the son of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. His followers, the Kaysaniyyah, refused to accept his death and claimed that he was hiding on Mount RaঌwƗ near Medina. They claimed that he was protected and fed by wild animals, and that he would return, when God willed it, to re-establish the true religion and bring justice to the world (Küng 199-200). Time and again, when an ImƗm from the descendants of the Prophet would die, some of his followers would claim that he was still alive and had entered a state of occultation. The messianism of the Moriscos -- including their belief thatn a Hidden ImƗm, al-FƗtimƯ, the descendant of Muতammad, would come to the rescue of the Moriscos riding on a green horse in a final apocalyptic battle -- is decidedly ShƯ‘ite in origin. Green-Mercado associates this messianic figure with “the sage of IslƗmic tradition known as al-Khiঌr, the ‘green one’” (207). However, according to A. Morabia, the color symbolizes the green standard of Muতammad and the green cloak of ‘AlƯ (207, note 55). While

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

339

this messianic figure is a fusion of both figures, the MahdƯ and al-Khiঌr, the former is also associated with the color green in ShƯ‘ism. In fact, according to Twelver ShƯ‘ite traditions, ImƗm MahdƯ has green eyes. What is more, it is even claimed in some traditions that the hair on his chest was green. As the MahdƯ unleashes terror, it is understandable that his enemies would perceive him as evil even though his wrath is divine. García-Arenal is also correct when she proposes that ৡnjfism might have been one of the mediums through which ShƯ‘ite ideas spread among the Moriscos. For Morimoto Kazuo, “These materials were transmitted beyond the boundaries separating Sunnites and ShƯ‘ites” (Garcia-Arenal, “ShurafƗ” 179). However, the presence of pro-sayyid/sharƯf elements among SunnƯs and ৡnjfƯs should not be used to discount the ShƯ‘ite presence in the Maghreb and al-Andalus. As García-Arenal explains, the IslƗmization of the IslƗmic West was largely carried out under ShƯ‘ite terms… during the period before ShƯ‘ism as such had been defined, fenced off and set apart from orthodoxy. If this were the case, it might be more accurate to see the period of “late Spanish IslƗm” as defined by something like the survival of a local IslƗm as it had been practiced by the rural populations of al-Andalus and the Maghreb along the “Middle Ages.” (2012: 179)

The problem with some scholars of Spanish IslƗm is that they perceive ShƯ‘ism as heterodox or heretical. When someone speaks of ShƯ‘ism in alAndalus, they imagine ৡafavƯd-style ShƯ‘ism or some form of modern Twelver ShƯ‘ism. However, when we speak of ShƯ‘ism, we speak of partisans of ‘AlƯ and the family of the Prophet, namely, the opponents of the Umayyads. We speak of the proponents of ImƗmate instead of Caliphate. While SunnƯs and ShƯ‘ites share many common beliefs and practices, there are important points of divergence between the two groups. As this study shows, there were ShƯ‘ite currents, in one form or another, in the Maghreb and al-Andalus from the start of the process of IslƗmization and they continued to flow well beyond the Reconquista. The historical record confirms it and the literary evidence demonstrates it. The ZaydƯs, the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the WƗqifƯs, the ImƗmƯs, the GhulƗt, and other ShƯ‘ite sects, all left their traces. And yes, whether it was called ShƯ‘ism or not, and whether the Moriscos referred to themselves as ShƯ‘ites or not, there was a primitive form of popular ShƯ‘ism, a relic religion, that circulated among some of them. Many Moriscos believed in a Hidden ImƗm, an Awaited MahdƯ, who was identified in one source as the impeccable and infallible son of ImƗm ণasan al-‘AskarƯ and in others as the descendant of the IdrƯsids. He would rise up with the sword of ImƗm ‘AlƯ which had belonged to Moulay IdrƯs,

340

Chapter 21

the founder of the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid Dynasty. Are these SunnƯ beliefs? No. They are clearly ShƯ‘ite.

21.6 Al-anwƗr al-nabawiyyah fi ƗbƗ khayr al-barriyah / Prophetic Lights on the Descendants of the Best of Creatures Al-anwƗr al-nabawiyyah fi ƗbƗ khayr al-barriyah was written in Arabic by Ibn ‘Abd al-RafƯ‘ al-AndalusƯ. Originally from Murcia, Spain, he settled in Tunis in 1597, and died in Mecca, during the pilgrimage of 1643. The work in question is a laudatory genealogy, devoted to the Prophet and his descendants, which was completed in 1635. Since works in praise of the Prophet were popular among the SunnƯ scholars of the time, one cannot claim that this was a specifically ShƯ‘ite work. However, it does demonstrate that love for the household of the Prophet was strong among the Moriscos, something that cannot be said of some so-called SunnƯs from Spain and other parts of the Muslim world. According to Cutillas Ferrer, al-AnwƗr al-nabawiyyah, like the Crónica y relación, may form part of a Morisco effort to revendicate their status as shurafƗ’ or descendants of the Prophet Muতammad (1998: 25). It is shameful to note that the Moriscos were not embraced with open arms by many Muslims, particularly in Algeria, where they were enslaved as infidels. Even when they were not sold into slavery, they were accused of being kuffƗr because they spoke Spanish, dressed in European clothing, and had Spanish family names. Like many other Arabs, the Moriscos had maintained detailed information about their ancestry and genealogy. As Ibn ‘Abd al-RafƯ‘ demonstrates, many Morisco families descended from ImƗm ণusayn, ImƗm ণasan, Zayd b. ‘AlƯ, ImƗm Ja‘far and other distinguished personalities. The established associations of shurafƗ’ and sƗdah in the Maghrib refused to recognize these Morisco newcomers. Consequently, Ibn ‘Abd al-RafƯ‘, as one of the leaders of the Morisco community in Tunis, established an independent association of shurafƗ’ as well as his own madrasah or IslƗmic seminary. It seems possible that the SunnƯ rejection of the Moriscos propelled some of them into the ShƯ‘ite orbit. In an attempt to affirm their own identity and independence, the Moriscos stressed their status as shurafƗ’ and sƗdah in a possible attempt to prove that they were more faithful than the SunnƯ sharƯfs and sayyids since they adhered to the IslƗm of the twelve ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt.

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

341

21.7 ShƯ‘ite Traditions Besides the existence of numerous Aljamiado-Morisco books which are either ShƯ‘ite or show strong signs of ShƯ‘ism, there is also an important number of anthologies of prophetic traditions containing ShƯ‘ite a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth, some of which are found solely in ShƯ‘ite sources. Aljamiado literature contains traditions that are found in ImƗm ‘AlƯ Nahj al-BalƗghah and Dustnjr ma‘Ɨlim al-‫ۊ‬ikam, KulaynƯ’s al-KƗfƯ, HƗshim b. SulaymƗn BaতrƗnƯ’s MadƯnat al-ma‘Ɨjiz, and ৡadnjq’s KitƗb al-Taw‫ۊ‬Ưd, IrbilƯ’s Kashf al-ghummah, Qu৬b al-DƯn al-RƗwandƯ’s al-KharƗ’ij wa al-JarƗ’i‫ۊ‬, Tadhkirat al-awliyyƗ’ by FarƯd al-DƯn ‘A৬৬Ɨr, al-ণasan b. Muতammad al-DaylamƯ’s IrshƗd al-qulnjb, Abnj al-Faraj ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn b. Muতammad al-IৢfahƗnƯ’s MaqƗtil al-ܑƗlibiyyƯn, Ibn ৫Ɨwnjs’ Muhaj alDa‘awƗt, MufƯd’s KitƗb al-IrshƗd BakrƯ’s Futnj‫ ۊ‬al-Yaman and KitƗb alanwƗr, ShƯrƗzƯ’s KalimatullƗh, ৡabbƗn’s Is‘Ɨf al-RƗghibƯn, as well as works by ৫njsƯ, Kaf’amƯ, and MajlisƯ. They also contain some fascinating variants of one of the most famous of ShƯ‘ite narrations, the Event of the Cloak. Aljamiado-Morisco manuscripts also contain a large number of ShƯ‘ite traditions, both short and long, which are not found in the canonical books of traditions of the SunnƯs, the ShƯ‘ites, or the IbƗঌƯs. These traditions, it would seem, represent “lost traditions,” namely, a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth which survived only in al-Andalus after many of the major libraries in the Muslim world were destroyed. Some of these traditions are so staunchly ShƯ‘ite that one wonders which group preserved them or perhaps even produced them. While some may be of ImƗmƯ origin, others may be of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ, ZaydƯ, ণasanƯ, or perhaps even GhulƗt provenance.

22.8 The Testaments of the Prophet Muতammad to ImƗm ‘AlƯ The Arabic term wa‫܈‬iyyah means a bequest, a will, or a testament. In IslƗmic law, it refers to matters of inheritance. Its essential elements include a testator, a legatee, and a legacy. As a legal document, it follows a prescribed formula. Inheritance in IslƗm is strictly formalized and laws on the subject are meticulously detailed. Besides the legal wa‫܈‬iyyah, there is also a religious wa‫܈‬iyyah which consists of guidance, advice, and exhortations that a father, for example, would give to his sons. A famous example of a wa‫܈‬iyyah is the last will of ImƗm ‘AlƯ to his son, ImƗm al-Hasan or, in more recent times, the political and religious testament of KhomeinƯ. As Hoyland has observed, the wa‫܈‬iyyah became a popular genre in early IslƗmic times (212). Many such testaments were produced by prominent men and directed

342

Chapter 21

to their sons, successors, or followers. Others, however, were invented and attributed to past political and religious figures to grant them more weight and legitimacy. For a comprehensive study of wa‫܈‬iyyah literature in alAndalus and early Spain, the study by Karima Bouras is a necessary starting point. She studies the various wa‫܈‬ayƗ linguistically and juridically, as a literary genre, as well as historically and thematically. In the ShƯ‘ite context, the wa‫܈‬iyyah takes on important political and religious dimensions. As Friedlander explains, “In the opinion of the ImƗmiyyah, ‘AlƯ was entitled to the caliphate by virtue of a written will of the Prophet. The ‘companions,’ however, maliciously made this will disappear” (22). “The Zaydiyyah,” however, “deny the existence of a written will” (22) As Ibn ণazm explains, One party maintains that the Apostle of AllƗh put down a written statement concerning ‘AlƯ, viz. that he was to be the caliph after him, but the companions after him unanimously agreed upon doing wrong to ‘AlƯ and upon keeping to themselves the statement of the Prophet. These are the so-called RawƗfiঌ. The other party says: The Prophet never put down a written statement concerning ‘AlƯ. Yet he was the most excellent of men after the Apostle of AllƗh and worthier of the command than any of them. These are the Zaydiyyah, who trace their origin to Zayd b. ‘AlƯ b. alণusein b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. (74)

The wa‫܈‬ayƗ or testaments of the Prophet Muতammad to ‘AlƯ include Aljamiado manuscripts written in the Arabic alphabet such as Manuscript 614 of the National Library of Algeria and Manuscript Gay T13 from the Real Academia de la Historia; Aljamiado manuscripts written in Latin script, such as the documents found in Ocaña, Toledo, in 1969 as well as Manuscript S-I from the Real Academia de la Historia; and, finally, Arabic language manuscripts, including Manuscript 1874 from the Biblioteca de El Escorial and Manuscript CXVIII from the Real Academia de la Historia. All the manuscripts have been studied in Spanish by Karima Bouras in her doctoral dissertation titled La wa‫܈‬iyya de Ali del manuscrito aljamiado 614 de la Bibliotèque Nationale de Argelia which she completed at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 2008. The study in question had made an important contribution to Aljamiado studies. As much as I would have liked to include English translations of these Aljamiado-Morisco and Arabic manuscripts, such an addition would have resulted in over two hundred more pages of text to a work that is already voluminous. I do hope that another scholar will translate the work of Karima Bouras into English to share her findings with a broader academic audience. As for this study, it will be limited to my translation of chapter twenty-six

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

343

of the Gay T-13 Manuscript from the Royal Academy of History in Madrid, along with selections from other wa‫܈‬ayƗ which I will translate and comment upon. As readers will appreciate from the second volume of this work, the testaments of the Prophet Muতammad to ‘AlƯ manifest a marked ShƯ‘ite influence. As for the sources of these testaments, some of the sayings of ImƗm ‘AlƯ derive from Ibn ‘ArabƯ’s al-Futnj‫ۊ‬Ɨt al-Makkiyyah (Bouras 183-185). Most, however, were taken from ShƯ‘ite sources, specifically the Tu‫ۊ‬af al‘uqnjl ‘an Ɨl al-rasnjl by al-ণarrƗnƯ which contains a large body of wa‫܈‬ayƗ from the prophets and the ImƗms. According to bibliographical sources, alণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn Ibn Shu‘bah al- ণarrƗnƯ al-ণalabƯ, whose kunyah was Abnj Muতammad, was born in the year 991. As Bouras explains regarding al-ণarrƗnƯ Nació en una familia xií en ণarrƗn, un pueblo en la ciudad siria de ণalab, considerada en aquel tiempo como la Meca de la sabiduría y visitada, por lo tanto, por muchos sabios del mundo musulmán. Parece ser además, uno de los personajes más eminentes de la jurisprudencia xií de aquella época. En las Bibliografías de Autores xiíes, se describe como sabio virtuoso y gran orador, cuya obra Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘Uqnjl es el mayor testimonio de su notoriedad. Se le atribuye otra obra titulada At-Tam‫ۊ‬Ưs. Muchas de sus narraciones halladas en Tu‫ۊ‬af se transmiten en las grandes enciclopedias de sabios xiíes como WasƗ’il Aš-ŠƯ’a, Bi‫ۊ‬Ɨr al-AnwƗr y A’yƗn al-ŠƯ’a. (185-186) [He was born into a ShƯ‘ite family in ণarrƗn, a village in the Syrian city of ণalab considered, at that time, like the Mecca of knowledge and visited, as a result, by many scholars from the Muslim world. Furthermore, he appears to be one of the most eminent personalities of ShƯ‘ite jurisprudence of the time. In the Bibliography of ShƯ‘ite Authors, he is described as a pious scholar and a great orator whose work, Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl, is the greatest claim to fame. The work al-Tam‫ۊ‬Ưs is also attributed to him. Many of the narrations that are found in Tu‫ۊ‬af have been transmitted in the great encyclopedias by ShƯ‘ite scholars, such as WasƗ’il al-ShƯ‘ah, Bi‫ۊ‬Ɨr alanwƗr, and A’yƗn al-ShƯ‘ah.]

The fact that al-ণarrƗnƯ was a ShƯ‘ite is not subject to dispute. He was openly ShƯ‘ite and addressed his works directly to a purely ShƯ‘ite audience (Bouras 187). In his preface, to Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl, al-ণarrƗnƯ explains that the wa‫܈‬ayƗ he has compiled are commonly known in his environment and that they reached him through oral transmission. He also explains that he suppressed the chains of narration because the sayings in question were rules of education and conduct which needed no confirmation (Bouras 187). He also states that his work is unique in the sense that the sayings in question

344

Chapter 21

had never been compiled before (Bouras 187). Speaking of the Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl, Bouras concludes that “Esta obra tiene un contenido muy similar a las wa‫܈‬ayƗ de ‘AlƯ difundidas en la literatura aljamiada en general y en el texto del primer capítulo del manuscrito 614 de la BNA” 188) [This work is very similar in content to the wa‫܈‬ayƗ of ‘AlƯ which are found in aljamiado literature in general and in the text of the first chapter of manuscript 614 from the BNA]. As Bouras demonstrates, large segments from Manuscript 614 from the National Library of Algeria, the Ocaña Manuscripts, and Manuscript CXVIII from the Royal Academy of History are identical to passages found in Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl (255-257). Although I have translated some short sayings, others were too long for my taste and time. At the end of her doctoral dissertation on La wa‫܈‬iyya de Ali del manuscrito aljamiado 614 de la Bibliotèque Nationale de Argelia [The waৢiyyah of ‘AlƯ from Aljamiado Manuscript 614 from the National Library of Algeria], Karima Bouras comes to the following conclusions: Esta wa‫܈‬iyyah pertenece [a] la literature xií del ণadƯt, indudablemente, al corpus de hadices apócrifos de los primeros zuhhƗd (ascetas) xiíes, inspirados en la religión de sus antepasados, introdujeron en el ণadƯt. Varios elementos apoyan esta hipótesis: Primero; la idea general del texto que refleja enormemente el núcleo de la ideología xií y muestra a ‘AlƯ como wa‫܈‬iyyu rasnjli-llƗh; es decir su sucesor o el portador de su testamento. Segundo; el aspecto ascético del texto manifiesto en diversos pasajes del mismo. Tercero; la existencia de textos idénticos en obras de autores xiíes, tal como Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘Uqnjl ‘an Al Ar-Rasnjl de al-ণarrƗnƯ que subraya en su prólogo que su texto está dirigido exclusivamente a los seguidores de ‘AlƯ y de los doce Imames. O como a-Futnj‫ۊ‬Ɨt al-Makkiyyah del gran maestro sufí Ibn ‘ArabƯ de Murcia, donde surge la waৢiyyah como mensaje dirigido a los discípulos del sufismo. Aunque no sabemos si hubo entre los mudéjares y los moriscos corrientes xiíes o sufíes, ni hasta qué punto fueron éstos conscientes de la verdadera esencia de este texto, lo que sí podemos confirmar es el hecho que se trata de un texto difundido en obras de xiísmo y de sufismo, dos corrientes que tuvieron mucho que ver con la popularidad desarrollada hacia ‘AlƯ como eminente miembro de la familia del Profeta. Y que dicho texto llegó a España y varias versiones del mismo fueron propagadas entre mudéjares y moriscos a lo largo de dos siglos… En cuanto a la llegada de esta waৢiyyah y el periodo de su difusión en España, si nos basamos en las fechas proporcionadas en los manuscritos objetos de edición o las características lingüísticas de éstos, diríamos que aparte del manuscrito de Ocaña que parece ser del siglo XV, el resto de los manuscritos serían documentos pertenecientes a principios, mediados,

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism finales del siglo XVI y principios del siglo XVII, por lo cual, estaremos ante un texto difundido en España a lo largo de dos siglos. Sin embargo, si tomamos en consideración primero; que el periodo del siglo XVI y XVII es conocido por la inmensa actividad de copia que se produjo en él; y segundo; que la primera obra que recoge por escrito textos de este tipo, fue realizada en siglo X en Siria, diríamos que nuestros manuscritos podrían ser copias de manuscritos más antiguos que provienen de una época mucho más temprana que el siglo XVI, posiblemente, un poco más tarde de la fecha de compilación de Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘Uqnjl ‘an Al ArRasnjl, momento coincidente con el comienzo de las dificultades de los musulmanes españoles tras la caída de Toledo y toda Castilla la nueva en manos de Alfonso VI. Consiguientemente, pensamos que la llegada de la supuesta wa‫܈‬iyyah de ‘AlƯ a España fue temprana, en época de mudéjares, posiblemente, mediante la peregrinación o el pasaje por Siria y que la divulgación de la misma como texto de alto grado de piedad entre mudéjares y moriscos podría ser consecuencia de dos factores principales: primero; la urgente necesidad de adoctrinamiento de estas minorías y segundo; las características propias de esta forma literaria que responden perfectamente a dicha necesidad. (330-331) [This wa‫܈‬iyyah forms part of ShƯ‘ite ‫ۊ‬adƯth literature. It belongs, undoubtedly, to the body of apocryphal ‫ۊ‬adƯths of the first ShƯ‘ite zuhhƗd who, inspired by the religion of their forefathers, introduced them into the ‫ۉ‬adƯth. Various elements support this hypothesis. First, the general idea of the text strongly reflects the nucleus of ShƯ‘ite ideology which presents ‘AlƯ as the wa‫܈‬iyyu rasnjli-llƗh; namely, his successor and the heir of this testament. Secondly, the ascetic aspect of the text is manifest in many passages. Thirdly; the existence of identical texts in the works of ShƯ‘ite authors, such as Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘Uqnjl ‘an Ɨl alRasnjl by al-ণarrƗnƯ who stresses in his prologue that his text is directed exclusively to the followers of ‘AlƯ and the twelve ImƗms. Or, like the Futnj‫ۊ‬Ɨt al-Makkiyyah by Ibn ‘ArabƯ, the great ৡnjfƯ scholar from Murcia, where the wa‫܈‬iyyah appears as a message directed to the disciples of ৡnjfism. Although we do not know if there were ShƯ‘ite or ৡnjfƯ currents among the Mudéjares and the Moriscos or to what point these currents represent the real essence of this text, what we can confirm is the fact that it is a text that was widely disseminated in ShƯ‘ite and ৡnjfƯ works, two currents that played a great role in increasing the popularity of ‘AlƯ as an eminent member of the family of the Prophet. We also know that the text in question reached Spain and that various versions of it were propagated among Mudéjares and Moriscos for two centuries… In terms of the arrival of this wa‫܈‬iyyah and the period in which it was disseminated in Spain, we base ourselves on dates provided in the manuscripts that have been edited and on their linguistic characteristics.

345

346

Chapter 21 We would say that, with the exception of the manuscript from Ocaña, which appears to date to the fifteenth century, the rest of the manuscripts seem to belong to the early, middle or end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventh century. Consequently, we appear to be faced with a text spread throughout Spain over the course of two centuries. Nevertheless, if we consider, first and foremost, that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are famous for the huge amount of manuscripts that were produced; and second, that the first work that gathers in writing texts of this type was completed in Syria in the tenth century, we could say that our manuscripts could be copies of more ancient manuscripts that come from a period much earlier than the sixteenth century, possibly a little after the date of compilation of the Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘Uqnjl ‘an Al Ar-Rasnjl, a moment that coincides with the commencement of difficulties for Spanish Muslims after the fall of Toledo and all of Castilla to the hands of Alfonso VI. Consequently, we believe that the arrival of this alleged wa‫܈‬iyyah of ‘AlƯ to Spain was early, during the period of the Mudéjares and possibly, the result of the pilgrimage or passage through Syria and that the dissemination of this manuscript, revered as a highly pious work among Mudéjares and Moriscos, could be the consequence of two major factors: first, the urgent need to indoctrinate these minorities and secondly; the characteristics of this literary form responded perfectly to said need.]

I agree with Bouras when it comes to the early origin of many works that were held in such esteem by the Moriscos. In style and content, they are reminiscent to the earliest surviving sources on the life of the Prophet and ImƗm ‘AlƯ. The marvelous, fantastic, and miraculous aspects found in Morisco literature are not necessarily the product of late developments: they seem to be consistent with the works transmitted by al-BakrƯ and al-WƗqidƯ. Even Ibn IsতƗq’s SƯrat Rasnjl AllƗh contains traces of these magical, fabulous, and legendary transmissions. We do not appear to be dealing with a late form of IslƗm but rather with one of the earliest. Isolated as they were from the rest Muslim world, the Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula seem to have preserved many works that were lost or deliberately destroyed in the east by leaders who wanted to purge IslƗm of elements that were viewed as unfavorable by the dominant doctrinaires. Although they lived in the ummah’s farthest reaches, the Muslims from Spain were not disconnected from the rest of their brethren. Not only did they preserve the ancient classics, they would often translate new Arabic works that were of interest to them in Aljamiado, sometimes in the same year that they were published in the Middle East. If some of these works were used to educate and indoctrinate Moriscos, who was behind this missionary effort? It may have been that the Morisco ‘ulamƗ’ themselves were in charge of this endeavor. It is also possible that other players were

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

347

involved: scholars from the Levant, North Africa, and perhaps even Persia. Why would any SunnƯ or even ৡnjfƯ insist on employing ShƯ‘ite works to teach a SunnƯ audience? The question begs to be asked although the response is obvious. Either there were Morisco ShƯ‘ites or ShƯ‘ite-inclined Moriscos or Arab and Persian ShƯ‘ites had been sent to Catholic Spain to provide some spiritual succor to the persecuted Muslims from former alAndalus.

20.9 The Works of MuqƗtil b. SulaymƗn The Moriscos had a predilection for wa‫܈‬ayƗ literature. Not only did they cite the Twelver ShƯ‘ite traditions from al-ণarrƗnƯ’s Tu‫ۊ‬af al-‘uqnjl, they also quoted many traditions from MuqƗtil b. SulaymƗn (d. 767), an early ZaydƯ theologian, traditionist, and Qur’Ɨnic commentator, who was inordinately influenced by Judaism and Christianity. Aljamiado Manuscript 5223, for example, cites supposed sayings from the Torah on the authority of MuqƗtil b. SulaymƗn (Bouzineb 22). These traditions, which all commence with “O son of Adam!” are equally found in Manuscript 13 from the Antigüa Junta para Ampliación de Estudios which was edited by Tarek Khedr (282-294).

21.10 El Recontamiento de al-MiqdƗd y al-MayƗsah / The Account of al-MiqdƗd and al-MayƗsah Among the works transmitted by the Moriscos of al-Andalus one finds El Recontamiento de al-MiqdƗd y al-MayƗsah / The Account of al-MiqdƗd and al-MayƗsah, a romantic adventure story that relates how al-MiqdƗd became a Muslim, a companion of the Prophet, and a follower of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. One lengthy version of this legend is found in the Miscellaneous Manuscript 13 which was published by Alberto Montaner Frutos. Another is found in the Códice aljamiado de muchas materias (manuscrito n. xiii de la Antigua Junta para Ampliación de Estudios) published by Tarek Khedr (310-336). Although the emphasis is more literary than theological in nature, the protagonist of the story, MiqdƗd b. Aswad is venerated by ShƯ‘ites are one of the four companions, namely, the four men who stood staunchly by ImƗm ‘AlƯ after the dispute over the succession. If ‘AlƯ was the hero of the Moriscos, al-MiqdƗd was perhaps the second in importance. While traditional SunnƯs love the companions of the Prophet, their veneration is broader, and features stories of Abnj Bakr, ‘Umar, and others. As Montaner Frutos has noted, “es evidente que en la actitud de al-MiqdƗd se ha reflejado el sentido reverencial hacia la familia del Profeta” (107) [it is obvious that

348

Chapter 21

al-MiqdƗd’s attitude reflects a sense of reverence towards the family of the Prophet]. SunnƯs could have produced such a work; however, a ShƯ‘ite origin seems more likely.

21.11 El libro de las suertes / The Book of Luck Among the hundreds of Morisco manuscripts that have survived to our day, we find several that detail an unusual process of istikhƗrah, namely, consulting the Qur’Ɨn to find answers to problems, and the meaning to be derived from the verses in question. Typically, a Muslim makes his or her intention, asks God a question, and opens the Qur’Ɨn randomly. The first verse that catches the seeker’s eye supposedly contains the answer or solution to the problem. The books of luck, augury, omens, or divination used by the Moriscos involved a type of casting of lots. The seeker would use a square stick, or a dice of some sort, on which the letters alif, bƗ’, jƯm and dƗl were written down. The stick or dice was tossed three and only three times. The questioner would then look up the sequence of the three letters in the Book of Luck. The book would indicate if the letter combination was good or bad, provide a Qur’Ɨnic verse which the letters refer to, and provide words of guidance and warning. The Libro de la suerte found in Ms. BN 5300 is attributed to Ja‘far b. Muতammad b. ‘AlƯ b. ৫Ɨlib who Karl I. Kobbervig mistakenly associated with Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, the cousin of the Prophet who was martyred during the Battle of Mutah in 629 (21). Further along, he explains that [v]arios manuscritos árabes de libros de suertes, como por ejemplo el Ms. 5562 (fonds árabe) de la Bibliotèque Nationale de París se atribuyen sin embargo, al parecer, a otro Ja‘far, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, “el Veraz” (Abnj ‘AbdillƗh Ja‘far b. Muতammad b. ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib) que vivió entre 80 y 148 H. (700-765 d. de J.C.) y quién, según la tradición ŠƯ‘a fue uno de los Imanes originales. (21-22) [various Arabic manuscripts of books of chance, like Ms. 5562 (fonds arabes) from the National Library of Paris are nonetheless attributed, it seems, to another Ja‘far, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the “Truthful” (Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Ja‘far b. Muতammad b. ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib) who lived between 80 to 148 AH (700-765 CE) and who, according to the ShƯ‘ah, was one of the original ImƗms.]

In fact, these are the same. The first is a shortened name while the latter is more complete. Hence, all the books are attributed to Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. The Libro de la suerte attributed to Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, which is found in Manuscript BN5300, is also identical to the one found in

The Literary Legacy of ShƯ‘ism

349

the Libro de dichos maravillosos, edited by Ana Labarta, an anthology of Morisco magic and divination. Folios 331-344 feature a chapter devoted to good and bad days which is similar to the KitƗb al-qur‘ah conserved in a nineteenth century manuscript from Java (Labarta 0.28). Known as Manuscript Or. 7525 from Leiden, this Arabic qƗri‘ah attributed to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq was copied in 1891. As Kobbervig has noted, the name of Ja‘far is associated with all of the books of luck that are directed connected with the Qur’Ɨnic text (22). Not only are these books ascribed to the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, they commence with formulas invoking the blessings of God upon the Prophet Muতammad and his holy household in accordance with ShƯ‘ite devotional practice. There is therefore little doubt that we are dealing with texts of ShƯ‘ite provenance. Since they consist of short twenty-page texts it is my hope that some scholar will translate them from Spanish into English for the benefit of academic and religious readers.

21.12 Conclusions In this chapter, I have chosen to omit the works in which the signs of ShƯ‘ism seem to be more subtle, stressing the significance of works in which the ShƯ‘ite presence appears more salient: the Epic of the ‘Alids by Ibn al-AbbƗr, the anonymous Book of Battles; the Book of Lights by al-BakrƯ, the Chronicle and Account of the Purified SharƯfian Descendants which was possibly produced by IbrƗhƯm TaybilƯ; the Testament of the Prophet Mu‫ۊ‬ammad to ImƗm ‘AlƯ; the works of MaqƗtil b. SulaymƗn; and the Book of Luck, along with brief mentions of other ShƯ‘ite a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth. Although ShƯ‘ite Muslims were allegedly exterminated in the Maghrib by the eleventh or twelfth century, the Moriscos in IslƗmic Spain and the Maghrib were still commemorating the martyrdom of ImƗm al-ণusayn well into the eighteenth century. If ShƯ‘ite books had readers, then ShƯ‘ism still seems to have had adherents in the region centuries after their supposed extermination at the hands of the Almoravids and the Almohads. Alternatively, the Moriscos or their immediate predecessors may have come into contact with ShƯ‘ism through textual study or, more probably, as a result of contact with ShƯ‘ites in the Turkish-Ottoman empire. Despite the difficulties in which they found themselves, some Moriscos used to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca and, along the way, inevitably came into contact with followers of the ahl albayt, including AlevƯs and BektƗshƯs in what would now be Albania, Greece, and Turkey; strong contingencies of ‘AlawƯs, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, the IthnƗ’‘Asharis in the Levant, and a strong Twelver ShƯ‘ite community in Medina itself, tens of thousands of whom lived around the Cemetery of BaqƯ’.

CONCLUSIONS

For centuries, scholars and students have been subjected to the same litany: there were no ShƯ‘ites in al-Andalus. In some academic circles, any attempts to argue otherwise were cut down. Seeds were not even allowed to be sown, much less to sprout. The academic establishment essentially prevented anyone from challenging this thesis which was not even a theory and much less of a fact. Even ShƯ‘ite scholars, who occasionally wondered about alAndalus, never bothered to investigate the issue any further. They assumed that their orientalist colleagues were correct in their assessment or they concluded that any ShƯ‘ites in the Maghrib or al-Andalus must have belonged to the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ sect. Attempts to collaborate with Iranian ShƯ‘ite scholars on the subject of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were met with suspicion. They had little interest in investigating anything that remotely smelled of IsmƗ‘Ưlism. They also seemed quite convinced that Twelver ShƯ‘ism was always centered in the Middle East and could not conceive that other centers had existed in the Maghrib and much less in al-Andalus. As controversial as they will seem to some, the following conclusions can be drawn from this study on the ShƯ‘ite presence and influence in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. 1. ImƗm al-ণasan and ImƗm al-ণusayn, the second and third ImƗms of the ShƯ‘ites are reported to have participated in the IslƗmic expansion into North Africa when they were young men. Their father, ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, who was the first ShƯ‘ite ImƗm, eventually assumed political power and ruled, however briefly, over Egypt and North Africa. After ImƗm ‘AlƯ was murdered, and his ShƯ‘ites rallied around his son, ImƗm ণasan, history reports that the Berbers played an important role in defending his rights. These Berbers, it seems, had been connected to ImƗm ণasan from the early days of the IslƗmic expansion into North Africa. To this day, Moroccan ৡnjfƯs insist that it was ImƗm ণasan who spread IslƗm in the Maghrib, a claim that seemed ahistorical to most scholars. However, since ImƗm ণasan was among the first to preach IslƗm in the Maghrib, and considering that many Berber clans were still loyal to him during his confrontation with Mu‘Ɨwiyyah, there may be grounds to this claim. In any event, there is little doubt that the first three ImƗms of the ShƯ‘ites were connected to the Maghrib from the early days of IslƗm. In other words, it was the ImƗms themselves who planted the seeds of ShƯ‘ism in North Africa.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

351

2. If the three first ShƯ‘ite ImƗms were associated with the Maghrib and, by extension, al-Andalus, the same can be said of MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar, the companion of the Prophet and the faithful follower of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. This illustrious individual is the only ShƯ‘ite of ‘AlƯ who definitively established himself in al-Andalus. It is true that most of the other companions of the Prophet who settled in al-Andalus belonged to the pro-Umayyad party which prevailed ideologically among many sectors of society. Still, the presence of MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar in al-Andalus suggests that the Party of ‘AlƯ was also represented. While smaller in number, the ShƯ‘ites of the Prophet’s household also set foot in al-Andalus where they spread their distinct version of IslƗm. 3. Besides MiqdƗd b. ‘Umar, several important followers of the companions who were faithful followers of ImƗm ‘AlƯ spread ShƯ‘ite IslƗm to the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Sa‘Ưd b. Mas‘njd, the son of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Mas‘njd, the prominent companion of the Prophet, was, like his father, a follower of ImƗm ‘AlƯ. During the reign of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, Sa‘Ưd b. Mas‘njd was appointed the governor of MadƗ’in. After the death of ImƗm ‘AlƯ, Sa‘Ưd b. Mas‘njd, slipped from the limelight until the time of ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz, when he participated in the conquest of the Maghrib along with other prominent followers of ‘AlƯ, including ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘Ưd b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir, Zayd b. al-ণubƗb, and Bakr b. SawƗdah b. ThumƗmah, among others. All of these ShƯ‘ite companions of ‘AlƯ were involved in spreading ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and, with the exception of Bakr b. Suwadah, in al-Andalus as well. ণanash b. ‘Abd AllƗh was associated with the city of Elvira in al-Andalus, a city which was a focal point of ShƯ‘ism throughout the history of al-Andalus. These followers of the companions of the Prophet and ImƗm ‘AlƯ laid the foundation of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. 4. While some scholars might dismiss the presence of one companion of the Prophet and half a dozen companions of ImƗm ‘AlƯ are inconsequential, the same cannot be said of the companions of ImƗm alৡƗdiq, ImƗm al-KƗ਌im, ImƗm al-RiঌƗ, ImƗm al-TaqƯ, ImƗm al-NaqƯ, and ImƗm al-‘AskarƯ who settled in the Maghrib. Although we have no evidence that the companions of the ImƗms were engaged in missionary activity in al-Andalus, logic cannot exclude this possibility. If the ImƗms sent their companions around the IslƗmic world, as preachers, missionaries, and representatives, why would they have excluded the Iberian Peninsula? Focusing on facts, and setting aside speculation, history relates that ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq sent two of his companions as missionaries to the Maghrib. These companions, known as Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ, appear to have arrived in the region as early as 762, long before the arrival of Abnj

352

Conclusions

‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư and the spread of IsmƗ‘Ưlism. Even though most scholars are familiar with the IdrƯsids, few ever mention their connection to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh and IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh both belonged to the extended family of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm. While both brothers were intricately connected to ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, the former was a student of the sixth ShƯ‘ite ImƗm from whom he learned the ‫ۊ‬adƯth sciences. Even their Berber retainer, RashƯd al-AwrabƯ, benefited from his contact with ImƗm alৡƗdiq. All three of these men played important roles in the rise of the ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid dynasty in Morocco. A third brother, SulaymƗn b. ‘Abd AllƗh, is also said to have reached the Maghrib. Unlike IdrƯs, however, SulaymƗn is said to have been unsuccessful in rallying Berbers around his claim to leadership. A fourth brother, IbrƗhƯm, is also reported by some sources as having fled to the Maghrib. Besides the sons of ‘Abd AllƗh, other leading ‘Alids are said to have fled to Morocco, including Muতammad b. Ja‘far b. YaতyƗ b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan b. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. As ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites of the JƗrnjdiyyah persuasion, the individuals in question believed that the ImƗmate could be claimed by any ‘Alid who rose in revolt. While ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ism influenced them, they did not submit to, much less recognize, the authority of those who claimed to have been divinely invested with the ImƗmate. Such was not the case with others, such as DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim b. IsতƗq b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, who was a companion of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. Since he worked as a counselor to IdrƯs II, and served as his chief of security during his war against the KhƗrijites, it would seem that DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim was sent to the IdrƯsids to act at the ambassador of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. Another ShƯ‘ite scholar from North Africa who appears to have been the companion of a ShƯ‘ite ImƗm or a follower of one of his students was Ibn Warsand, who was considered one of the founding fathers of the ShƯ‘ite ImƗmƯ madhhab or school of law in the Maghrib. A native of the ShƯ‘ite center of Naf৬ah [or Nefta, in current day Tunisia], which had been brought into the school of the ahl al-bayt by Abnj SufyƗn and al-ণulwƗnƯ, Ibn Warsand appears to have studied ShƯ‘ism at the hands of the disciples of these two figures after which he traveled to the east to deepen his knowledge even further. If he died in 908/909, he could only conceivably have completed his studies under the ninth, tenth or eleventh ImƗms, the same ImƗms followed by DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim. Since the ninth ImƗm was persecuted and the eleventh spent most of his life in prison, it is the tenth ImƗm was the most likely teacher of Ibn Warsand. In fact, it was ImƗm al-NaqƯ who strengthened the network of ShƯ‘ite deputies throughout the Muslim realm. Thus, it would make sense for him to have coordinated the activities of North African ShƯ‘ite scholars and representatives like Ibn Warsand.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

353

5. If the presence of companions of the ShƯ‘ites ImƗms in the Maghrib is suggestive, the role played by their Berber mothers and wives appears all the more tantalizing. The connection that many ImƗms had with the Maghrib was not simply ideological: it was biological, cultural, and linguistic. Since the ImƗms availed themselves of any resources to advance the cause of ShƯ‘ism, it seems improbable that they would have ignored the connections that their wives and mothers had to the Maghrib. The fact that the wife of ImƗm Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, and the mother of ImƗm Musa al-KƗ਌im, was ণamƯdah al-Barbariyyah, a Berber from North Africa or al-Andalus must have some significance. The fact that MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im followed in the footsteps of his father and married a Berber woman, Najmah Khatnjn, also known as Umm al-BanƯn, and ৫Ɨhirah, cannot be a coincidence. Nor can one ignore the fact that the wife of ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ, and the mother of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-NaqƯ, was a Berber woman known both as SummƗnah and Sayyidah. Just as the Prophet married many women to establish ties with their tribes, so did the ImƗms marry women of diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds to help bring their people into the fold of ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. Since the ImƗms did not act arbitrarily, it would seem likely that they married Berber women, and trained them as ShƯ‘ite scholars to help coordinate their missionary efforts in the Maghrib. 6. Considering that many members of the Prophet’s household settled in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, they left their genetic and ideological legacy in the region. Whether they descend from the Bannj IdrƯs, ‘Abd AllƗh b. Ja‘far b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, Muতammad b. Ja‘far, DƗwnjd b. al-QƗsim, Aতmad b. Muতammad, Nafs al-Zakiyyah, MnjsƗ al-Jawn, ৫Ɨhir b. al-ণusayn b. Mawhnjb, ‘AlƯ al-‘Arid or IbrƗhƯm b. MnjsƗ, the Maghrib teems with sƗdah and shurafƗ’, namely, the progeny of the Prophet Muতammad, who descend from ImƗm al-ণasan, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, ImƗm MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, and ImƗm Muতammad al-TaqƯ. Since their ancestors were leading figures in the ShƯ‘ite community and fled to the Maghrib to escape persecution and to preserve their religious beliefs, these SharƯfian settlers played a prominent role in maintaining and disseminating the teachings of the ahl al-bayt in the western part of the IslƗmic world. 7. Besides the biological connection to Arab and Berber ShƯ‘ites, the people of the Maghrib also have close spiritual ties to the ImƗms of the ahl al-bayt by means of the spiritual silsilahs or chains of various ৡnjfƯ orders. Although it is impossible to cover all ৡnjfƯ paths and all their sub-branches, this study provided an overview of the major ৡnjfƯ brotherhoods in the world, showing that all but one trace back to the ShƯ‘ite ImƗms or their close companions.

354

Conclusions

In North Africa, and, by extension, al-Andalus, the most prevalent ৡnjfƯ ‫ܒ‬arƯqahs or orders include the ShƗdhiliyyah, QƗdiriyyah, and TijƗniyyah. As for the ShƗdhiliyyah, its chain of spiritual initiation traces back to ImƗm ‘AlƯ and ImƗm al-ণasan. It also has a chain of narration that traces back to these two via the founding fathers of the ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid dynasty and leading ণasanid ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites. If the silsilah of the ShƗdhiliyyah ‫ܒ‬arƯqah is filled with ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, the chain of the QƗdiriyyah path is loaded with ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites, including, ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, al-ণusayn b. ‘AlƯ, ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, Muতammad alBƗqir, Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq, MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im, ‘AlƯ al-RiঌƗ, and the latter’s companion, Ma‘rnjf KharkhƯ. In the case of the TijƗniyyah ‫ܒ‬arƯqah, which is popular in Tunisia and other parts of the Maghrib, the chain traces back to ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib. Although these ৡnjfƯ brotherhoods did not transmit ShƯ‘ite jurisprudence, they did pass down ShƯ‘ite spirituality, prayers, and devotional practices. 8. If some orientalists have attempted to portray ShƯ‘ism as a predominantly Persian phenomenon, the reality is that the school of the ahl al-bayt was a mostly Arab movement in the Middle East until the rise of the ৡafavids. It was then that ShƯ‘ism spread even more into the Indian Subcontinent. However, what is often forgotten is that ShƯ‘ism had a western front composed largely of Amazigh or Berber people along with indigenous Andalusian Muslims of Iberian, Germanic, and Celtic stock. As we have seen in this study, the first forms of IslƗm to spread among the Berbers were KhƗrijism and ShƯ‘ism. Although the ZanƗtah were pragmatists, who were continually changing religious affiliation, they were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs during decisive periods of their history. The KutƗmah and the ৡanতƗjah were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs while the MiknƗsah were ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites who became IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites. The AwrƗbah and their allies were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites and the backbone of the IdrƯsids. The BarghawƗ৬ah or Masmnjdah Berbers followed a syncretistic religion which included some ShƯ‘ite elements. The Bannj Lamas Berbers were Bajaliyyah ShƯ‘ites. Like the Waqafiyyah or Mnjsawiyyah from the Middle East, they cut off the line of ImƗms after MnjsƗ al-KƗ਌im. As we have seen, most Muslim settlers in al-Andalus were Berbers from the Maghrib, and many Berbers of the Maghrib were ShƯ‘ite Muslims. There can be no doubt, therefore, that some Andalusian Berbers belonged to the ShƯ‘ite faith. 9. Besides Berber ShƯ‘ites, there were also Arab ShƯ‘ites in both the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Fleeing persecution at the hands of the Umayyads and the ‘AbbƗsids, the clan of the Prophet, the Bannj HƗshim, fled the ণijƗz and sought refuge in North Africa and al-Andalus. The most famous of these

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

355

ShƯ‘ite Arab refugees was IdrƯs I, who founded the first ShƯ‘ite dynasty in the Maghrib, the IdrƯsids in what is now modern-day Morocco. Although many historians dismiss them as barbaric Bedouins, the Bannj HilƗl and the Bannj Sulaym were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ allies of the FƗ৬imids. When the ZƯrƯds rejected ShƯ‘ism in favor of Sunnism, the FƗ৬imid caliph encouraged the Bannj HilƗl and Bannj Sulaym to punish them for their apostasy. These two tribes left Egypt and invaded North Africa, both Arabizing and ShƯ‘Ưtizing its inhabitants. Another large contingent of ShƯ‘ite Arabs in the Maghrib and al-Andalus were the Yemenites. As we have seen, many Yemenites were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites during their migration to the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Since the SulaymƗnƯ ZaydƯs accepted the SunnƯ caliphs, and were close to ণanafƯ jurisprudence, the ZaydƯs could pass as SunnƯs. Since their ShƯ‘ism was primarily political, and the ZaydƯ ImƗms were free to exercise their personal ijtihƗd or independent reasoning in jurisprudential matters, they did not turn to the ImƗms of the ImƗmƯs in matters of jurisprudence. As followers of the fiqh or IslƗmic jurisprudence formulated by the ahl al‫ۊ‬adƯth or People of Tradition from Medina, the ZaydƯs could easily move from ণanafism to MƗlikism, a process facilitated by the fact that both Abnj ণanƯfah and ImƗm MƗlik supported the revolt of Muতammad Nafs alZakiyyah against the Umayyads. Despite the strong SunnƯ influence on their fiqh, the ZaydƯs spread many ShƯ‘ite traditions in the Maghrib and alAndalus. They were also involved in many ShƯ‘ite inspired rebellions against the Umayyads. The final group of Arabs consisted of the Muwallads. The Muwallads consisted of neo-Muslim converts from the Iberian Peninsula. Many of them descended from Arab fathers and Spanish mothers. Although they were of mixed ancestry, they were Arabs in the sense that they spoke the Arabic language and adopted aspects of Arabic culture. Like the Berbers, however, they were second-class citizens in al-Andalus. And, like the Berbers, they often expressed their discontent with the Umayyads by embracing ShƯ‘ism as an act of defiance. Like the Berbers, the Muwallads were also involved in many ShƯ‘ite inspired revolts against the Umayyads. 10. Rather than a monolithic SunnƯ MƗlikƯ mass, the Muslims of the Maghrib and al-Andalus were open to all sorts of sectarian movements which were orthodox, heterodox, and even subjectively heretical. Besides the followers of the ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama‘at, the People of Tradition and the Community, namely, the majority SunnƯs, the Muslims in the western part of the IslƗmic world included ShƯ‘ites who were ImƗmƯs, BajalƯs, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs, ZaydƯs, BƗ৬inƯs, ৡnjfƯs, and ণasanƯs, a veritable religious ‫ۊ‬arƯrah or Moroccan soup.

356

Conclusions

11. Not only were there followers of the ahl al-bayt or the household of the Prophet in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, they established many ShƯ‘ite dynasties including the IdrƯsids, the FƗ৬imids, the ZƯrƯds, and the ণammadids in North Africa, as well as the ণammnjdids in al-Andalus. They may have been distinct in many matters from the ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ites from the Middle East; however, they were ShƯ‘ites nonetheless. The IdrƯsids, in point of fact, were responsible for creating the first ShƯ‘ite dynasty in history, a fact largely ignored by most Muslims, even those who profess to be ShƯ‘ites. For example, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook speak of the “Berber ShƯ‘ism” of the IdrƯsids who created a number of ‘AlƯd statelets (118). 12. As history has shown, the ShƯ‘ites have been ruled as opposed to being rulers. Despite half a dozen historical exceptions, in which ShƯ‘ites assumed the reins of power, they have typically been persecuted and oppressed minorities. Since their creed crystallized upon the killing of ImƗm ণusayn in KarbalƗ’, ShƯ‘ism has been a religion of revolt and revolution rooted in mystical devotion. Considering it a religious obligation to rebel against the oppressors of the age, and a binding duty to side with the oppressed, IslƗmic history is rife with examples of ShƯ‘ite rebellions. In the case of the Maghrib and al-Andalus, we also find numerous instances of ShƯ‘ite insurrections. Although it was predominantly KhƗrijite in nature, the Great Berber Revolt of 740-743 seems to have counted on support from ShƯ‘ite Berbers who rallied against the Umayyads. The ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus were involved in the Yemenite revolts of al-ণubƗb b. RawƗতah and Sa‘Ưd al-MatrƯ alYahsnjbƯ. The ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus also supported the pro-‘AbbƗsid revolts of al-‘AlƗ’ b. MughƯth, ‘Abd al-RaতmƗn b. ণabƯb al-SiqlabƯ, and ণusayn b. YaতyƗ and SulaymƗn b. al-‘ArabƯ. The revolts of ‘Abd AllƗh b. Sa‘d b. ‘AmmƗr b. YƗsir and Rumahis b. ‘Abd al-‘AzƯz were led by mainstream ShƯ‘ite Muslims, the first of an ImƗmƯ nature, and the second, of a ZaydƯ nature. The revolts of ShaqyƗ, MahdƯ b. Qi৬৬, ‘AlƯ al-SarrƗj, and Abnj Rakwah contained ShƯ‘ite elements combined with some KhƗrijite, heterodox, and supposedly heretical components. The revolt of ‘Ubayd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư in the Maghrib represented mainstream IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism. Although some historians view him as an opportunist, Ibn ণafৢnjn sent a delegation to the FƗ৬imids immediately after the accession of al-MahdƯ (Halm 1996: 280), received a delegation of two FƗ৬imid diplomats and missionaries who spread ShƯ’Ưsm in Bobastro. These emissaries were present during Ibn ণafৢnjn’s military campaigns. If this is not evidence enough that Ibn ণafৢnjn was a ShƯite, the fact that he paid allegiance to the FƗ৬imid caliph, and implemented ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ practices in the regions under his control, should suffice to silence any naysayer (Martínez

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

357

Enamorado 268-269). Finally, the revolt of Ibn QƗsƯ, which is often viewed as solely ৡnjfƯ, seems to have been a combination of ৡnjfism with so-called GhulƗt ShƯ‘ism. Clearly, ShƯ‘ite-inspired revolts in al-Andalus were far from being scarce. 13. As religious communities, the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib produced many scholars and missionaries. The pre-FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ites from QayrawƗn are said to have included Muতammad b. Khalaf, IbrƗhƯm b. Ma‘shar, and Abnj al-ণasan al-Mu৬৬alibƯ, about whom little is known. They also include Muতammad b. ণayyƗn, the father of al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn, who had embraced IsmƗ‘Ưlism before the rise of the FƗ৬imids. The ImƗmƯ ShƯ‘ite scholars of the Maghrib appear to have included IsmƗ‘Ưl b. Naৢr al-Ma‘ƗdƯ, Abnj al-QƗsim al-WarfajnjmƯ, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-AndalusƯ, Aflaত al-MalnjsƯ, Hurayth alJƯmalƯ, Muতammad b. ‘ImrƗn al-Naf৬Ư (d. 924), and MnjsƗ b. MakƗrim, some of whom subsequently converted to FƗ৬imid IsmƗ‘Ưlism. Described as a moderate ShƯ‘ite, perhaps of ImƗmƯ or ZaydƯ stock, Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. al-ণasan (d. 906-907) was also a well-known ShƯ‘ite scholar in North Africa. Muতammad b. SallƗm b. SayyƗr al-BarqƯ al-HamadƗnƯ al-KnjfƯ (d. 92223), however, was a ZaydƯ scholar. Other IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ites from the Maghrib include Muতammad b. ণayynjn al-Mufattish, Ibn Haytham and ZurƗrah b. Aতmad. The leader of these FƗ৬imid ShƯ‘ites is well-known: Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư. His brother, Abnj al-‘AbbƗs (Muতammad b. Aতmad), was also an important ShƯ‘ite leader who played a major role in spreading ShƯ‘ism in IfrƯqiyyah. Scores of SunnƯ scholars of various schools embraced IsmƗ‘Ưlism, including Abnj Bakr al-QamadƯ, ‘AlƯ b. Manৢnjr al-Saffar, ‘Abd al-MƗlik b. Muতammad al-DabbƯ (Ibn al-Birdawn), Ibn SabbƗgh, RabƯ‘ b. SulaymƗn b. SalƯm (Ibn al-Kaততalah), Ishab b. Abnj MinhƗl, Abnj ‘AlƯ b. Abnj MinhƗl, Ja‘far b. Aতmad b. Wahb, Aতmad b. Baতr, Abnj Muতammad b. ShahrƗn, Abnj Sa‘Ưd Khalaf b. Ma‘mar b. Manৢnjr, along with many others. 14. Since ShƯ‘ite rule was more short-lived in al-Andalus than it was in the Maghrib, ShƯ‘ite scholars could not benefit from patronage in the Iberian Peninsula as their co-religionists had done under the IdrƯsids and the FƗ৬imids. Still, despite the precarious situation in which they lived and the oppression they endured, the ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus produced several notable figures. Although their ideological affiliation has yet to be decisively determined, scholars like Muতammad b. Masarrah and his disciples were influenced by both ImƗmƯ and IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism in certain aspects. Other scholars, who were ShƯ‘ites, include Mundhir b. Sa‘Ưd, Muতammad b. IbrƗhƯm, Tha‘labah b. ণamdnjn, Ibn AbƯ al-Manৢnjr, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn al-QurtubƯ, Maslamah b. Aতmad al-MajrƯtƯ, Abnj al-ণakam al-KirmƗnƯ, Ibn al-SƯd, Ibn Sab‘Ưn, and LisƗn al-DƯn b. al-Kha৬Ưb.

358

Conclusions

Abnj al-YasƗr, Muতammad b. Aতmad, and Ibn HƗnƯ were ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ poets and missionaries. Abnj al-Khayr was a ShƯ‘ite IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionary, revolutionary, and martyr. Other IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ missionaries include ‘Abd alMƗlik b. Shamit, Muতammad b. SulaymƗn, and Ibn Hawqal. 15. The ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib were not spread thin and wide. They were concentrated into various communities which stretched throughout Morocco. Since the IdrƯsids were ZaydƯ ShƯ‘ites, IdrƯsid cities were ShƯ‘ite centers, under the leadership of the IdrƯsid ImƗm and the spiritual and educational direction of IdrƯsid prayer leaders. The ShƯ‘ite communities of Morocco include Volubilis, where IdrƯs I established himself as the leader of the AwrƗbah Berbers. They also included Fez, the capital of the IdrƯsid dynasty under IdrƯs II, along with Tangiers, Ceuta, Melilla, Chellah, Baৢrah, AৢƯlah, Taroudant, Igli, Tiyuywin, Moulay IdrƯs Zerhoun and Meknes. In Tunisia, ShƯ‘ite communities were located primarily in Naf৬ah, TƗlƗ, alUrbus, al-NƗznjr, Qus৬an৬Ưna, QayrawƗn, al-Mahdiyyah, SabrƗ al-Manৢnjriyyah, and Bougie. Many of these ShƯ‘ite IdrƯsid cities were razed to the ground by the Almoravids and the Almohads. Not only did they wish to physically exterminate the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib, they also wanted to erase their architectural traces. 16. From north to south and east to west, ShƯ‘ite Muslims were present in all parts of the Maghrib. The ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus were also represented in all regions of the Iberian Peninsula. In the extreme south, the ShƯ‘ites were among the earliest inhabitants of Gibraltar and the legendary JazƯrat al-Kha‫ڲ‬rƗ’ [Isla Verda / Green Island]. They were established in Zaragoza and Elvira from the earliest days of the IslƗmic expansion into Spain. ShƯ‘ites were found in major urban centers such as Sevilla, Cordova, Pamplona, and Salamanca. They were also found in smaller centers such as Alange, Bobastro, Los Pedroches, La Serena, Puerto de Béjar, Salamanca, Zamora, MiknƗsah, and NafzƗ. As was the case in the Maghrib, ShƯ‘ite communities were often synonymous with Berber or Yemenite communities. 17. Although many ShƯ‘ite Muslims from the Maghrib and al-Andalus were of indigenous Berber, Iberian, Germanic or Celtic origin, they were treated as second-class citizens by the Umayyad Arabs. For some, race and religion became synonymous and Berbers and Spaniards were stereotyped as being subversive ShƯ‘ites who opposed SunnƯ-Arab rule. In an attempt to homogenize al-Andalus, the Umayyads eventually decided to impose MƗlikƯ Sunnism as the sole legal school of law. Besides its racial, cultural, and linguistic motivation, as the harbinger of Arab SunnƯ “orthodoxy,” one of the purposes of the edict was to suppress the spread of ShƯ‘ism in alAndalus, a doctrine which appealed to both Berbers and Muwallads, who were the majority of the population, not the mention the Yemenite Arabs.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

359

Although many Muslims point out the crimes perpetrated by the Christian Inquisition, they often overlook those committed by the MƗlikƯ SunnƯ Inquisition in Spain which led to the persecution of non-MƗlikƯ Muslims, ShƯ‘ites, and ৡnjfƯs who were tried, convicted, and killed on the grounds of supposed heresy and apostasy. The Yemenite and Berber revolts may have been partly in response to the imposition of MƗlikƯ Sunnism in alAndalus. Although the ShƯ‘ites resisted, bringing together Berbers, Yemenites, and Muwallads, they were powerless when faced with the Umayyad military and propaganda machine. With the disintegration of the Umayyad caliphate, the ShƯ‘ites finally organized their own kingdom, the ণammnjdids, led by descendants of the IdrƯsids from Morocco who sought refuge in al-Andalus. The lawless nature of the time, however, allowed ethnic and religious massacres to spread unchecked. The victims were almost invariably Berbers and Muwallads. Rather than reform the Umayyad political and religious infrastructure and bring relief to the Andalusians from centuries of oppression, the Almoravids who invaded al-Andalus arrived with a more extreme version of IslƗm, imposing, once again, MƗlikƯ Sunnism as the only official school of thought. When the Almohads invaded al-Andalus, and overthrew the Almoravids, they outdid their predecessors in their IslƗmist extremism, established SunnƯ MƗlikism as the law of the land. Even the Naৢrids, the last Muslim kingdom in IslƗmic Spain, implemented SunnƯ MƗlikism with rigor and preserved their hatred of the Berbers. 18. After the fall of Granada in 1492, the Muslims of the Spain were forcibly converted to Christianity. Although the Moriscos feigned to be Catholics, most of them maintained their IslƗmic faith in secret and lived as crypto-Muslims for years, decades, and even centuries to come. In 1610, after years of persecution, the Moriscos were expelled from Spain. Although some remained in Spain as secret Muslims, most sought refuge in the Muslim world, settling mainly in Tunisia and Morocco. While in Spain, the Moriscos had maintained their religion clandestinely through the production of aljamiado literature, which consists of Spanish written with Arabic letters. Over three hundred years, the Moriscos produced hundreds of manuscripts in Spain. However, when they arrived in North Africa, they made the strategic shift to the Latin alphabet to ensure that the remaining Muslims in Spain could read the literature they produced and disseminated. As any expert in IslƗmic studies and ShƯ‘ism can attest, aljamiado manuscripts manifest a diversity of IslƗmic ideas. While some documents are MƗlikƯ SunnƯ in nature, others contain Mu‘tazilƯ, ৡnjfƯ, NawƗৢib, GhulƗt, ZaydƯ, IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ and ImƗmƯ ideas. Clearly, the Moriscos were not all MƗlikƯ SunnƯs.

360

Conclusions

19. Among the aljamiado traditions examined in this study, we find ShƯ‘ite traditions which are found in both SunnƯ and ShƯ‘ite books; ShƯ‘ite traditions which are found in both ৡnjfƯ and ShƯ‘ite books; and ShƯ‘ite traditions which are found exclusively in ShƯ‘ite sources. The ShƯ‘ite traditions circulating in IslƗmic Spain came indirectly via SunnƯ and ৡnjfƯ sources as well as directly from ShƯ‘ite sources. By ShƯ‘ite traditions we refer to a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth that support ShƯ‘ite beliefs, and which endorse the rights of ImƗm ‘AlƯ and the ImƗms from among his descendants. Although there are SunnƯ traditions which are supportive of ShƯ‘ism, these traditions are found only in their canonical books of prophetic traditions, and the commentaries related to them. The SunnƯ traditions that support ShƯ‘ism are rarely, if ever, cited by SunnƯs. They are rarely, if, ever, disseminated, and are most usually ignored, dismissed, and discarded as being unauthentic or misinterpreted to downplay their evident ShƯ‘ite sense. If all we had were SunnƯ traditions which are supportive of ShƯ‘ism, the argument that there were ShƯ‘ites in IslƗmic Spain could be dismissed. However, we find many traditions that are found solely in ShƯ‘ite sources. The Moriscos were quoting traditions that are found in ImƗm ‘AlƯ’s Nahj al-BalƗghah and Dustnjr ma‘Ɨlim al-‫ۊ‬ikam, KulaynƯ’s al-KƗfƯ, BaতrƗnƯ’s MadƯnat al-ma‘Ɨjiz, ৡadnjq’s KitƗb al-Taw‫ۊ‬Ưd, Qu৬b al-DƯn al-RƗwandƯ’s al-KharƗ’ij wa al-JarƗ’i‫ۊ‬, Tadhkirat al-awliyyƗ’ by FarƯd al-DƯn ‘A৬৬Ɨr, Abnj al-Faraj ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn b. Muতammad al-IৢfahƗnƯ’s MaqƗtil alܑƗlibiyyƯn, Ibn ৫Ɨwnjs’ Muhaj al-Da‘awƗt, MufƯd’s KitƗb al-IrshƗd, BakrƯ’s Futnj‫ ۊ‬al-Yaman and KitƗb al-anwƗr, ShƯrƗzƯ’s KalimƗtullƗh, SabbƗn’s Is‘Ɨf al-RƗghibƯn, as well as works by ৫njsƯ, Kaf‘amƯ, and MajlisƯ. Morisco manuscripts contain some of the most famous ShƯ‘ite narrations like “The Event of the Cloak” which asserts the immaculate nature of the Prophet’s household. Some of their traditions regarding the death of the Prophet are more supportive of the ShƯ‘ite position than the SunnƯ position. Two of the most popular works among the Moriscos were KitƗb al-anwƗr, a ShƯ‘ite work on the luminous origin of the Prophet’s lineage, written by al-BakrƯ, a ShƯ‘ite from Baৢrah, and various versions of The Testament of the Prophet Mu‫ۊ‬ammad to ‘AlƯ. Some of the Morisco traditions regarding the miracles of ImƗm ‘AlƯ come from BakrƯ’s Futnj‫ ۊ‬alYaman, another solidly ShƯ‘ite source. The Moriscos also used to recite ShƯ‘ite prayers from FƗ৬imah, ‘AlƯ, Muতammad al-BƗqir and Ja‘far al-ৡƗdiq. While ৡnjfƯs are in the habit of occasionally quoting ShƯ‘ite books, and ShƯ‘ites often quote SunnƯ traditions which support ShƯ‘ite beliefs, SunnƯs do not normally quote traditions from ShƯ‘ite sources unless the goal is to debunk them. If the Moriscos were all MƗlikƯ SunnƯs, and so-called orthodox Muslims, why were they citing all sorts of traditions derived from

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

361

ShƯ‘ite works? And what would they be doing with such works if they had been prohibited by the Umayyads, the Almohads, the Almoravids, and the Naৢrids? Whether there were ShƯ‘ites among the Moriscos or not, there were undoubtedly many ShƯ‘ite traditions circulating in their midst including the Crónica y relación de la esclarecida descendencia xarifa [The Chronicle and Account of the Purified Sharifian Descendants] which was current among the Moriscos of the Maghrib in the late 1600s. The work is a ShƯ‘ite maqtal or martyrdom account about the death of ণusayn which also provides an overview of the lives of the twelve ShƯ‘ite ImƗms. Considering the amount of ShƯ‘ite material that was circulating among the Moriscos, it seems evident that the ShƯ‘ites of al-Andalus survived throughout Umayyad, Almoravid, Almohad, Naৢrid, and Christian rule. 20. After centuries of silence, the ShƯ‘ites of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia resurfaced after the advent of the “IslƗmic” revolution of Iran in 1979. As research has shown, small numbers of North Africans had professed ShƯ‘ism even before the overthrow of the ShƗh. The event served as a catalyst to bring more believers into the fold. Due to the authoritarian rule of King ণassan II in Morocco, ণabƯb Bourguiba and Ben ‘AlƯ in Tunisia, and the FLN in Algeria, the conditions were not conducive to lifting the veil of pious dissimulation. During these dark decades, most North African ShƯ‘ites maintained their faith secret, praying in private, and holding gatherings for ‘AshnjrƗ’ away from the watchful eye of the omnipresent mukhabarƗt or secret police. With the passing of ণassan II, and the rise of his son, Moতammed VI, wide-ranging reforms were promised, and a few of them were even fulfilled. As a result of this apparent opening, some ShƯ‘ites came out of the closet, so to speak, and requested that their rights and freedoms be recognized. For a time, the ShƯ‘ites of Morocco started to pray openly, to perform the ShƯ‘ite call to prayer, to publish newspapers, and to organize ShƯ‘ite religious events. Just as the sky seemed to clear, a storm set in, and a Moতammed VI broke ties with the Iran, outlawed ShƯ‘ism, and commenced a campaign against “ShƯ‘ites and homosexuals” as if one thing had to do with the other. ShƯ‘ite bookstalls were closed and thousands were imprisoned on the grounds of having converted to ShƯ‘ism. As with Morocco, the move towards “democracy” and “civil liberties” in Tunisia has done nothing but accentuate human rights abuses toward Muslims who follow the ShƯ‘ite rite. If ShƯ‘ites were oppressed under Bourguiba and Ben ‘AlƯ, they could survive by remaining silent or following the path to exile. In the new “democratic” Tunisia, the government has sat still while many in the media actively incite violence and murder against the

362

Conclusions

country’s ShƯ‘ite population. For all intents, constructions, and purposes, the situation in Algeria seems similar. Apparently, none of these leaders have learned a lesson from IslƗmic history. As nearly fifteen hundred years of fact confirms, oppression could never eliminate ShƯ‘ism. On the contrary, the more they were oppressed, the more the ShƯ‘ites became committed to their creed. As persecuted members of a Muslim minority, the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib are having their commitment put to the test. They will either return to a state of deep taqiyyah or become increasingly radicalized in their self-defense. Nonetheless, overtly, or covertly, the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib are there to stay. Whether their ancestors were FƗ৬imid or IdrƯsid ShƯ‘ites is difficult to determine. However, as far as many North African ShƯ‘ites are concerned, they are returning to their ancestral roots. In most instances, the inspiration is both socio-political and spiritual. When queried, the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib speak of their attraction to the “IslƗmic” revolution of Iran, the person of KhomeinƯ, and the resistance of the ণizbullƗh in Lebanon. Spiritually, they state that they were drawn to ShƯ‘ite gnosis as a rejection of a rigid Sunnism obsessed with prohibitions instead of spiritual growth. For many, ShƯ‘ism represents a return to IslƗm-original, an IslƗm which has supposedly not been contaminated by cultural influences with regards to the rights and liberties accorded to women. Others, still, have made the shift from ৡnjfism to ShƯ‘ite mysticism while others, who descend from the Prophet, have attempted to recover the dignity that their status accords them. While most historians would remain unconvinced when confronted with claims of ShƯ‘ite ideological continuity from post-FƗ৬imid times to the present, the Maghrib has indeed maintained some ShƯ‘ite practices. Many families may have been SunnƯs in jurisprudence while remaining ShƯ‘ites in belief. 21. Since so little has been written about non-IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, this study may be considered as a starting point or a foundation stone. It includes evidence which is both testimonial and physical. It contains direct evidence as well as secondary evidence. While some evidence may seem weak and could not, in and of itself, provide conclusive proof, it remains supportive of our central thesis when viewed as part of the collective case that has been compiled. Scholars will approve and disapprove of this study. Some may even try to raise the ugly flag of revisionism. Nonetheless, while of varying value, the evidence speaks for itself and demonstrates that, until now, the story of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus has not fully been told. I can only hope that this study will inspire other scholars, including archeologists, to investigate the history of ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus. Research is needed in all areas of

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

363

IdrƯsid studies and one can only hope that private and public enterprise will help fund further intellectual explorations and physical excavations on such a fascinating subject which has long been neglected and, in some case, entirely forgotten. 22. In light of the evidence contained in these two volumes, it is no longer tenable for scholars to claim that “As regards al-Andalus, ShƯ‘ism was almost completely absent” (Fierro 2020: 148). The literature produced by the ShƯ‘ites of the Maghrib and al-Andalus, which is shared in the second volume of this work, testifies to this truth that has been suppressed for far too long.

WORKS CITED

‘Abd al-Salam, Yasin [aka John Andrew Morrow]. “Shi‘ism in Morocco.” Jafariya News (July 27, 2006). Internet: http://jafariyanews.com/ articles/2k6/ 27july_Shiism_ morocco.htm —. “Shia’ism in Morocco.” Imam Reza. Internet: https://www. imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=6618 A’vƗni, GhulƗm Ri਌Ɨ and Peter Lamborn Wilson, eds. Forty Poems from the “Divan.” NƗৢir-i Khusraw. Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1977. Abnj DƗwnjd, SulaymƗn b. al-Ash’ath al-SijistƗnƯ. ‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ ۊ‬Sunan Abnj DƗwnjd. Riyaঌ: Maktab al-Tarbiyyah al-‘ArabƯ li Duwal al-KhalƯj, 1989. ‘AlƯ, Syed AbƯ. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 1. Ed. M.M. SharƯf. Germany: np, 1963. Actuel. “Champ religieux : Les chiites avancent leurs pions.” Actuel 104/105 (22 juillet 2011). Internet : http://www.actuel.ma Aguadé, Jorge. “Some Remarks about Sectarian Movements.” Studia Islamica 64 (1986): 53-77. AlbƗnƯ, Naৢr al-DƯn al-. Silsilat al-a‫ۊ‬ƗdƯth al-‫ڲ‬a‘Ưfah wa al-maw‫ڲ‬nj‘ah. 4 vols. Dimashq: al-Maktab al-IslƗmƯ. 1965-1978. ‘AlƯ b. AbƯ ৫Ɨlib, ImƗm. La cumbre de la elocuencia. Trans. Moতammed ‘AlƯ Anzaldúa-Morales. Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile, 1988. —. Nahj al-balƗghah / Peak of Eloquence. 3rd ed. Trans. Sayed ‘AlƯ RezƗ. Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile, 1984. —. Nahj al-balƗghah. Ed. MuতyƯ al-DƯn ‘Abd al-ণamƯd with commentary from al-Shaykh Muতammad ‘Abduh. 3 vols. al-QƗhirah: Matba‘at alIstiqƗmah, nd. —. La voie de l’éloquence. Ed. Sayyid ‘Attia Abnjl NagƗ. Trans. SƗmiত ‘A৬ef El Zein et al. 2nd ed. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn, nd. ‘AlƯ, ‘AbdullƗh Ynjsuf, trans. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’Ɨn. Beltsville, Md.: Amana Publications, 1996. ‘AlƯ, Syed AbƯd. “Political Theory of the ShƯ‘ites.” A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 1. Ed. M.M. Sharif. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963. ‘AlƯ, Aতmed, trans. The Holy Qur’Ɨn. Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’Ɨn, 1988. Alimaan Charitable Trust. “Why India?” Internet: http://www.alimaan.org

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

365

Alves, Adalberto. Portugal: Ecos de um passado árabe. Lisbon: Instituto Camões, 1999. Amara, Allaoua and Annliese Nef. “Al-IdrƯsƯ et the ণammnjdides de Sicile : nouvelles données biographiques sur l’auteur du Livre de Roger.” Arabica 48.1 (2001): 121-127. AmƯn, ণasan al-. “ShƯ‘ite Authors in IslƗmic History.” Shorter ShƯ‘ite Encyclopedia. Internet: http://www.imamreza.net AmƯn, Sayyid Muতsin. A’yƗn al-ShƯ‘ah. Beirut: DƗr at-Ta‘Ɨruf Li alMa৬bnj’Ɨt, 1983. AmƯnƯ, IbrƗhƯm. Al-ImƗm al-MahdƯ: The Just Leader of Humanity. Trans. Abdulaziz Sachedina. Internet: http://www.najaf.org/books/245/ —. “The Residence of the Twelfth ImƗm.” Ibrahim Amini. Internet: http:// www.ibrahimamini.com/en/node/1301 AmƯr-MoezzƯ, Moতammad ‘AlƯ. The Silent Qur’Ɨn and the Speaking Qur’Ɨn: Scriptural Sources of IslƗm Between History and Fervor. Trans. Eric Ormsby. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Anonymous. An Anonymous Chronicle of Abd al-Ra‫ۊ‬mƗn III to al-NƗ‫܈‬ir. Ed. and Trans. Evaristo Lévi-Provençal and Emilio García Gómez. Madrid, 1950. Aznar Cardona, Pedro. Expulsión justificada de los moriscos españoles. Huesca: Pedro Cabarte, 1612. Babayan, Kathryn. Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Baby Name Facts. “Top Baby Names in Iran for 2007.” Baby Name Facts. Internet: http://www.babynamefacts.com Bacharach, Jere T. “African Military Slaves in the Medieval Middle East: The Case of Iraq (869-955) and Egypt (868-1171).” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13.4 (Nov. 1981): 471-495. BakrƯ, Aতmad b. ‘Abd Allay. Futnj‫ ۊ‬al-Yaman. Np: np, nd. Balagh Foundation. The IslƗmic ‫ۉ‬ijƗb. Tehran: Balagh Foundation, nd. Internet: http://www. alhassanain.com —. ImƗm al-Ri‫ڲ‬Ɨ. Tehran: Balagh Foundation, 1996. —. ImƗm al-Kadhim. Tehran: Balagh Foundation, 1995. —. ImƗm Ja‘far al-‫܇‬Ɨdiq. Tehran: Balagh Foundation, 1995. —. ImƗm Zain al-Abideen. Tehran: Balagh Foundation, 1994. Barletta, Vincent. Covert Gestures: Crypto-IslƗmic Literature as Cultural Practice in Early Modern Spain. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 2005. Beck, Herman L. L’Image d’IdrƯs II, ses descendants de FƗs et la politique sharƯfienne des sultans marƯnides (656-869 / 1258-1465). Leiden: Brill, 1989.

366

Works Cited

Becker, Cynthia J. “Morocco.” Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion. Volume 1: Africa. Ed. By Joanne B. Eicher and Doran H. Ross. Oxford University Press, 2010. 193-201. Benblal, Rachid. Histoire des idrissides (788-948). Oran: Éditions Dar elGharb, 2002. Bernabé Pons, Luis F. El cántico islámico del morisco TaybilƯ. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 1988. Birge, John K., trans. “A Brief Bektashi Catechism.” Manual of Bektashi Principles. Internet: http://www.bektashiorder.com Bivouac. “Le Maroc sur un pied de guerre contre la propagande chiite.” Bivouac (29 mars 2009). Internet : http://www.bivouac-id.com Boase, Roger. “The Morisco Expulsion and Diaspora: An Example of Racial and Religious Intolerance.” Cultures in Contact in Medieval Spain: Historical and Literary Essays Presented to L.P. Harvey. Ed. David Hook and Barry Taylor. Exeter: King’s College London Medieval Studies, 1990. Bohlander, Richard E. World Explorers and Discoverers. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998. Bouras, Karima. La wasiya de Ali del manuscrito aljamiado 614 de las Bibliotèque Nationale de Argelia (estudio, edición y materiales). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2008. Bouzineb, Hossain. Literatura de ‘castigos’ o adoctrinamientos. Madrid: Gredos, 1999. Brown, Kenneth L. People of Salé: Tradition and Change in a Moroccan City, 1830-1930. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976. Boulaaba, Imededdine. “Tunisie-Violences : Qu’est-ce qui pousse les chiites tunisiens à la clandestinité ?” Direct Info (22 août 2012). Internet: http://directinfo.webmanagercenter.com/2012/08/22/ tunisieviolences-quest-ce-qui-pousse-les-chiites-tunisiens-a-la-clandestinite/ BukhƗrƯ, Muতammad b. IsmƗ ‘Ưl. ‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ ۊ‬al-BukhƗrƯ. al-RiyƗঌ: Bayt al-AfkƗr al-Dawliyyah lƯ al-Nashr, 1998. —. The Translation of the Meanings of ‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ ۊ‬Ɨl-BukhƗrƯ. Trans. Muতammad Muতsin KhƗn. Lahore: Kazi Publications, 1983. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Saudi Arabia: International Religious Freedom Report (2010). Internet: http:// www.state.gov Cano, Pedro Damián. Al-Andalus: el IslƗm y los pueblos ibéricos. Madrid: Sílex, 2004. Cánovas del Castillo, D. Antonio. “Contestación.” Discursos leídos ante la Real Academia Española. Madrid: Saavedra, 1898. Cavaleiro de Macedo, Cecilia Cintra. Êxtase místico e desejo de Deus como

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

367

distƗncia no caminho: O Mahasin al-majalis de Ibn al-‘Arif de Almeria. Internet: http://www.abhr.org Chejne, Anwar G. IslƗm and the West: The Moriscos, A Cultural and Social History. Albany. SUNY Press, 1983. —. “IslƗmization and Arabization in al-Andalus: A General View.” IslƗm and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages. Ed. Speros Vryonis. Np: Harrassowitz, 1975. —. Muslim Spain: Its History and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1974. Wiesbaden, 1973. Chittick, William C., trans. al-‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ưfah al-kƗmilah al-sajjƗdiyyah / The Psalms of IslƗm. ImƗm ‘AlƯ Zayn al-‘ƖbidƯn. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, nd. Castries, Henry comte de, and Pierre de Cenival. Les sources inédites de l’histoire du Maroc de 1530 à 1845. Paris: E. Leroux, 1918. Christys, Ann. Christians in Al-Andalus, 711-1000. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2002. Clarke, L. “Taqiyya in Twelver ShƯ‘ism.” Reason and Inspiration in IslƗm: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought. Ed. Todd Lawson. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Clement, F. “L’apport de la numismatique pour l’étude des taifas andalouses du Ve/XIe siècle.” Archéologie Islamique 4 (1994): 57-86. Clot, André. L’Espagne musulmane: VIIIe-XVe siècle. Paris: Perrin, 1999. Collins, Roger. The Arab Conquest of Spain: 710-797. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Cooper, Jean C. Fairy Tales: Allegories of the Inner Life. London: Aquarian Press, 1983. Corbin, Henri. Historia de la filosofía islámica. Madrid: Trotta, 1994. Cornell, Vincent. J. Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan ‫܇‬njfism. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998. Cortés, Julio, trans. El Corán. Barcelona: Herder, 1986. Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the IslƗmic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Cruz Hernández, Miguel. “IslƗmic Thought in the Iberian Peninsula.” The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Ed. Salma Khadra JayynjsƯ. Leiden: Brill, 1992. 777-803. Cutillas Ferrer, José Francisco. “Political Plots, Espionage, and a ShƯ‘a Text among the Moriscos.” Journal of ShƯ‘a IslƗmic Studies 5.1 (Winter 2012): 49-64. —. “Un texto chií en castellano del siglo xvii en el universo cultural morisco.” Sharq al-Andalus 12 (1996): 393-400. —. Crónica y relación de la esclarecida descendencia xarifa (un maqtal

368

Works Cited

chií en castellano escrito por un morisco exiliado del siglo XVII). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1998. Daftary, FarhƗd. The Assassin Legends: Myths of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs. New York: I.B. Tauris, 1995. —. The IsmƗ‘ƯlƯs: Their History and Doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. —. “Diversity in IslƗm: Communities of Interpretation.” The Institute of IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ Studies. https://iis.ac.uk/academic-article/diversity-islamcommunities-interpretation Daghfous, Radhi. Les HilƗliens et le pouvoir politique en Ifriqiyyah à la fin du Moyen Âge. Bayrnjt : DƗr al-Gharb al-IslƗmƯ, 2004. Dodds, Jerrilynn D. Ed. Al-Andalus: The Arts of IslƗmic Spain. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992. Dunn, Ross E. The Adventures of Ibn Ba‫ܒܒ‬nj‫ܒ‬a: A Muslim Traveler of the 14th Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Elad, Amikam. “The Rebellion of Muতammad b. ‘Abd AllƗh b. al-ণasan (Known as al-Nafs al-Zakiya) in 145/762).” ‘AbbƗsid Studies: Occasional Papers of the School of ‘AbbƗsid Studies. Ed. James E. Montgomery. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. 147-198. Elhadri, Moতamed. “Sur le monnayage du premier ণnjdide SulaymƗn alMusta‘Ưn.” al-Qantara 27 (julio-diciembre de 2006): 447-456. Entertainment Hits. “Most Popular Baby Names in Pakistan.” Entertainment Hits. Internet: http://www.entertainmenthits.com Eustache, Daniel. Corpus des dirhams idrisites et contemporains. Rabat: Banque du Maroc, 1970-71. Fagnan, Edmond, trans. Kitab al-Istib‫܈‬Ɨr: L’Afrique septentrionale au XII siècle de notre ère. Argel: A. Braham Constantine, 1900. Falcones, Idelfonso. La mano de Fátima. Nueva York: Vintage Español, 2009. Family Berry. “Boy Names: Morocco.” Family Berry. Internet: http://www.familyberry.com/ Family Berry. “Girl Names: Morocco.” Famiy Berry. Internet: http://www.familyberry.com Fernández y Gonzáles, F. Estado social y político de los mudéjares de Castilla. Madrid: np, 1866) Fierro Bello, Isabel. “Sacrifice, Circumcision and the Ruler in the Medieval IslƗmic West: The Ismaili-FƗ৬imid Legacy.” Intellectual Interactions in the IslƗmic World: The Ismaili Thread. Ed. Orkhan Mir-Kasimov. London: I.B. Tauris, 2020. 147-170 —. “¿Hubo propaganda fatimí entre los kutƗmah andalusíes?” Al-Qantara 25 (2004): 239-243.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

369

—. “Cuatro preguntas en torno a Ibn ণafৢnjn.” al-Qantara 16 (1995): 24465. —. “Heresy in al-Andalus.” The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Ed. Salma Khadra JayynjsƯ. Leiden: Brill, 1992. 895-908. —. La heterodoxia en al-Andalus durante el período omeya. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura, 1987. Fletcher, Richard. Moorish Spain. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993. Fonseca, Damián. Relación de la expulsión de los moriscos de Valencia. Valencia: Sociedad Valenciana de Bibliófilos, 1878. Fournel-Guérin, J. “Le livre dans la communauté morisque aragonaise.” Mélanges de la Casa de Velásquez XV. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1979. 241-259. Friedlander, Israel. “The Heterodoxies of the ShƯ‘ites in the Presentation of Ibn ণazm.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 28 (1907): 1-80. —. “The Heterodoxies of the ShƯ‘ites in the Presentation of Ibn ণazm.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 29 (1907): 1-183. Frye, Richard, trans. Ibn Fa‫ڲ‬lƗn’s Journey to Russia: A Tenth-Century Traveler from BaghdƗd to the Volga River. Ibn FaঌlƗn. Princeton: Markus Weiner, 2006. Galmés de Fuentes, Álvaro, ed. “El interés literario en los escritos aljamiado-moriscos.” Actas del coloquio Internacional sobre Literatura Aljamiada y Morisca. Madrid: Gredos, 1978: 189-208. García-Arenal, Mercedes. “ShurafƗ in the Last Years of al-Andalus and in the Morisco period: laylat al-mawlid and genealogies of the Prophet Muতammad.” Sayyids and SharƯfs in Muslim Societies: The Living Links to the Prophet. Ed. Kazuo Morimoto. New York: Routledge, 2012. 161-185. —, ed. IslƗmic Conversions: Religious Identities in Mediterranean IslƗm. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2001. García Gómez, E, trans. España musulmana. Lévi-Provençal. Madrid, 1950-57. Gazette du Maroc, La. “Moulay IdrƯss Zerhoun: Berceau de l’IslƗm au Maroc.” La Gazette du Maroc (4 avril 2006). Internet: http://www.meknes-net.com GhersallƗh, Abdelhafidh. Le chiisme en Algérie : de la conversion politique à la naissance d’une communauté religieuse. Religioscope: Cahiers de l’Institute Religioscope 8 (Mai 2012). Gilliot, Claude. “Libraries.” Medieval IslƗmic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Josef W. Meri. New York: Routlege, Taylor & Francis, 2006. Glick, Thomas. From Muslim Fortress to Christian Castle. Manchester:

370

Works Cited

Manchester University Press, 1995. Gozalbes Cravioto, Enrique. “Tarif, el conquistador de Tarifa.” Tarifa Web. Internet: http://www.tarifaweb.com Green-Mercado, Marya T. “The MahdƯ in Valencia: Messianism, Apocalypticism and Morisco Rebellions in Late Sixteenth-Century Spain.” Spanning the Straight: Studies in Unity in the Western Mediterranean. Ed. Yuen-Gen Liang, Abigail Krasner Balbale, Andrew Devereux and Camillo Gómez-Rivas. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 193-220. Greenblatt, Miriam. Iran. New York: Children’s Press, 2003. Guichard, Pierre. L’Espagne et la Sicile musulmanes aux XIe et XIIe siècles. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2000. —. “The Social History of Muslim Spain.” The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi. Leiden: Brill, 1994. 679-708. Guillén Robles, Francisco. Leyendas moriscas. Zaragoza: Hospicio Provincial, 1888. ণaider, Najam. “The Community Divided: A Textual Analysis of the Murders of IdrƯs b. ‘Abd AllƗh (d. 175/791).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.3 (2008): 459-475. ণajƯ, ণamƯd. Founding the FƗ‫ܒ‬imid State: The Rise of an Early IslƗmic Empire. An Annotated English Translation of al-QƗ‫ڲ‬Ư al-Nu‘mƗn’s IftitƗত al-Da‘wah. London: Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2006. Halm, Heinz. The FƗ‫ܒ‬imids and their Traditions of Learning. New York: I.B. Tauris, 1997. —. The Empire of the MahdƯ: The Rise of the FƗ‫ܒ‬imids. trans. Michael Bonner. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. ShƯ‘ism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991. ণamdƗnƯ, Sumaiya. “The Dialectic of Power: SunnƯ-ShƯ‘Ư Debates in TenthCentury North Africa.” Studia Islamica 90 (2000): 5-21. ণarrƗnƯ, Ibn Shu‘bah al- Tu‫ۊ‬af al-ҵuqnjl. Qum: DƗr Ɩl ‘AƯ, 2004. —. Tu‫ۊ‬af ul-Uqoul: The Masterpieces of the Mind. Trans. Badr ShahƯn. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn, 2000. Internet: http://www.ziaraat. com/ books/TuhafulUqool.pdf Hartland, Edwin Sidney. The Science of Fairy Tales: An Inquiry into Fairy Mythology. London: Walter Scott, 1891. Harvey, L.P. Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. —. IslƗmic Spain: 1250-1500. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. —. “The Moriscos and the ণajj.” Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies) 14.1 (1987): 11-24. —. “La leyenda morisca de IbrƗhƯm. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

371

30.1 (1981) 1-20. ণasan, Hamza al-. “The Denominational Map of Saudi Arabia. Saudi ShƯ‘ah: The Affairs of the ShƯ‘ites of Saudi Arabia. Internet: http://www.saudishia.com HƗshim, A.S. ImƗm al-‫ۉ‬asan: The Second ImƗm. Internet: http://docs. google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6B6nZfSfnkgJislamicbooks.info/A l-ণasan.pps —. Al-‫ۉ‬usayn: The Third ImƗm. Internet: http://docs.google.com/ viewer?a=v&q=cache:x8INJOYFt6IJ:islamicbooks.info/AlHusayn.pps. Hegyi, Ottmar. Cinco leyendas y otros relatos moriscos. Gredos: Madrid, 1981. Hemming, John. Atlas of Exploration. Ed. John Hemming. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Hillgarth, J.N. The Spanish Kingdoms: 1250-1516. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. ণittƯ, Philip KhurƯ. Makers of Arab History. London: MacMillan, 1968. Hoffman, Valerie J. ‫܇‬njfism, Mystics and Saints in Modern Egypt. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2009. Howey, M. Oldfield. The Horse in Magic and Myth. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2002. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Ynjsuf b. ‘Abd AllƗh. KitƗb al-isti‘Ɨb fi ma‘rifat al-a‫ۊ܈‬Ɨb. ণaydarƗbƗd al-Dakkan: Ma৬ba‫ދ‬at DƗ‫ތ‬irat al-Ma‫ދ‬Ɨrif al-Ni਌Ɨmiyyah, 1336 H [1917-1918]. Ibn AbƯ Zar’. Raw‫ ڲ‬al-qir‫ܒ‬Ɨs. Ed. C.H. Tornberg. Upposala, 1843. Ibn al-Kha৬Ưb. KitƗb a’mƗl al-a’lƗm. Historia medieval islámica del Norte de Africa y Sicilia. Trans. Rafaela Castrillo Marqués. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Árabe de Cultura, 1983. Ibn ‘AsƗkir, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণasan. al-TƗrƯkh al-kabƯr. Dimashq: Ma৬ba‘at ণawঌat al-ShƗm, 1911-. —. TƗrƯkh Dimashq. Dimashq: Ma৬bnj‘Ɨt al-Majma‘ al-‘IlmƯ al-‘ArabƯ, 1951. Ibn ণajar al-AsqalƗnƯ. TahdhƯb al-tahdhƯb. Bayrnjt: DƗr ৡƗdir, 1968. Ibn ণajar al-HaythamƯ, Aতmad b. Muতammad. al-‫܇‬awƗ’iq al-mu‫ۊ‬riqah. Bayrnjt: DƗr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998. Ibn ণanbal, Aতmad b. Muতammad. Musnad al-ImƗm A‫ۊ‬mad b. ‫ۉ‬anbal. Bayrnjt: Mu’assasah al-RisƗlah, 1993. —. Fa‫ڲ‬ƗҲil al-‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨbah. Bayrnjt: Mu‫ތ‬assasat al-RisƗlah, 1983. Ibn ণayyƗn. Muqtabas. Muqtabis V, Chronic of the caliph AbderrahmƗn III to an-NƗsir between years 912 and 942, ed. & trans. Jesus Viguera and Current Federico. Zaragoza: Anubar, 1981.

372

Works Cited

Ibn Hawqal, K. ‫܇‬njrat al-ar‫ڲ‬. Ed. K.H. Kramers. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Ibn ণazm. “Epístola del auxilio divino: un códice inexplorado de Ibn ণazm.” Trans. M. Asín Palacios. Al-Andalus 4 (1936-1939): 9-11. Ibn HishƗm, ‘Abd al-MƗlik. The Life of Mu‫ۊ‬ammad: A Translation of Is‫ۊ‬Ɨq’s SƯrat Rasnjl AllƗh. Ed. and trans. Albert Guillaume. Lahore: Oxford University Press, [1967]. Ibn ‘IdhƗrƯ, Muতammad. Histoire de l’Afrique du nord et de l’Espagne musulmane intitulée KitƗb al-BayƗn al-MaghrƯb. Leiden: Brill, 19481951. Ibn IsতƗq, Muতammad. ‫܇‬Ưra‫ ܒ‬Rasnjl AllƗh / The Life of Mu‫ۊ‬ammad. Trans. A. Guillaume. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1987. Ibn KathƯr. al-BidƗyah wa al-nihƗyah. Bayrnjt: Maktabat al-Ma‫ދ‬Ɨrif, 1966. Ibn Khaldnjn. Muqaddimah. Trans. F. Rosenthal. Vol. II. New York, 1958. Ibn MƗjah, AbƯ ‘Abd AllƗh Muতammad b. YazƯd al-QazwƯnƯ. Sunan. Np: np, nd. —. Sunan. Trans. Muতammad ৫ufayl AnৢƗrƯ. Lahore: Kazi Publications, 1994. Ibn ৫Ɨwnjs. Muhaj al-Da‘awƗt. Np: Dar al-DhakhƗ’ir, nd. IdrƯsƯ, al-. Description de l’Afrique septentrionale et saharienne. Ed. H. Pérès. Algiers, 1957. ImƗm Reza Network. “The Contemporaries Pay Homage to ImƗm Zayn al‘AbidƯn.” ImƗm Reza Network. Internet: http://www.imamreza.net —. “Shia Muslims around the World.” ImƗm Reza Network. Internet: http://www.imamreza.net Inloes, AmƯna. “Was ImƗm ‘AlƯ a Misogynist?” Journal of ShƯ‘a IslƗmic Studies (2015) 8(3): 325-365. Internet: https://www.al-islam.org/wasimam-ali-misogynist-amina-inloes IsbahƗnƯ, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn Abnj al-Faraj al-. MaqƗtil al-ܑƗlibiyyƯn. Qum: ManshnjrƗt al-ShƗrƯf al-RaঌƯ, 1994. JafrƯ, Syed ণusain.M. The Origins and Early Development of ShƯ‘ah IslƗm. 2nd ed. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, 1989. James, David, ed. & trans. A History of Early Al-Andalus: The AkhbƗr majmnj‘a. New York: Routledge, 2012. —, ed. & trans. Early IslƗmic Spain: The History of Ibn al-Qnj‫ܒ‬iya. New York: Routledge, 2009. JayynjsƯ, Salma Khadra, ed. The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Leiden: Brill, 1992. —. “Andalusi Poetry: The Golden Period.” The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ed. Salma Khadra JayynjsƯ. Leiden: Brill, 1992. 317-366.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

373

Johns, Jeremy. Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily: The Royal DƯwƗn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Joshua Project. “Sayyid Ethnic People in all Countries.” Internet: http://www.joshuaproject.net Katz, Marion Holmes. The Birth of the Prophet Mu‫ۊ‬ammad: Devotional Piety in SunnƯ IslƗm. New York: Routledge, 2007. Kazemzadeh, Parvin, and Maryam Davarnia. “The Sealness of the WilƗyah of al-MahdƯ and the Specification of His Ancestors according to Ibn ‘ArabƯ and Some Commentators of FutnjhƗt al-makkiyyah.” Religious Inquiries 3.5 (2014): 63-81. Internet: http://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_12059_cb299837d713e4d18f8365bd553a6dbc.pd f [Accessed 6 September 2020]. Khedr, Tarek. Códice aljamiado de varias materias: manuscrito núm. xiii de la Antigua Junta para Ampliación de Estudios. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, 2004. Khemir, Sabiha. “The Arts of the Book.” Al-Andalus: The Arts of IslƗmic Spain. Ed. Jerrilynn Dodds. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992. 115-116. Khusraw, NƗৢir-i. Forty Poems from the “Divan.” Ed. GhulƗm Ri਌Ɨ A’vƗni, and Peter Lamborn Wilson. Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1977. KiyƗ’i-GilƗnƯ, Sayyid Ahmad b. Muতammad b. ‘Abd ar-RaতmƗn. SirƗj alAnsƗb. Qum: ManshnjrƗt Maktabah AyatullƗh al-‘U਌mƗ al-Mar’ashƯ alNajafƯ, 1409 AH. Kobbervig, Karl I. El libro de las suertes: tratado de adivinación por el juego de azar. Madrid: Gredos, 1987. Kontzi, Reinhold. Aljamiadotexte. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1974. KulaynƯ, Muতammad b. Ya‘qnjb al-. al-KƗfƯ. 8 vols. Trans. Muতammad Sarwar. The Islamic Seminary, 2015. —. al-KƗfƯ. Trans. Muতammad RiঌƗ al-Ja‘farƯ. ৫ihrƗn: WOFIS, 1981-82. —. al-Usnjl min al-KƗfƯ. ৫ihrƗn: DƗr al-Kutub al-lslƗmiyyah, 1981. —. al-KƗfƯ. Karachi: n.p., 1965. —. al-U‫܈‬njl min al-KƗfƯ. Ed. A.A. al-GhaffƗrƯ. 8 vols. ৫ihrƗn: Maktabat alৡadnjq, 1957-61. —. “The Birth of the ImƗms.” al-KƗfƯ. KulaynƯ. Internet: http://www.alhassanain.com Küng, Hans. IslƗm, Past, Present, and Future. Oxford: Oneworld, 2007. Labarta, Ana. Libro de dichos maravillosos (misceláneo morisco de magia y adivinación). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1993.

374

Works Cited

Lalani, Arzina R. Early ShƯ‘Ư Thought: The Teachings of ImƗm Mu‫ۊ‬ammad al-BƗqir. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000. Lane-Pool, Stanley. The Moors in Spain. Beirut: Khayats, 1967. Lasarte López, José Antonio. Poemas de Mo‫ۊ‬amad RabadƗn. Zaragoza: Diputación General de Aragón, 1991. Lecomte, G. Ibn Qutaybah: l’homme, son oeuvre, ses idées. Damascus: IFPO, 1965. Leichtman, Mara. “Defying ৡnjfism? Senegalese Converts to ShƯ‘ite IslƗm.” ISM Review 17 (Spring 2006). 20-41. Lévi-Provençal, Évariste. España musulmana. Trans. E. García Gómez. Madrid, 1950-57. Lewis, Bernard. “The Vanished Library.” The New York Review of Books 37.14 (27 September 1990). Liang, Yuen-Gen, Abigail Krasner Balbale, Andrew Devereux and Camillo Gómez-Rivas, ed. Spanning the Straight: Studies in Unity in the Western Mediterranean. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Lincoln, J.N. “An Itinerary for Morisco Refugees from Sixteenth-Century Spain.” Geographical Review 29.3 (July 1939): 483-487. Lindsay, James E. “Prophetic Parallels in Abnj ‘Abd AllƗh al-ShƯ‘Ư’s Mission among the KutƗmah Berbers, 893-910.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 24 (1992): 39-56. Lomax, Derek W. The Reconquest of Spain. New York: Longman, 1978. López Baralt, Luce. La literatura secreta de los últimos musulmanes de España. Madrid: Trotta, 2009. —. “La angustia secreta del exilio: el testimonio de un morisco de Túnez.” Hispanic Review 55.1 (Winter 1987): 41-57. —. “El oráculo de Mahoma sobre la Andalucia musulmana de los últimos tiempos en un manuscrito aljamiado-morisco de la Biblioteca Nacional de París.” Hispanic Review 52.1 (Winter 1984): 41-57. —. “‘Trilingual’ Marginal Notes (Arabic, Aljamiado and Spanish) in a Morisco Manuscript from Toledo.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.3 (July-Sept 1983): 495-503. López-Morillas, Consuelo. Textos aljamiados sobre la vida de Mahoma: el profeta de los moriscos. Salamanca: Editorial CSIC, 1994. —. “Aljamiado and the Moriscos IslƗmicization of Spanish.” Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994: 17-23. —. “Language and Identity in Late Spanish IslƗm.” Hispanic Review 63.2 (Spring 1995): 193-210. Lugo Acevedo, María Luisa. “KitƗb al-anwƗr: el copista ante su texto.” Actes du I Symposium International d’Études Morisques sur: État des

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

375

études de moriscologie durant les trente dernières années. Ed. Abdeljelil Temimi. Zaghouan: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Ottomanes, Morisques, de Documentation et d’Information. 161-171. Lumzi. Tu‫ۊ‬fah al-ashrƗf. Np: np, nd. Madelung, Wilferd, and Paul E. Walker. The Advent of the FƗ‫ܒ‬imids: A Contemporary ShƯ‘Ư Witness. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000. —. “The Religious Policy of the FƗ৬imids toward their SunnƯ Subjects in the Maghrib.” L’Égypte Fatimide: son art et son histoire. Ed. Marianne Barrucand. Paris : Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1999: 97104. —. “Some Notes on Non-IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ ShƯ‘ism in the Maghrib.” Studia Islamica 4 (1976): 87-97. MajƯd, Hamad al-. “ShƯ‘ite Expansion in Egypt: A Red Line.” Al-Sharq alawsa‫( ܒ‬February 11, 2009). Internet: www.asharqalawsat.com MajlisƯ, Muতammad BƗqir b. Muতammad TaqƯ. BihƗr al-anwƗr. ৫ihrƗn: JavƗd al-AlavƯ wa Muতammad AkhnjndƯ, 1956. MakkƯ, M.A. Al-tashayyu‘ fƯ al-Andalus: mundhu al-fat‫ ۊ‬hattƗ nihƗyat aldawlah al-umawiyyah. Al-QƗhirah: Maktabat al-Thaqafah al-Diniyyah, 2004. —. Ensayo sobre las aportaciones orientales en la España musulmana y su influencia en la formación de la cultura hispano-árabe. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Islamicos en Madrid, 1968. —. “Al-tashayyu‘ fƯ al-Andalus” Revista del Instituto Egipcio de Estudios Islámicos en Madrid (1954): 93-149. MamƯ, RiঌƗ. El poeta morisco: de Rojas Zorrilla al autor secreto de una comedia sobre Mahoma. Madrid: Pigmalión Edypro, 2010. —. El manuscrito morisco 9653 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid. Madrid: Fundación Menéndez Pidal, 2002. Manzanares de Cirre, M. “El otro mundo en la literatura aljamiadomorisca.” Hispanic Review 41.4 (Fall 1973): 599-608. MaqqarƯ, Ahmad b. Muতammad and Ibn al-Kha৬Ưb. A History of the Mo‫ۊ‬ammedan Dynasties in Spain. Ed. and trans. Pascual de Gayangos. London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1843. Marín, Manuela, ed. The Formation of al-Andalus. Ed. Maribel Fierro and Julio Samsó. Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998. —. “‫܇‬a‫ۊ‬Ɨba et tƗbi‘njn dans al-Andalus: histoire et légende.” Studia Islamica 54 (1981): 5-49. Martínez de Francisco, Santiago. “El shiismo en al-Andalus: Ibn al-AbbƗr.” Iran: Radio IslƗm. (1 de noviembre de 2011). Internet: http://spanish.irib.ir/radioislam/programas/la-sharia/item/75921-elshiismo-en-al-andalus-b.-al-abb%C3%A2r

376

Works Cited

Martínez Enamorado, Virgilio. “FƗ৬imid Ambassadors in Bobastro: Changing Religious and Political Allegiances in the IslƗmic West.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 52 (2009): 267-300. Media Arabe. “Après l’Afrique de l’Ouest, le Maroc et l’Algérie. La percée présumée du chiisme en Tunisie suscite l’inquiétude et alimente l’hostilité à l’Iran. Le gouvernement est invité à fermer le centre culturel iranien.” Media Arabe (21 août 2012). Internet: http://www.mediarabe.info MEMRI. “In Overture to Iran, QaddƗfƯ Declares North Africa ShƯ‘ite and Calls for Establishment of New FƗ৬imid State.” MEMRI (April 6, 2007). Internet: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi? ID=SD153507 Meri, Josef W., ed. Medieval IslƗmic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routlege, Taylor & Francis, 2006. Miller, Kathryn A. “Muslim Minorities and the Obligation to Emigrate to IslƗmic Territory: Two Fatwas from Fifteenth-Century Granada.” IslƗmic Law and Society 7.2 (2000): 256-299. Monès, ণussain. “The Role of Men of Religion in the History of Muslim Spain.” The Formation of al-Andalus. Ed. Maribel Fierro and Julio Samsó. Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998. 51-84. Montaner Frutos, Alberto. El recontamiento de al-MiqdƗd y al-MayƗsa. Zaragoza: Institucion Fernando el Catolico, 1988. Montgomery, James Edward. ‘AbbƗsid Studies: Occasional Papers of the School of ‘AbbƗsid Studies. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Morimoto, Kazuo, ed. Sayyids and Sharifs in Muslim Societies: The Living Links to the Prophet. New York: Routledge, 2012. Morrow, John Andrew. “Malcolm X and the Twelve ImƗms of the ‘Extremist’ Shiites.” Berkeley Institute for Islamic Studies (March 27, 2020). Internet: https://bliis.org/research/malcolm-x-twelve-imamsextremist-shiites/ —. “El shiísmo en el Norte de África y en la España Musulmana.” ABNA (25 de marzo de 2020). Internet: https://es.abna24.com/news// %e2%80%9cel-shiismo-en-el-norte-de-africa-y-en-la-espana-musul mana%e2%80%9d_1020445.html —. “El shiísmo en el Norte de África y en la España Musulmana.” Rahyafteha (25 de marzo de 2020). Internet: https://rahyafteha.ir/ es/3793/el-shiismo-en-el-norte-de-africa-y-en-la-espana-musulmana/ —. “El shiísmo en el Norte de África y en la España Musulmana.” Prensa Islámica (26 de marzo de 2020). Internet: http://prensa islamica.com/sitio/el-shiismo-en-el-norte-de-africa-y-en-la-espanamusulmana/

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

377

—. “El shiísmo occidental del Norte de África.” MPP (1 de enero de 2019). Internet: https://ongmusulmanesporlapaz.es/2019/01/21/el-shiismooccidental-del-norte-de-africa/ —. Finding W.D. Fard: Unveiling the Identity of the Founder of the Nation of Islam. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019. —. Restoring the Balance: Using the Qur’Ɨn and the Sunnah to Guide a Return to the Prophet’s IslƗm. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019. —, ed. IslƗm and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. —. “Shiism in North Africa and Islamic Spain.” Shafaqna (September 24, 2016). Internet: https://en.shafaqna.com/37489/shiism-in-north-africa and-islamic-spain/ —. “Shiism in North Africa and Islamic Spain.” Shafaqna (September 25, 2016). Internet: https://pakistan.shafaqna.com/EN/35548 / —. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis; Tacoma, WA: Angelico Press, 2013. —, ed. IslƗmic Images and Ideas: Essays on Sacred Symbolism. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. —. Islamic Insights: Writings and Reviews. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, 2012. —. [aka Yasin ‘Abd al-Salam]. “Shi‘ism in Morocco.” Jafariya News (July 27, 2006). Internet: https://www.jafariyanews.com/articles/2k6/27 july_Shiism_morocco.htm —. [aka Yasin ‘Abd al-Salam]. “Shia’ism in Morocco.” Imam Reza. Internet: https://www. imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=6618 —, ed. Arabic, IslƗm, and the AllƗh Lexicon: How Language Shapes our Conception of God. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006. MufƯd, Shaykh Muhammd b. Muতammad b. al-Nu‘mƗn al- KitƗb al-irshƗd: The Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve ImƗms. Trans. I.K.A. Howard. London: BalƗghah and MuতammadƯ Trust, 1981. Muতammad, MnjsƗ. Lady Zaynab. Internet: http://www.alhassanain.com/ MuতarramƯ, Ghulam ণasan. History of ShƯ‘ism: From the Advent of IslƗm up to the End of the Minor Occultation. Trans. Manৢoor Limba. TehrƗn: Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly, 2007. Internet: http://ahl-ul-bayt.org/media/aw_library/book/384/bookfile/ 1593752079392.pdf https://www.al-islam.org/history-shiism-advent-islam-end-minoroccultation-ghulam-husayn-muharrami

378

Works Cited

MuqqaddasƯ. A‫ۊ‬san al-TaqƗsƯm. Ed. M.J. Goeje. Leiden: np,1906. Museum with no Frontiers. “The FƗ৬imids” (2004-2011). Internet: http://www.discoverislamic art.org Muslim b. al-ণajjƗj al-QushayrƯ al-NƯsƗbnjrƯ. JƗmi‘ al-‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ۊ‬. al-RiyƗd: Bayt al-AfkƗr al-Dawliyyah li al-Nashr, 1998. NaquvƯ, Syed Moতsin. The Life and Times of ImƗm ‫ۉ‬asan ibn ‘AlƯ. Internet: http://www.almujtaba.com / http://www.imamreza.net NasƗ’Ư, Aতmad b. Shu‘ayb. Sunan al-NasƗ’Ư. al-QƗhirah: Muৢ৬afƗ al-BƗbƯ al-ণalabƯ, 1964-65. Naৢr, Seyyed ণossein. The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of ‫܇‬njfism, IslƗm’s Mystical Tradition. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. —. “The Safavid Era.” Expectation of the Millennium: ShƯ‘ism in History. Ed. Seyyed ণossein Naৢr, ণamƯd DabƗshƯ, Seyyed ValƯ RezƗ Naৢr. Albany: SUNY, 1989. 160-166. —. ‫܇‬njfƯ Essays. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. Nicholson, Reynold A. Trans. Selected Poems from the Divan-e Shams-e TabrƯzƯ of JalƗluddƯn RnjmƯ. JalƗl al-DƯn RnjmƯ. Bethesda, Maryland: Ibex Publishers, 2001. —. RnjmƯ: Poet and Mystic. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996. O’Callaghan, Joseph. A History of Medieval Spain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. OrdonƯ, Abnj Muতammad. FƗ‫ܒ‬imah the Gracious. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn, nd. Internet: http://www.al-islam.org O’Leary, Lacy. A Short History of the FƗ‫ܒ‬imid Khalifate. London: Kegan Paul, 1923. Internet: https://archive.org/details/shorthistoryoffa00ole auoft/page/n1 Öztürk, Yaúar NnjrƯ. The Eye of the Heart: An Introduction to ‫܇‬njfism and the Major ܑariqats of Anatolia and the Balkans. Trans. Richard Blakney. Istambul: Redhouse Press, 1988. Pakatchi, Aতmad. “The Tendencies of the ShƯ‘ite Fiqh.” The Great IslƗmic Encyclopedia. Ed. KƗzem MnjsavƯ BojnourdƯ. Tehran: The Center of the Great IslƗmic Encyclopedia, 1989. Internet: http://en.icro.ir Peñarroja Torrejón, Leopoldo. El mozárabe de Valencia. Madrid: Gredos, 1990. Peters, F.E. The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Poliak, A.N. “L’arabisation de l’Orient Sémitique.” REI (1938): 35-63. Poonawala, IsmƗ‘Ưl K. “A Reconsideration of al-QƗঌƯ al-Nu‘mƗn’s madhhab.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 37 (1974): 572-579.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

379

QarashƯ, BƗqir Shareef. The Life of MnjsƗ Bin Ja‘far al-KƗܲim. Internet: http://www.alhassanain.com —. The Life of ImƗm ‘AlƯ al-HƗdƯ, Study and Analysis. Trans. ‘AbdullƗh alShahƯn. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, 2007. Quitout, Michel. Dictionnaire bilingue des proverbes marocains. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997. Rafed Foundation. Life History of the ahle Bayt and their Families. Internet: http://www.alhassanain.com RƗwandƯ, Qutb al-DƯn. al-KharƗ’ij wa al-JarƗ’i‫ۊ‬. Qum: np, nd. Razwy, Syed A.A. KhadƯjah al-KubrƗ’: The Great Lady and the First Wife of the Holy Prophet. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, 2010. Read, Jan. The Moors in Spain and Portugal. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1975. Reilly, Bernard F. The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain: 1031-1157. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995. Riquelme, Joaquín Portillo Pasqual del. Historia de los saharauis y crónica de la agresión colonial en el Sahara Occidental. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991. RizvƯ, Sa‘Ưd Akhtar. Slavery from IslƗmic and Christian Perspectives. Vancouver: Vancouver IslƗmic Educational Foundation, nd. Internet: http://www.al-islam.org Roggema, Barbara. The Legend of Sergius Ba‫ۊ‬ƯrƗ: Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic Response to IslƗm. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Rosado Llamas, María Dolores. La dinastía ‫ۊ‬ammnjdƯ y el califato en el siglo XI. Málaga: Centro de Ediciones de la Diputación de Málaga, 2008 RnjmƯ, JalƗl al-DƯn. Selected Poems from the Divan-e Shams-e TabrƯzƯ of JalƗluddƯn RnjmƯ. Trans. Reynold A. Nicholson. Bethesda, Maryland: Ibex Publishers, 2001. —. RnjmƯ: Poet and Mystic. Trans. Reynold A. Nicholson. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996. Saavedra, D. Eduardo. Discursos leídos ante la Real Academia Española. Madrid, 1898. Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein. IslƗmic Messianism: The Idea of the MahdƯ in Twelver ShƯ‘ism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981. SalƗwƯ, Aতmad b. KhƗlid al-NƗৢirƯ al-. KitƗb al-Istiq‫܈‬Ɨ’ li akhbƗr duwal alMaghrib al-Aq‫܈‬Ɨ (Histoire du Maroc). Archives Marocaines Vol. 1. Trans. A. Graulle. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1923. —. KitƗb al- Istiq‫܈‬Ɨ’ li akhbƗr duwal al-Maghrib al-Aq‫܈‬Ɨ (Histoire du Maroc). Archives Marocains Vol. 2. Trans. A. Graulle and G.S. Colin.

380

Works Cited

Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1925. —. KitƗb al- Istiq‫܈‬Ɨ’ li akhbƗr duwal al-Maghrib al-Aq‫܈‬Ɨ. al-DƗr alBayঌƗ’: DƗr al-KuttƗb, 1954. Sánchez Albornoz, C. “El IslƗm de España y el Occidente.” Spoleto (1965): 151-308. Sánchez Alvarez, Mercedes. El manuscrito misceláneo 774 de la Biblioteca Nacional de París. Madrid: Gredos, 1982. Safran, Janina M. The Second Umayyad caliphate: The Articulation of caliphal Legitimacy in al-Andalus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. —. “The Command of the Faithful in al-Andalus: A Study in the Articulation of caliphal Legitimacy.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 30.2 (May 1998): 183-198. Sastre Parres, José Raimundo. “Cartas sobre la fitna.” Sábado, 20 de septiembre de 2003. Savage, E. “Berbers and Blacks: IbƗঌƯ Slave Traffic in Eighth-Century North Africa.” Journal of African History 33 (1992): 351-368. Shakir, M.H., trans. Holy Qur’Ɨn. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’Ɨn, 1982. Sharif, M.M., ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963. SharƯf al-DƯn al-MnjsawƯ, ‘Abd al-Husayn. Al-Muraja‘at. Trans. Yasin T. Al-Jibouri. Al-Islam.org. Internet: https://www.al-islam.org/almurajaat-abd-al-husayn-sharaf-al-din-al-musawi Sharon, Moshe. Black Banners from the East. Jerusalem and Leiden: Magnes Press; the Hebrew University; Brill, 1983. Shojaeddin, Shafa. De Persia a la España Musulmana: la historia recuperada. Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva Universidad de Huelva, 2016. Shoshan, Boaz. Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Shushud, H.L. “Hacegan Hanedani.” Istanbul, 1958. Originally published in “Systematics” Volume 6, No. 4 March 1969 by J. G. Bennett. Simonet, Francisco Javier. Glosario de voces ibéricas y latinas usadas entre los mozárabes. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1888. Stewart, Devin J. “Shiism in Medieval Egypt: Vestiges of IslƗmic Sectarian Polemics in Egyptian Arabic.” Studia Islamica 84 (1996): 35-66. Strothmann, R. “ShƯ‘a.” Shorter Encylopedia of IslƗm. Ithaca, NY: np, nd. ৫abarƯ. The History of al-ܑabarƯ: The Crisis of the Early caliphate. Vol. XV. Trans. R. Stephen Humphreys. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. —. The History of al-ܑabarƯ: The Reunification of the ‘AbbƗsid caliphate. Trans. C.E. Bosworth. Albany: SUNY, 1987.

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

381

Takim, Liyakat. The Heirs of the Prophet: Charisma and Religious Authority in ShƯ‘ite IslƗm. Albany: SUNY Press, 2007. —, trans. Selected Supplications, Prayers and Salutations. Tom Rivers, NJ: ImƗm Sahe-bu-Zaman Association, 1987. ৫albƯ, Moতammed. “Hérésie, acculturation et nationalisme des berbères Bargawata.” Premier congrès des cultures Méditerranéennes d’influence arabo-berbère. Alger 1973: 217-233. Taroudannt-Province.com. “Taroundant à travers l’histoire.” Taroundannt Province.com (27 octobre 2010). Internet: http://www.taroudanntprovince.com Tekiano. “Tunisie: La chasse aux chiites est ouverte!” Tekiano (25 août 2012). Internet: http://www.tekiano.com Temimi, Abdeljelil, ed. État des études de moriscologie durant les trente dernières années. Centre d’Études et de Recherches Ottomanes, Morisques, de Documentation et d’Information: Zaghouan, 1995. Ticknor, M.G. Historia de la literatura española. Trad. Pascual de Gayangos y Enrique de Vedia. Vol. 4. Madrid: M. Rivadeneyra, 1856. TƯjƗnƯ al-SamƗwƯ, Muতammad al-. Ask Those who Know. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, nd. TirmidhƯ, Muতammad b. ‘IsƗ. al-JƗmi‘ al-‫܈‬a‫ۊ‬Ư‫ۊ‬. al-QƗhirah: Muৢ৬afƗ alBƗbƯ al-ণalabƯ, 1937-. Tornero, Emilio. “A Report on the Publication of Previously Unedited Works by Ibn Masarrah.” The Formation of al-Andalus. Ed. Maribel Fierro and Julio Samsó. Brookfield: Ashgate, Townson, Duncan. Muslim Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973: 35. Tuniscope. “Adel Almi : ‘Les chiites sont un cancer à combattre. L’heure de la confrontation a sonné!” Tuniscope (21 Aout 2012). Internet: http://www.tuniscope.com —. “Les chiites en Tunisie, un héritage Fatimide ou une production iranienne?” Tuniscope (14 juin 2012). Internet: http://www. tuniscope.com Upton, Charles, and John Andrew Morrow. “Templar Resonances (Part 1).” Knight Templar vol. lxiii, number 6 (June 2017): 11-20. Internet: http://www.knightstemplar.org/KnightTemplar/Magazine/2017/0617. pdf —. “Templar Resonances (Part 2).” Knight Templar vol. lxiii, number 7 (July 2017): 21-29. Internet: http://www.knightstemplar.org/Knight Templar/Magazine/2017/0717.pdf Urvoy, Dominique. “The ‘ulamƗ’ of al-Andalus.” The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Ed. Salma Khadra JayynjsƯ. Leiden: Brill, 1992. 849-877.

382

Works Cited

Valero Cuadra, Pino. La leyenda de la doncella Carcayona. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 2000. Vásquez, Miguel Ángel. Desde la penumbra de la fosa: la concepción de la muerte en la literatura aljamiado-morisca. Madrid: Trotta, 2007. Vernet, Juan. “The Legacy of IslƗmic Spain.” Al-Andalus: The Arts of IslƗmic Spain. Ed. Jerrilynn Dodds. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992. 173-187 Vespertino Rodríguez, Antonio. “Literatura aljamiado-morisca, literatura tradicional islámica.” Literatura tradicional árabe y española. Ed. Rosa María Ruíz Moreno. Jáen: Universidad de Jáen, 1999. 85-115. —. Leyendas aljamiadas y moriscas sobre personajes bíblicos. Madrid: Gredos, 1983. Vincent, Bernard. “Foreword.” The Handless Maiden: Moriscos and the Politics of Religion in Early Modern Spain. Mary Elizabeth Perry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. xi-xiii. Vittor, Luis Alberto Vittor. ShƯ‘ite IslƗm: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy? Translated, edited, and annotated by John Andrew Morrow. Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn, 2010. —. El islam shíita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia? Qum: AnৢƗriyƗn Publications, 2010. Von Koningsveld, P.S., and G.A. Wiegers. “IslƗm in Spain during the Early Sixteenth Century: The Views of the Four Chief Judges in Cairo (Introduction, Translation, and Arabic Text.” Orientations Poetry, Politics and Polemics: Cultural Transfer between the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa). Ed. Otto Zwartjes, Geert Jan van Gelder and Ed de Moor. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1996. 133-152. Walker, Paul E. “The Identity of One of the IsmƗ‘ƯlƯ dƗ’Ưs sent by the FƗ৬imids to Ibn ণafৢnjn.” Al-Qantara 21 (2000): 387-8. Wallis, Wilson Dallam. Messiahs: Christian and Pagan. Boston: The Gorham Press, 1918. Wasserstein, David. The Rise and Fall of the Party Kings: Politics and Society in IslƗmic Spain: 1002-1086. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. —. “Inventing Tradition and Constructing Identity: The Genealogy of ‘Umar b. Hafsün between Christianity and IslƗm.” Al Qantara, vol. 23 (2002): 269-97. Watt, William Montgomery. A History of IslƗmic Spain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965. Westermarck, Edvard Alexander. Wit and Wisdom in Morocco: A Study of Native Proverbs. London: Routledge, 1930. Whishaw, Bernard and Ellen. Arabic Spain: Sidelights on Her History and

Shi‘ism in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, Volume One: History

383

Art. London: Garnet, 1912 / 2002. Wiegers, Gerard A. “European Converts to IslƗm in the Maghrib and the Polemical Writings of the Moriscos.” IslƗmic Conversions: Religious Identities in Mediterranean IslƗm. Ed. Mercedes García-Arenal. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2001: 207-223 —. IslƗmic Literature in Spanish and Aljamiado. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. “The Earliest Traces of IslƗmic Spanish Literature in al-Andalus.” IslƗmic Literature in Spanish and Aljamiado. Leiden: Brill, 1994: 2967. —. ‘ƮsƗ b. JƗbir and the Origins of Aljamiado Literature.” Al-Qantara 11 (1990): 155-91. Wikipedia. “List of Most Popular Given Names.” Wikipedia. Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_given_names Yndurain, Francisco. Los moriscos y el teatro en Aragón Auto de la destrucción de Troya y Comedia pastoril de Torcuato. Zaragoza: Instituto Fernando el Católico, 1986. Zayn al-‘AbidƯn, ‘AlƯ b. al-ণusayn. The Psalms of IslƗm. Trans. William C. Chittick. London: MuতammadƯ Trust of Great Britain of Northern Ireland, 1988.