Votre recherche

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.

A study with a translation of the Risāla of the Rustemid Imam Abū ‘l-Yaqẓān (Muḥ.) b. Aflaḥ b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in Barrādī’s K. al-Jawāhir, on the creation of the Koran.

A study, with a translation, of Abū ʿAbdl. Muḥ. b. Bakr’s rules of the Ḥalqa, from Darjīnī’s K. Ṭabaqāt al-Mashāyikh (MS in the library of the University of Cracow, f. 47r line 15-f. 51v). A comparison is made with the same text in Barrādī’s K. al-Jawāhir al-Muntaqāt (Cairo 1302/1884-5, 207-218).

La ricostituzione dell’Imamato ibāḍita nell’interno dell’ʿOmān (245); Le fonti per la storia dell’ʿOmān (247); Caratteristiche del paese (250); I principali avvenimenti anteriori alla costituzione dell’Imāmato (252); Come sorse l’Imāmato (253); L’antico Imāmato elettivo, 135-281/752-894, capitale Nezwà (256); Il periodo degli Imām sporadici (263); I Yaʿrubidi, 1034-1154/1624-1741, capitale er-Rostāq, Yabrīn, Nezwà ecc. (273); Gli Āl Bū Saʿīd o Āl Saʿīd, 1154/1741 ad oggi (278).

A study of the chains of transmitters of the Ibāḍī doctrine from: - ʿAbdl. b. Yaḥyà al-Bārūnī: Risālat Sullam al-ʿĀmma wa’l-Mubtadi’īn, pp. 31-41. The Risāla was printed as an appendix to Sul. b. ʿAbdl. al-Bārūnī’s al-Azhār al-Riyādiyya, Cairo 1304/1886-7 (sic); - Muḥ. b. Zakariyyā’ b. Mūsà al-Bārūnī al-Qalʿawī: Nisbat Dīn al-Muslimīn, in appendix to Shammākhī: Siyar, 578-583, lith. Cairo 1301/1883-4. The chains, through a line of North-African transmitters, go back to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Rustam or Abū ‘l-Zājir Ism. b. Darrār al-Ghadāmasī, two of the five Ḥamalat al-ʿIlm who brought the Ibāḍī doctrine to North Africa, after having acquired it in Basra from Abū ʿUbayda Muslim b. Abī Karīma al-Tamīmī (1st half 2nd/8th c.). From Abū ʿUbayda Muslim al-Baṣrī some chains descend, through Abū ‘l-Shaʿthā’ Jābir b. Zayd al-Azdī [al-ʿUmānī al-Yaḥmadī al-Jawfī al-Baṣrī], ʿAbdl. b. ʿAbbās and ʿĀ’isha, to the Prophet. ʿAbdl. al-Bārūnī gives four chains of transmitters. The first begins at the end of the 6th/12th century with Maqrīn b. Muḥ. al-Bughṭūrī to end with Abū Hārūn Mūsà b. Yūnus al-Jalālamī. Then the chain bifurcates in one chain that goes back to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Rustam and another that goes back to Abū ‘l-Zājir Ism. b. Darrār al-Ghadāmasī. The second chain begins in the 8th/14th century with Abū Sākin ʿĀmir b. ʿAlī al-Shammākhī going back to Abū Hārūn al-Jalālamī. Then the chain continues with the same names as the second chain mentioned above. In essence the names of the transmittters from the eighth to the sixth century A.H. are given. The third chain begins at the end of the 10th century with Muḥ. b. Zak. al-Bārūnī al-Qalʿawī and goes back to Abū Sākin ʿĀmir al-Shammākhī. So this chain adds the names of the transmitters between the eighth and the tenth century A.H. The fourth chain of transmitters begins also at the end of the 10th/16th or the beginning of the 11th/17th century, but gives a different chain of transmitters. It begins with Abū Mahdī ʿĪsà b. Ism. and goes back to the Rustamid ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, son of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Qalʿawī gives the chains he acquired from Abū Sul. Dāwud b. Ibr. al-Tilātī al-Jarbī. These chains consist of five or six names, and they meet together at the name of ʿAbdl. b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Shammākhī, disciple of a disciple of Abū Sākin ʿĀmir al-Shammākhī. Then they follow the names in one of ʿAbdl. al-Bārūnī’s chains, especially the second one. Qalʿawī also gives his own chain of transmitters. In 961/1554 he travelled to the Jabal Banī Muṣʿab, where he learned the doctrine from Abū Mahdī ʿĪsà b. Ism. Beginning with this sheikh, the chain bifurcates from Abū ʿAbdl. Muḥ. b. Bakr onwards, to meet together, via the Rustamid ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and the transmitter Abū ‘l-Zājir al-Ghadāmasī, in the famous Abū ʿUbayda. The first part of the chain and the beginnings of the bifurcations are identical to the fourth chain of ʿAbdl. al-Bārūnī. The references added to certain names in the detailed lists of transmitters (127-139) are mainly to Shammākhī: Siyar; Basset 1899; Lewicki 1934b, 74. Also: Masqueray 1878a; Motylinski 1885a, 1899, 1908a, etc.

Pp. 20-24: I Somali nella regione di Merca; p. 24: I Galla nella regione di Merca; pp. 24-26: I Persiani nella regione di Merca; p. 26: L’occupazione di Merca da parte del’Oman; pp. 27-28: Tre iscrizioni arabe di Merca.

An interview of the Syrian journalist ʿUmar al-Ṭībī with Sul. in Baghdad, Fatà al-ʿArab (Damascus), 25-26 Apr. 1934. A general survey of Oman.

P. 373: the purpose of this paper is to call attention to some aspects of Khārijite history which have been somewhat neglected, and to propose a change in the point of view from which we at present consider the development of Khārijite doctrines. Briefly stated, the thesis maintained will be that our conception of the origin and nature of Khārijitism require revision, not only in the light of certain historical facts and the known geographical spread of Khārijite sects, but also because the inner relation of Khārijite thought to contemporary movements has not been clearly recognized and its true character defined.