Your search

The mythical place where all believers, i.e. the Ibāḍīs who preserved their faith, were supposed to gather shortly before the end of times. Lewicki identifies Jughrāf with a valley in the Sahara, called Jughrāf, with a thermal source and palmeries, inhabited by the Tuareg tribe Kel Immidir. In old times, probably already in the 9th century A.D or earlier, a trade route of Ibāḍī merchants leading to Tādmekka and further south to Gao traversed this valley. Later this route fell into disuse and oblivion, and became a semi-mythical symbol. Later Ibāḍī traditionists placed Jughrāf in Oued Righ. Lewicki’s article is mainly based on Warjlānī, Abū Zak. Yaḥyà b. Abī Bakr: K. al-Sīra wa-Akhbār al-A’imma (end of part 2), Anonymous: Siyar al-Mashāyikh, and Shammākhī: K. al-Siyar.

P. 311: the conclusion to which this brief study points is that Wāṣil came from what was predominantly a moderate Khārijite background. The doctrine of the Manzila [bayna Manzilatayni] was insufficient in itself to mark him off clearly. He and his followers, though close to the Ibāḍites, seem to have been distinct from them. The probability is that the Muʿtazila were sharply distinguished from the Khārijites only after they had accepted the nickname and given it an honourable meaning by referring it to the five principles. This happened in the ninth century, perhaps in the time of Abū ‘l-Hudhayl, and may be linked with the attempt to claim Wāṣil instead of ʿAmr as forerunner and founder.

A very short overview of Omani early history (until the 11th c. A.D.) is followed by a broad outline of sources available, without most of these sources being mentioned in detail, except Sālimī’s Tuḥfat al-Aʿyān.

With regard to the Portuguese presence in Oman, the following sources are mentioned: Ibn Qayṣar: K. Sīrat al-Imām al-ʿĀdil Nāṣir b. Murshid (118-119); Anonymous: Kashf al-Ghumma (119); Ibn Ruzayq: al-Fatḥ al-Mubīn (119); Sālimī: Tuḥfat al-Aʿyān (119-120); Anonymous: [no title]; Anonymous: [no title]. Pp. 121-124: text from Ibn Qayṣar’s work on the period of Imam Nāṣir b. Murshid; p. 124: short text from Kashf al-Ghumma.

The author places the text (182-186) in its religious, economic and social context. It concerns rules for more restrained marriage ceremonies. Mīzāb, situated between the oil and gas fields of Hassi R’mel and Hassi Mesaoud, has seen a spectacular economic flourishing. The influx of tourists, of workers from the North, modern communications and other modern developments have a serious impact on the relative isolation of the Mīzāb and on its traditional social structure.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the cities on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, Tunis, Alexandria, Beirut, Smyrna, and Istanbul among them, experienced an influx of foreign communities which, combined with an increase in the indigenous populations and new urban policies on the part of certain rulers, tended to disrupt customary patterns of urban relationships. Although the scholarship of recent years has provided a new awareness of the network of interrelationships which held together the segments of medieval Islamic urban society, studies on the nineteenth-century changes in those relationships as represented by the policies of Muhammad ῾Alī, Aḥmad Bey, and the Ottoman Tanzimat reformers, have tended to focus more on aspects of state and government than on cities as such. Yet cities, especially capital cities, reflect most intensely periods of social and institutional transition.

As far as Ibāḍī sources or secondary literature on al-Ibāḍiyya are concerned, a few references to Marcy 1936. The article starts with an English abstract: the Barghawāṭa were the rulers of a kingdom in Tāmasnā, Morocco (dynasty of Banū Ṭarīf) which lasted for four centuries (124-543/742-1148). Their heretical movement has been regarded by both chroniclers and modern scholars as a gross distortion of Islam. The object of this paper is to put their heretical movement in the perspective of acculturation and nationalism. Such an outlook is allowed by a thorough analysis of the sources of information, leading to the following conclusions: although he may have been of Jewish origin, Ṭarīf embraced the Berber cause under the banner of Ṣufrite Khārijism, at a time when the Berbers were the victim of Arab policy. The Barghawāṭa were not one tribe, but a community of various origins united by a nationalistic feeling. The founder of Barghawāṭism was not Ṣāliḥ b. Ṭarīf, but Yūnus b. Ilyās and his successor Abū Ghufayr. They converted the people through persuasion, providing them with a prophet from among their own people, War-Iyā Warā, and a Koran written in their language, as well as through violence. The author of the article goes on to analyse the unconscious process of formation of Barghawāṭism, as a new ideology emerged through contacts with the East (Yūnus borrowed from Khārijism, Shīʿism and Arab mythology). Acculturation thus assumes the role of a weapon taken from the adversary and used to achieve national liberation.

Papers from the 6th Seminar for Arabian Studies, held at the Institute of Archaeology, London, 27th-28th September 1972. Clements 1981, 64: this paper concentrates on late Sassanid rule in Oman during the 6th century A.D., when the Arabs evicted Sassanid ruling classes following the arrival of Islam and thus gained real control over the land. The writer examines the social structure during the period of Sassanid rule, and considers the hypothesis that the system of land utilization and irrigation was well established before the Arabs took over. “Maintaining their tribal organizations and bedu attitudes, there is no reason to suppose that the Arabs did anything to expand the prosperity of the land or create new establishments in pre-islamic times any more than they did when they became masters of the land".

Cuperly gives a biography of the author, a list of his works (with additions and corrections to Schacht 1956, 375-398), a general analysis of the Risāla and a description of each chapter, and a translation of extracts, with notes.

Cuperly gives a biography of the author, a list of his works (with additions and corrections to Schacht 1956, 375-398), a general analysis of the Risāla and a description of each chapter, and a translation of extracts, with notes.

A catalogue of books and MSS in the Wikālat al-Jāmūs (Wikālat al-Baḥḥār) in Cairo, composed by Sālim b. Yaʿqūb in the 1930s, which I photographed when visiting him in Ghīzen at Jerba in June 1972. The library had 90 volumes by Maghribī Ibāḍī authors (among which 17 copies of volumes of Abū Sākin ʿĀmir al-Shammākhī’s K. al-Īḍāḥ) and ten volumes by Omani authors; the Maghribī volumes comprised 43 different titles and the Omani ones six. The registred Waqf dates were: 15 x 12th/18th c. (1131-1197/1719 - 1782-3), 12 x 13th/19th c. (1215-1276/1800-1 - 1862), and 7 x 14th/20th c. (1327-1334/1909 - 1915-6). The dates of copying of the manuscripts were: 828/1425, 883/1479; 1051/1641, 1058/1648, 1065/1654; 34 x 12th/18th c. (1114-1198/1702-1784); 12 x 13th/19th c. (1201-1272/1787-1855); 1 x 14th/20th c. (1333/1914-5). There were 70 non-Ibāḍī volumes, most of them manuscripts related to the Arabic language. The oldest non-Ibāḍī manuscript was vol. 3 of K. Muntahà ‘l-Adab fī Lughat al-Turk wa’l-ʿAjam wa’l-ʿArab, by Aḥm. b. Muḥ. b. ʿArabshāh, copied 14 Shaʿbān 852/1448 (see GAL II, 29 (ed. 1949, 36-37); S II, 24-25: Abū ‘l-ʿAbbās Aḥm. b. Muḥ. b. ʿAbdl. b. ʿArabshāh Shihāb al-Dīn al-Dimashqī al-Ḥanafī (791-854/1392-1450): Tarjumān al-Mutarjam bi-Muntahà ‘l-ʿArab fī Lughāt al-Turk wa’l-ʿAjam wa’l-ʿArab). The MSS copied in the Wikāla were dated 1117/1706 - 1283/1866, those copied in Cairo were dated 1065/1654-5 - 1333/1914-5. Most copies were done by Jerbans. Among the Waqf givers were: Muḥ. b. Ram. al-Baḥḥār (10 vols., two of them have as Waqf dates 1124/1712 and 1131/1718); Aḥm. b. Daḥmān together with Sul. and Yūnus b. Shaʿbān (6 vols.); Sul. b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī ‘l-Qāsim b. Yaḥyà al-Khanūsī (31 vols., most of them in 1758-9); Saʿīd b. Qāsim b. Sul. al-Shammākhī (5 vols.); Sul. b. Saʿīd al-Bakhābkhī al-Yafranī (6 vols., all donated in 1334/1915-6). The earliest MS I came across which was completed in Wikālat al-Jāmūs is Abū ʿAbdl. Muḥ. b. ʿUmar b. Abī Sitta al-Qaṣbī: [Ḥāshiya ʿalà K. al-Qawāʿid], copyist Mūsà b. al-Ḥājj Muḥ. b. Mūsà b. Ḥammū b. Yūsuf b. Mūsà b. Afḍal b. Muḥ. b. Yūsuf b. Muḥ. b. Aḥm. b. Ibr., called al-Ḥujajī, 22 Shaʿbān 1106/1695. In Makt. Āl Yiddir, Beni Isguen, Mīzāb.

P. 525: this short paper is an attempt to draw a profile, to describe some of the features of the ʿUlamā’ class of Zanzibar and East Africa, based on the biographies of seven prominent members of this class who lived in the 19th century. These men show a wide range of interests, from poetry to juridprudence, from commerce to mysticism. Two of them might be described as “radicals”; the others were fairly conventional. In passing I have made a few comments on some significant points: the history of the “old Arabs” in East Africa, the role of the ʿUlamā’ class in the Muslim society of this time and place, the relations of the “learned” to trade and government, the interconnections of the two Muslim sects, Ibāḍīs and Shāfiʿīs, the literary and educational accomplishments of the ʿUlamā’, the participation of some of the ʿUlamā’ in the Qādirī and Shādhilī revivals of the 1880s and 1890s, the extent of Pan-Islamic influence in Zanzibar and East Africa. I would like to suggest a few priorities for further research in this field. The seven scholars who are treated are the Sunnī ʿUlamā’: Muḥyī ‘l-Dīn b. ʿAbdl. al-Qaḥṭānī al-Wā’ilī (c. 1790-1869), Manṣab b. ʿAlī (1863-1927), ʿAlī b. ʿAbdl. b. Nāfiʿ al-Mazrūʿī (1825-1894), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Amawī (1832-1896), ʿAbdl. b. Muḥ. Bā Kathīr al-Kindī (b. 1864), Aḥm. b. Sumayṭ (1861-1925), and the Ibāḍī scholar ʿAlī b. Khamīs b. Sālim al-Barwānī (1852-1886) (pp. 534-535), who became a Sunnī and was imprisoned for that by Sayyid Barghash. He had studied under the leading Ibāḍī Qāḍīs of Zanzibar in Barghash’s time and before, Yaḥyà b. Khalfān al-Kharūṣī and Muḥ. b. Sul. al-Mundhirī, and a visiting scholar from Oman, Khamīs b. Sālim al-Khaṣībī (Khuṣaybī). Martin cites frequently from Farsy 1944 and 1942. According to Kagabo 1991, 63, Barwānī was a Sunnī and was converted to Ibāḍism by the Ibāḍī sheikh Khamīs b. ʿAlī, and became a Sunnī again.

Mainly based on Jannāwunī: Kitāb al-Waḍʿ fī ‘l-Furūʿ. Pp. 285-290: translation of Jannāwunī, 222-237, chapter 3, on the Ādhān. Furthermore based on the commentary on the Kitāb al-Waḍʿ by Abū Sitta al-Qaṣbī (Abū ʿAbdl. Muḥ. b. ʿUmar b. Abī Sitta al-Qaṣbī al-Nafūsī), who used mainly the Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ of Abū Sākin ʿĀmir al-Shammākhī and Jayṭālī’s Qawāʿid and Qanāṭir.