Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited}

Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited}20%

Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited} Author:
Publisher: www.zainabzilullah.wordpress.com
Category: Islamic Philosophy

Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited}
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 238 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 31769 / Download: 14163
Size Size Size
Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited}

Bidayah al-Hikmah (Arabic-English) [The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{Edited}

Author:
Publisher: www.zainabzilullah.wordpress.com
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought


Notice

We have taken this book from the www.zainabzilullah.wordpress.com, but regretfully she did not mention the translator's name. We compared its 5th Chapter's first page with the translation of Ali Quli Qarai, there was little difference, so we don't not know yet exactly whether it is translated by own or someone other. Meanwhile we have added some topics and numbers of Units on the first pages of every Chapter.

5.4. GENUS, DIFFERENTIA AND SPECIES

A complete quiddity - i.e., one which possesses certain real special properties, e.g. ‘man,’ ‘horse,’ etc. - is called species (naw’).

We find that there are some essential concepts shared by several species, such as the concept of ‘animal’ which is common to ‘man,’ ‘horse’ and other animals. Also, there are essential concepts that are special to each of the species, such as ‘rationality,’ which is specific to man. That which is common to several species is called genus (jins) and that which is specific to each of them is called differentia (fashl). Genus and differentia are divided into ‘proximate’ and ‘remote'; similarly, genus and species are divisible into ‘highest,’ ‘middle,’ and ‘lowest,’ as is discussed in detail in books on logic.

Furthermore, when we consider the quiddity ‘animal,’ for instance, which is shared by several species, and conceive it as ‘a growing, sensate body capable of voluntary movement,’ it may be conceived in isolation so that any concept associated with it would be additional and extraneous to its essence. Then it would be different from the aggregate and incapable of becoming its predicate as well as that of anything associated with it and additional to it, and the supposed quiddity would be ‘matter’ in relation to that which is associated with it and the ‘material cause’ of the aggregate.

We may conceive this quiddity in comparison to a number of species, as when we conceive the quiddity ‘animal,’ which may be either ‘man’ or ‘horse’ or ‘cow’ or ‘sheep.’ Then it would be an incomplete quiddity, which is not actualized until we unite the differentia of one of these species with it. When that is done, it would be actualized in a complete species and become identical with that species. The supposed quiddity when considered in this manner is the genus and that which actualizes it is the differentia.

These two considerations pertaining to the common part apply in an identical manner to the specific ‘part,’ which in view of the first consideration is called ‘form’ (shûrah), in which case it is a ‘part’ that cannot be predicated either of the whole or the other part. In view of the second consideration, it is called ‘differentia,’ which actualizes the genus and completes the species and is predicared of it with a primary predication.

From what has been said, the following points become clear:

First, genus is undetermined species and differentia is determinate species. The species is a complete quiddity without taking into view determination or non-determination.

Second, each of genus and differentia is predicable of the species with primary predication. However, as to the relation between the two, the genus is a ‘general accident’ (‘arad ‘âmm) in relation to the differentia, and differentia is a ‘special accident’ or proprium (khâshshah) in relation to the genus.

Third, it is impossible that there should be two genera or two differentiae at one level, for that implies that one species should be two.

Fourthly, genus and ‘matter’ are one is essence, being different from the viewpoint of consideration (i’tibâran). Thus when ‘matter’ is conceived in a non-conditioned sense it becomes genus, and genus when conceived in a negatively conditioned manner becomes ‘matter.’ The same applies to ‘form’ which when conceived in a non-conditioned manner is differentia,

and the differentia when conceived in a negatively conditioned manner is ‘form’.

It should be known that ‘matter’ in ‘material substances’ exists in the external world, as will be discussed later.” As to the accidents, they are simple and non-composite in external reality. That is because what they share in (mâ bihi al-isytirâk) is identical with that by which they are distinguished from one another (mâ bihi al-imtiyâz). However, the intellect finds common and specific aspects in them and conceives them as genus and differentia. Then it views them in a negatively conditioned manner, turning them conceptually into ‘forms’ and ‘matters.’

الفصل الخامس في بعض أحكام الفصل

ينقسم الفصل نوع انقسام إلى المنطقي و الاشتقاقي.

فالفصل المنطقي هو أخص اللوازم التي تعرض النوع و أعرفها و هو إنما يؤخذ و يوضع في الحدود مكان الفصول الحقيقية لصعوبة الحصول غالبا على الفصل الحقيقي الذي يقوم النوع كالناطق للإنسان و الصاهل للفرس فإن المراد بالنطق مثلا إما النطق بمعنى التكلم و هو من الكيفيات المسموعة و إما النطق بمعنى إدراك الكليات و هو عندهم من الكيفيات النفسانية و الكيفية كيفما كانت من الأعراض و العرض لا يقوم الجوهر و كذا الصهيل و لذا ربما كان أخص اللوازم أكثر من واحد فتوضع جميعا موضع الفصل الحقيقي كما يؤخذ الحساس و المتحرك بالإرادة جميعا فصلا للحيوان و لو كان فصلا حقيقيا لم يكن إلا واحدا كما تقدم.

و الفصل الاشتقاقي مبدأ الفصل المنطقي و هو الفصل الحقيقي المقوم للنوع ككون الإنسان ذا نفس ناطقة في الإنسان و كون الفرس ذا نفس صاهلة في الفرس.

ثم إن حقيقة النوع هي فصله الأخير و ذلك لأن الفصل المقوم هو محصل نوعه فما أخذ في أجناسه و فصوله الآخر على نحو الإبهام مأخوذ فيه على وجه التحصل.

و يتفرع عليه أن هذية النوع به فنوعية النوع محفوظة به و لو تبدل بعض أجناسه و كذا لو تجردت صورته التي هي الفصل بشرط لا عن المادة التي هي الجنس بشرط لا بقي النوع على حقيقة نوعيته كما لو تجردت النفس الناطقة عن البدن.

ثم إن الفصل غير مندرج تحت جنسه بمعنى أن الجنس غير مأخوذ في حده و إلا احتاج إلى فصل يقومه و ننقل الكلام إليه و يتسلسل بترتب فصول غير متناهية.

5.5. SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENTIA

According to one classification, differentia is divided into two kinds:

logical (manthiqî) and derivative (isytiqâqî). The logical differentia consists of one of the more special and well-known properties associated with a certain species. It is taken and substituted in definitions for the real differentia often due to the difficulty of obtaining the real differentia that gives subsistence to a species. Examples of logical differentiae are ‘rational’ (nâthiq; derived from nuthq which means ‘speech’ as well as ‘rationality’) for man and ‘neighing’ for the horse. However, if by ‘nuthq,’ for instance, is meant speech, it is an audible quality, and if what is meant by it is ‘rationality’ in the sense of the faculty of cognition of universals, it is regarded by the philosophers as one of the ‘psychic qualities.’ Quality, of whatever kind, is an accident, and an accident does not give subsistence to a substance. The same applies to ‘neighing’ as the differentia of ‘horse,’ defined as a ‘neighing animal.’ Often such special properties are more than one, and they are together substituted for the real differentia, as is the case with ‘sensate’ and ‘voluntarily mobile’ which are taken together as the differentia of ‘animal.’ But had they been the real differentia, they would not have been more than one, as stated in the preceding section.

The ‘derivative’ differentia (al-fashl al-isytiqâqî) is the source of the logical differentia. It is the real differentia that gives subsistence to the species, like the ‘rational soul’ in the case of ‘man’ and the ‘neighing soul’ in the case of the horse.

The reality of a species is realized by its ultimate differentia, for the differentia that gives subsistence to a species is the one that actualizes it, and that which is subsumed in its other genera and differentiae in an undetermined manner is subsumed in it in a determined way.

A corollary to the above is that the identity of a species is due to the ultimate differentia by which its specificity (naw‘iyyah) is maintained, and should any of its genera undergo a change, or should its form - that is, differentia negatively conditioned - separate from its ‘matter’ - that is, genus negatively conditioned - the species maintains its specific identity, as in the case of the rational soul on separation from the body.

Further, the differentia does not fall under its genus, in the sense that genus is not subsumed in its definition; otherwise it would require a differentia to give it subsistence and that, on transferring our argument to it, results in an indefinite regress requiring an infinite number of differentiae.

الفصل السادس في النوع و بعض أحكامه

الماهية النوعية توجد أجزاؤها في الخارج بوجود واحد لأن الحمل بين كل منها و بين النوع أولي و النوع موجود بوجود واحد و أما في الذهن فهي متغايرة بالإبهام و التحصل و لذلك كان كل من الجنس و الفصل عرضيا للآخر زائدا عليه كما تقدم.

و من هنا ما ذكروا أنه لا بد في المركبات الحقيقية أي الأنواع المادية المؤلفة من مادة و صورة أن يكون بين أجزائها فقر و حاجة من بعضها إلى بعض حتى ترتبط و تتحد حقيقة واحدة و قد عدوا المسألة ضرورية لا تفتقر إلى برهان.

و يمتاز المركب الحقيقي من غيره بالوحدة الحقيقية و ذلك بأن يحصل من تألف الجزئين مثلا أمر ثالث غير كل واحد منهما له آثار خاصة غير آثارهما الخاصة كالأمور المعدنية التي لها آثار خاصة غير آثار عناصرها لا كالعسكر المركب من أفراد و البيت المؤلف من اللبن و الجص و غيرهما.

و من هنا أيضا يترجح القول بأن التركيب بين المادة و الصورة اتحادي لا انضمامي كما سيأتي.

ثم إن من الماهيات النوعية ما هي كثيرة الأفراد كالأنواع التي لها تعلق ما بالمادة مثل الإنسان و منها ما هو منحصر في فرد كالأنواع المجردة تجردا تاما من العقول و ذلك لأن كثرة أفراد النوع إما أن تكون تمام ماهية النوع أو بعضها أو لازمة لها و على جميع هذه التقادير لا يتحقق لها فرد لوجوب الكثرة في كل ما صدقت عليه و لا كثرة إلا مع الآحاد هذا خلف و إما أن تكون لعرض مفارق يتحقق بانضمامه و عدم انضمامه الكثرة و من الواجب حينئذ أن يكون في النوع إمكان العروض و الانضمام و لا يتحقق ذلك إلا بمادة كما سيأتي فكل نوع كثير الأفراد فهو مادي و ينعكس إلى أن ما لا مادة له و هو النوع المجرد ليس بكثير الأفراد و هو المطلوب.

5.6. SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIES

The parts of a specific quiddity (al-mâhiyyât al-naw’iyyah) exist in external reality with a single existence, for the predication between each of them and the species is of the primary kind and the species exists with a single existence. However, in the mind they are distinguished from each other by being indefinite and determinate, and hence each of the two, genus and differentia, is an accident in relation to the other and additional to it, as explained earlier.’

Hence the metaphysicians state that there exists a mutual need between the parts in the ‘real composites’ (al-murakkabât al-haqqiyyah), that is, the material species, which are composed of ‘matter’ and ‘form,’ so that they may join and unite to form a.single entity. They consider this as a self-evident truth that does not stand in need of a proof.

The ‘real composites’ are distinguished from other kinds of composites by a real union wherein two constituents, for instance, combine to produce a third entity different from either of the two and possessing properties different from those belonging to each. An example of this kind of union is provided by chemical compounds, which possess properties different from their constituent elements. It is not like the composition of an army, which is made up of individual soldiers, nor like that of a house, which is made up of bricks, mortar, etc.

This lends weight to the opinion that the combination of matter and form is a union, not a composition, as will be explained later.

Furthermore, there are some specific quiddities that have a multiplicity of individuals, like the species associated with matter, e.g. ‘man.’ There are some of them that are confined to a single individual, such as the immaterial species (al-anwâ’ al-mujarradah), which are completely immaterial (i.e. in essence and in act); e.g. the Immaterial Intellects (‘uqûl). That is because a species has a multiplicity of individuals either as a result of multiplicity constituting the totality of its quiddity, or a part of it, or its proprium or a separable accident. In the first three assumptions, individuation is never realized, as multiplicity will be necessary in anything that corresponds to it. Yet multiplicity cannot be realized without individuals and the impossibility of individuation contradicts the assumption. Since the above three assumptions are inadmissible, multiplicity must arise in separable accidents (‘arâd mufâriq) and their association or absence of association with the quiddity. However, in this case it is necessary that there exists the capacity (imkân isti’dâdî) for such association in the species, and such a capacity is not realized except in matter, as will be explained later on. Hence every species with a multiplicity of individuals is material. From this follows the converse that immaterial species, which are devoid of ‘matter,’ do not have a multiplicity of individuals.

الفصل السابع في الكلي و الجزئي و نحو وجودهما

ربما ظن أن الكلية و الجزئية إنما هما في نحو الإدراك فالإدراك الحسي لقوته يدرك الشي‏ء بنحو يمتاز من غيره مطلقا و الإدراك العقلي لضعفه يدركه بنحو لا يمتاز مطلقا و يقبل الانطباق على أكثر من واحد كالشبح المرئي من بعيد المحتمل أن يكون هو زيدا أو عمرا أو خشبة منصوبة أو غير ذلك و هو أحدها قطعا و كالدرهم الممسوح القابل الانطباق على دراهم مختلفة.

و يدفعه أن لازمه أن لا يصدق المفاهيم الكلية كالإنسان مثلا على أزيد من واحد من أفرادها حقيقة و أن يكذب القوانين الكلية المنطبقة على مواردها اللا متناهية إلا في واحد منها كقولنا الأربعة زوج و كل ممكن فلوجوده علة و صريح الوجدان يبطله فالحق أن الكلية و الجزئية نحوان من وجود الماهيات.

5.7. THE UNIVERSAL, AND THE PARTICULAR AND THEIR MODES OF EXISTENCE

Some have thought that the universal and the particular are two different modes of cognition. In sense perception (al-idrâk al-hissî), they say, due to its being strong and vivid, a thing is perceived in such a way that it is absolutely distinguished from anything else. However, in rational cognition (al-idrâk al-‘aqlî), due to its being weak and vague, a thing is apprehended in such a way that it is not absolutely distinguishable and so is capable of corresponding to more than one thing. It is like an apparition seen from a far distance which may be either Zayd or ‘Amr or the stump of a tree or something else, but is definitely only one of them, or like an abraded coin which may resemble different coins of its type.

This view stands refuted, for it implies that the universals, such as ‘man,’ do not really correspond to more than one member of their class and that universal laws, such as ‘All fours are even’ and ‘Every contingent needs a cause to exist,’ which apply to an unlimited number of their instance, be false except only in one of those instances. Both of these implications are false prima facie.

The truth is that the universal and the particular are two different modes of existence of quiddity.

الفصل الثامن في تميز الماهيات و تشخصها

تميز ماهية من ماهية أخرى بينونتها منها و مغايرتها لها بحيث لا تتصادقان كتميز الإنسان من الفرس باشتماله على الناطق و التشخص كون الماهية بحيث يمتنع صدقها على كثيرين كتشخص الإنسان الذي هو زيد.

و من هنا يظهر أولا أن التميز وصف إضافي للماهية بخلاف التشخص فإنه نفسي غير إضافي.

و ثانيا أن التميز لا ينافي الكلية فإن انضمام كلي إلى كلي لا يوجب الجزئية و لا ينتهي إليها و إن تكرر بخلاف التشخص.

ثم إن التميز بين ماهيتين إما بتمام ذاتيهما كالأجناس العالية البسيطة إذ لو كان بين جنسين عاليين مشترك ذاتي كان جنسا لهما واقعا فوقهما و قد فرضا جنسين عاليين هذا خلف.

و إما ببعض الذات و هذا فيما كان بينهما جنس مشترك فتتمايزان بفصلين كالإنسان و الفرس.

و إما بالخارج من الذات و هذا فيما إذا اشتركتا في الماهية النوعية فتتمايزان بالأعراض المفارقة كالإنسان الطويل المتميز بطوله من الإنسان القصير.

و هاهنا قسم رابع أثبته من جوز التشكيك في الماهية و هو اختلاف نوع واحد بالشدة و الضعف و التقدم و التأخر و غيرها في عين رجوعها إلى ما به الاشتراك و الحق أن لا تشكيك إلا في حقيقة الوجود و فيها يجري هذا القسم من الاختلاف و التمايز.

و أما التشخص فهو في الأنواع المجردة من لوازم نوعيتها لما عرفت أن النوع المجرد منحصر في فرد و هذا مرادهم بقولهم إنها مكتفية بالفاعل توجد بمجرد إمكانها الذاتي و في الأنواع المادية كالعنصريات بالأعراض اللاحقة و عمدتها الأين و متى و الوضع و هي تشخص النوع بلحوقها به في عرض عريض بين مبدإ تكونه إلى منتهاه كالفرد من الإنسان الواقع بين حجم كذا و حجم كذا و مبدأ زماني كذا إلى مبدإ زماني كذا و على هذا القياس هذا هو المشهور عندهم.

و الحق كما ذهب إليه المعلم الثاني و تبعه صدر المتألهين أن التشخص بالوجود لأن انضمام الكلي إلى الكلي لا يفيد الجزئية فما سموها أعراضا مشخصة هي من لوازم التشخص و أماراته.

5.8. DISTINCTION AND INDIVIDUATION

The distinction (tamayyuz) between one quiddity and another lies in its being different from others, so that two of them do not correspond to one thing, like the distinction of ‘man’ from ‘horse’ by virtue of the former’s ‘rationality.’ Individuation (tasyakhkhush) means quiddity’s being such that its correspondence to a multiplicity of individuals be impossible, like the individuality of a particular man Zayd.

From this the following points become clear.

First, distinction is a relative attribute of a quiddity, as opposed to individuation, which is due to itself and non-relative.

Second, distinction is not incompatible with universality, for appending one universal to another does not lead to particularity (juziyyah), not even when the process of adding further universals is repeated indefinitely. This is not the case with individuation.

Furthermore, the distinction between two quiddities can possibly be conceived as arising in one or more of the following four ways:

(i) Either with the totality of their essential parts, as in the case of the highest simple genera (i.e. substance and the accidents); for if two highest genera were to have common essential parts, there would be a genus above them, and this contradicts the supposition that the two genera are the highest ones.

(ii) The distinction between them is by virtue of one of their essential parts, as is the case when they have a common genus and are made distinct by two differentiae, for instance, ‘man’ and ‘horse.’

(iii) The distinction is by virtue of something extraneous to their essence, as when they share a common specific quiddity and are distinguished from one another by virtue of separable accidents like ‘tall man’ distinguished from ‘short man’ on account of height.

(iv) There is a fourth kind of distinction believed in by those who consider gradation (tasykîk) in quiddity as permissible. Gradation is a distinction introduced in a species due to strength and weakness, priority and posteriority and so on, while that which is common to it is maintained. But the truth is that there is no gradation except in existence from which this kind of difference and distinction derives.

As to individuation, it may pertain to material and immaterial species. In immaterial species, it is implied in its specificity, for, as we have seen, an immaterial species is confined to one individual, and this is what is meant by the statement of the metaphysicians that “All they require is the agent, and their mere essential contingency is enough to bring them into existence.”

As to the material species, such as the elements, individuation arises in them by the associated accidents (al-a’râd al-lâhiqah), which are mainly: ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘position,’ and these are what individualize the species by being associated with it (e.g. ‘Man in such and such a place and such and such a time’ as the description of a certain individual). This is the prevalent view among the metaphysicians.

However, the correct view, as held by Farabi, who was followed therein by Sadr al-Mutaallihîn, is that individuation is produced by existence; for

the annexation of a universal to another does not produce particularity, and the so-called ‘individuating accidents’ are inseparable implications of individuation and its signs.

المرحلة السادسة في المقولات العشر وهي الأجناس العالية التي إليها تنتهي أنواع الماهيات

وفيها أحد عشر فصلا

CHAPTER SIX: The Categories

11 Units

الفصل الأول تعريف الجوهر والعرض - عدد المقولات

تنقسم الماهية – إنقساما أوليا – إلى جوهر وعرض ، فإنها إما أن تكون بحيث ” إذا وجدت في الخارج وجدت لا في موضوع مستغن عنها في وجوده ” ، سواء وجدت لا في موضوع أصلا كالجواهر العقلية القائمة بنفسها ، أو وجدت في موضوع لا يستغني عنها في وجوده كالصور العنصرية المنطبعة في المادة المتقومة بها ، وإما أن تكون بحيث ” إذا وجدت في الخارج وجدت في موضوع مستغن عنها ” كماهية القرب والبعد بين الأجسام وكالقيام والقعود والاستقبال والاستدبار من الانسان .

ووجود القسمين في الجملة ضروري ، فمن أنكر وجود الجوهر لزمه جوهرية الأعراض ، فقال بوجوده من حيث لا يشعر .

والأعراض تسعة ، هي المقولات والأجناس العالية ، ومفهوم العرض عرض عام لها ، لا جنس فوقها ، كما أن المفهوم من الماهية عرض عام لجميع المقولات العشر ، وليس بجنس لها .

والمقولات التسع العرضية هي : الكم ، والكيف ، والأين ، ومتى ، والوضع ، والجدة ، والإضافة ، وأن يفعل ، وأن ينفعل هذا ما عليه المشاؤون من عدد المقولات ، ومستندهم فيه الاستقراء .

وذهب بعضهم إلى أنها أربع ، بجعل المقولات النسبية – وهي المقولات السبع الأخيرة – واحدة وذهب شيخ الإشراق إلى أنها خمس ، وزاد على هذه الأربعة الحركة .

والأبحاث في هذه المقولات وانقساماتها إلى الأنواع المندرجة تحتها طويلة الذيل جدا ، ونحن نلخص القول على ما هو المشهور من مذهب المشائين ، مع إشارات إلى غيره .

6.1. DEFINITIONS OF SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENT AND THE NUMBER OF THE CATEGORIES

Quiddity is divided in the first classification into substance and accident. That is, it is either such that, when existing externally, it does not exist in a locus that has no need of it for existing. This is irrespective of whether it does not exist in a locus at all (as in the case of self-sustaining intellectual substances), or exists in a locus that needs it for existing (as in the case of the elemental forms impressed in the ‘matter,’ which sustains them). Or, it is such that when existing externally it exists in a locus that does not need it for existing, such as the quiddities of ‘nearness’ and ‘remoteness’ between bodies, and ‘standing’ and ‘sitting,’ ‘facing’ and ‘having one’s back towards something’ for man.

The existence of these two kinds is necessary, and one who denies the existence of the substance is forced to consider accident as substances, thus unwittingly admitting its existence.

The accidents are nine. They are categories and constitute the highest genera. Their common name ‘accident’ is a general accident for them and there is no genus above them,’ in the same way as the concept ‘quiddity’ is a general accident for all the ten categories, which do not have a genus.

The nine accidental categories are: ‘quantity,’ ‘quality,’ ‘place.’ ‘time,’ ‘position,’ ‘possession,’ ‘relation,’ ‘action’ and ‘affection.’ This is the opinion of the Peripatetics concerning the number of the categories and inductive evidence forms its basis.

Some philosophers have held the accidents to be four. They put the relative categories, the last seven, into one group. Suhrawardi held them to be five, adding the category of motion to these four.’

The discussions concerning the categories and their classification into the kinds that fall under them are very elaborate and here we will give a summary based on the prevailing opinion amongst the Aristotelians, while referring to the other positions.

[الفصل الثاني  [ في أقسام الجوهر

قسموا الجوهر – تقسيما أوليا – إلى خمسة أقسام : المادة والصورة والجسم والنفس والعقل ومستند هذا التقسيم في الحقيقة استقراء ما قام على وجوده البرهان من الجواهر فالعقل هو : ” الجوهر المجرد عن المادة ذاتا وفعلا ” ، والنفس هي : ” الجوهر المجرد عن المادة ذاتا المتعلق بها فعلا ” ، والمادة هي : ” الجوهر الحامل للقوة ” ، والصورة الجسمية هي : ” الجوهر المفيد لفعلية المادة من حيث الامتدادات الثلاثة ” ، والجسم هو : ” الجوهر الممتد في جهاته الثلاث ” .

ودخول الصورة الجسمية في التقسيم دخول بالعرض ، لأن الصورة هي الفصل مأخوذا بشرط لا ، وفصول الجواهر غير مندرجة تحت مقولة الجوهر ، وإن صدق عليها الجوهر كما عرفت في بحث الماهية ، ويجري نظير الكلام في النفس

6.2. THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCE

The metaphysicians first divide substance into five kinds: ‘matter’ (mâdddah), ‘form’ (shûrah), ‘body’ (jism), ‘soul’ (nafs) and ‘intellect’ (‘aql). Inductive evidence for the existence of these substances forms the basis of this classification.

‘Intellect’ is a substance devoid of ‘matter’ both in its essence and in act. ‘Soul’ is a substance devoid of ‘matter’ essentially but associated with it in act. ‘Matter’ is a substance that possesses potentiality. ‘Bodily form’ (al-shûrat al-jismiyyah) is a substance that gives actuality to ‘matter’ in respect to the three dimensions. ‘Body’ is a substance extended in three dimensions.

The inclusion of ‘bodily form’ in this classification is an accidental one, for ‘form’ is differentia negatively conditioned and the differentiae of substances do not fall under the category of substance, though the term substance may be predicable of it (in the sense of technical predication), as was seen in the discussion on quiddity.” The same applies to ‘soul.’

الفصل الثالث في الجسم

لا ريب أن هناك أجساما مختلفة تشترك في أصل الجسمية التي هي الجوهر الممتد في الجهات الثلاث ، فالجسم بما هو جسم قابل للانقسام في جهاته المفروضة ، وله وحدة اتصالية عند الحس فهل هو متصل واحد في الحقيقة كما هو عند الحس أو مجموعة أجزاء ذات فواصل على خلاف ما عند الحس ؟

وعلى الأول ، فهل الأقسام التي له بالقوة متناهية ، أو غير متناهية ؟ وعلى الثاني ، فهل الأقسام التي هي بالفعل – وهي التي انتهى التجزي إليها – لا تقبل الانقسام خارجا ، لكن تقبله وهما وعقلا ، لكونها أجساما صغارا ذوات حجم ، أو أنها لا تقبل الانقسام لا خارجا ولا وهما ولا عقلا ، لعدم اشتمالها على حجم ، وإنما تقبل الإشارة الحسية ، وهي متناهية أو غير متناهية ؟ ولكل من الشقوق المذكورة قائل .

فالأقوال خمسة .

الأول : أن الجسم متصل واحد بحسب الحقيقة ، كما هو عند الحس ، وله أجزاء بالقوة متناهية ، ونسب إلى الشهرستاني.

الثاني : أنه متصل حقيقة كما هو متصل حسا ، وهو منقسم انقسامات غير متناهية – بمعنى لا يقف – ، أي إنه يقبل الانقسام الخارجي بقطع أو باختلاف عرضين ونحوه ، حتى إذا لم يعمل الآلات القطاعة في تقسيمه لصغره ، قسمه الوهم ، حتى إذا عجز عن تصوره لصغره البالغ ، حكم العقل كليا بأنه كلما قسم إلى أجزاء كان الجزء الحاصل – لكونه ذا حجم ، له طرف غير طرف – يقبل القسمة من غير وقوف ، فإن ورود القسمة لا يعدم الحجم ، ونسب إلى الحكماء .

الثالث : أنه مجموعة أجزاء صغار صلبة لا تخلو من حجم ، تقبل القسمة الوهمية والعقلية ، دون الخارجية ، ونسب إلى ذي مقراطيس .

الرابع : أنه مؤلف من أجزاء لا تتجزأ ، لا خارجا ولا وهما ولا عقلا ، وإنما تقبل الإشارة الحسية ، وهي متناهية ذوات فواصل في الجسم ، تمر الآلة القطاعة من مواضع الفصل ، ونسب إلى جمهور المتكلمين .

الخامس : تأليف الجسم منها – كما في القول الرابع – إلا أنها غير متناهية ويدفع القولين الرابع والخامس : أن ما ادعي من الأجزاء التي لا تتجزأ ، إن لم تكن ذوات حجم ، امتنع أن يتحقق من اجتماعها جسم ذو حجم بالضرورة ، وإن كانت ذوات حجم ، لزمها الانقسام الوهمي والعقلي بالضرورة ، وإن فرض عدم انقسامها الخارجي لنهاية صغرها .

على أنها لو كانت غير متناهية كان الجسم المتكون من اجتماعها غير متناهي الحجم بالضرورة وقد أقيمت على بطلان الجزء الذي لا يتجزأ وجوه من البراهين مذكورة في المطولات .

ويدفع القول الثاني وهن الوجوه التي أقيمت على كون الجسم البسيط ذا اتصال واحد جوهري من غير فواصل كما هو عند الحس ، وقد تسلم علماء الطبيعة أخيرا بعد تجربات علمية ممتدة أن الأجسام مؤلفة من أجزاء صغار ذرية مؤلفة من أجزاء أخرى ، لا تخلو من نواة مركزية ذات جرم ، وليكن أصلا موضوعا لنا .

ويدفع القول الأول : أنه يرد عليه ما يرد على القول الثاني والرابع والخامس ، لجمعه بين القول باتصال الجسم بالفعل ، وبين انقسامه بالقوة إلى أجزاء متناهية تقف القسمة دونها على الإطلاق .

فالجسم الذي هو جوهر ذو اتصال يمكن أن يفرض فيه الامتدادات الثلاثة ، ثابت لا ريب فيه ، لكن مصداقه الأجزاء الأولية التي يحدث فيها الامتداد الجرمي وإليها تتجزأ الأجسام النوعية ، دون غيرها على ما تقدمت الإشارة إليه ، وهو قول ذي مقراطيس مع إصلاح ما .

6.3. BODY

There is no doubt that there are various bodies sharing in bodiness as substances extended in three dimensions. Hence body qua body is divisible in the supposed dimensions and is perceived as having a continuous unity by the senses. But is it really a single continuum as it appears to the senses or a collection of particles separated by interstices, contrary to what is perceived by the senses?

If it is a continuous unit, are its potential divisions finite or infinite? If it is a collection of discrete particles, are its actual divisions - i.e. the smallest particles which represent a limit to division, not being susceptible to further division externally - capable of further division in the imagination on account of their being small bodies with a certain volume? Or are they incapable of any further division, externally as well as in the imagination, due to not possessing any volume, though they are capable of being pointed at sensibly? Further, in the last case, is their number finite or infinite? Each of these alternatives has had supporters.

In all there are five theories.

(i) According to one of the views, bodies are in fact continuous units as they appear to the senses and consist of potentially finite parts. This view is ascribed to Shahristani.

(ii) According to a second view, bodies are really the continuous units they appear to be to the senses and susceptible to an indefinite number of divisions. When actual division stops due to the smallness of size and the inadequacy of cutting instruments, they can be divided in the imagination, and when imagination fails as a result of extreme smallness, they are susceptible to division by the intellect in accordance with its universal judgement that whenever anything is divided into parts, the resulting parts are divisible as they possess volume and two distinct sides. Thus there is no end to this process, for division does not exhaust volume. This opinion has been ascribed to the philosophers.

(iii) According to a third view, a body is a collection of small unbreakable particles that are not devoid of volume. They are susceptible to division in the imagination and the intellect though not in external reality. This theory has been ascribed to Democritus.

(iv) A fourth view is that bodies are composed of parts that are indivisible, externally as well as in the imagination and the intellect. They are susceptible to being pointed at sensibly and are finite, separated by interstices through which the cutting instrument passes. This opinion is ascribed to a majority of the theologians (mutakallimûn).

(v) According to a fifth view, bodies are composed as described in the fourth theory, with the difference that it holds the particles to be infinite in number.

The fourth and the fifth views stand refuted on the ground that if the indivisible particles they hypothesize do not have any volume, their aggregate, of necessity, cannot produce a body possessing volume, and if they possess volume, they are of necessity susceptible to further division by the imagination and the intellect if, supposedly, their external division is not possible due to extreme smallness.

Further, if the particles were infinite in number, the body formed by their collection would also necessarily have an infinite volume. Other arguments have been advanced against the theory of indivisible particles in elaborate works.

As to the second theory, it is unacceptable due to the weakness of reasons advanced to prove that simple bodies’ are substances consisting of a single continuum without interstices, as they appear to be to the senses. In recent times physicists have accepted after extensive experiments that bodies are composed of small atomic parts, which are themselves constituted by other particles and have a nucleus possessing mass at their centre. However, this is a premise derived from disciplines outside philosophy.

The first view is also unacceptable as it is prone to the objections that arise against the second, fourth and fifth views, for it relieves in the actual continuity of a body and its potential divisibility into a finite number of parts whereat division ceases absolutely (i.e. externally as well in the imagination and the intellect).

Hence the existence of ‘body’ as a continuous substance extended in three dimensions is undoubtedly affirmed, but this conception corresponds only to the fundamental particles possessing extended mass, into which all specific bodies are reducible, as pointed out above. This is same as the view of Democritus with some modification.

الفصل الرابع في إثبات المادة الأولى والصورة الجسمية

إن الجسم من حيث هو جسم – ونعني به ما يحدث فيه الامتداد الجرمي أولا وبالذات – أمر ” بالفعل ” ، ومن حيث ما يمكن أن يلحق به شئ من الصور النوعية ولواحقها أمر ” بالقوة ” ، وحيثية الفعل غير حيثية القوة ، لأن الفعل متقوم بالوجدان ، والقوة متقومة بالفقدان ففيه جوهر هو قوة الصور الجسمانية ، بحيث إنه ليس له من الفعلية إلا فعلية أنه قوة محضة ، وهذا نحو وجودها ، والجسمية التي بها الفعلية صورة مقومة لها ، فتبين أن الجسم مؤلف من مادة وصورة جسمية ، والمجموع المركب منهما هو الجسم تتمة : فهذه هي المادة الشائعة في الموجودات الجسمانية جميعا ، وتسمى : ” المادة الأولى ” و ” الهيولى الأولى ” ثم هي مع الصورة الجسمية مادة قابلة للصور النوعية اللاحقة ، وتسمى : ” المادة الثانية ”

6.4 PRIME MATTER AND BODILY FORM

Body qua body - i.e., that which primarily and essentially possesses extended mass - has an actuality, and it has a potentiality n insofar as it can receive specific forms (al-shûwar al-naw’iyyah) and their properties. The mode of actuality is different from the mode of potentiality, for actuality is marked by possession and potentiality by non-possession. Hence there is a substance in body with the potentiality for receiving specific forms, and it is such that it has no actuality except sheer potentiality and that is its mode of existence. The ‘bodiness’ by virtue of which it has actuality is a form that gives subsistence to that potentiality. This shows that ‘body’ is composed of ‘matter’ and ‘bodily form,’ the aggregate of two.

This ‘matter’ is present in all bodily existents and is called ‘prime matter’ (al-mâddât al-ûlâ or hayûlâ). Moreover, ‘prime matter’ along with ‘bodily form’ constitutes a ‘matter’ for receiving ‘specific forms,’ and is called ‘second matter’ (al-mâddât al-tsâniyah).

الفصل الخامس في إثبات الصور النوعية

الأجسام الموجودة في الخارج تختلف اختلافا بينا من حيث الأفعال والآثار ، وهذه الأفعال لها مبدأ جوهري لا محالة ، وليس هو المادة الأولى ، لأن شأنها القبول والانفعال دون الفعل ، ولا الجسمية المشتركة ، لأنها واحدة مشتركة وهذه الأفعال كثيرة مختلفة ، فلها مباد مختلفة ، ولو كانت هذه المبادئ أعراضا مختلفة وجب انتهاؤها إلى جواهر مختلفة ، وليست هي الجسمية ، لما سمعت من اشتراكها بين الجميع ، فهي جواهر منوعة تتنوع بها الأجسام ، تسمى : ” الصور النوعية ” .

تتمة :

أول ما تتنوع الجواهر المادية – بعد الجسمية المشتركة – إنما هو بالصور النوعية التي تتكون بها العناصر ، ثم العناصر مواد لصور أخرى تلحق بها ، وكان القدماء من علماء الطبيعة يعدون العناصر أربعا ، وأخذ الإلهيون ذلك أصلا موضوعا ، وقد أنهاها الباحثون أخيرا إلى ما يقرب من مائة وبضع عنصر .

6.5. SPECIFIC FORMS

The bodies existing in the external world differ manifestly from one another in respect of their properties and actions. These actions must inevitably originate in some substance that cannot be prime matter, for its main feature is receptivity and affection, not action. Neither can it be their common bodiness, for it is a feature in which they share while the actions are multiple and various. Hence they must originate in different sources. If these sources were different accidents, they would yield different substances, and, as said, the cause of variance cannot be bodiness, which is common to them all. Hence it is the variety of substances that produces the variety of bodies. These substances are called ‘specific forms.’

The first variety of material substances, following their common bodiness, is the one produced by specific forms, which give rise to the elements. The elements then form ‘matters’ for other forms that unite with them. The ancients considered the elements to be four, and the metaphysicians took it as an extra-philosophical postulate. Recent research has brought the number of elements to more than a hundred.

الفصل السادس في تلازم المادة والصورة

المادة الأولى والصورة متلازمتان ، لا تنفك إحداهما عن الأخرى .

أما أن المادة لا تتعرى عن الصورة ، فلأن المادة الأولى حقيقتها أنها بالقوة من جميع الجهات ، فلا توجد إلا متقومة بفعلية جوهرية متحدة بها ، إذ لا تحقق لموجود إلا بفعلية ، والجوهر الفعلي الذي هذا شأنه هو الصورة ، فإذن المطلوب ثابت .

وأما أن الصورة التي من شأنها أن تقارن المادة لا تتجرد عنها ، فلأن شيئا من الأنواع التي ينالها الحس والتجربة لا يخلو من قوة التغير وإمكان الانفعال ، وهذا أصل موضوع مأخوذ من العلوم الطبيعية ، وما فيه القوة والإمكان لا يخلو من مادة ، فإذن المطلوب ثابت .

6.6. THE INSEPARABILITY OF MATTER AND FORM

Prime matter and form are inseparable from each other. Matter cannot be without form, because prime matter is potentiality in all aspects. It is not found but as subsisting by the means of the actuality of a substance united with it, for an existent is not actualized except with actuality, and the actual substance that possesses this feature is form, Q.E.D.

As to the forms that are inherently associated with matter, they cannot be dissociated from it, for none of the kinds accessible to perception and experience is without the potential for change and Affection - a postulate derived from the natural sciences - and that which possesses potentiality and potential for change is not devoid of matter.

Chapter Two: Holy Women in Holy Texts

One of the most important goals of comparative religion is not simply to detail historical similarities and differences in religious systems but to discover new ways of understanding them.1 To that end scholars often assign categories or topical classifications to specific cultural elements, for example, ritual, myth, or mysticism.2 Hagiography and gender also serve as comparative categories, although they pose a set of unique problems.

Employing hagiography as a comparative tool is difficult first and foremost because of the debate over how to define this genre, as well as use it as source material. Hagiography in its broadest sense is symbolic literature that presents the holy (Greek, hagios) to both popular and elite audiences in a variety of forms.3 Medieval hagiographies were read aloud, memorized, proliferated by scholars, and displayed in pictorial or symbolic compositions for the illiterate population.4 In written, oral, and visual form, hagiographies praised the virtues and damned the vices of heroic persons set forth as didactic exempla; yet these texts reviewed the miraculous happenings involving more than just holy people. Hagiography celebrated sacred locales, architectural structures, and holy objects: early Christian hagiographers, for example, popularized Jerusalem as a holy site, the Holy Sepulcher as a holy structure, and bits of the true cross as holy relics.5 Jerusalem was not unique in this respect; almost every Christian town publicized its local saint’s site. Shi`ite communities likewise celebrated the Imams’ lives by recounting their miracles and visiting their shrines.6 Holiness in one form or another permeated the learning and the physical landscape of medieval life for both Christians and Shi`ite Muslims.

As literature intended to depict cultural ideals symbolically, hagiography is a complex genre in terms of both substance and agenda. On the surface hagiography appears biographical and descriptive; it speaks of life and death, joy and suffering. However, it was not intended primarily to preserve and communicate a historical kernel of truth or recount an objective chronicle of events. Gregory of Tours opted to name his hagiographic collection “Life [Vita] of the Fathers” rather than “Lives [Vitae] of the Fathers.” Gregory explained that “there is a diversity of merits and virtues among [the saints], but the one life of the body sustains them all in this world.”7 In Gregory’s compendium the saints’ differences and distinctions disappear as he reveals the underlying holiness that unites them all.

Hagiography is thus fundamentally didactic: it edifies through exemplary displays of piety and holiness; it promulgates sacred narratives and then explains the moral and theological imperatives embedded in them; and it models proper modes of ritual and other cultic practices. Hagiographic discourse aims to resurrect and then reconstruct for its audience examples of holiness or ideal modes of being intended for pious imitation. With this functionalist definition of hagiography in mind, scholars should expect that any hagiographic tradition would be radically determined by the canon of values, beliefs, and authoritative texts particular to the cultural context from which it emerges. This certainly holds true for early Christian and Islamic hagiographic texts, which reflect their (sometimes) radically different ideals of the holy.

Hagiography also includes idealizations of masculine and feminine piety that modern readers might find distressingly misogynistic. Literate men mostly constructed these gender paradigms as very few texts by women exist. These male-authored texts provide the only substantive view of women (and expectations of women) in early Christian and Shi`ite religious communities. By using gender as a point of comparison, it becomes clear that theologians and hagiographers in both traditions limit holy women’s miraculous actions and proscribe holy women’s miraculous bodies to the domestic sphere.

Medieval and Modern Audiences: Christianity Late antique and early medieval Christian hagiographers transformed their saintly characters and sacred landscapes in accordance with Greco-

Roman and biblical formulas.8 Some of the most influential early Christian hagiographies sprang from Syria and Egypt during the fourth and fifth centuries.9 These texts applauded the efforts of holy men and women who surrendered mundane existence for a higher, angelic life. The era of Christian martyrs had all but ended as Roman emperors legalized Christianity throughout the empire. As martyrs became increasingly unnecessary, ascetics supplied another model of Christian heroism: they mortified their bodies and sought to transcend the problems of the flesh as they struggled against their spiritual enemy, Satan, and his demonic forces.10

Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) constructed one of the most important Christian hagiographies in his Life of Anthony, an Egyptian recluse who haunted nearby deserts and caves.11 Athanasius describes a vicarious martyr, guarding the periphery of human existence against evil while struggling against his interior lusts and desires. In the end Anthony provides his audience with a new Christ figure who prays in the desert, casts out demons, heals the sick, and raises the dead.12 Anthony’s hagiographer produces a hero-hermit much like the biblical Elijah, reconstructed in the fourth century, intended to model the miracles and grace of Christ. Indeed, one of the greatest signs of sanctity was imitatio Christi (the imitation of Christ) wherein holy men and women performed Christ’s miracles after symbolically sharing in his suffering by means of ascetic feats.

As Christianity expanded from the Syrian and Greek East to the Gallo-Roman/Latin West, hagiographers encountered a new audience.13 It proved difficult if not impossible to transform urban Gaul into a physical wasteland of caves and demon-inhabited deserts. Western hagiographers thus created a spiritual desert and challenged the Roman elite and Mediterranean nobility to convert to Christianity and to live as Christ through renunciation of wealth and status. Women proved particularly important in this newly imagined desert as the viable patrons of the church who gladly distributed their Roman patrimony among ecclesiastical authorities.14 Hagiographers in Gaul expressed innovative ideals of holiness for a new constituency of sinners.

The fourth-century author Sulpicius Severus created perhaps the most influential hagiography in early medieval Gaul. His Life of Martin of Tours transformed a Roman soldier known for his valor into an Old Testament prophet, traveling and preaching throughout Gaul, who only reluctantly accepted the bishop’s office of Tours.15 Martin’s life became the hallmark of Western hagiography: the loyal Roman citizen forsakes his mundane wealth to serve his heavenly king. Martin, in typical fashion, healed the sick, exorcised the demon possessed, and practiced profound charity and kindness. At the same time, he assumed the bishop’s mantle and dutifully acknowledged the church’s authority. The hagiographer modified his wandering holy man at first reminiscent of the eastern Anthony into a stable bishop ever mindful of his parish and his flock. A pious Christian but also a good Roman, Martin embodied the ideals of hierarchy and structure.16

Merovingian hagiographers inherited the model of Martin and effectively blended their new bishops with this very Roman ideal: Frankish clergy promoted order and hierarchy within both church and state. Merovingian hagiographers were aware also of the saint cults that proliferated throughout Gaul as they addressed popular audiences who increasingly committed themselves to local saints, both living and dead. Merovingian hagiography thus served a pastoral purpose, aimed directly at teaching and educating a general constituency about the developing protocols for the veneration of saints.

Linguists in particular first recognized the pastoral function of Merovingian texts by their distinctive Latin vocabulary: the language is both colloquial and active.17 Merovingian hagiographers focused on how to venerate local holy figures and what miraculous results might be expected. They provided models instructing pious petitioners to gather remnants from the cells of saints such as ash, candle wax, or oil; through these contact relics, miraculous healing followed and the saints’ fame spread.18 These instructive texts compare dramatically with the later Carolingian hagiographies intended for monastic use; Carolingian Latin indicates more interior action such as meditation and prayer.19 In contrast, Merovingian hagiography speaks to a nonmonastic audience, defining innovative notions of holiness associated with the spread of saint veneration.

There is considerable disagreement among modern scholars of medieval Christianity as to what to do with hagiography as a source. European intellectuals generally scoffed at Christian hagiographic sources during the Enlightenment period. Scholars of the ancient world such as David Hume and Edward Gibbon dismissed hagiography as an irrational literature confined to the lower classes that recounted fanciful miracle stories and fantastic displays of a misnamed polytheism.20 Beginning only in the 1930s, scholars and theologians began to mine hagiography for details about life, society, and intellectual history. Hippolyte Delehaye and the Bollandists, a group of Jesuit priests dedicated to recovering and categorizing hagiographies, led this movement, although much of their work still attempted to separate the factual from the spurious, the believable from the unbelievable.21

During the past two decades, hagiologers have generally disregarded the fact or fiction debate and gleaned information about cultural milieus and gender roles from holy texts.22 Most scholars now agree that hagiography was not just a literature intended for a lay, mostly illiterate population; instead, wealthy and poor audiences alike shared a hagiographic corpus that greatly defined their experiences. This literature provided the system of cultural symbols that united western Christendom.

Medieval and Modern Audiences: Islam

Early Shi`ite hagiography reveals an equally dynamic symbolic system at least during the late eighth and ninth century. Shi`ite notions of power and authority increasingly considered `Ali and Fatima’s descendants Imams responsible for their community’s spiritual guidance. Hagiographies explained the Imams’ miraculous births, their infallible lives, and their sublime wisdom. These models of holiness inspired ritual activities surrounding the Imams’ tombs and shrines. Shi`ite hagiographers, for example, encouraged devotees to visit holy places on pilgrimages (ziyara).23 Most Shi`ites turned their attention to the shrine of Husayn, `Ali and Fatima’s son who died a martyr’s death at Karbala. Husayn’s body was interred at Karbala, but tradition also placed his head at Karbala, Damascus, Najaf, and Cairo.24 All these locales remain important pilgrimage sites where Shi`ites venerate their third Imam.

Locating the mainstream notion of sanctity is more difficult in Islam than in early Christianity. Many Muslim theologians avoid the elevated designation of sainthood, stressing instead that every individual maintains direct access to Allah, thus disallowing the need for a saintly intercessor.25 Qur’an 39.44 declares, “To Allah belongs exclusively the right to grant intercession. To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: in the end, it is to Him that you shall be brought back.” Thus in Islam no centralized clergy propagates and authorizes a genre of literature akin to Christianity’s saints’ lives. Saintly canonization is almost completely within the province of hagiographers and reader response to their products (both oral and written).

Medieval Muslims nonetheless maintained a definite notion of holiness (wilaya) and disseminated those sacred ideals through their own, distinct forms of hagiography. These sacred collections included biographies of the Prophet, battlefield accounts, or, for Shi`ites, descriptions of the Imams and their miraculous powers. The earliest known biography of the Prophet, for example, resembled early Christian tales of desert saints.26 Bedouin tribes on the edges of the Arabian peninsula certainly were familiar with Christian veneration of desert holy men and their miracles: historical records indicate that they shared the same deserts and caves as Christian hermits, witnessed their fame, and heard about their miraculous powers. The Prophet’s biographer cast him as a functioning holy man to his community: Muhammad healed the sick, provided righteous judgments, and multiplied food.27 Many of the Prophet’s friends and family described in the biographical materials also served as pious models intended for emulation and edification.

While Muslim hagiography might vary in intent and audience - for example, some collections, qisas al-anbiya, or “Tales of the Prophets,” featured miracle stories of the same prophets shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims - most of it has the same format. Accounts of holiness are usually recorded as hadith, one of two genres of sacred texts in Islam, the other being the Qur’an.

Like Christianity, Islam is a religion of the book and reveres a sacred and revealed scripture. The Qur’an confers the direct revelation of Allah through his final messenger, Muhammad. The holy text describes humanity’s virtues and vices, directs the actions of the community (umma), and offers a glimpse of an impending apocalypse.28 It also presents a series of prophets and holy men and women for pious Muslims to imitate.29

The hadith collections advance their own notions of holiness. Hadith (used here as a collective noun; the proper plural is ahadith) are traditions that relate back to the Prophet Muhammad’s own lifetime, describing his actions and utterances as well as those of his friends, family, and other contemporaries.30 The hadith literature functions as hagiography when read as a means of resurrecting a pristine past and endowing Muslims with models of holiness and virtue. Read in this way, hadith literature allows scholars and others to eavesdrop on the earliest Muslim community: the Prophet’s lifestyle and the faithfulness of his friends and family (and the perfidy of his enemies), and directives and patterns outside the Qur’anic framework. Taken together the Qur’an and hadith (the “trodden path,” or sunna), provide models for emulation; scholarly exegesis (tafsir) then attempts to explain and contextualize the sunna so that pious Muslims may follow them.

Islamicists approach hadith literature as carefully as medievalists approach Christian hagiography, and this is not a recent methodological problem. Medieval Muslims themselves devoted an entire science to proving or disproving hadith authenticity. To do this they focused most strenuously on the chain of transmitters, or isnad. The hadith consists of two parts: the tradition itself (matn) and a detailed list of individuals who observed or transmitted the Prophet’s advice or actions (isnad). Scholars and linguists identified the transmitters, reconciled their death dates with times of transmission, and located the hadith in an elaborate spectrum of categories ranging from sound (sahih) to weak (da`if), from precious (`aziz) to forged (mawdu`).

Medieval hadith collections contributed more than personal models of piety and words of wisdom from the Prophet. The central role of hadith was to lay the foundation of Islamic law: Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) carefully reasoned what was obligatory (fard), recommended (mandub), neutral (mubah), reprehensible (makruh), and forbidden (haram). By the late ninth and early tenth century, Islamic scholars generally accepted as canonical the six rigorously scrutinized compendia composed by separate hadith critics: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Da’ud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisa’i, and Ibn Hanbal. Other scholars compiled their own hadith collections, but these six became the pillars of Sunni piety and law.

Shi`ite Muslims, on the other hand, esteem additional hadith collections as authoritative.31 The Shi`ites value above all the traditions that relate back to the Prophet’s family. For Twelver Shi`ites, this includes the twelve Imams, among them `Ali himself. Since the Shi`a regarded `Ali and the Imams as Muhammad’s rightful successors, they gathered accounts of the Imams’ deeds and sayings for both political and spiritual guidance.32

Shi`ites maintain that `Ali and Fatima’s descendants, beginning with their sons Hasan and Husayn, became the sources of true spiritual sustenance to the Islamic community. According to one tradition, Husayn (quoted by Ja`far al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam) proclaimed:

“God created His servants solely that they might know Him, for when they know Him they worship Him and thus free themselves from the worship of anything that is not Him.” Someone then asked: “What is knowledge of God?” “It is, for the people of each age, knowledge of the Imam to whom they owe obeisance.” 33

For Shi`ites recognition of and dependence on the Imams equaled knowledge of God himself. It was irrelevant if the ruling Umayyad or `Abbasid dynasty acknowledged the Imams as the community’s rightful leaders. Allah required the Shi`a itself to identify the Imam and maintain his sublime teachings through its collective memories and records.

Many Shi`ite hadith collections function, therefore, as a form of political and spiritual rhetoric explaining the cosmological link between the Prophet’s beloved family and the community.34 These hadith demonstrate the Shi`a’s sublime authority in heaven even if it is not always recognized on earth.35 They also offer adoptive membership into the ahl al-bayt for those who recognize the Imam’s authority. The hadith function as hagiography because they outline a mode of holiness (acceptance into the family), reveal moral and theological imperatives (allegiance to the family), and supply holy models to imitate (the prophets, Imams, and early community members). Like Merovingian hagiography, hadith reconstruct a sacred past in their own dynamically changing context to promote a new identity, namely, the identification of the Imams and an evolving Shi`ism as it distinguished itself from Sunni Islam.

As in Christian hagiography, there exist equally contentious debates about how to use hadith as hagiography. Many Muslims view the Prophet Muhammad with esteem and adoration and therefore strive to achieve a real view of him and his community. Hadith accepted as authentic are windows into that reality and afford a genuine depiction of the Prophet. Many Muslim scholars maintain the historicity of hadith transmission and argue that the earliest community assured hadith veracity. These scholars admit that hadith evolved from an oral to a written genre, but they also insist that skilled, literate scholars held the transmissions to high standards of authentication.36

The question of veracity has plagued non-Muslim and secular scholars as well. Since the early twentieth century some Islamicists have recognized that formally written hadith compilations only circulated in the late eighth century. They have argued that these hadith reveal more about eighth-century life than about Muhammad’s own community.37 This approach fundamentally questions the hadith’s reliability as a historical source for the earliest Islamic period; and, for Muslims, this critique challenges hadith as an authoritative source of sublime direction and models of piety. Other Islamicists have forged a middle ground: hadith reflect the Prophet’s own lifetime, but the standardized method of transmission and compilation must be dated much later. According to this argument, it remains impossible to demonstrate absolutely the hadith’s historicity.38

I avoid the question of hadith veracity altogether; instead of expecting the hadith to betray an objective historical reality, I see them as revealing important cultural symbols and notions of holiness relevant to their medieval audiences.39 If hadith were deemed important enough to copy, memorize, and scrutinize, then they must disclose valuable clues about the community that treasured them. Even the more obscure, “weak” hadith that “sound” compendia often fail to include are important; they help to recapture the evolutionary nature of Muslim identity by revealing the developing hagiographic tradition. As in Christianity, theology and religious identity evolved over the centuries as leaders, theologians, and scholars formulated and answered questions important for their nascent communities. Even those hadith that were later rejected or considered spurious by Shi`ite scholars reflect the stages of that evolutionary process.

Classical Shi`ite sources are especially difficult to date and ascribe to specific compilers. Although the hadith format provides lists of transmitters, the editors themselves sometimes evade designation. Some extant compendia do give the names of editor and author, such as the tenth-century Kitab al-Irshad (Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams) by Shaykh al-Mufid. Other hadith survive only in later compilations such as that of the seventeenth - century Safavid scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-anwar (Sea of Lights). Although this collection is rather late, it is indispensable to scholars of Shi`ite Islam.

With the help of scholars such as al-Majlisi, the seventeenth-century Safavids of Persia launched a prolific religious campaign against Sunni and Sufi piety.40 Al-Majlisi’s job as a member of the `ulama´ was to collect and distribute hadith that illustrated Shi`ite identity and the holy family’s election since before created time. He intended his collections to serve as a type of propaganda, popularizing a legalistic form of Twelver Shi`ism while disavowing Sunnism and some Sufi orders. He was the first scholar to translate a large number of hadith collections, theologies, and histories into Persian for greater availability to a general audience.

Al-Majlisi’s collection is important for another reason: it includes both the widely accepted, sound hadith and the potentially spurious (or weak) traditions. For example, al-Majlisi repeated many of the earliest Shi`ite sources from al-Kulayni and Ibn Babawayh, renowned tenth-century Shi`ite scholars,41 some of which are extant only through his encyclopedic collection. But he also chose hadith that were not included in ordinary compilations of Shi`ite texts. Because of this broad inclusiveness, some scholars doubt its historical veracity. (One colleague referred to the Bihar al-anwar as the “great trash heap of Shi`ite traditions.”)42 Because al-Majlisi cast such a wide net in collecting his hadith, he provides scholars with an opportunity to view Shi`ism as it developed and blossomed throughout the classical and medieval periods.

Al-Majlisi quite naturally focused on the Prophet’s family and particularly his daughter Fatima to prove Shi`ite Islam’s superiority over Sunnism and Sufi sm. The traditions range from those of the most mystical bent (which define the holy family in terms of pure light with absolute knowledge)43 to those of more practical application (which define the twelfth Imam as the source of all spiritual authority).

This grand collection of hadith also certainly added authority to al-Majlisi’s own position. According to Twelver doctrine, the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, did not die but went into a sublime hiding, or occultation. During this period of hiddenness, the Shi`ite community relies on the scholars to discern the Imam’s justice. Al-Majlisi was just such a scholar who implicitly designated himself as one of the twelfth Imam’s spokesmen until the final, apocalyptic return. Through his hadith compilations, al-Majlisi justified his own political station while constructing a hagiographic edifice praising the holy family’s spiritual status.44

Sources and Gender

As Merovingian Christians and Shi`ite Muslims sought to make sense of their world and to delineate their place in it, they devised and articulated dynamic notions of holiness. For the people of Gaul, the changes in their world involved the political transition from late Roman to Merovingian rule and the spiritual acculturation to a new, unifying Christendom. Shi`ite communities, in many cases bereft of political ascendancy because of a Sunni majority (except for a brief interim in the mid-tenth century), articulated their unique cosmology and loyalties to the Imam and the holy family. In both these cases, discussions of sanctity in hagiographic sources betray both theological and political agendas. On closer examination it becomes clear that gender expectations and the introduction of feminine ideals signaled radical changes in society as well. Both Christian and Muslim cultures supported and preserved the literary products of a male elite, which constructed paradigms of community and holiness via women, in particular Mary and Fatima.

Most extant Christian texts from late antiquity originate from the ecclesiastical sphere. Theologians such as Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome charted the twists and turns Christian theology would take in terms of asceticism, ideals of marriage, the Trinitarian debate, and the path of Christ’s church (ecclesia).45 Late antique authors both reflected and refuted beliefs about the Virgin Mary popularized by anonymous, apocryphal texts. They absorbed, for example, the precept of Mary’s perpetual virginity (both before, during, and after Christ’s birth), yet some cautioned against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, or birth free from sin.46 Marian theology, and Christian theology in general, was only slowly evolving.

The early Middle Ages yield a wider variety of sources, although most still come from the ecclesiastical sphere: church councils left records of decisions and debate; bishops wrote histories of their bishoprics (which were more like family trees); priests and popes wrote hagiographies;47 and holy men crafted monastic rules for female religious to follow. One of the most prolific authors of Merovingian Gaul was Gregory of Tours; he provided a veritable who’s who among Merovingian bishops in his Ten Books of History and numerous hagiographies of male and female saints.48 In early Christian hagiography, few texts written by women survive, and only one of those has a self-identified female author (Baudonivia, who wrote her saint’s life only to complement an earlier redaction by a man, Fortunatus).49 Scholars suspect other works might be written by women, especially nuns who had firsthand knowledge of their saint-abbesses.50 In most cases male clergy wrote about women.

A similar case arises in classical Islam. Women may have lent considerable time, faith, and even wealth to their respective traditions, but they remained largely silent in the sources. Muslim women’s social expectations depended largely on the geographic locale and ruling elite; yet in most cases women played a sizable role in the establishment of schools and the transmission of knowledge. Like female patrons of Christianity, wealthy wives and mothers commissioned schools and donated land for educational institutions, and with those same sources of wealth, many women acquired personal tutors and received competitive educations.51 Also as with Christianity, tradition largely circumscribed women’s practical role in the public classroom as teachers or students; modes of formal education, including Qur’anic studies, remained confined to males.52 Any formal training or introduction to Islamic jurisprudence and hadith studies also remained a mostly masculine domain.

Although Muslim scholars restricted women from formal educations, they did not release them from the burden of learning and studying the hadith and models of holiness. Theoretically, women bore the same responsibility as men to understand and follow Islamic teaching. Hadith scholars even recognized several women of the early community as worthy transmitters. Many of these women, such as `A’isha, the Prophet’s youngest wife, lived with Muhammad and had intimate dealings with him. These women like none other could transmit information about the Prophet’s actions, words, and directives because of their association in the domestic sphere.53 Women’s official roles largely ended in the domestic sphere, however; while many women acted as hadith transmitters, there are no extant compilations by female scholars and no information about them. Thus our medieval sources are once again written by men about women.

In these male-authored medieval texts about women, gender, and holiness, hagiographers and theologians transformed Mary and Fatima into champions for their pious agenda. Mary marked the boundaries between Christianity and heresy; Fatima led her family to paradise and consigned her enemies to hell. Both communities fashioned a view of piety, politics, and family by manipulating traditional gender roles while still assigning their heroines to the domestic sphere as miraculous mothers and virgins. Today’s readers might be tempted to dismiss much of the hagiographers’ works as too proscriptive if not blatantly misogynistic, but closer examination reveals a more complex agenda.

Chapter Two: Holy Women in Holy Texts

One of the most important goals of comparative religion is not simply to detail historical similarities and differences in religious systems but to discover new ways of understanding them.1 To that end scholars often assign categories or topical classifications to specific cultural elements, for example, ritual, myth, or mysticism.2 Hagiography and gender also serve as comparative categories, although they pose a set of unique problems.

Employing hagiography as a comparative tool is difficult first and foremost because of the debate over how to define this genre, as well as use it as source material. Hagiography in its broadest sense is symbolic literature that presents the holy (Greek, hagios) to both popular and elite audiences in a variety of forms.3 Medieval hagiographies were read aloud, memorized, proliferated by scholars, and displayed in pictorial or symbolic compositions for the illiterate population.4 In written, oral, and visual form, hagiographies praised the virtues and damned the vices of heroic persons set forth as didactic exempla; yet these texts reviewed the miraculous happenings involving more than just holy people. Hagiography celebrated sacred locales, architectural structures, and holy objects: early Christian hagiographers, for example, popularized Jerusalem as a holy site, the Holy Sepulcher as a holy structure, and bits of the true cross as holy relics.5 Jerusalem was not unique in this respect; almost every Christian town publicized its local saint’s site. Shi`ite communities likewise celebrated the Imams’ lives by recounting their miracles and visiting their shrines.6 Holiness in one form or another permeated the learning and the physical landscape of medieval life for both Christians and Shi`ite Muslims.

As literature intended to depict cultural ideals symbolically, hagiography is a complex genre in terms of both substance and agenda. On the surface hagiography appears biographical and descriptive; it speaks of life and death, joy and suffering. However, it was not intended primarily to preserve and communicate a historical kernel of truth or recount an objective chronicle of events. Gregory of Tours opted to name his hagiographic collection “Life [Vita] of the Fathers” rather than “Lives [Vitae] of the Fathers.” Gregory explained that “there is a diversity of merits and virtues among [the saints], but the one life of the body sustains them all in this world.”7 In Gregory’s compendium the saints’ differences and distinctions disappear as he reveals the underlying holiness that unites them all.

Hagiography is thus fundamentally didactic: it edifies through exemplary displays of piety and holiness; it promulgates sacred narratives and then explains the moral and theological imperatives embedded in them; and it models proper modes of ritual and other cultic practices. Hagiographic discourse aims to resurrect and then reconstruct for its audience examples of holiness or ideal modes of being intended for pious imitation. With this functionalist definition of hagiography in mind, scholars should expect that any hagiographic tradition would be radically determined by the canon of values, beliefs, and authoritative texts particular to the cultural context from which it emerges. This certainly holds true for early Christian and Islamic hagiographic texts, which reflect their (sometimes) radically different ideals of the holy.

Hagiography also includes idealizations of masculine and feminine piety that modern readers might find distressingly misogynistic. Literate men mostly constructed these gender paradigms as very few texts by women exist. These male-authored texts provide the only substantive view of women (and expectations of women) in early Christian and Shi`ite religious communities. By using gender as a point of comparison, it becomes clear that theologians and hagiographers in both traditions limit holy women’s miraculous actions and proscribe holy women’s miraculous bodies to the domestic sphere.

Medieval and Modern Audiences: Christianity Late antique and early medieval Christian hagiographers transformed their saintly characters and sacred landscapes in accordance with Greco-

Roman and biblical formulas.8 Some of the most influential early Christian hagiographies sprang from Syria and Egypt during the fourth and fifth centuries.9 These texts applauded the efforts of holy men and women who surrendered mundane existence for a higher, angelic life. The era of Christian martyrs had all but ended as Roman emperors legalized Christianity throughout the empire. As martyrs became increasingly unnecessary, ascetics supplied another model of Christian heroism: they mortified their bodies and sought to transcend the problems of the flesh as they struggled against their spiritual enemy, Satan, and his demonic forces.10

Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) constructed one of the most important Christian hagiographies in his Life of Anthony, an Egyptian recluse who haunted nearby deserts and caves.11 Athanasius describes a vicarious martyr, guarding the periphery of human existence against evil while struggling against his interior lusts and desires. In the end Anthony provides his audience with a new Christ figure who prays in the desert, casts out demons, heals the sick, and raises the dead.12 Anthony’s hagiographer produces a hero-hermit much like the biblical Elijah, reconstructed in the fourth century, intended to model the miracles and grace of Christ. Indeed, one of the greatest signs of sanctity was imitatio Christi (the imitation of Christ) wherein holy men and women performed Christ’s miracles after symbolically sharing in his suffering by means of ascetic feats.

As Christianity expanded from the Syrian and Greek East to the Gallo-Roman/Latin West, hagiographers encountered a new audience.13 It proved difficult if not impossible to transform urban Gaul into a physical wasteland of caves and demon-inhabited deserts. Western hagiographers thus created a spiritual desert and challenged the Roman elite and Mediterranean nobility to convert to Christianity and to live as Christ through renunciation of wealth and status. Women proved particularly important in this newly imagined desert as the viable patrons of the church who gladly distributed their Roman patrimony among ecclesiastical authorities.14 Hagiographers in Gaul expressed innovative ideals of holiness for a new constituency of sinners.

The fourth-century author Sulpicius Severus created perhaps the most influential hagiography in early medieval Gaul. His Life of Martin of Tours transformed a Roman soldier known for his valor into an Old Testament prophet, traveling and preaching throughout Gaul, who only reluctantly accepted the bishop’s office of Tours.15 Martin’s life became the hallmark of Western hagiography: the loyal Roman citizen forsakes his mundane wealth to serve his heavenly king. Martin, in typical fashion, healed the sick, exorcised the demon possessed, and practiced profound charity and kindness. At the same time, he assumed the bishop’s mantle and dutifully acknowledged the church’s authority. The hagiographer modified his wandering holy man at first reminiscent of the eastern Anthony into a stable bishop ever mindful of his parish and his flock. A pious Christian but also a good Roman, Martin embodied the ideals of hierarchy and structure.16

Merovingian hagiographers inherited the model of Martin and effectively blended their new bishops with this very Roman ideal: Frankish clergy promoted order and hierarchy within both church and state. Merovingian hagiographers were aware also of the saint cults that proliferated throughout Gaul as they addressed popular audiences who increasingly committed themselves to local saints, both living and dead. Merovingian hagiography thus served a pastoral purpose, aimed directly at teaching and educating a general constituency about the developing protocols for the veneration of saints.

Linguists in particular first recognized the pastoral function of Merovingian texts by their distinctive Latin vocabulary: the language is both colloquial and active.17 Merovingian hagiographers focused on how to venerate local holy figures and what miraculous results might be expected. They provided models instructing pious petitioners to gather remnants from the cells of saints such as ash, candle wax, or oil; through these contact relics, miraculous healing followed and the saints’ fame spread.18 These instructive texts compare dramatically with the later Carolingian hagiographies intended for monastic use; Carolingian Latin indicates more interior action such as meditation and prayer.19 In contrast, Merovingian hagiography speaks to a nonmonastic audience, defining innovative notions of holiness associated with the spread of saint veneration.

There is considerable disagreement among modern scholars of medieval Christianity as to what to do with hagiography as a source. European intellectuals generally scoffed at Christian hagiographic sources during the Enlightenment period. Scholars of the ancient world such as David Hume and Edward Gibbon dismissed hagiography as an irrational literature confined to the lower classes that recounted fanciful miracle stories and fantastic displays of a misnamed polytheism.20 Beginning only in the 1930s, scholars and theologians began to mine hagiography for details about life, society, and intellectual history. Hippolyte Delehaye and the Bollandists, a group of Jesuit priests dedicated to recovering and categorizing hagiographies, led this movement, although much of their work still attempted to separate the factual from the spurious, the believable from the unbelievable.21

During the past two decades, hagiologers have generally disregarded the fact or fiction debate and gleaned information about cultural milieus and gender roles from holy texts.22 Most scholars now agree that hagiography was not just a literature intended for a lay, mostly illiterate population; instead, wealthy and poor audiences alike shared a hagiographic corpus that greatly defined their experiences. This literature provided the system of cultural symbols that united western Christendom.

Medieval and Modern Audiences: Islam

Early Shi`ite hagiography reveals an equally dynamic symbolic system at least during the late eighth and ninth century. Shi`ite notions of power and authority increasingly considered `Ali and Fatima’s descendants Imams responsible for their community’s spiritual guidance. Hagiographies explained the Imams’ miraculous births, their infallible lives, and their sublime wisdom. These models of holiness inspired ritual activities surrounding the Imams’ tombs and shrines. Shi`ite hagiographers, for example, encouraged devotees to visit holy places on pilgrimages (ziyara).23 Most Shi`ites turned their attention to the shrine of Husayn, `Ali and Fatima’s son who died a martyr’s death at Karbala. Husayn’s body was interred at Karbala, but tradition also placed his head at Karbala, Damascus, Najaf, and Cairo.24 All these locales remain important pilgrimage sites where Shi`ites venerate their third Imam.

Locating the mainstream notion of sanctity is more difficult in Islam than in early Christianity. Many Muslim theologians avoid the elevated designation of sainthood, stressing instead that every individual maintains direct access to Allah, thus disallowing the need for a saintly intercessor.25 Qur’an 39.44 declares, “To Allah belongs exclusively the right to grant intercession. To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: in the end, it is to Him that you shall be brought back.” Thus in Islam no centralized clergy propagates and authorizes a genre of literature akin to Christianity’s saints’ lives. Saintly canonization is almost completely within the province of hagiographers and reader response to their products (both oral and written).

Medieval Muslims nonetheless maintained a definite notion of holiness (wilaya) and disseminated those sacred ideals through their own, distinct forms of hagiography. These sacred collections included biographies of the Prophet, battlefield accounts, or, for Shi`ites, descriptions of the Imams and their miraculous powers. The earliest known biography of the Prophet, for example, resembled early Christian tales of desert saints.26 Bedouin tribes on the edges of the Arabian peninsula certainly were familiar with Christian veneration of desert holy men and their miracles: historical records indicate that they shared the same deserts and caves as Christian hermits, witnessed their fame, and heard about their miraculous powers. The Prophet’s biographer cast him as a functioning holy man to his community: Muhammad healed the sick, provided righteous judgments, and multiplied food.27 Many of the Prophet’s friends and family described in the biographical materials also served as pious models intended for emulation and edification.

While Muslim hagiography might vary in intent and audience - for example, some collections, qisas al-anbiya, or “Tales of the Prophets,” featured miracle stories of the same prophets shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims - most of it has the same format. Accounts of holiness are usually recorded as hadith, one of two genres of sacred texts in Islam, the other being the Qur’an.

Like Christianity, Islam is a religion of the book and reveres a sacred and revealed scripture. The Qur’an confers the direct revelation of Allah through his final messenger, Muhammad. The holy text describes humanity’s virtues and vices, directs the actions of the community (umma), and offers a glimpse of an impending apocalypse.28 It also presents a series of prophets and holy men and women for pious Muslims to imitate.29

The hadith collections advance their own notions of holiness. Hadith (used here as a collective noun; the proper plural is ahadith) are traditions that relate back to the Prophet Muhammad’s own lifetime, describing his actions and utterances as well as those of his friends, family, and other contemporaries.30 The hadith literature functions as hagiography when read as a means of resurrecting a pristine past and endowing Muslims with models of holiness and virtue. Read in this way, hadith literature allows scholars and others to eavesdrop on the earliest Muslim community: the Prophet’s lifestyle and the faithfulness of his friends and family (and the perfidy of his enemies), and directives and patterns outside the Qur’anic framework. Taken together the Qur’an and hadith (the “trodden path,” or sunna), provide models for emulation; scholarly exegesis (tafsir) then attempts to explain and contextualize the sunna so that pious Muslims may follow them.

Islamicists approach hadith literature as carefully as medievalists approach Christian hagiography, and this is not a recent methodological problem. Medieval Muslims themselves devoted an entire science to proving or disproving hadith authenticity. To do this they focused most strenuously on the chain of transmitters, or isnad. The hadith consists of two parts: the tradition itself (matn) and a detailed list of individuals who observed or transmitted the Prophet’s advice or actions (isnad). Scholars and linguists identified the transmitters, reconciled their death dates with times of transmission, and located the hadith in an elaborate spectrum of categories ranging from sound (sahih) to weak (da`if), from precious (`aziz) to forged (mawdu`).

Medieval hadith collections contributed more than personal models of piety and words of wisdom from the Prophet. The central role of hadith was to lay the foundation of Islamic law: Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) carefully reasoned what was obligatory (fard), recommended (mandub), neutral (mubah), reprehensible (makruh), and forbidden (haram). By the late ninth and early tenth century, Islamic scholars generally accepted as canonical the six rigorously scrutinized compendia composed by separate hadith critics: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Da’ud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisa’i, and Ibn Hanbal. Other scholars compiled their own hadith collections, but these six became the pillars of Sunni piety and law.

Shi`ite Muslims, on the other hand, esteem additional hadith collections as authoritative.31 The Shi`ites value above all the traditions that relate back to the Prophet’s family. For Twelver Shi`ites, this includes the twelve Imams, among them `Ali himself. Since the Shi`a regarded `Ali and the Imams as Muhammad’s rightful successors, they gathered accounts of the Imams’ deeds and sayings for both political and spiritual guidance.32

Shi`ites maintain that `Ali and Fatima’s descendants, beginning with their sons Hasan and Husayn, became the sources of true spiritual sustenance to the Islamic community. According to one tradition, Husayn (quoted by Ja`far al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam) proclaimed:

“God created His servants solely that they might know Him, for when they know Him they worship Him and thus free themselves from the worship of anything that is not Him.” Someone then asked: “What is knowledge of God?” “It is, for the people of each age, knowledge of the Imam to whom they owe obeisance.” 33

For Shi`ites recognition of and dependence on the Imams equaled knowledge of God himself. It was irrelevant if the ruling Umayyad or `Abbasid dynasty acknowledged the Imams as the community’s rightful leaders. Allah required the Shi`a itself to identify the Imam and maintain his sublime teachings through its collective memories and records.

Many Shi`ite hadith collections function, therefore, as a form of political and spiritual rhetoric explaining the cosmological link between the Prophet’s beloved family and the community.34 These hadith demonstrate the Shi`a’s sublime authority in heaven even if it is not always recognized on earth.35 They also offer adoptive membership into the ahl al-bayt for those who recognize the Imam’s authority. The hadith function as hagiography because they outline a mode of holiness (acceptance into the family), reveal moral and theological imperatives (allegiance to the family), and supply holy models to imitate (the prophets, Imams, and early community members). Like Merovingian hagiography, hadith reconstruct a sacred past in their own dynamically changing context to promote a new identity, namely, the identification of the Imams and an evolving Shi`ism as it distinguished itself from Sunni Islam.

As in Christian hagiography, there exist equally contentious debates about how to use hadith as hagiography. Many Muslims view the Prophet Muhammad with esteem and adoration and therefore strive to achieve a real view of him and his community. Hadith accepted as authentic are windows into that reality and afford a genuine depiction of the Prophet. Many Muslim scholars maintain the historicity of hadith transmission and argue that the earliest community assured hadith veracity. These scholars admit that hadith evolved from an oral to a written genre, but they also insist that skilled, literate scholars held the transmissions to high standards of authentication.36

The question of veracity has plagued non-Muslim and secular scholars as well. Since the early twentieth century some Islamicists have recognized that formally written hadith compilations only circulated in the late eighth century. They have argued that these hadith reveal more about eighth-century life than about Muhammad’s own community.37 This approach fundamentally questions the hadith’s reliability as a historical source for the earliest Islamic period; and, for Muslims, this critique challenges hadith as an authoritative source of sublime direction and models of piety. Other Islamicists have forged a middle ground: hadith reflect the Prophet’s own lifetime, but the standardized method of transmission and compilation must be dated much later. According to this argument, it remains impossible to demonstrate absolutely the hadith’s historicity.38

I avoid the question of hadith veracity altogether; instead of expecting the hadith to betray an objective historical reality, I see them as revealing important cultural symbols and notions of holiness relevant to their medieval audiences.39 If hadith were deemed important enough to copy, memorize, and scrutinize, then they must disclose valuable clues about the community that treasured them. Even the more obscure, “weak” hadith that “sound” compendia often fail to include are important; they help to recapture the evolutionary nature of Muslim identity by revealing the developing hagiographic tradition. As in Christianity, theology and religious identity evolved over the centuries as leaders, theologians, and scholars formulated and answered questions important for their nascent communities. Even those hadith that were later rejected or considered spurious by Shi`ite scholars reflect the stages of that evolutionary process.

Classical Shi`ite sources are especially difficult to date and ascribe to specific compilers. Although the hadith format provides lists of transmitters, the editors themselves sometimes evade designation. Some extant compendia do give the names of editor and author, such as the tenth-century Kitab al-Irshad (Book of Guidance into the Lives of the Twelve Imams) by Shaykh al-Mufid. Other hadith survive only in later compilations such as that of the seventeenth - century Safavid scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-anwar (Sea of Lights). Although this collection is rather late, it is indispensable to scholars of Shi`ite Islam.

With the help of scholars such as al-Majlisi, the seventeenth-century Safavids of Persia launched a prolific religious campaign against Sunni and Sufi piety.40 Al-Majlisi’s job as a member of the `ulama´ was to collect and distribute hadith that illustrated Shi`ite identity and the holy family’s election since before created time. He intended his collections to serve as a type of propaganda, popularizing a legalistic form of Twelver Shi`ism while disavowing Sunnism and some Sufi orders. He was the first scholar to translate a large number of hadith collections, theologies, and histories into Persian for greater availability to a general audience.

Al-Majlisi’s collection is important for another reason: it includes both the widely accepted, sound hadith and the potentially spurious (or weak) traditions. For example, al-Majlisi repeated many of the earliest Shi`ite sources from al-Kulayni and Ibn Babawayh, renowned tenth-century Shi`ite scholars,41 some of which are extant only through his encyclopedic collection. But he also chose hadith that were not included in ordinary compilations of Shi`ite texts. Because of this broad inclusiveness, some scholars doubt its historical veracity. (One colleague referred to the Bihar al-anwar as the “great trash heap of Shi`ite traditions.”)42 Because al-Majlisi cast such a wide net in collecting his hadith, he provides scholars with an opportunity to view Shi`ism as it developed and blossomed throughout the classical and medieval periods.

Al-Majlisi quite naturally focused on the Prophet’s family and particularly his daughter Fatima to prove Shi`ite Islam’s superiority over Sunnism and Sufi sm. The traditions range from those of the most mystical bent (which define the holy family in terms of pure light with absolute knowledge)43 to those of more practical application (which define the twelfth Imam as the source of all spiritual authority).

This grand collection of hadith also certainly added authority to al-Majlisi’s own position. According to Twelver doctrine, the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, did not die but went into a sublime hiding, or occultation. During this period of hiddenness, the Shi`ite community relies on the scholars to discern the Imam’s justice. Al-Majlisi was just such a scholar who implicitly designated himself as one of the twelfth Imam’s spokesmen until the final, apocalyptic return. Through his hadith compilations, al-Majlisi justified his own political station while constructing a hagiographic edifice praising the holy family’s spiritual status.44

Sources and Gender

As Merovingian Christians and Shi`ite Muslims sought to make sense of their world and to delineate their place in it, they devised and articulated dynamic notions of holiness. For the people of Gaul, the changes in their world involved the political transition from late Roman to Merovingian rule and the spiritual acculturation to a new, unifying Christendom. Shi`ite communities, in many cases bereft of political ascendancy because of a Sunni majority (except for a brief interim in the mid-tenth century), articulated their unique cosmology and loyalties to the Imam and the holy family. In both these cases, discussions of sanctity in hagiographic sources betray both theological and political agendas. On closer examination it becomes clear that gender expectations and the introduction of feminine ideals signaled radical changes in society as well. Both Christian and Muslim cultures supported and preserved the literary products of a male elite, which constructed paradigms of community and holiness via women, in particular Mary and Fatima.

Most extant Christian texts from late antiquity originate from the ecclesiastical sphere. Theologians such as Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome charted the twists and turns Christian theology would take in terms of asceticism, ideals of marriage, the Trinitarian debate, and the path of Christ’s church (ecclesia).45 Late antique authors both reflected and refuted beliefs about the Virgin Mary popularized by anonymous, apocryphal texts. They absorbed, for example, the precept of Mary’s perpetual virginity (both before, during, and after Christ’s birth), yet some cautioned against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, or birth free from sin.46 Marian theology, and Christian theology in general, was only slowly evolving.

The early Middle Ages yield a wider variety of sources, although most still come from the ecclesiastical sphere: church councils left records of decisions and debate; bishops wrote histories of their bishoprics (which were more like family trees); priests and popes wrote hagiographies;47 and holy men crafted monastic rules for female religious to follow. One of the most prolific authors of Merovingian Gaul was Gregory of Tours; he provided a veritable who’s who among Merovingian bishops in his Ten Books of History and numerous hagiographies of male and female saints.48 In early Christian hagiography, few texts written by women survive, and only one of those has a self-identified female author (Baudonivia, who wrote her saint’s life only to complement an earlier redaction by a man, Fortunatus).49 Scholars suspect other works might be written by women, especially nuns who had firsthand knowledge of their saint-abbesses.50 In most cases male clergy wrote about women.

A similar case arises in classical Islam. Women may have lent considerable time, faith, and even wealth to their respective traditions, but they remained largely silent in the sources. Muslim women’s social expectations depended largely on the geographic locale and ruling elite; yet in most cases women played a sizable role in the establishment of schools and the transmission of knowledge. Like female patrons of Christianity, wealthy wives and mothers commissioned schools and donated land for educational institutions, and with those same sources of wealth, many women acquired personal tutors and received competitive educations.51 Also as with Christianity, tradition largely circumscribed women’s practical role in the public classroom as teachers or students; modes of formal education, including Qur’anic studies, remained confined to males.52 Any formal training or introduction to Islamic jurisprudence and hadith studies also remained a mostly masculine domain.

Although Muslim scholars restricted women from formal educations, they did not release them from the burden of learning and studying the hadith and models of holiness. Theoretically, women bore the same responsibility as men to understand and follow Islamic teaching. Hadith scholars even recognized several women of the early community as worthy transmitters. Many of these women, such as `A’isha, the Prophet’s youngest wife, lived with Muhammad and had intimate dealings with him. These women like none other could transmit information about the Prophet’s actions, words, and directives because of their association in the domestic sphere.53 Women’s official roles largely ended in the domestic sphere, however; while many women acted as hadith transmitters, there are no extant compilations by female scholars and no information about them. Thus our medieval sources are once again written by men about women.

In these male-authored medieval texts about women, gender, and holiness, hagiographers and theologians transformed Mary and Fatima into champions for their pious agenda. Mary marked the boundaries between Christianity and heresy; Fatima led her family to paradise and consigned her enemies to hell. Both communities fashioned a view of piety, politics, and family by manipulating traditional gender roles while still assigning their heroines to the domestic sphere as miraculous mothers and virgins. Today’s readers might be tempted to dismiss much of the hagiographers’ works as too proscriptive if not blatantly misogynistic, but closer examination reveals a more complex agenda.


4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15