Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Religion arrow Ethics in Islam: Friendship in the Political Thought of al-Taw??d? and his Contemporaries
Source

Notes

  • 1 Al-Tawhldl and Miskawayh, al-Hawamil, p. 37.11-14.
  • 2 Yaqut, Mu jam, vol. 15, p. 6. 6-7.
  • 3 Ibid., vol. 15, p. 5.9-11. This point, as rightly suggested by Berge, is fundamental for understanding al-Tawhldl’s thought and ethical theories; see Berge (1990), p. 113. Although Rowson considers this list of multiple areas of competency bestowed by Yaqut on al-Tawhldl to be a cliche of biographical dictionaries, he does not deny al-Tawhldl’s ability in both falsafa and adab, nor that his writings straddled these two realms; see Rowson (1990), pp. 50-51.
  • 4 Berge (1979), p. 7.
  • 5 Yaqut, Mu jam, vol. 15, pp. 16.9-26.1.The date of the letter is mentioned on p. 26.2. An account of this letter is provided in Chapter 3 below, pp. 130-137.
  • 6 Yaqut, Mu‘jam, vol. 15, p. 20.7.
  • 7 Cf. al-A‘sam (1986), p. 57; Husayn (1970), p. 4. Al-SandubI (1929), p. 12, gives a definite date for the birth of al-TawhIdI as 312/923, but gives no decisive evidence. Ihsan ‘Abbas (1956), p. 43, thinks that al-TawhIdI was born in the second half of the fourth/tenth century. HammadI (1979), pp. 21-24, gives the date for al-Tawhldi as 317/929 or 319/931. Kadi suggests that al-TawhIdI, according to his own writings, must have been born some time between the last years of the second decade and the early years of the third/ninth century; see Kadi (1969), p. 3.
  • 8 Al-TawhIdI in al-‘UjaylI (1999), p. 103; al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, p. 161.3-4.
  • 9 See al-ShIrazI in Kadi (1969), p. 15; al-DhahabI, Mizan al-I‘tidal, vol. 3, p. 355.21-22; al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-M-zan, vol. 6, p. 369.9; Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 7.6. Al-IsbahanI gives the date of death for al-TawhIdI as 360/981; see al-IsbahanI in MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 11. This date, however, cannot be accepted since al-TawhIdI states that he edited the work of al-Sadaqa wa al-Sad-q in 400/ 1011. Yaqut also gives the date for al-TawhIdI’s letter to the judge Abu Sahl as 400/1011; see Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 26.2.
  • 10 Yaqut, Irshad, vol. 1, p. 148.3-4.
  • 11 Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 5.1-2.
  • 12 See al-DhahabI in Berge (1979), p. 9.
  • 13 Ibn Hajar al-‘AsqalanI reports this from someone named al-SharIf Abu Ya‘la; see Ibn Hajar al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-M-zan, vol. 6, p. 371.19-20; al-SubkI also reports that it was said that al-TawhIdI was from NIshapUr and Wasit; see al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 286.1-2.
  • 14 Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 5, pp. 112.16, 113.9-15. Stern accepts Ibn Khallikan’s statement: “[he was] probably called al-TawhIdI after the sort of dates called TawhId”; see Stern, “Abu Hayyan al-TawhIdI”, Encyclopedia of Islam 2, vol. 1, p. 126.
  • 15 Ihsan ‘Abbas and Wadad Kadi suggest that al-Tawhldi was born in Shiraz because he spent the last days of his life and was buried there. They also refer to the link between al-TawhIdI’s inclination to Sufism and to Sunnism and ShIraz as a main centre for Sufism and Sunnis in the fourth/tenth century; see ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 43-44, and Kadi (1969), note 2, p. 3. HammadI also prefers a Persian origin for al-Tawh. -Id-I and says that he did not spend his early youth in Baghdad, based on what al-TawhIdI mentioned about his recitation of a verse by Dhu al-Rumma, that he used to recite during his youth, using the letter dha-l, the result of the bad dictation by his teacher; see HammadI (1979), p. 26. Al-TawhIdI adds that in Iraq he was told that it was the letter zay; cf. al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 22.13-14. Al-A‘sam argues that it is unlikely that al-Tawh. -Id-I was from Persia; especially because his father was a date vendor and this profession was not common in ShIraz. He says that it is more likely that al-TawhIdI was born in Wasit, moved to Baghdad in his early childhood, and that he travelled to ShIraz, NIshapUr, and Rayy; see al-A‘sam (1986), p. 59. Berge thinks that al-TawhIdI is the main reason for the confusion about his origin since he did not give any information about it. He assumes that al-Tawh. -Id-I was trying to hide his Persian origins when he came to Baghdad. He uses a paragraph from al-TawhIdI’s epistle al-Sadaqa wa al-Sad-q to prove al-Tawh. -Id-I’s feeling of estrangement among the people of Baghdad; see Berge (1979), pp. 9-10. This paragraph, however, should not be taken to refer to al-Tawh. -Id-I’s situation among people from Baghdad because it was written when the epistle was re-edited in 400/1011; during this time al-TawhIdI was away from Baghdad. Berge also argues that al-Tawh. -Id-I’s attitude against Shi‘ism that flourished in Iranian circles might prove his Arab origins. He tries to establish the origins of al-Tawh. -Id-I through his lack of knowledge of the Persian language. He quotes al-Tawh. -Id-I’s statement that he could not understand what Ibn ‘Abbad said to his servant in Persian, but he states that there is not enough evidence to make a precise conclusion; see ibid., pp. 10-11; cf. al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, pp. 104.9-105.8.
  • 16 Yaqut, Mu‘jam, vol. 15, p. 5.9.
  • 17 Ibn al-Jawzl, Muntazam, vol. 8, p. 185.1-18; cf. Kraemer (1986/b), p. 40.
  • 18 Al-DhahabI, Mlzctn, vol. 3, p. 355.21-27; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 40.
  • 19 Al-DhahabI, M-zan, vol. 3, p. 355.25-27. The name Ibn Mall sometimes appears in other texts as Ibn ManI, Ibn al-RummanI, Ibn RanI, or Ibn BabI; cf. KilanI (1950), p. 79; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 40-41.
  • 20 Al-DhahabI, M-zan, vol. 3, p. 355.25. For the letter, see al-TawhIdI, Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawhid-, pp. 13-83. For a list of sources which refer to the content of the letter, see also MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 85. Al-DhahabI considers ‘Isa b. YazId b. Bakr b. Dab al-LaythI al-MadanI, who is given as the fourth authority in the chain of transmission reported by al-TawhIdI, untrustworthy; see al-DhahabI, Mizan, ‘AlI Muhammad al-BajawI, ed., vol. 3, pp. 327.22-328.6. The isnad is also reported differently in various sources; for more information see MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 86 note 5. There is good reason to think that al-Tawh. -Id-I was not exiled from Baghdad during the reign of al-MuhallabI; see below, pp. 83-84.
  • 21 Al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 288.1-3.
  • 22 Al-SubkI adds a text explaining that it was “our lord al-Sahib KafI al-Kufat (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbad) who was able to make obvious al-TawhIdI’s lack of faith and attempted his execution”. He adds that al-TawhIdI fled to take refuge with the enemy of Ibn ‘Abba- d after deceiving them and that al-Muhallab-I also sought to persecute him; see al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 287.8-17; see also Kraemer (1986/b), p. 41.
  • 23 Al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 288.4-7; cf. Kraemer (1986/b), p. 41.
  • 24 Al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 6, p. 370. 9-14. Ibn al-Najjar seems to be the Shafi‘I historian who lived in between 578/1182 and 643/1245.
  • 25 Al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 6, pp. 369.6-370.9. For a discussion of the reports about the accusations against al-Tawh. -Id-I as a forger, see Muh. y-I al-D-In (1949), pp. 84-119; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 31-41.
  • 26 Cf. Berge (1990), p. 112.
  • 27 See Kraemer (1986/b), p. 41-42.
  • 28 The report also lacks historical authenticity since it states that Ibn ‘Abbad wanted to kill al-Tawh. -Id-I, and after that al-Muhallab-I followed him. But it is agreed that al-MuhallabI died in 352/963 while al-TawhIdI entered the court of Ibn ‘Abbad only after 367/978. In addition, the report by Ibn Faris claims that al-TawhIdI died in hiding. But this means that he died while Ibn Faris was still alive. Ibn Faris, however, died around 360/971, many years before al-TawhIdI who died after 400/1011; cf. Muh. y-I al-D-In (1949), pp. 60-64; al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 2, pp. 616-617; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 41.
  • 29 Cf. MuhyI al-DIn (1949), pp. 56, 63.
  • 30 Al-TawhIdI reports on Ibn Faris’s service in the court of Rayy; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 167.2-3, 319.16-320.7; see also KIlanI (1950), p. 79 note 1; MuhyI al-DIn (1949), pp. 63-64; see also al-Tha‘alibI, Yatma, vol. 3, pp. 397.1-404. 3.
  • 31 Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 4, pp. 84.2-85.2.
  • 32 Al-TawhIdI criticised Ibn Faris in the majlis of Ibn Sa‘dan and incited the vizier against him by accusing him of lies, gossip, taking part in evil actions, and of having bad intentions. Al-Shaykh, however, thinks that al-TawhIdI was referring to Abu al-Fath b. Faris; see al-TawhIdI in al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 2, p. 618; see also MuhyI al-DIn (1949), pp. 62-63; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 41.
  • 33 Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 17, p. 13.1-2.
  • 34 Makdisi, “Ibn ‘AkIl”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 699-700.
  • 35 For more information on the incident, see Makdisi, “Ibn ‘AkIl”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 699-700; Makdisi (1997), pp. 7-8; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 42.
  • 36 On the activities of Ibn al-JawzI, see Laoust, “Ibn al-Dj awzl”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 751-752. For a criticism of the position of Ibn al-Jawzl in the accusation against al-Tawhldl, see al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 2, pp. 621-623; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 42-43.
  • 37 Kllanl (1950), p. 78; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 42-43. On the complexity of the relationship between Sufism and Hanbalism, see Makdisi (1971), pp. 71-84; Makdisi (1991), pp. 115-126; Melchert (2001), pp. 352-367.
  • 38 Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 8.1-4; see also Kraemer (1986/a), p. 214.
  • 39 Kllanl (1957), pp. 47-48, 53-54; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 43.
  • 40 Kraemer (1986/b), p. 43.
  • 41 For examples of doubtful hadlth reported by al-Tawhldl, see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 97.13-99.2, 309.7-310.16.
  • 42 See Badawl (1950/b), pp. 4-6.
  • 43 Berge (1990), p. 112; cf. Bin Bilqasim (1984), p. 12.
  • 44 Berge (1990), p. 112.
  • 45 Arkoun (2001), p. 103; Kllanl (1950), p. 61. Kllanl in his description of al-Tawhldl as a Mu‘tazill seems to have based his opinion on Yaqut’s description of al-Tawhldl as “the investigator (muhaqqiq) of the kalam and the mutakallim (theologian) of the investigators”; see Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 5.10-11.
  • 46 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 142.2-3.
  • 47 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 142.9-15. For other places of al-Tawhldl’s criticism of theologians in his early and later writings, see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, p. 188.18-189.13; al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, p. 192.1-2.
  • 48 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 142.8-9.
  • 49 Ibid., p.' 142.13-15.
  • 50 Ibid., p. 142.15-18.
  • 51 AbU Zayd al-MarrUz! was Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Abd Allah, a jurist, hadlth transmitter, and a Shafi‘I scholar. He came to Baghdad and attended circles there, then he returned to Mecca; see al-Baghdadl, Tankh, vol. 1, p. 314.7-17; al-Subkl, Tabaqat, vol. 3, pp. 71.10-77.13; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 4, pp. 208.1-209.12.
  • 52 Al-MarrUzi dreamt that he lost his eyesight when he was still reading kalam under al-Ash‘arI. This was interpreted as indicating his lack of religion and falling short of fulfilling his obligation because of joining al-Ash‘arI’s circle. Thus al-Marruzl deserted al-Ash‘arI’s circle. At the end of the story, al-Tawhldl affirms that he reported what he was able to remember from the sayings of al-MarrUzi, and even though he might have put some wording before others, he did not alter the meaning or add anything; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 406.15-408.7.
  • 53 Montgomery (2006/b), p. 10.
  • 54 See al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 143.1-5. This account contradicts Berge’s claim that al-Tawhldl was influenced by al-Ash‘arI’s thought; see Berge (1979), pp. 25-26. On Khurramiyya or the Khurramdlniyya which is a religious movement founded by Mazdak in the late fifth century AD and on the various Iranian anti- Arab sects which emerged under the impact of certain extremist ShI‘I doctrines; see Madelung “Khurramiyya”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. V, pp. 63-65.
  • 55 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 142.6; see also ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 24-25.
  • 56 Al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, p. 203.1-10; al-Tawhldl also reports Ibn ‘Adi’s criticism of the false claims of the people of kalam, see ibid., 204.9-14. He also reports many contradictory sayings of theologians and many sayings of philosophers who refute these false claims; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, pp. 474.17-475.11; al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 188.18-191.18.
  • 57 Al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, p. 205.13-206.7; cf. Endress (1976), p. 122.
  • 58 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 3, p. 190.15-17.
  • 59 See Kadi (2003), pp. 128-159. For al-TawhIdI’s belief that the omission of the isnad (chain of transmission) is acceptable because it makes the hadith easier to comprehend, see al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, p. 377.1-3. Certainly al-TawhIdI’s position on the transmission of hadith was criticised by traditionalists; for a discussion of the accusations against al-TawhIdI and his position on hadith, see Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 43-44.
  • 60 For an example of al-Tawhldl’s encounter with some extremist ShI‘Is, see Kadi (2003), p. 142.
  • 61 Kadi (2003), p. 131.
  • 62 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 75.4-78.5.
  • 63 Al-TawhIdI attributes a complete chain of transmission to authorities contemporaneous with the events of the Saqfa; see al-TawhIdI, “Risalat al-SaqIfa”, in Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawhidi, p. 15.1-5.
  • 64 Ibid., p. 33.6-34.11.
  • 65 ‘Abbas (1956), p. 15.
  • 66 For Ibn al-HadId’s account of al-TawhIdI’s report of the Risalat al-Saqfa, see Ibn AbI al-HadId, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 10, pp. 271.6-287.12.
  • 67 See Ibn AbI al-HadId, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 10, p. 286.3-5; see also MuyhI al-D-In (1949), p. 104. Among the reasons which led Ibn Ab-I al-H. ad-Id to suspect the letter was that it is not mentioned in any other theological texts or traditions, as well as his feeling that the style of the letter seems to be al-Tawh. -Id-I’s. In addition, he says that it is suspicious that the letter is not mentioned by al-Shar-If al-Rad. -I who was interested in collecting the sayings of Imam ‘AlI; see Ibn AbI al-HadId, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 10, pp. 285.14-287.12. MuhyI al-DIn says that this is not enough reason to accuse al-Tawh. -Id-I of forging the letter since al-Shar-If al-RadI certainly did not collect everything the Imam ‘AlI said, and that much of what he missed was collected in Nahj al-Fasaha; see MuyhI al-DIn (1949), p. 110. The authenticity of the letter was also challenged by other scholars, such as al-DhahabI and al-‘AsqalanI; for further discussion see MuhyI al-DIn (1949), pp. 84-110; KIlanI (1950), p. 69; Berge (1979), pp. 106-109, 257-62; Kraemer (1986/b), pp_. 34-40.
  • 68 Al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-Mzan, vol. 6, pp. 369.15-370.1; see also Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 38-39; KIlanI (1950), pp. 68-69; MuhyI al-DIn (1949); pp. 108-109.
  • 69 KIlanI (1950), pp. 67-68; Kraemer (1986/b), p. 39.
  • 70 Cf. the testimony of al-TawhIdI’s contemporary al-MalInI (d. 412/1021) who claims that al-TawhIdI admitted to him forging the letter in response to the RafidIs; see al-DhahabI, Mizan, vol. 3, p. 355.22-25; see also KIlanI (1950), p. 68; MuhyI al-DIn (1949), pp. 59, 108; Berge (1979), p. 108; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 38-39.'
  • 71 See Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 39-40; KIlanI (1950), pp. 67-68. Al-MuhallabI is said to have had the task of enforcing in Baghdad the Sh-I‘-I religious measures of Mu‘izz al-Dawla, including the cursing of Mu‘awiya and the public celebration of the 10th of Muharram or ‘Ashura mourning ceremonies; Zettersteen and Bosworth, “Al-MuhallabI”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. VII, p. 358.
  • 72 See Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 39-40.
  • 73 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 3, p. 593.2-8; cf. MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 73.
  • 74 See, for example, al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, pp. 445.7-10, 653.7-9; al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 2, pp. 215.15-16, 233.3-14.
  • 75 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, p. 437.4-5; al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 4, p. 32.6-13.
  • 76 For examples of al-TawhIdI’s praise of the Prophet’s family, see Kadi (2003), notes 64-84.
  • 77 Al-TawhIdI in Kadi (2003), p. 145.
  • 78 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 41.15-42.6.
  • 79 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 42.6-12. Al-TawhIdI also condemns violence and the killing of several descendants of ‘Al-I, particularly his son, al-H. usayn; see Kadi (2003), notes
  • 49, 66. Al-Tawhldl also criticises Ibn ‘Abbad for making unpleasant comments about certain members of Banu Hashim; see al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, p. 295.3-7.
  • 80 Al-Tawhldl in Kadi (2003), p. 144.
  • 81 See al-Tawhldl in Kadi (2003), p. 144 (slightly adapted).
  • 82 Al-Tawhldl in Kadi (2003), p. 144.
  • 83 Al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, pp. 293.13-294.1.
  • 84 Ibid., pp. 294.1-295.1.
  • 85 Stern, “Abu HayyUn al-Tawhldl”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. 1, pp. 126-127.
  • 86 Al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 2, p. 631; Muhyl al-Dln (1949), p. 36.
  • 87 The characterization of al-Tawhldl as an outsider is a common theme in the secondary literature. Scholars seem to base their argument on his travelling as a nomad in the guise of a Sufi in search of knowledge, and from Yaqut’s comments describing al-Tawhldl as the “Shaykh f - al-Sufiyya”. This point is reinforced by al-Tawhldl’s description, in various places, of his travel with a group of Sufis; see YUqUt, Mu‘jam, vol. 15, p. 5.9; al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 155.15-157.10. For secondary literature, see Murad (2001); Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 25, 208-22; al-‘IraqI (1996), p. 29. Al-KansUs! argues for al-Tawhldl’s feeling of marginality among the Sufis; see al-KansUsi (1996), p. 90. YUqUt also describes al-Tawhldl as “‘umdatun li-ban- sasan” (a chief of Banu SasUn); see YUqUt, Mu jam, vol. 15, p. 5.11. On the term ‘Banu Sasan,’ which is ascribed to people who were famous for their wandering, participating in begging, see Bosworth, “Sasan, Banu”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. IX, p. 70; Bosworth (1976). For a number of themes in this note, see Key (2005), pp. 74-78.
  • 88 For further discussion, see Introduction, pp. 5-9.
  • 89 See Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 208, 222; see Introduction, p. 6.
  • 90 See Introduction above, pp. 5-9.
  • 91 See discussion above.
  • 92 Gramsci (2000), p. 77.
  • 93 See ‘Abbas (1956), p. 42; Kadi (1969), p. 3. Some scholars argue that al-Tawhldl’s silence about his childhood could be ascribed to his humble background which did not correspond with his ambition to achieve social recognition among the elite of his society; see Muhyl al-DIn (1949), pp. 21-22; al-A‘sam (1986), p. 59.
  • 94 See above note 14; cf. al-A‘sam (1986), p. 55. In one of his questions to Miskawayh, Al-Tawhldl inquires about the reasons which lead one to long for one’s past, even if this past was a time of constant need and difficulty; see al-Tawhldl and Miskawayh, al-Hawamil, p. 37.1-11. Al-Tawhldl also reports a description about the value of a mother; see al-Tawhldl in al-‘UjaylI (1999), p. 104.
  • 95 See YUqUt, Mujam, vol. 15, p. 28.6; al-Tawhldi, Akhlaq, p. 306.11-12. Al-Tawhldl complains that copying (al-wira-qa) weakens the eyesight, shortens one’s life, and does not pay enough money; see YUqUt, Mujam, vol. 15, pp. 13.9, 34.2-35.6.
  • 96 Al-Tawhldl exchanged stories with AbU HUmid al-MarwarrUdhl about their uncles. Al-Tawhldl mentions that one day when he was making his way to the circle of AbU al-Hasan b. al-QattUn al-Shafi‘I, he passed by his uncle AbU al-‘AbbUs who was with a group of his friends. The group appreciated al-Tawhldl’s devotion to knowledge. Al-Tawhldl’s uncle approved, but added that al-Tawhldl “has one sole fault. And everybody said what is it? He said: everyday he eats four bread rolls. The uncle’s companions would fall about laughing about this”; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basair, vol. 2, p. 475.9-17.
  • 97 Al-Tawhldl travelled to places like Bukhara and AdharbUyjUn; he mentioned that he met AbU al-‘AbbUs al-BukhUrl in Bukhara when he was young in about 344/951; cf. Kadi (1969), p. 4. AbU al-‘AbbUs is mentioned in various places of al-Tawhidl’s work; see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 207.15-210.6; al-Tawhidl, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 6.14, 10.16-18, 19.15, 20.16-18, 21.9-10, 160.16/ 161.5; al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, pp. 114.2-3, 211.1, 225.15-226.1, 233.1-7, 267.11. Al-Tawhldl also mentions that he discussed issues of Arabic calligraphy and writing with authors such as Abu ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Zanjl al-Katib whom he met in Adharbayjan; see al-TawhIdI, “Risala fl ‘Ilm al-Kitaba”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh-dt, p. 50.1-5. For a list of the biographical sources on Ibn al-Zanjl, see Kadi (1969), p. 4 note 2.
  • 98 For the popularity of the Shafi‘I teaching in the fourth/tenth century, see Makdisi (1984), p. 20; see also Donohue (2003), pp. 322-327.
  • 99 According to Shawql Dayf, it was al-TawliIdI’s father who first encouraged him to attend scholarly circles when he recognised his talent as a young boy; see D. ayf in al-‘UjaylI (1999), p. 104.
  • 100 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 2, p. 475.9-17. Abu al-Hasan al-Qattan was Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ahmad, known as Ibn al-Qattan al-BaghdadI. He studied under Ibn Surayj and Abu Ishaq al-MarwarrudhI and then became one of the main Shafi‘I jurists and scholars whom students visited from everywhere to learn Shafi‘I doctrine; see Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 1, p. 70.5-12. For some of Ibn al-Qattan’s juridical opinions, see al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 284.4-285.6.
  • 101 See above, notes 51 -52.
  • 102 Ibn Shahawiyya, Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘AlI (d. 362/973); he should not be confused with the other Ibn Shahawiyya who is Samsam al-Dawla’s envoy; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 4.9-10. For the other Ibn Shahawiyya, Samsam al-Dawla’s envoy, see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 43.5.
  • 103 In 354/965, al-TawhIdI reports a had-th which he heard from Abu Bakr al-Qaffal al-Shafi‘I; see al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol.1, p. 376.10-13. For the theological affiliation of Abu Bakr Muhammad b. ‘AlI b. Ismail al-Qaffal al-Shafil, see al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 3, pp. 200.1-222.2; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 4, pp. 200.1-201.14; Cook (2000), pp. 340-343; Reinhart (1995), pp. 19-21.
  • 104 Malamud argues that Sufi organization was closely connected with those of the ‘ulama; see Malamud (1994), p. 427.
  • 105 Al-TawhIdI describes his travel with a group of Sufis in the desert in 354/965 and their conditions after nearly starving to death upon their return from pilgrimage until they arrived at a town; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 155.15-157.10.
  • 106 Cf. ‘Abbas (1956), p. 51.
  • 107 Al-TawhIdI repeatedly reports the sayings and his discussions with a Sufi Ja‘far b. Hanzala; see al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 292.12-293.5.
  • 108 AbU Hamid Ahmad b. ‘Amir b. Bishr b. Hamid al-MarwarrudhI studied Shafi‘I legal theory under the famous Shafi‘I jurist Abu Ishaq al-Marwarrudhl in Basra. He composed widely on Shafi‘I jurisprudence and particularly on legal theory; for more information and titles of his books, see al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 3, pp. 12.12-13.16; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 1, pp. 69.4-70.3.
  • 109 For examples of the different places in which al-TawhIdI cites Abu Hamid al-Marwarrudhl, see al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 100.3-6, 258.2-10, 304.9-15, 418.7-419.8, 549.9-551.2; ai-Tawhldi, al-Basa’ir, vol. 2, pp. 48.5-49.11; al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, pp. 167.5-14, 178.4-6; al-TawtLIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 4, p. 285.13-14; al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 476.5-477.7.
  • 110 See al-TawhIdI, al-Basa ir, vol. 1, p. 305.1-3; see also al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 476.5-6. '
  • 111 On the importance of the study of language in Shafi‘I religious circles, see Lowry
  • (2005), pp. 309-317. -
  • 112 On al-RummanI, see Flanagan, “al-RummanI Abu ‘l-Hasan ‘AlI b. ‘Isa b. ‘AlI b. ‘Abd Allah”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. VIII, pp. 614-615.
  • 113 See also al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 170.9-171.3. For al-Tawhldi’s defence of al-RummanI against al-BadIhI, see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 171.3-172.10. For al-TawhIdI’s praise of al-Jahiz, see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 231.4-232.12, 385.12-14.
  • 114 Al-SIrafI produced an original work on Slbawayhi’s Kitab during the fourth/tenth century; see Humbert, “Al-SIrafI”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. IX, pp. 668-69.
  • 115 See al-TawhIdI in al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 1, p. 171.4-10; cf. al-Shaykh (1980), pp. 100-101. For other places in which al-TawhIdI praises al-SIrafI, see al-TawhidI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 129.12-130.16, 133.10-12, 222.3; al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 411.5-413.3.
  • 116 See Kister (1954), pp. 5-8. Walzer states that this idea was common in the later Neoplatonic tradition; see Walzer in Kraemer (1986/a), p. 146.
  • 117 Al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 69.6-70.4.
  • 118 See al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 129.15-130.16.
  • 119 See al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, pp. 129.1-132.13. On al-TawhIdI’s relationship with al-SijistanI, see below, pp. 76-78.
  • 120 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 221.1-222.3. On al-TawhIdI’s realtion with Ibn Sa‘da-n, see below, pp. 93-97.
  • 121 Z. IbrahIm (1974), p. 31; al-Shaykh (1983), vol. 1, p. 174.
  • 122 Z. IbrahIm (1974), p. 30.19-21.
  • 123 The debate took place in the presence of many leading figures at the court of the vizier Abu al-Fath Ibn al-Furat. It was in response to Matta’s claims on the superiority of Aristotelian logic over grammar; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 107.15-128.19; see also Versteegh (1997), pp. 52-63.
  • 124 Cf. Ouyang (1997), p. 22.
  • 125 Some of the information in this section appeared in an article analysing al-TawhIdI’s epistle on the classification of knowledge; see al-Sha‘ar (2010), pp. 153-173.
  • 126 Cf. Rosenthal (1970), pp. 28-32; see also Lowry (2007), p. 242.
  • 127 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 19.12-20.15.
  • 128 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fi al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Abi Hayyan al-Tawhldi, p. 106.15-17.
  • 129 Ibid., p. 106.15-18. On ethical thinking that is based on religious tradition, see Hourani (1985), p. 15.
  • 130 Al-TawhIdI heard this from Abu ‘Abd Allah al-TabarI, the slave of Abu Ishaq al-MarwarrudhI; see al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, p. 515.6-7.
  • 131 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh Ш, p. 107.8-11.
  • 132 Ibid., p.' 107.13-18.
  • 133 Ibid., p. 107.16. Al-TawhIdI paid attention to had-th and he quoted one from Abu Bakr al-Qaffal al-Shafi‘I on forbidding wrong actions; see al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, pp. 376.10-377.3.
  • 134 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-TawMcH, p. 107.16.
  • 135 Ibid., p.' 107.16.
  • 136 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, p. 515.6-8.
  • 137 Rosenthal (1970), pp. 35-36.
  • 138 Al-Shafi‘I, Risala, pp. 108.14-109.9; see also Rosenthal (1970), pp. 35-36. On al-Sha- fi‘-Is position on the sunna, see also Lowry (2007), pp. 165-207.
  • 139 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawfcd-, p. 108.3-6.
  • 140 For the Shafi‘I position on qiyas, see Hourani (1971), p. 17; Makdisi (1984), pp.5-47; Lowry (2005), pp. 309-317; Lowry (2007), pp. 142-164.
  • 141 Al-TawliIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, pp. 98.13-99.2.
  • 142 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 174.6-12. For the supremacy of law through the exclusive use of revealed texts, the Qur’an, and hadlth as sources of legal rules of a purely text-based legal epistemology, leading to the development of legal hermeneutics within the Shafi‘I school, see Lowry (2005), pp. 309-317.
  • 143 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 7.1-9.4; see also al-TawhIdI’s authorial comments in which he reasserts the purpose of the book, which contains knowledge and wisdom leading to the worship of God and spreading His commands as a guide to goodness; al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, p. 11.8-12.
  • 144 Ibid, vol. 1, p. 7.12-13.
  • 145 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 7.15-18.2.
  • 146 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 8.2-9.
  • 147 The relation was well known in Islam. According to Rosenthal, the Aristotelian claim that “knowledge was the beginning of action, and action the entelechy of knowledge” was frequently cited by scholars such as al-‘AmirI as quoted in the Bodleian Ms. or. Marsh 539, fol. 124a; see Rosenthal (1970), pp. 66-67, especially 67 note 1.
  • 148 Al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, p. 274.5-9.
  • 149 Cf. Abu Khaythamah, no. 138, in Rosenthal (1970), p. 246. The link between ‘ilm (knowledge), teaching, and action is also acknowledge in many other prophetic had-th; see for example Sunan al-Daram-, especially bab al-tawb-kh liman yatlibu al-‘ilm lighayri Allah, and bab al-iqtida’ bil-‘ulama’; see also Slab,-h al-Bukhar-; especially kitab al- ‘ilm, bab fadl man ‘alima wa ‘allama.
  • 150 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fl al-Haya”, in Rasail Abi Hayyan al-Tawhidi, p. 72. 6-11. Al-Tawh. -Id-I divides life into ten: the life of senses and movements, the life of knowledge and vision, the life of righteous acts and practice (al- ‘amal al-salih), the life of morals and natural disposition, the life of religion and tranquility, the life of the first perfection, the life of imagination, the life of the second perfection which is the best life. The other two are the life of angels, and that which is attributed to God when one says God is eternal; ibid., pp. 69.10-70.7.
  • 151 Ibid., p. 72.8-11.
  • 152 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, p. 389.6-7.
  • 153 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala ila al-QadI AbI Sahl”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-TawhШ, pp. 162.13-163.2.
  • 154 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3, p. 135.7-8. Ihsan ‘Abbas suggests that the nickname al-TawhIdI may have been given to Abu Hayyan because of his belief that all branches of knowledge should lead to the oneness of God, and not because he belonged to the people of al-tawhId as claimed by some; see ‘Abbas (1956), p. 27.
  • 155 Al-TawhIdI, al-Isharat, p. 254.14-16. For further discussion on knowledge and society in Islam, see Rosenthal (1970), pp. 240-322, especially pp. 240-252.
  • 156 Al-TawhIdI in Kadi (2003), p. 145.
  • 157 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 290.1-2.
  • 158 Ibid., p. 289.9-12. Al-TawhIdI quotes a similar remark made by al-MarwarrudhI on the lack of morals and friendship among people; see al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, p. 24.4-14.
  • 159 See ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 14-15.
  • 160 Kadi (2003), p. 129. For al-TawhIdI’s reference to the change in society’s values, see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 16.5-18.8.
  • 161 This concept of “al-ghanb” (the stranger) occurs often in al-TawhIdI’s writings. For examples, see al-TawhIdI, al-Isharat, pp. 80.6-84.7; al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, p. 7.13-14.
  • 162 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 78.7-79.7. The same hadtth is also mentioned in al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, p. 540.4-5. For sources on this hadlth and discussion of its use by various scholars, the philosophers and the Sufis, see Fierro (2000), pp. 230-260.
  • 163 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 79.1-7. On the concept of ghanb, see Rosenthal (1997), pp. 35-75.
  • 164 See Introduction, pp. 6-7.
  • 165 For example, see al-TawhIdI, al-Isharat, pp. 78.14-86.12.
  • 166 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 1, p. 174.2-5.
  • 167 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 174.7-11.
  • 168 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 9.5-12.11; KIlanI affirms that al-BasOiir is purely educational; see KIlanI (1964), pp. za-ta
  • 169 Al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, p. 363.13-14. For other places in which al-Tawhldl states the magnificent qualities of the ‘arabiyya, see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 76.13-78.5, 106.16-20; see also the seventh night of al-Imta during which al-Tawhldl reports to Ibn Sa‘dan his quarrel with Ibn ‘Ubayd, the accountant, concerning whether accountancy is a more useful art to kingship than eloquence; al-Tawhidl, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 96.4-104.10; al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, p. 58.12-14.
  • 170 Al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, p. 363.14-17.
  • 171 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 107.13-19.
  • 172 See al-Tawhldi, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 122.4-5, 216.8-10. Al-TawhIdI wonders about the saying of Abu Hanlfa al-Sufl: “Almighty God has ordered us to believe and to submit our obedience to Him, even if he did not order us [to learn] grammar”; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 214.11-215.13.
  • 173 For examples, see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 538.4-545.6. Al-Tawhldl also shows how the improper use of language changes meaning entirely when he reports the example of a noble who said to someone: “Sit down and dine on us (tataghadda bina)”, when he meant to say “and dine with us (tataghadda ma‘ana)”. Al-Tawhldl then comments: “Look at the absurdity he produced with his words”; see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 101.2-3; English tr. Van Gelder (1986), p. 57 (slightly adapted).
  • 174 Al-Tawhldl reports a few Qur’anic verses showing how a slight change in the desinential inflection at the end of the words may distort their meanings. He quotes the story of ‘All b. Abl Talib who heard someone making many linguistic mistakes while he was reading the Qur’an. Therefore, he asked Abu al-Aswad al-Du’all to establish grammar and rules for people; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 215.16-216.10. On the appearance of solecisms in speaking; see Abu al-Tayyib al-Lughawl, Maratib al-Nahawiyy-n, pp. 23.1-42.3.
  • 175 Al-Tawhldl, “Risala fl al-‘Ulum”, in Rasa’il Abl Hayyan al-Tawh-di, p. 110.6-8.
  • 176 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 102.17-19; English tr. Van Gelder (1986), p. 57.
  • 177 Al-Tawhldl admires al-Jahiz’s stylistic expressions, while he criticises the poor style of many of his contemporaries; see al-Tawhldl, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 231.4-232.12. In al-Imta‘, al-TawhIdI defends Arab values and culture against the attack of some Persians, such as al-Jayhanl; see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 70.11-96.2. ‘Ihsan Abbas sees al-Tawhldl’s emphasis on ‘arabiyya and admiration for al-Jahiz as a response to political changes and the pluralization of the Persian culture seen as a continuation of the shu ‘ubiyya movement in the second century of the Islamic era; see ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 19-21. On the shuubiyya, see Enderwitz “al-Shu‘ubiyya”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. IX, pp. 513-516; Norris (1990); Gibb (1962).
  • 178 For a thorough analysis of al-Jahiz’s theory of Bayan, see Montgomery (2006/a), pp. 91-153.
  • 179 For al-Shafi‘I’s discussion of the Arabic Qur’an, see his explication of “the fifth mode of clarity” (al-bayan al-khamis); al-ShafI‘I, Risala, pp. 41.14-53.7, nos. 133-78, trans. Khadduri (1961/1997), pp. 88-89.
  • 180 For al-TawhIdI’s criticism of Ibn ‘Adi’s translations, see below, p. 76.
  • 181 See al-TawhIdI and Miskawayh, al-Hawamil, p. 104.18-20.
  • 182 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, p.101.2-3; English tr. Van Gelder (1986), p. 56.
  • 183 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasa’ il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh-d-, p. 111.1-9.
  • 184 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 102.11-13; English tr. Van Gelder (1986), p. 57.
  • 185 Ibid., pp. 99.12-100.5.
  • 186 English tr. Rosenthal (1971), p. 38 (slightly adapted); see al-TawhIdI, “Risala fi ‘Ilm al-Kitaba”, in Rasa ’ il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh I'd-, p. 53.10-11.
  • 187 The unifying importance of ‘arabiyya is also mentioned by Heck (2002), p. 2.
  • 188 On al-‘AmirI, see Rowson, “al-‘AmirI, Abu al-Hasan Muhammad b. Yusuf”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. XII, p. 72. Al-TawhIdI mentions al-‘AmirI’s encounters with other philosophers and scholars of Baghdad at the majalis which Abu al-Fath b. al-‘AmId held during his visit to Baghdad; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 410.3-414.2. He also mentions that Miskawayh regretfully failed to benefit from al-‘AmirI during his stay at the court of Abu al-Fadl b. al-‘Amid (d. 360/970); see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 36.1-4; al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 115.8-116.13; see also ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 48-49.
  • 189 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 35.5-6. This is the same Abu al-Qasim al-Katib who Kadi has proposed as the author of Siwan al-Hikma; see Kadi (1981/b), pp. 87-124. ' ' -
  • 190 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basair, vol. 3, pp. 545.5-546.5. Rowson states that al-‘AmirI’s visits to Baghdad must have been from Rayy and subsequent to the death of Ibn al-‘AmId in 360/970; see Rowson (1988), p. 5.
  • 191 See Arkoun, “Miskawayh”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. VII, pp. 143-144.
  • 192 Both questions and answers can be found in al-TawhIdI and Miskawayh, al-Hawamil wa al-Shawamil. For a study of the book, see Arkoun (2001), pp. 97-180.
  • 193 See al-TawhldI, al-Muqabasat, p. 157.1-2; al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, p. 172.1-2; see also al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 118.2-5; Kadi (1969), p. 36. For a biography of AbU al-Hasan al-BadIhI, see al-ZiriklI, al-A‘lam, vol. 5, p. 143.11-18; see also al-Tha‘al'ibI, Yat-ma, vol. 3, pp. 339.1-341.16; Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 136-139.
  • 194 See Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 104-110.
  • 195 On other scholars of Ibn ‘AdI’s school, see Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 116-139.
  • 196 For al-TawhIdI’s discontent with the views of members of the school, such as Ibn Suwar, see discussion below in this section, p. 83.
  • 197 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 37.6-11; cf. Kraemer (1986/a), p. 107.
  • 198 For al-TawhIdI’s relations with al-SijistanI, see Kadi (1969), pp. 37-38; al-Shaykh (1983), pp. 184-194. Al-TawhIdI first met AbU al-Wafa’ al-Muhandis in Jurjan, and the latter recommended him to the vizier Ibn Sa‘dan; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1 p. 4.8-11; see also below. For the activities of AbU al-Wafa’ al-Muhandis al-BuzajanI, see Suter, “AbU al-Wafa’ al-BUzadj an-”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. I, p. 159; Kraemer (1986/a), p. 200; KIlanI (1957), pp. 26-27.
  • 199 For examples of al-TawhIdI’s admiration for al-SijistanI and his status among scholars of his time, see al-TawlndI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 33.4-7; al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 22.20-23.6. On al-SijistanI’s interests, see Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 139-165; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 1-24, 136-271.
  • 200 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 130.13-16.
  • 201 See Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 139-165.
  • 202 Al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, pp. 315.1-2, 321.1, 324.1. Al-TawhIdI says that he read Aristotle’s De Anima (Kitab al-nafs) in one session and transcribed parts of his Physics in another; see ibid., p. 241.1-2; cf. Kraemer (1986/a), p. 140.
  • 203 See above, note 118.
  • 204 Al-SijistanI’s encounter with Ibn Sa‘dan will be explained further in the section on al-TawhIdI’s relation to Ibn Sa‘dan’s below, pp. 93-97.
  • 205 Netton acknowledges the encyclopaedic foundation of al-TawhIdI’s theory of knowledge; see Netton (1999), p. 79.
  • 206 Al-Maqdis-I, according to al-Tawh. -Id-I, participated in many contemporary intellectual debates, such as the discussion on the validity of astrology organised by al-SijistanI; al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, p. 57.10. For more information on al-MaqdisI, see Ali-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 35-36. Al-MaqdisI is also mentioned by al-ShahrastanI (d. 548/1153) who lists him among “the modern (al-muta’akh- khirun) philosophers of Islam” in his Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal; see al-ShahrastanI, Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, p. 198.1-2. Even though al-TawhIdI did not attribute the authorship of the Rasail solely to al-MaqdisI as al-SijistanI did in Siwan al-Hikma, he still acknowledges al-MaqdisI’s centrality to the content of the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity; al-SijistanI, Siwan al-Hikma, pp. 361.16-362.2.

For sources on the sole attribution of the authorship of the Epistles to al-MaqdisI, see Ah-de-Unzaga (2004), p. 35.

  • 207 See al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 4.13-15.14. The precise identity of this group has been subject to much debate in modern scholarship. On the authorship of the Brethren of Purity, see De Callatay (2005), pp. 2-12; Ah-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 3-4; Netton (2002), pp. 95-104; Marquet, “Ikhwan al-Safa’”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 1071-1076; Madelung, “Karmat!”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. IV, p. 663; Zimmerman (1975); Hamdani (1978).
  • 208 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 4.15-5.1. For further discussion of al-TawhIdI’s relationship with Zayd b. Rifa‘a, see Chapter 3 below, pp. 122-124.
  • 209 For stories which al-TawhIdI heard from al-ZanjanI, see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 157.13-160.10. '
  • 210 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, p. 5.2-14.
  • 211 Ibid., p. 5.8-9. Stern contends that al-TawhIdI, at the time of producing al-Imta, refreshed his memory from a copy of the Rasa-'il itself; see Stern in Netton (1999), p. 78.
  • 212 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta , vol. 2, p. 6.2-3. For a discussion of al-SijistanI’s position on the Epistles, see Ah-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 76-81.
  • 213 The Brethren of Purity inform the reader of their sources in one of their Epistles, Ikhwan al-Safa ’, Rasail Ikhwan al-Safa, vol. 45 (4: 42.7-43.8). A translation of part of this passage is available in Nasr (1978), p. 39.
  • 214 Rowson (1988), p. 2.
  • 215 For the reception of the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity, see al-Tawh. -Id-I, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, pp. 5.15-23.12; Ah-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 27-120; Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 230-43; Berge (1979), pp. 14-15, 187-191, 290-297.
  • 216 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, p. 6.2-13.
  • 217 For al-SijistanI’s position, see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 6.2-22.19; cf. Kraemer (1986/b), pp. 231-38; Berge (1979), pp. 291-297; Ah-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 76-81.
  • 218 Al-TawhIdI, Muqabasat, p. 95.2-3.
  • 219 Al-Tawh. -Id-I divides his treatise into fourteen small sections, each devoted to one type of knowledge. He classifies knowledge as fiqh (jurisprudence), the Qur’an, the Prophet’s sunna, qiya-s (analogy), kala-m (theology), nah. w (grammar), lugha (lexicography), mantiq (logic), and tibb (medicine); all of which he terms ‘ilm (science). There are also nujUm (astronomy), hisab (accountancy), handasa (geometry), balagha (eloquence) and tasawwuf (mystical traditions), all of which he terms professions; see al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Abi Hayyan al-Tawhid-, pp. 103.1-118.8. For a critical study of this treatise, see al-Sha‘ar (2010), pp. 153-173.
  • 220 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Abi Hayyan al-Tawhid-, pp. 105.17-106.2.
  • 221 Ibid., p. 105.1-3.This person whose statement al-TawhIdI refutes might be al-SijistanI who states that both philosophy and religion are true, but philosophy is limited and inferior to religion and should be studied independently; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, p. 9.19-20. For more on al-SijistanI’s statement, see ibid., pp. 18.8-19.9.
  • 222 Al-TawhIdI mentions the title of al-BalkhI’s treatise but not his name; see al-TawhkH, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh Ш, p. 106.5-13. Al-TawhidI also gives the title Aqshm al- ‘Ulum and attributes to al-BalkhI; see al-TawhIdI, al-Mu- qabasat, p. 95.8-16. I did not find information on the other two books mentioned by al-Tawh. -Id-I.
  • 223 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fI al-‘Ulum”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh-dl, p. 106.12-14.
  • 224 Ibid., p. 108.15-19.
  • 225 Ibid., p. 109.4-6.
  • 226 Ibid., p. 109. 6-9.
  • 227 Al-Tawhidi, “Risala fi al-‘Ulum”, in Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh-d-, p. 109.10-17.
  • 228 Al-Tawhidi, al-Muqabasat, p. 119.3.
  • 229 See al-Tawhidi in Endress (1976), p. 122 (slightly adapted); cf. al-Tawhidi, al-Muqabasat, pp. 133.17-134.3, 209.10-14.
  • 230 Al-Tawhidi, al-Muqabasat, pp. 203.1-204.14; cf. Endress (1976), note 10.
  • 231 Al-Tawhidi, al-Basa’ir, vol. 4, p. 25.11-12.
  • 232 Ibid., p.'25.13.
  • 233 Al-Tawhldl, “Risala fi al-‘Ulum”, in Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh-d-, p. 111.5-9.
  • 234 Ibid., p.' 111.12-20.
  • 235 Ibid., p. 111.10-12.
  • 236 Ibid., p. 112.9-10.
  • 237 Al-Tawhidi, al-Muqabasat, pp. 121.1-125.4, 126.1-128.11, 129.1-132.20.
  • 238 Ibid., p. 132.15-17.
  • 239 Ibid., p. 132.17-20.
  • 240 Al-Tawhidi, al-Basa’ir, vol. 2, pp. 378.13-379.4; cf. Rowson (1988), p. 19.
  • 241 All-de-Unzaga (2004), p. 80; see also Rowson (1988), pp. 1-3. Al-Balkhi was commissioned by the emir of Khurasan, al-Husayn b. ‘Ali al-Marwazi to spread philosophy through the religious path; see Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist, p. 153 in All-de-Unzaga (2004), p. 87; Stern (1983), p. 218.
  • 242 Al-Tawhidi was also satisfied by al-Balkhi’s rejection of alchemy; see al-Tawhidi, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 38.20.
  • 243 Al-‘Amiri discussed the permissibility of wine-drinking in a gathering of fuqaha’; see al-Tawhidi, al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, p. 545.5-8.
  • 244 Elsewhere he explained al-‘Amiri’s unpopularity as due to his harsh manner and lack of polished skills; see al-Basa’ir, vol. 3, p. 545.8-15; al-Tawhidi, al-Muqabasat, pp. 353.8-354.7; al-Tawhidi, al-Imta’, vol. 2, p. 84.6-11. Al-Sirafi was among those who were not satisfied w-th al-‘Amiri’s approach, but he admitted to al-Tawhidi that his encounter with al-‘Amiri was more trying than his debate with Abu Bishr Matta, the author of Kitab Sharh al-Mantiq, in 326/937 at the majlis of Ibn al-Furat; see al-Tawhidi, Akhlaq, pp. 413.6-414.2.
  • 245 Al-Tawhidi saw the book at his friend Abu al-Qasim al-Katib’s home, while Abu Hatim al-Razi was reading it (certainly not the Isma‘ili da -); see al-Tawhidi, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 222.14-223.2. This work is preserved together with another work of al-‘Amiri, al-Taqnr li-awjuh al-Taqdir (The Determination of the Various Aspects of Predestination and Free Will) in a single manuscript (Princeton 2163 [393B], dated 592 [1196], pp. 26-76, 1-25 respectively). The two works seem to be paired together because they share the same subject matter, although they differ in emphasis; see Rowson (1988), p. 10.
  • 246 Al-Tawhidi, al-Imta , vol. 1, pp. 222.16-223.1.
  • 247 Rowson (1988), p. 10.
  • 248 Ibid., pp. 10.
  • 249 All-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 87-88; cf. al-Tawhidi, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 15.2-16.1.
  • 250 For al-Tawhidi’s familiarity with the content of the Epistles, see above; see also al-Tawhidi, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 5.15-16.3. Stern suggests that some of the stories which al-Tawhidi reports in al-Imta are actually quotations from the Epistles of the Brethern of Purity. He gives the example of the story of a Jew and a Zoroastrian told to al-Tawhidi by the qadi al-Zanjani; see Stern (1946), p. 370; al-Tawhidi, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 157.13-160.10; IkhwUn al-Safa’, Rasa’il IkhwHn al-Safa, vol. 9 (1: 308. 6-310.16).
  • 251 Al-Tawhidi, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 5.13-16.1; English tr. All-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 91-92; Berge (1979), p. 190.
  • 252 For al-Tawhidi’s position, see discussion above. For the Brethren of Purity’s position, see All-de-Unzaga (2004), pp. 180-245.
  • 253 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 195.10-196.2; cf. Kopf (1956), pp. 390-466.
  • 254 Al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, pp. 167.13-168.1.
  • 255 See above, pp. 71-72.
  • 256 Al-TawhIdI, al-Muqabasat, pp. 280.11-281.2.
  • 257 Ibn Suwar wrote a treatise on the conduct of the philosopher in society; see Kraemer (1986/a), p. 128. According to Kraemer what Ibn Suwar is calling for is not an absolute asceticism, but separation from the vulgar and all influences that disturb philosophical tranquillity; see Kraemer (1986/a), p. 181.
  • 258 See al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, pp. 376.1-377.5; cf. Kraemer (1986/b), p. 269; Endress (1976), pp. 120-125.
  • 259 Kraemer (1986/a), p. 128.
  • 260 Ibid., p. 128.
  • 261 This position is similar to that of al-Kindl whose agenda was to establish falsafa as a legitimate madhhab and to offer it to a wider public. Al-KIndl puts forward multiple definitions of falsafa; see Kindi (1953), pp. 172-173; also ed. and tr. Kindi/Gimaret (1976), pp. 22-23 (tr. 34-35; commentary 58-60). Al-TawhIdI’s position differs from al-Farabi’s (d. 339/950), who attempted to modify the scope of falsafa by emphasisng logic and restricting philosophical truth to the elite, while for the masses religion symbolically presents philosophical truth; see Marmura (1981), pp. 87-102; Ali-de-Unzaga (2004), p. 80.
  • 262 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala fi al-Haya ”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-Tawh idi, p. 67.2-3.
  • 263 Rowson (1990), pp. 11-56.
  • 264 Rowson (1990), p. 51; Marquet, “Ikhwan al-Safa’”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 1071-76.
  • 265 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 27.8-29.4; cf. Kadi (1970), pp. 15-32.
  • 266 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 27.13.
  • 267 Ibid., p.'27.13-14.
  • 268 Ibid., p. 27.14.
  • 269 Ibid., p. 28.1-7.
  • 270 Ibid., p. 28. 8-15.
  • 271 Many scholars refer to those relationships as a continual series of failures in al-Tawh. -Id-I’s life, but this section argues otherwise. Some, being less sympathetic, attribute the contradictory aspects of al-Tawh. -Id-I’s personality and failure to obtain patronage to character flaws, his lack of diplomacy, and his unpolished social skills, which made him draw attention in public to other’s faults. MuhyI al-DIn refers to al-TawhIdI’s laziness in seeking a living and to the huge gap between his personality and spirit and his great mind; MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 8. Al-A‘sam ascribes al-TawhIdI’s crises to faults in his difficult character and sense of superiority; al-A‘sam (1986), p. 66. Stern ascribes al-Tawh. -Id-I’s lack of success at the court of Rayy between 358/969 and 370/980 to complexity in his personality and to his own interests; see Stern, “Abu Hayyan al-TawhIdI”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. I, pp. 126-127.
  • 272 See Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 52-60; Griffith (1999), pp. 13-65.
  • 273 Bourdieu (1993), p. 7.
  • 274 For further discussion, see Chapter 5, pp. 210-213.
  • 275 See al-TawatI (1999), vol. 2, pp. 6-7; Mottahedeh (2001), p. 84.
  • 276 For further discussion of the different forms of patronage and their nature in the Buyid period, see Mottahedeh (2001), pp. 82-96.
  • 277 See Chapter 1, p. 38.
  • 278 Al-‘AsqalanI, Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 6, p. 369.6; al-DhahabI, Mizan, vol. 3, p. 355.25; al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 287.15-16.
  • 279 See above, pp. 60-61.
  • 280 See Ibn Faris in al-SubkI, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 287.9-17.
  • 281 See above, note 28.
  • 282 Al-TawhIdI, al-Muntaza, 3. alif, ba in Kadi (1969), p. 5. It is quite likely that before reaching Baghdad in 350/961, al-TawhIdI passed by Arjan where he met Abu al-Wafa’ al-Muhandis for the first time before 358/969. Al-TawhIdI mentions that AbU al-Wafa’ told him: “I fostered your old contract (‘ahduka) when we met in Arjan while I was standing at the door of Ibn Shahawayh, the jurist, and your new contract when we met in the City of Peace in the year of [3]58, and put you in contract with Abu ‘Abd Allah al-‘Arid, may God aid him”; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 4.9-11. This means that Abu al-Wafa’ must have met al-Tawhldl while he was making his journey back to Baghdad in 350/961.
  • 283 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 212.18-213.12. For sources on the literary activities and works, including official decrees, of al-Muhallabl, see Ibn al-Nadlm in Zet- tersteen and Bosworth, “Al-Muhallabi”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. VII, p. 358.
  • 284 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 212.18-213.16.
  • 285 Ibid, vol. 3, p. 213.3-12.
  • 286 Al-TawhIdI mentions this encounter in al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 250.10-253.4; see especially p. 252.4-5 in which al-TawhIdI reports that the meeting was in Isfahan.
  • 287 For the biography of AbU al-Fadl b. al-‘AmId, see Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 5, pp. 103.14-113.15; see also Cahen, “Ibn al-‘AmId”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. III, pp. 703-4. For an account of Ibn al-‘Am-Id as a famous scholar of the BUyids, see al-Tha‘alibI, Yatima, vol. 3, pp. 154.1-181.5.
  • 288 Cf. Kadi (1969), pp. 6-7. Al-TawhIdI mentions some of the majalis at the court of Rayy in al-Imta, vol. I, pp. 35.3-36.10.
  • 289 MuhyI al-DIn, for example, argues that since al-TawhIdI does not describe what happened between him and Abu- al-Fad. l b. al-‘Am-Id, unlike his habit of describing his acquaintances, it is quite likely that YaqUt thought that al-Tawhldi’s relationship with Ibn al-‘Am-Id, the son, was with the father. Muh. y-I al-D-In adds that it is also quite possible that those who copied from YaqUt made this mistake; see MuhyI al-DIn (1949), p. 264.
  • 290 See al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 177.3-180.6.
  • 291 Ibid., pp. 178.4-12, 179.16-180. 6.
  • 292 Al-TawhIdI, Akhl-q, pp. 344.10-345.9.
  • 293 Al-TawhIdI, al-Basa’ir, vol. 1, pp. 194.13-195.15.
  • 294 ‘Abbas (1956), p. 50.
  • 295 Al-Tawh. -Id-I mentions that he and a few others attended a debate that was organised by Ibn ‘Abbad during his visit to Rayy with Mu’ayyid al-Dawla; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 127.5-9.
  • 296 See above, pp. 75-81.
  • 297 There were many others who attended the meeting, including AbU Hamid al-MarwarrUdhI, AbU Bakr al-RazI, ‘AlI b.‘Isa, etc.; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 202.11-204.2. AbU ‘Abd Allah al-BasrI is mentioned as someone who enjoyed the patronage of Mu‘izz al-Dawla’s vizier al-H. asan b. Muh. ammad al-Muhallab-I; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, p. 213.10. Al-BasrI also enjoyed the friendship of al-Sahib b. ‘Abbad, whom he may have met when he came to Baghdad in 347/958 with Mu’ayyid al-Dawla. For more information on this friendship, see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 208.3-10; on AbU ‘Abd Allah al-BasrI, see Van Ess, “AbU ‘Abd Allah al-BasrI”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. I, pp. 476-79; Anvari, “AbU ‘Abd Allah al-BasrI”, Encyclopaedia Islamica, vol. 1, p. 417.
  • 298 AbU al-Faraj Muhammad b. al-‘Abbas took office in 358/969 and was discharged the same year; see Ibn al-AthIr, al-Kamil, vol. 7, p. 36.3.
  • 299 YaqUt, Mujam, vol. 15, pp. 13.10, 28.7.
  • 300 For a full account of the event, see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 161.14-162.2.
  • 301 On AbU al-Fath’s career, see YaqUt, Mujam, vol. 14, pp. 191.9-240.4; al-Tha‘alibI, Yat-ma, vol. 3, pp. 181.6-188.10; Cahen, “Ibn al-‘AmId”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. 3, pp. 703-704.
  • 302 For a description of the majalis held by Abu al-Fath in Baghdad, see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 410.3-416.4, 495.11-496.7; al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 206.15-207.1; see also Yaqut reporting from al-TawhIdI, Irshad, vol. 14, pp. 213.13-215.12.
  • 303 Al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, p. 410.5-6.
  • 304 Ibid., p. 410.7-8.
  • 305 Ibid, p. 406.2-4. In another place, al-Tawhldl reported to the vizier Ibn Sa‘dan the story of Ibn Hajjaj’s meeting with Abu al-Fath in which he also offered an account of Abu al-Fath’s character; see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 137.9-139.4.
  • 306 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala ila Abl al-Fath b. al-‘AmId”, inRasailAb- Hayyan al-Tawh-d-, p. 122.16-17. For the treatise, see al-TawhIdI, “Risala ila Abl al-Fath b. al-‘Amid”, in Rasail Abl Hayyan al-Tawhldl, pp. 121.1-126.8; Yaqut, Mujam, vol. 15, pp. 37.1-43.4; see also al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 496.9-504.1.
  • 307 Al-TawhIdI, “Risala ila Abl al-Fath b. al-‘Amid”, in Rasail Ab- Hayyan al-TawhM-, p. 123.7-9.
  • 308 Ibid., p. 124.15-18.
  • 309 For sources on Ibn ‘Abbad, see note 102 in Chapter 1.
  • 310 It is difficult to determine the start of al-TawhIdI’s service in Rayy. However, it does not appear to have lasted more than three years, and was more likely less than two. The suggestion of Berge that al-TawhIdI gained his position at the court of Rayy because of his association with Abu- al-Fath. b. al-‘Am-Id is incorrect; see Berge (1990), p. 120. This relationship with a former political rival of Ibn ‘Abbad was by al-Tawh. -Id-I’s own admission a problem for him at the court of Rayy; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 504.2-6.
  • 311 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 85.3-6.
  • 312 I am grateful to Maurice Pomerantz for sharing with me his translation of this passage; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 305.16-306.12. Al-TawhIdI reports also that he was once asked by Ibn ‘Abbad whether he was aware of anyone who was called AbU Hayyan before him. Al-TawhIdI then mentioned a few people who were called Abu Hayyan, such as AbU Hayyan al-DarimI and AbU Hayyan al-BasrI; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 307.14-310.14. The names are mentioned on pp. 308.5-310.14.
  • 313 Ibid., p. 85.4-6.
  • 314 Ibid., p. 311.2-5.
  • 315 Translation by Maurice Pomerantz; cf. al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 85.1-11.
  • 316 Ibn ‘Abbad was praised by five hundred poets among the employees of his d-wan in about 100,000 poems; see Pellat (1990), p. 99.
  • 317 See al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 305.16-306.12; see translation above, pp. 87-88.
  • 318 Cf. ‘Abbas (1956), p. 28.
  • 319 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 141.1-6.
  • 320 I understand autonomy to be different from individuality. Autonomy here is connected with the idea of freedom or a person’s ability to develop within his or her social setting.
  • 321 For a condemnation of poverty, see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 106.6-9.
  • 322 Translation by Maurice Pomerantz; cf. al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 86.11-87.1.
  • 323 For further discussion of the circumstance in which the book was written, see Chapter 3, pp. 121-137.
  • 324 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 155.9-156.10.
  • 325 Ibid., p.' 156.3-4.
  • 326 Ibid., p. 250.6-7. Al-TawhIdI even accuses Ibn ‘Abbad of violence for the sake of power by being involved in the politically-motivated murder of his immediate predecessor in Rayy, the young AbU al-Fath b. al-‘AmId (d. 366/976) whom al-TawhIdI admired; see ibid., p. 160.8-10.
  • 327 For examples, see ibid., pp. 111.1-2, 249.5-8, 505.5-7.
  • 328 Ibid., p. 111.2-11.
  • 329 Ibid., p. 111.6-7.
  • 330 Ibid., pp. 111.12-112.8.
  • 331 In many places, al-Tawhldl mentions stories about Ibn ‘Abbad making false claims, such as his statement that one of his teachers was asked about the name Yusuf, whether it is masculine or feminine. Ibn ‘Abbad claimed that his teacher said that it can be both, quoting a verse from surat Yusuf (Q. 12: 29), and other Prophetic had-th. However, he changed the subject, which showed his ignorance of the answer; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 163.1-10.
  • 332 For al-Tawhldl’s portrait of Ibn ‘Abbad and his bad viziership, see al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, pp. 94.1-6, 106.7-113.6, 172.8-15.
  • 333 Heck (2002), p. 2.
  • 334 Al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, p. 162.10-14.
  • 335 Ibid., pp. 166.12-169.6.
  • 336 Al-TawhIdI mentions that Ibn ‘Abbad fostered al-Najjar who deceived people to follow the Zaydl doctrine, while he expelled Ibn Faris, Ibn Babawayh, Ibn al-‘Attar, Ibn Shadhan, and al-Balkhl; see ibid., p. 167.3-5.
  • 337 Ibid., p. 166.13-14.
  • 338 Ibid., p. 166.12. Al-TawhIdI adds: “Do we not all know the doctrine of Zayd [b. ‘All], and that all it contains violates religion and Islam?” ibid., p. 168.2-3.
  • 339 Ibid., p. 231.14-16.
  • 340 Ibid., pp. 296.13-297.2.
  • 341 For reports of the religious insincerity of Ibn ‘Abbad, see ibid., p. 297.4-5. It might be for this reason that al-Qadl ‘Abd al-Jabbar, the very man whom Ibn ‘Abbad appointed to the position of chief judge (qad- al-qudat), refused to pronounce the mercy statement (tarahhum) for Ibn ‘Abbad after his death in 385/995. For more discussion of the event, see Reynolds (2005). Al-QadI ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s action might appear strange in view of the supposedly close relationship that he enjoyed with Ibn ‘Abbad, but it seems to have been due to ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s religious sensibilities.
  • 342 Based on the Prophetic had-th “actions are defined by intentions, and to every person is what he intends (innama al-a ‘malu bil-niyyati wa-innama li-kulli imri’in ma nawa)”, intent plays an important role in defining human actions and serves as a backdrop for jurists’ formulation of law. The hadith is found in most major collections, including al-Bukharl, Muslim, al-Nisa’I, al-Tirmidhl, and Ibn Maja. It is not included in Malik’s al-Muwatta ; see Wensinck in Powers (2006), p. 1. For further discussion of the role of intent and its treatment in Islamic law, see Powers (2006).
  • 343 Al-TawhIdI reports this from Abu al-Faraj al-SufI al-BaghdadI (d. between 320/ 931 and 337/948); see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 284.8-9.
  • 344 Al-TawhIdI remembered having seen him in 360/971, on the occasion of a reception for scholars given by ‘Izz al-Dawla. He also mentions that Abu ‘Abd Allah seemed to have been in bad health when the guests were led to him and he was too weak to answer an attack against him by his colleague ‘All b. ‘Isa al-RummanI; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, pp. 202.11-206.4.
  • 345 This treatise should be dated to the year 366/977or somewhat later, when Ibn ‘Abbad had been appointed vizier by Mu’ayyid al-Dawla in Rayy; al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 208.6-10.
  • 346 Ibid., p. 208.9-10.
  • 347 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imt-‘, vol. 1, p. 140.1-7. On many occasions, al-TawhIdI stresses that many of the close assistants of Abu ‘Abd Allah al-BasrI had abandoned him out of personal disgust, such as Abu al-Qasim al-WasitI; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 140.10-12; al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 175.10-17; al-TawhidI, Akhlaq, p. 213.5-7. He also mentions a number of other disciples, most of them young people from Khurasan, whom he calls a “bunch of unbelievers”, and whose names were usually not adopted in the Mu‘tazill Tabaqat literature; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 202.7-10.
  • 348 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 141.11-13.
  • 349 Al-TawhIdI refers to Croesus, king of Lydia from 570 to 546 bc, who was famous for his wealth; see ibid., p. 141.14.
  • 350 Ibid., p. 142.1-3.
  • 351 See ‘Abbas (1956), pp. 10-11.
  • 352 Al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 311.1-5; see note 311 above. Abu al-Wafa’ al-Muhandis description of al-TawhidI’s state of privation, feeling of humiliation, and lack of reward even for the work he copied at the court of Ibn ‘Abbad; al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 3.10-14.3.
  • 353 Al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 4.8-11, 19.5-10; see also al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 207.15-208.8; Kllanl (1957), p. 26.
  • 354 For further discussion, see Chapter 3, pp. 124-126.
  • 355 The main responsibilities of the army inspector involved recruiting troops and reviewing their situations with the ruler, as well as keeping troops’ equipment and salaries and distributing them; see Bosworth (1968), pp. 549-550. On the activities of Ibn Sa‘dan, see Donohue (2003), pp. 90-92; Bosworth”, Ibn Sa‘dan, Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Husayn b. Ahmad”, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2, vol. XII, p. 398; see also al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, p. 9.1-4; Ibn al-Ath!r, al-Kamil, vol. 7, pp. 123.1-126.2.
  • 356 Al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 10 note 1, 85.1. On Ibn Sa‘dan’s activities under ‘Adud al-Dawla and Samsam al-Dawla, see Donohue (2003), pp. 30, 87 note 323, 90-91, 164-67; Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 191-196.
  • 357 Al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 106.18-207.7. Hamdani suggests that the reason for the execution is the accusation against Ibn Sa‘dan made by his enemies of taking part in a Qarmatian conspiracy, due to his being in league with Sharaf al-Dawla (who is reported to have advanced towards Iraq against Samsam al-Dawla, and to have sent a mission to the Qaramita) and with Ibn Shahawayh who acted as a Qarmad representative; see Hamdani (1978), pp. 346-47. For a full account of the events, see al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 101.18-102.11; Ibn Athlr, al-Kamil, vol. 7, pp. 125.1-126.2, especially p. 126 note 1; Donohue (2003), pp. 90-91, 166-167. For an account of Ibn Shahawayh as a Qarmati representative in Baghdad in 374/984, see al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 101.18-102.5. For his friendship with Ibn Sa‘dan, see al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 70.4-71.1; al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 43.5-44.7.
  • 358 There are various reports in which al-TawhIdI portrays Ibn Sa‘dan’s piety. For example, when al-TawhIdI told the vizier the story of when Fatima bint al-Husayn sent a letter to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘AzIz thanking him for distributing money among the Prophet’s family in Kufa, Ibn Sa‘dan’s heart was softened and he sent one thousand dinar to be distributed among the people of Abu- T. a-lib; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 72.2-73.4. Al-TawhIdI also reports that he once portrayed the plight of the Sufi ‘stranger’ (gharlb) to the vizier as described by an ascetic named Ibn al-Jalla’ whom al-TawhIdI met in Mecca in 353/964. The predicament of the stranger, fleeing from one place to another in search of security, moved the vizier greatly; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 79.1-80.5; see also al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 223.4-224.1; see also RudhrawarI, Dhayl, vol. 3, p. 85.1-11.
  • 359 This description is by Ibn Barmawayh; see ibid. vol. 1, p. 45.10-12. For Abu al-Hasan b. Barmawayh who was appointed by Abu al-Qasim ‘Abd al-‘AzIz b. YUsuf as an alternate for the office of the secretary of Samsam al-Dawla instead of Ibn Sa‘dan’s father, an office which he received, see al-RUdhrawarI, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 102.12-107.7. Ibn Barmawayh, with others, criticises Ibn Sa‘dan for his reliance on Ibn Shahawayh, representative of the Qaramita in Baghdad and a merchant living like a vizier; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 42.6-49.4. Donohue argues that this actual criticism is not relevant since Ibn Barmawayh was an associate of Ibn Yusuf, head of the Diwan for the Sawa-d at this time and around whom the opposition to Ibn Sa‘dan was centred; see Donohue (2003), p. 166 note 207, citing al-Rudhrawarfs Dhayl. For an account of Ibn Yusuf as a famous epistolary secretary of the Buyids, see al-Tha‘UlibI, Yatrna, vol. 2, pp. 312.3-325.4; see also al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 147.12-150.7.
  • 360 Al-TawhIdI refers to Ibn Sa‘dan‘s collection of had-th (al-luma‘ min kalam al-rasUl); see al-Imta, vol. 2, pp. 92.10-103.19.
  • 361 Al-Rudhrawan, Dhayl, vol. 3, p. 85.5-8.
  • 362 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta , vol. 1, pp. 42.12-43.2.
  • 363 For example, Ibn Sa‘dan is reported as inquiring from al-Tawhldl about a meeting held on Fridays by certain scholars, such as Abu Sulayman al-Sijistani, Ibn Jabal, Ibn Barmawayh, ‘Allam, Abu Mansur b. al-Nazir (and his brother), and Ghazal al-Raqis. Ibn Sa‘dan insisted on knowing what was discussed in the meeting, assuring al-Tawh. -id-i that the Prophet and the caliphs after him made similar inquiries; al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 42.8-49.4. In another place, Ibn Sa‘dan is reported as being particularly concerned about al-Sijistani’s opinion of him; see al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 1, p. 29.1-3. In Risala ila al-Wazir Ab- Abd Allah al- ‘Ariel, Ibn Sa‘dan expresses an interest in al-TawhidI’s advice about the importance of the company of reliable scholars; al-TawhIdI, al-Imta , vol. 3, pp. 210.18225.8; see also al-TawhIdI, “Risala ila al-WazIr Abi ‘Abd Allah al-‘Arid”, in Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan al-TawhШ, pp. 155.1-157.17.
  • 364 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 5.2-3. This interest in al-Jahiz’s work appears to be common to al-TawhIdI and Ibn Sa‘dan.
  • 365 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 19.5-20.7.
  • 366 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 19.7-12.
  • 367 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 20.8-21.1.
  • 368 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 21.2-14.
  • 369 Cf. Arkoun (2001), p. 29. This is similar to al-MarwarrUdhI’s complaints about these practices and his assertion that the Almighty God is referred to using kaf al-khitab and ta’ al-muwajaha; see al-TawhIdI, Akhlaq, p. 289.5-14.
  • 370 On the use of ta’ al-muwajaha, see note 363-365, see also al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3,

pp. 210.18-211.2.

  • 371 For al-Tawh. -Id-I’s understanding of the role of knowledge, see above, pp. 70-72, 81-82; see also al-TawhidI, “Risala fi al-Haya”, in Rasa’il Ab- Hayyan Al-TawhM, p. 67.2-7.
  • 372 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta, vol. 3, p. 211.6-8. Apparently al-TawhIdI wrote two letters to the vizier. One of them arrived in the presence of Bahram, whom al-TawhIdI did not trust because of his base spirit; see ibid., vol. 3, p. 210.13-17. For the two letters; see al-TawhidI, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 207.10-210.17, 210.18-225.8.
  • 373 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, p. 212.15-17.
  • 374 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 43.2-7.
  • 375 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 7-10.
  • 376 Al-TawhIdI, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 211.8-212.7.
  • 377 ‘Ibid., vol. 3, p. 212.3-5.
  • 378 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 29.1-31.14.
  • 379 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 31.1-3.
  • 380 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 30.4.
  • 381 This circle was the place for the scenes of the conversations reported by al-Tawhldl in his al-Imta‘, which reflects the intellectual and cultured atmosphere of the vizier’s court.
  • 382 Al-TawhIdI, al-Sadaqa, pp. 63.6-71.1. Ibn Zur‘a (d. 398/1008) was a student of Ibn ‘Adi; see Bearman et al., pp. 979-980; Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 116-123; Walzer (1962), p. 254. ‘Ubayd al-Katib, Abu Sa‘d Bahram b. Ardashir acted as envoy in
  • 366/976 for ‘Adud al-Dawla in his negotiations with Bakhtiyar after his defeat in Ahwaz. He was also involved in the arrest of Ibn Baqiyya, see Miskawayh, Tajarib, vol. 2, pp. 373.5-19, 375.13-14; al-Hamadan-, Takmila, pp. 234.7-24. Ibn Shahawayh was, according to al-Tawhld-, the closest to Ibn Sa‘dan among his companions. He was called ‘Sahib al-Qaramita’ (the companion of al-Qaramita), spreading the propaganda for ‘Ad. ud al-Dawla and preventing the khut.ba from being delivered in the name of Bakhtiyar. He was also active in 374/984 during the reign of Samsam al-Dawla, attempting to persuade the governor of ‘Uman to take the side of Samsam al-Dawla and not Sharaf al-Dawla; see al-Rudhrawarl, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 100.7-101.2; see also Ibn al-Athlr, al-Kamil, vol.7, p. 126.3-13. Ibn al-Hajjaj was an administrator and enjoyed the patronage of Abu Ishaq al-Sabi’. He joined the entourage of the vizier al-Muhallabl. Ibn al-Hajjaj was also interested in poetry. Al-Tawhldl mentions him as highly esteemed by Abu al-Fath b. al-‘AmId and Ibn ‘Abbad; see al-Tawhldl, Akhlaq, p. 147.4-7; see Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 199-200. The same list of names is also mentioned in al-Imta‘, vol. 1, p. 48.13-14.
  • 383 There are also reports of discussion on ethics and morals at the majlis of Ibn Sa‘dan. For instance, see al-Tawhldl, al-Muqabasat, pp. 85.6-89.3. For other reports on ethical qualities in the majlis of Ibn Sa‘dan, see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 1, pp. 198.1-206.2, 222.13-226.18; al-Tawhldl, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 61.7-66.17, 127.12-147.10.
  • 384 Al-Tawh. -d- reports that the vizier gave him a sheet which included philosophical concerns to take and discuss with al-Sijista- n-, and all those who have knowledge, be they rich or poor, famous scholars or not. These questions reflect the learning of Ibn Sa‘dan, and include knowledge about the soul, its perfection, and whether it is different from the ruh (spirit). The list also includes questions concerning human nature, intellect, etc.; see al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta, vol. 3, pp. 106.7-126.4.
  • 385 Al-Tawat- (1999), vol. 2, p. 256.
  • 386 Kadi (1981/a), pp. 235-238. For reports which shows al-Tawh-d-’s understanding of the situation of the ‘amma and his attempt to make the vizier change his attitude towards them; see al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 85.16-96.15; al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 37.1-4; al-Tawh-d-, al-Sadaqa, pp. 6.12-17.2.
  • 387 Al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 26.1-6.
  • 388 Ibid, p. 26.5-6. Al-Rudhrawari reports the stoning of Ibn Sa‘dan’s barge and of the Daylamite soldiers’ assault of his palace; see al-Rudhrawar-, Dhayl, vol. 3, p. 85.9-10.
  • 389 See al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta, vol. 2, p. 26.7-10. Ibn Sa‘dan was faced with a conspiracy planned by Ibn Yusuf and his party who overthrew Ibn Sa‘dan when he attempted to appoint his father as secretary to Samsam al-Dawla’s mother. Ibn Yusuf convinced Samsam al-Dawla that Ibn Sa‘dan was planning to gain full power from this move. Consequently, Ibn Sa‘dan and his associates were seized and the administration was turned over to Ibn Yu- suf and his supporters; see al-Rudhrawar-, Dhayl, vol. 3, pp. 103.1-13; cf. Donohue (2003), pp. 166-167; Kraemer (1986/a), pp. 193-196.
  • 390 Al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta‘, vol. 2, p. 26.10-13.
  • 391 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 26.14-15.
  • 392 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 87.4-5.
  • 393 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 87.10-12.
  • 394 See al-Tawh-d-, al-Imta, vol. 3. pp. 85.16-99.18. For further discussion of al-Tawh. -d-’s argument in defence of the ‘a-mma’s right to question the vizier, see Chapter 5 below, p. 213.
  • 395 See Crone (2004), pp. 268-281.
  • 396 Arkoun (2001), pp. 106-11.
  • 397 Previous scholars refer to the period of al-Tawh-d-’s links with Ibn Sa‘dan as an important turning point in his life; see Kadi (1981/a), pp. 223-224; ‘Id (2001), p. 12; al-‘Ujayl- (1999), p. 310.
  • 398 Hamdani reduces al-Tawhldl’s role to a mere recorder of discussions for Ibn Sa‘dan; see Hamdani (1978), p. 344. ‘All Dab states that al-Tawhldl was a spy for Abu al-Wafa’ al-Muhandis at the court of Ibn Sa‘dan; see Dab (1976), p. 52. Al-‘UjaylI thinks that al-Tawhldl attended different BUyid viziers’ circles in order to report to his teacher al-Sijistanl what was happening in these circles; see al-‘UjaylI (1999), p. 107. Al-Tawhldl showed independence of thought on various occasions. For example, there is a report in which Ibn Sa‘dan rebukes al-Tawhldl for not accompanying Ibn Musa to a certain mountain; see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 1, pp. 52.10-53.7.
  • 399 For al-Tawhldl’s letters to Ibn Sa‘dan, see al-Tawhldl, al-Imta‘, vol. 3, pp. 207.10-225.8.
  • 400 The following chapter will discuss the social significance of al-Sadaqa wa al-Sadlq and al-Tawhldl’s motives for the composition of the epistle.
  • 401 However, this series of relationships does not imply a different series of identities for al-Tawhldl.
  • 402 Cf. Kadi (1970).
 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Political science
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel