No abstract

the first time in print), and also that of Wā'il b. Ayyūb (who led the Basran Ibāḍīs after al-Rabīʿ b. Ḥabīb) provide glimpses into the minds of key Ibāḍī scholars from the formative period. Two anonymous texts end the collection: a reply (radd) to the "people of uncertainty" (ahl al-shakk), who appear to be similar to the Murji'a, and a summary of a work describing ʿUthmān's misdeeds. Textual clues from the various selections add credibility to the argument for dating these works to the early period: for example, Abū ʿUbayda's emphasis on communal sunna in his treatise on zakāt (pp. 120-46) lends credence to an early date for this text. Similarly, the terminology for referring to non-Ibāḍī Muslims, whom the Ibāḍīs considered less-than-full Muslims, is not yet standardized across these writings. By the third/ninth century most Ibāḍīs employed the concept of nifāq (hypocrisy) to describe the shortcomings of non-Ibāḍī Muslims (the notion of kufr al-niʿma (disbelief stemming from "ingratitude") does not appear in Ibāḍī writings until after the third/ninth century): its absence in the writings of Abū ʿUbayda and Abū Mawdūd makes a strong case for dating their work to the second/eighth century. Additionally, the siyar of Wā'il b. Ayyūb and Khalaf b. Ziyād use the language of nifāq alongside other methods of describing non-Ibāḍīs, suggesting that such terminology was in the process of being agreed upon. While none of these clues, in and of themselves, offer definitive proof for early composition, there are more instances that could be mentioned and the mounting weight of this evidence progressively convinces. The manuscripts upon which the edition is based are Omani, and they date from the end of the seventeenth to the latter quarter of the nineteenth centuries. In other words, the manuscripts were produced at a time when Ibāḍism was thriving once again in Oman, and thus Ibāḍīs were concerned to preserve and study their "heritage". This period of time coincides with the beginnings of the Ibāḍī "renaissance" (nahda), and the extent to which nahda-era concerns may have driven the selection of which texts to preserve in the first place remains an open question. This is a matter for further research, as the edition herein reviewed is a classic (and expertly done) text-critical project and does not engage with newer methodologies in text technology or manuscript studies. As much as this reviewer hopes that Drs al-Salimi and Madelung will continue their text-critical editions of early Ibāḍī material, it is also hoped that the manuscripts be examined for what insights they may yield about the early nahda period in Oman.

This article reassesses the “Khārijite” rebellion of Muṭarrif b. al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba al-Thaqafī in 77/696–97 and recontextualizes it within a different “category” of revolt. Analyzing both the history and the historiography of this uprising, the article argues that Muṭarrif’s rebellion is best understood not within a Khārijite framework, but rather as part of a series of revolts carried out by other Iraqi tribal notables (ashrāf) in the same period. This reevaluation is based, for example, on the composition of Muṭarrif’s following, which shows clear connections with other important Iraqi/eastern leaders, such as Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr, Ibn al-Ashʿath, and Yazīd b. al-Muhallab. These connections, observable in other structural patterns common to Marwānid-era rebellions as well, point to a similarity of grievances, reactions, and aims whose salience far exceeded the context of individual revolts. More broadly, this article also seeks to challenge the received scholarly understanding of Khārijism and to question its usefulness as a category of historical analysis, suggesting instead different approaches to a renewed engagement with this phenomenon.

Chapter Four looks at specific themes in the portrayal of Khārijism during the caliphate of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. It maintains that the relevant accounts are primarily concerned with providing an apologia for ʿAlī’s conduct during the conflict with his rival Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān at Ṣiffīn and for his slaughter of Khārijite opponents at Nahrawān a year later. The Khārijites here serve mainly as mouthpieces for different positions in a debate centred on the correctness of ʿAlī’s behaviour. The overwhelming interest that the sources show in this affair indicates its centrality for the formation of a consensus regarding the events of early Islamic history, particularly concerning the status of ʿAlī and the development of Shīʿī positions over time. Connected to this is the second main theme, the relationship between ʿAlī and his cousin ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās. In his capacity as an eminent Companion and scholar and particularly as an important ancestor of the ʿAbbāsids, Ibn ʿAbbās occupies a prominent position in the narratives of early Islam. But while the sources stress the close and cordial relationship between ʿAlī and Ibn ʿAbbās, on the whole they confirm ʿAlī’s superiority.

Chapter Seven does not address Khārijite history but rather returns to the early Islamic historical tradition itself. Gathering together insights gained from the preceding literary analyses, the chapter asks what the portrayal of Khārijism in Islamic historiography can tell us about its formation, and whether we can actually speak of an historiographical ‘tradition’ on Khārijism. The chapter discusses potential differences between so-called ‘proto-Sunnī’ and ‘proto-Shīʿī’ works, concluding that it makes little sense to distinguish between them, at least during the period investigated here (9th-10th century CE) and with regard to Khārijism. The conclusion to Chapter Seven then puts a particular spotlight on Ibn Aʿtham and his Kitāb al-Futūḥ, a work that is quite distinct from the other sources studied in this book.