Abu‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn an-Nu‘man al-Harithi al-‘Ukbari al-Baghdadi1. He was one of the most famous divines of the Ithna-‘Ashariyyah School of the Shi‘ah and was unanimously regarded as one of their foremost scholars, while his works were considered to be among those which established the nascent theology of the Shi‘ah on a sound and clear cut basis. Abu ‘Abdillah traced his descent back to Qahtan, so was proud of his purely Arab ancestry.
He is well-known to us under two different laqabs, al-Mufid and Ibnu 'l-Mu‘allim. The former laqab was bestowed on him, according to some authorities, by his master ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa ar-Rummani2 with whom al-Mufid "discussed the Imamate and displayed a powerful intelligence; therefore he called him by this laqab"3. Others mentioned the assertion that the Twelfth Imam (Sahibu 'z- Zaman), 'The Master of the Time’, “appointed him as his deputy and bestowed upon him this honorific title4. His second title, Ibnu 'l-Mu‘allim, seems to have been derived from his "father's occupation as a teacher in the city of Wasit"5.
Al-Mufid was born in a small village in the district of ‘Ukbara, known as Suwayqat ibn al-Basri, in 11th Dhi 'l-Qi‘dah,336/947 – according to an-Najashi6 and al-Khwansari7 or in 388, according to at-Tusi8 and Ibn Shahrashub9 , and died on the third (or second) of Ramadan 413 AH/December 1022 AD,at al-Karkh and was buried first in his house-yard in the suburb of al-Ushnan10 . Afterwards his body was transferred to the cemetery of Quraysh.
Historians described the day of his death as a day of universal lamentation; "both his friends and enemies were full of mourning"11. He was so highly esteemed that "eighty thousand people are said to have gathered in the public square in Baghdad at the time of his funeral"12. Among those who wrote elegies on him was his pupil, ash-Sharif ar-Radi.
Historians, whether from the Sunnite ranks or from those of the Shi‘ah are unanimously of the opinion that al-Mufid was one of the most brilliant scholars of his day and destined to play a constructive and decisive role in the intellectual and political affairs of the Buwayhid regime. Both his friends and opponents recognized his outstanding ability and contribution to knowledge.
Al-Mufid was famous for his learning and integrity, as well as his powers of memory and reasoning. Ibnu 'n-Nadim says, "in our time Abu ‘Abdillah was the head of the Shi‘ah theologians, outstanding in the art of dialectics in the school he followed, of a penetrating wit and retentive memory. I met him and found him excelled"13.As-Safadi characterized him as "the unrivalled master of the.known sciences of that time"14. Ibn Hajar described him as, "an author of many outstanding works numbering about two hundred"15. Ibn Kathir described him as "the head of the Rawafid and the man who wrote many works which defended and consolidated their doctrines"16.
The Shi‘ah biographers also esteemed him highly and recognized the great influence he had on later theologians and traditionists. al-Khwansari observed that "he was the most honored teacher and the spiritual head of all the Shi‘ahs, and he who followed him benefited by his knowledge; his profound comprehension of jurisprudence, scholastic theology, and the science of transmission (riwayah) was famed far and wide."17
He is numbered in A‘yanu 'sh-Shi‘ah among "the chief Shi‘ah theologians", and described as the "foremost faqih and doctor of his time, whom the Shi‘ahs regarded as the master of theology, principles of jurisprudence, tradition, biography and exegesis of the Qur’an"18. al-Mufid, in an endeavor to consolidate Shi‘ite thought and give it an integral shape, compiled two books, the first concerning the principles of belief, called Awailu 'l-maqalat, and the other concerning the principles of the practical law, called al-I‘lam. These became a basis for Shi‘ah learning and their effect was far-reaching.
The high position of al-Mufid can be appreciated by the fact that "the Buwayhid amir, al-Mu‘tadid, used to visit him at his house and attend the discussions held at his behest"19. According to the assertion of many authorities, al-Mufid was in con- tact with the Master of the Time and he bestowed upon him his favor and addressed him as his deputy. One of his charges runs like this, "Peace be unto thee, O our sincere disciple, in whom we have complete trust . . . may God perpetuate His guidance to you in your championing of the truth and may He reward you highly for preaching the truth on our behalf"20.
Al-Mufid, at an early age, acquired his knowledge from more than sixty masters – shaykhs; among them was the celebrated divine, Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (d. 381 AH) and the illustrious traditionist, Abu 'l-Qasim Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, Ibn Qulawayh al-Qummi (d. 368 AH)21 , and the famous theologian, Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Junayd al-Iskafi (d. 381)22 . Among the prominent Shi‘ah scholars who received their education from al-Mufid were ash-Sharif ar-Radi (Abu 'l- Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Musawi, d. 406)23 , ash-.Sharif al-Murtada (‘Alamu 'l-Huda Abu 'l-Qasim ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, d. 436)24 and at-Tusi (Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn al- Hasan, d. 458)25.
Al-Mufid represents a new, rational trend within Shi‘ah thought, the result of which was the rejection of literal acceptance of the divine law and the introduction of rational and allegorical interpretation into Imamiyyah teaching for the first time, in an attempt to eradicate the fallacies and absurdities resulting from literal acceptance. This new method, though it had supporters, was not approved by his successors without a great deal of reluctance and criticism; some, such as ‘Izzu 'd- Din al-Hasan ibn Sulayman al-Hilli, writing refutation of the'innovations' he introduced 26 .
With regard to the works of al-Mufid, our sources ascribe to him two hundred books. This large number may be due to the fact that some of the titles mentioned, in a large number of cases, could be chapters, abstracts, response, or even summaries of a book, rather than complete works. It is also possible that in some instances the same book may have been known under two or more different titles.27
The period in which al-Mufid lived has a special import- ance not only from the point of view of Shi‘ite theology, but also in the history of scholastic theology in general. It was a period of dogmatic controversies and sectarian disputes, each school trying to reshuffle and re-examine its teachings. It was a period when the most eminent theologians of Islam lived and exercised their influence, such as al-Baqillani (an Ash‘arite), al-Qadi ‘Abdu '1-Jabbar (a Mu‘tazilite) and al-Mufid, the Shi‘ite. Thus it is necessary to give a brief sketch of the Buwayhid regime (334-447 AH) in which al-Mufid played a remarkable role, and which was roughly coterminous with his lifetime.
The Buwayhids entered Baghdad on Jumadu 'l-Awwal, 344/ 17th January, 946, with an army mainly composed of foreign elements under the leadership of Ahmad ibn Buwayh. The suc- cess of this entry was due partly to a secret correspondence with the Caliph al-Mustakfi (d. 338/949), "who received the victorious leader and bestowed upon him the honorific title of Mu‘izzu 'd-Dawlah and installed him as Amiru '1-Umara’. At the same time, his brothers ‘Ali and al-Hasan received the titles of ‘Imadu '1-Dawlah and Ruknu 'd-Dawlah, respectively. Moreover, he ordered their names and titles to be struck on the coinage"28.
The advent of the Buwayhids to Baghdad brought about an essential and profound change in the Caliphate. It is true that the seizure of power by the Buwayhids did little more than set the seal on the development which had, in effect, placed the caliphate under the domination of army chiefs, promoted Amiru '1-Umara’. "But this time there was the added fact that the Buwayhids were professing Shi‘ahs, so much so that it might have been asked whether they were not about to sup- press a caliphate whose legitimacy had no special meaning for them"29.
No sooner had they entered Baghdad than they displayed their disrespect toward the Caliphate, so twelve days after, Mu‘izzu 'd-Dawlah dismissed the Caliph on "the ground that he was plotting with his officers against him, and seeking help from the Hamdanids of al-Mawsil; moreover, he was annoyed by the Caliph who put the head of the Shi‘ah into prison"30. The dismissal of the Caliph "took place in an unceremonious manner"31 .
From the dogmatic point of view, the Buwayhids "were imbued with Shi‘ism; they preached it energetically; and Shi‘ism was substantially strengthened by their effort"32. Being the adherents of a political system based on and derived from a divinely appointed Imamate "they did not recognize the claim of the Sunni caliph to supreme headship of the Islamic world"33, and consequently they "rejected altogether the ‘Abbasid's right to caliphate, because they were convinced that they had usurped the office from its true holders, and so the religious impulse which might have incited them to obey the ‘Abbasid Caliphate was absent"34.
It was essential doctrine which obliged them to accept the divinely appointed Imam as the only justified temporal and spiritual leader of Islam. As a matter of fact, they maintained the ‘Abbasid Caliphate for purely political reasons, since the abolition of it might have resulted in a colossal revolt against Buwayhid authority, which they were anxious to avoid35.
Yet this doctrinal divergence in the conception of political authority was responsible for a series of humiliations to the Sunni caliph. Thus the Buwayhid amirs were "the first princes who insisted on having their names mentioned in the khutbah along with that of the Caliph"36. This was followed by a series of further encroachments on the prerogatives of the Caliph.
They began to impose restrictions on the political power of the caliphs; the confiscation of their lands and properties, and the dismissal of whomsoever they desired by cauterizing their eyes with hot iron, and thereby disqualifying them from ruling. It is curious to mention that on one occasion "‘Adudu 'd-Dawlah commanded that the Caliph's name should be abolished from the Friday khutbah so that no prayer was said for the Caliph for two months, because of a slight dispute which took place between ‘Adudu 'd-Dawlah and the Caliph"37.
It is a historical fact that with the beginning of the Buwayhid regime, the caliphate as a body-politic began to lose its importance, and the caliphs gradually, but constantly, lost all their political powers. What remained to them was, as al-Biruni observed, "Only a religious, doctrinal authority and not a secular power, exactly like that of the head of the Jalut (Diaspora) among the Jews, who have only the religious leadership with- out any temporal powers"38 .
Beside what has been mentioned, the most important feature of this period, which has its relative importance in our present study, was that it witnessed a severe struggle between the two dominant doctrines, the Sunnite and the Shi‘ite, each trying to impose its religious sovereignty all over the Muslim world. The ‘Abbasid Caliph, after being deprived of all his effective political powers, was anxious to restore his religious supremacy among the people.
The result of this trend was the emergence of a semi-religious party, mainly composed of the ‘ulama’, fuqaha’,and the khutaba’. This semi-religious party proved to be of a special importance to the ever-weakened caliph. Thus, although the Buwayhid amirs were the real independent governors of the empire, yet it was very dangerous for them to display openly their enmity towards the caliphs.
As Prof. Arnold observed, "the inflictions of such humiliation on the caliph is in striking contrast with the honour and reverence paid to him, whenever it was politic to bring him forward, as the supreme head of the faith"39 .
This religious party was to play a decisive role especially during the period of Buwayhid decline and was used as a weapon by which the Caliph began to impose his will on the Buwayhid amirs. For example, when the Caliph al-Qaim (422-467/1031-1075) rebuked Jalalu 'd- Dawlah (416-435) for not punishing his slave for entering an orchard of the Caliph, "he asked the judges not to deliver judgement, the jurists to refrain from delivering response and the preachers to refrain from their duties, which forced the Buwayhid amir to petition the Caliph"40 .
Meanwhile, the Caliph laid emphasis on his religious duties, as a means of fortifying his prerogative against the unscrupulous behavior of the Buwayhids, which was constantly increasing. We may note in particular, as an event without previous parallel, that the Caliph, al-Qaim, wrote a theological work in the orthodox Sunni strain which was read out every Friday in the circle of the traditionists in the mosque of al-Mahdi41.
As a counter-balance to this Sunni party, the Buwayhids for their part began to depend largely on the Shi‘ah. It is said that Mu‘izzu'd-Dawlah intended from the very beginning to abolish the ‘Abbasid Caliphate and to transfer it to Abu 'l- Hasan Muhammad ibn Yahya az-Zaydi42.
He was deterred from carrying out this scheme by his wazir (vizier), who told him, "today you are faced with a caliph whom you and your followers believe has no right to the caliphate; thus if you command them they will kill him and consider themselves innocent of his blood, whereas if you replace him by an ‘Alid Caliph, whom you and your followers believe to be the rightful caliph, then if he commands them to kill you, they will perform his command"43 .
From this, it would appear that the Buwayhids maintained the caliphate "purely for political reasons" because they were aware that "had they destroyed the caliphate in Baghdad, the institution would have reappeared elsewhere"44. The caliphate for them, then, was a means to legalize their authority over the Sunnites in their state, and to strengthen their diplomatic relations with the world outside by the weight of the moral authority and respect which the Sunnite caliph still enjoyed.
Thus it is obvious that the Buwayhid period was the scene of a severe struggle between two divergent political powers, and echoing this, of two doctrinal schools within the Muslim community. As for the importance of this period in the founding and developing of Shi‘ite theology, it can be demonstrated in two points:
First: With the beginning of the Buwayhid regime, a severe dogmatic struggle arose between the two dominant doctrines, the Shi‘ites and the Sunnites. "It is certain that the Buwayhids welcomed somewhat indiscriminately the Shi‘is or Mu‘tazilis of different shades of opinion, but politically they were Twelvers"45.
This sectarian struggle culminated in 351 AH, when Mu‘izzu 'd-Dawlah caused Shi‘ite curses to be inscribed on the walls of the mosques which run thus; "May God curse Mu‘awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and him who prevented al-Hasan's body from being buried behind the grave of his grandfather, and him who exiled Abu Dharr, and him who expelled al-‘Abbas from the shura (electoral council)"46 .
These curses were publicly displayed while the Caliph was unable to forbid them. This dogmatic rift deepened still further when Mu‘izzu 'd-Dawlah introduced, "influenced perhaps by Daylamite practices"47, the commemorating of the martyrdom of al-Husayn. On the 10th of Muharram, ‘Ashura day, the chief festival of the Shi‘ah, the bazaars were closed, the butchers suspended business, the cooks ceased cooking, the cisterns were emptied of their contents, pitchers were placed with felt covering the streets, women walked about with fallen tresses, blackened faces, torn dresses, striking their faces and wailing for al-Husayn.
In the same year, on the 18th Dhu 'l-Hijjah, the celebration of the day of the "pond of Khumm", the day on which the Prophet is said to have nominated ‘Ali as his successor, was officially inaugurated at Baghdad, fires were lit, drums were beaten, horns blown, and people hastened from the early morning to the cemetery of Quraysh"48 .
These foreign and newly imported practices gave rise to bitter sectarian hatreds, and were responsible for sporadic civil wars. "In 388, a destructive conflict broke out between the two sects and consequently al-Karkh district was plundered49.
In 346 AH a similar civil disturbance occurred between "the Shi‘ite section of al-Karkh and the Sunnites because of as-sabb,50 which resulted in a heavy massacre"51. These civil conflicts took place continually in the year 348-351,353, 393-398 and 409.
This was the characteristic feature of the period; what, then, was the attitude of al-Mufid towards current events? al-Mufid as the "head of the Shi‘ah and the teacher of the Rawafid"52 was destined to play an active role in defending the dogma of the Ithna-‘Ashariyyah school of the Shi‘ah. Due to "his high ranking position at the courts of the Buwayhids and the princes of dynasties"53, he enjoyed spiritual supremacy and considerable influence over the affairs of that time.
Thus, it was during the Buwayhid period and because of their energetic support, says al-Maqrizi, "that the teachings of the Rawafid spread widely in North Africa, Syria, Diyar Bakr, Kufah, Basrah, Baghdad, all ‘Iraq, Khurasan, Transoxiana, Hijaz, Yaman and Bahrayn"54. As a result of this tremendous expansion of Shi‘ism, there were ceaseless disturbances and dissensions between the Shi‘ites and the Sunnites.
In 393 AH, widespread disturbances occurred and the trouble-makers spread all over the country, a thing which caused Bahau 'd-Dawlah (989-1012 AD) to send the leader of the army to deal with the situation. He reached Baghdad, suppressed by force the agitators and prevented both The Sunnites and the Shi‘ites from demonstrating their doctrines and expelled Ibnu 'l-Mu‘allim, the Shaykh of the lmamiyyah. Thus the city regained its tranquillity55.
Second: The second reason for the importance of the Buway- hids in the development of Shi‘ah theology, is that they pro- vided a meeting point where Shi‘ah theology was influenced by the rational methods of the Mu‘tazilah. This dogmatic and intellectual relationship which, in the words of Prof.Macdonald, is "the great mystery of Muslim History"56 , has still not received full attention, and can only be made clear by comparative research based on a profound historical study of the Buwayhid period from the dogmatic point of view.
At the end of the third century of the Hijrah, Mu‘tazilism was suffering a severe decline in political influence, which began early with the accession of al-Mutawakkil to the caliph- ate (232/847). This political decline was coupled at the beginning of the fourth century with a decisive triumph of Ash‘ar-ism which "evolved a new orthodox scholasticism and defeated the Mu‘tazilites on their own ground57.
In this perilous situation, the Mu‘tazilah might have been induced by the instinct of self preservation to conclude a political alliance with Shi‘ism, then the official and politically influential doctrine of the state. One of the reasons which facilitated this compromise was that "the vagueness of Rafidites had been replaced by the much more definite lmamite form of Shi‘ism58.
It is curious that the very Mu‘tazilism of which "the refutation and rejection of the extremely heterogenous elements of Rafidites was the centre of its invaluable service to the cause of Islam" 59 was now trying to come to some sort of agreement with it. Here we have also to bear in mind that the "suggestion has been made that Mu‘tazilism was essentially an attempt to work out a com- promise that would in part overcome the cleavage between Sunnites and Shi‘ites"60 .
At any rate, Shi‘ism and Mu‘tazilism, as adh-Dhahabi says, "established from about 370 AH a friendly and brotherly rela- tionship with each other"61 .al-Maqdisi was fully aware of this interrelation; he states that "the majority of the Shi‘ah in Persia were Mu‘tazilite, and that the Buwayhid, ‘Adudu 'd-Dawlah adopted it"62 .
This dogmatic interrelation is affirmed by both Adam Mez and Goldziher, who say that "theologically the Shi‘ahs are the heirs of the Mu‘tazilah", and that "in the fourth century there was actually no real system of Shi‘ite theology; henceforth the Shi‘ite amir, ‘Adudu 'd-Dawlah, merely adapted himself to the view of the Mu‘tazilite"63 .
This attachment of Mu‘tazilism to the ruling power was of special importance, which is confirmed by al-Maqrizi, who says that "Mu‘tazilism spread considerably under the Buwayhids regime in Iraq, Khurasan and Transoxiana"64.
I am inclined to suggest that the period in which as-Sahib ibn ‘Abbad (326-385/939-995) governed the empire inde- pendently during the emirate of Fakhru 'd-Dawlah al-Buwayhi and which lasted eighteen years (367-385/977-995) is the period within which Shi‘ism adopted the rational system of Mu‘tazilism.
Abu 'l-Qasim Isma‘il ibn ‘Abbad as-Sahib is known as an "illustrious Mu‘tazilite who inherited his ideas from his father who wrote a book on the ordinances of the Qur’an, Ahkamu 'l- Qur’an, in which he supported Mu‘tazilism"65. In his formative years, as-Sahib was greatly influenced by and imbued with their dogmas till he came to be known "as one of their fore- most masters"66.
When he was wazir, he used his office as a means to support whole-heartedly the Mu‘tazilite teachings so "people began to follow the doctrine he professed, and copy his words, desiring reward from him"67. as-Sahib has also been mentioned among the Shi‘ah divines and .was accused of Shi‘ite tendencies. Ibn Hajar says "that he added to the innovation of the Mu‘tazilah the heterodoxy of the Shi‘ah"68.
This intellectual influence of Mu‘tazilism on Shi‘ism which is confirmed by ash-Shahrastani69 , Ibn Taymiyyah70 and ad- Dawani71 was emphatically rejected by the Shi‘ah. They were, and still are, anxious to deny this impact on their dogmas, which are supposed to be the fruits of the direct teachings of the divinely-inspired Imams. al-Mufid himself rejected this charge, which seems to be very old, and denied that the Shi‘ah were influenced by and borrowed from the Mu‘tazilah72 .
But a critical and comparative study of his book, Tashih I‘tiqadati 'l- Imamiyyah with that of his master, Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi, which is the purpose of this thesis, establishes the fact that the shifting of Shi‘ah theology from an authoritarian stand, repre- sented by Ibn Babawayh, to a rational interpretation cultivated first by al-Mufid, was a direct result of this Mu‘tazilite impact which is specifically denied by him. It is worth observing that the "Mu‘tazilite influence has maintained its hold on the Shi‘itic literature up to the present time. It is a serious error to assert that after the decisive victory of the Ash‘arite theology, the Mu‘tazilite teachings ceased to play any active part in religion or literature. The rich dogmatic literature of the Shi‘ah extending into our own days refutes such an assertion"73
- 1. Ukbari, ‘Ukbarawi: his nisbah (relationship) is derived from a small town, ‘Ukbar, near ad-Dujayl,
about ten farsakhs distance from Baghdad. The name seems not to be Arabic. See Yaqut, Mu‘jamu 'l-buldan, vo1.5, p.203.
- 2. Abu '1-Hasan, ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa ar-Rummani al-Ikhshidi al-Warraq, one of the most illustrious doctors of the Mu‘tazilah of the tenth class, well known as an exegetist, philologist and theologian. He was called ‘Ali al-Jami‘ because of his profound and comprehensive knowledge of Fiqh, Qur’an, Nahw and Kalam. as-Sahib ibn ‘Abbad, on being questioned if he, too, had written a commentary on the Qur’an, replied ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa had left nothing for him to do. He has also been accused of Shi‘ite tendencies. See Ibnu 'l-Murtada,al-Munyah wa 'l-amal, p.65. Yaqut, Mu‘jamu 'l-udaba’, vo1.14, p.73; as-Suyuti, Tabaqatu 'l-mufassirin, p.24.
- 3. al-Majlisi, Biharu 'l-anwar, the introduction to the new edition by ash-Shirazi, vo1.1 , p.71
- 4. Ibn Shahrashub, Ma‘alimu 'l-‘ulama’, p.101.
- 5. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, vo1.3, p.231.
- 6. an-Najashi, ar-Rijal, p.286.
- 7. al-Khwansari, Rawdatu 'l-jannat, p.563.
- 8. at-Tusi, Rijalu 'sh-Shi‘ah, p.186.
- 9. Ibn Shahrashub, op. cit., p.101. Cf., Borckelmann, C., GAL, Supp.1, p.322. Also, E.I., the article,"al-Mufid", vo1.3, ii, p.625.
- 10. al-Ushnan, an old suburb of Baghdad, see Mu‘jamu 'l-buldan, vol.l, p.262.
- 11. at-Tusi, ar-Rijal, p.187.
- 12. Donaldson, D.M., The Shi‘ite Religion, p.287.
- 13. Ibnu 'n-Nadim, al-Fihrist, p.178.
- 14. as-Safadi, al-Wafi bi 'l-wafayat, vo1.5, p.l 16.
- 15. Ibn Hajar, Lisanu 'l-mizan, vo1.5, p.368.
- 16. 16 Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, vo1.12, p.15.
- 17. al-Khwansari, Rawdatu 'l-jannat, op. cit, p.563.
- 18. Muhsin al-Amin, al-‘Amili, A‘yanu 'sh-Shi‘ah, vol.l, pt.2, p.106.
- 19. Ibn Hajar, op. cit., vo1.5, p.368.
- 20. al-Majlisi, Biharu 'l-anwar, the introduction to the new edition by ash- Shirazi, vol. 1, p.71.
- 21. For his life, see: an-Najashi, op. cit., p.89; Ibn Hajar, op. cit., vo1.2, p.125; Ibn Shahrashub, op. cit., p.26.
- 22. For his life, see: Ibnu 'n-Nadim, op. cit., p.196.
- 23. For his life, see: Ibn Khallikan, Wafayatu 'l-a'yan, vol.2, p.2; an-Najashi, op. cit., p.283; Ibn Hajar, opcit., vo1.5, p.141.
- 24. For his life, see: Ibnu '1-Murtada, op. cit., p.19; an-Najashi, op. cit., p.192; Ibn Hajar, op. cit., vo1.4, p.223.
- 25. For his life, see: Ibn Hajar, op. cit., vo1.5, p.135. Also Ibn Shahrashub, op. cit., p.102.
- 26. The refutation is called al-Muhtadir, published in an-Najaf al-Ashraf(Iraq) in 1370/1951. See: ash-Shaykh ‘Abdullah, Falasifatu 'sh-Shi‘ah, pp.454-66.
- 27. A full list of his works will be given later.
- 28. Ibnu 'l-Athir, al-Kamil, vo1.8, p.337, Hasan Ibrahim Hasan, Tarikhu 'l-Islami 's-siyasi, vo1.3, p.43.
- 29. E.I., the article, "Buwayhids", by Cl. Cahen, vol.1, ii, p.1350.
- 30. ad-Duri, ‘Abdu '1-‘Aziz, Dirasat fi 'l-‘usuri 'l-‘Abbasiyyah al-muta'akhkhirah, p.249.
- 31. Ibid., p.249. See also: Arnold, T., The Caliphate, p.61; al-Khudari,Muhadarat fi tarikhi 'l-umami 'l-Islamiyyah, vo1.2, p.380.
- 32. al-Maqrizi, al-Khitat, vo1.2, p.308.
- 33. Arnold, T., op. cit., p.61.
- 34. Ibnu '1-Athir, op. cit., vo1.8, p.339.
- 35. ad-Duri, op. cit., p.248. See p.l l.
- 36. Arnold, T., op. cit., p.61.
- 37. Ibnu '1-Jawzi, al-Muntazim, vo1.7. p.75.
- 38. Quoted from ad-Duri, op. cit., p.255.
- 39. Arnold, T., op. cit., p.65.
- 40. Ibnu '1-Jawzi, op. cit., vol.8, p.82.
- 41. Ibid., vo1.8, p.109. Also, Mez, Adam, The Renaissance of Islam, Eng. transl. by Khuda Bukhsh and Margoliouth, p.61.
- 42. ad-Duri, op. cit., p.248.
- 43. Ibnu '1-Athir, op. cit., vol.8, p.339; Cf., ad-Duri, op. cit., p.248.
- 44. Ibid.; al-Khudari, op. cit., vol.2., p.378.
- 45. E.I, the article, "Buwayhids", by Cl. Cahen, vol.l, ii, p.1352.
- 46. as-Suyuti, Tarikhu 'l-khulafa’, p.266; Ibn Khaldun, at-Tarikh, vol.4, p.886; Cf., Mez, Adam, op. cit., p.68.
- 47. E.I, the article, "Buwayhids", vol.l, ii, p.1352.
- 48. Ibnu '1-Jawzi, op. cit., vol.7, p.10; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, vol.11, p.243. Also, Mez, Adam, op. cit., p.69.
- 49. Ibn Kathir, op. cit., vol.ll, p.221.
- 50. Denouncing certain companions of the Holy Prophet (of Islam).
- 51. Ibid., p.232.
- 52. Ibn Taghri Birdi, an-Nujumu 'z-zahirah, vol.4, p.258; as-Safadi, op. cit., vol.5, p.116.
- 53. Ibn Taghri Birdi, op. cit., vol.4, p.258.
- 54. al-Maqrizi, al-Khitat, vol.2, p.308.
- 55. Ibnu '1-Athir, op. cit., vol.9, p.126.
- 56. Quoted from Holister, J.N., The Shi'a of India, p.26.
- 57. Gibb, H.A.R., Mohammadanism, p.116.
- 58. Watt, W.M., Islamic Philosophy and Theology, p.83.
- 59. Nyberg, H.S., his intro. to his ed. of Kitabu 'l-Intisar, p.24. Zuhdi Hasan Jarullah
- 60. Watt, W.M., op. cit., p.83.
- 61. adh-Dhahabi, Mizanu 'l-i‘tidal, vol.2, p.230; (Quoted from, al-Mu‘tazilah, p.207).
- 62. al-Maqdisi, Ahsanu 't-taqasim, p.439.
- 63. Mez, Adam, op. cit., p.62; Cf. Goldziher, L, Vorlesungen über den Islam, the Arabic translation, p.224.
- 64. al-Maqrizi, op. cit., vo1.2, p.358.
- 65. Yaqut, Mu'jamu 'l-udaba’, vol.6, p.127.
- 66. Ibn Hajar, Lisanu 'l-mizan, vol.1, p.413.
- 67. Yaqut, op. cit., vol.6, p.225.
- 68. Ibn Hajar, op. cit., p.413.
- 69. ash-Shahristani, al-Milal, vol.1, p.209. Also, p.224.
- 70. Ibn Taymiyyah, ar-Rasail, vol.3, p.115.
- 71. ad-Dawani, Jalalu 'd-Din, Sharhu 'l-‘aqaidi 'l-‘Adudiyyah, (quoted from Muhammad ‘Abduh bayna 'l- falasifah wa 'l-mutakallimin, edited by Sulayman Dunya, p.26).
- 72. al-Mufid, Ajwibatu 'l-masaili 's-saghaniyyah, MS. No.442, an-Najaf al- Ashraf, (Iraq), Maktabat Muhsin
al-Hakim, fol. 14.
- 73. Goldziher, I., op. cit., p.222.