Hisham ibn al-Hakam

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abū Muhammad Hischām ibn al-Hakam ( Arabic أبو محمد هشام بن الحكم, DMG Abū Muḥammad Hišām ibn al-Ḥakam d. 795 or later in Kufa ) was one of the most important Kalām scholars during the reign of the two Abbasid caliphs al-Mahdī (r. 775-785) and Hārūn ar-Raschīd (r. 786 -809). After he had joined the sixth Imam Jafar as-Sādiq (d. 765) in his youth , he was one of the most important representatives of the Imamite Shia . As a Kalām scholar, he conducted religious disputes with scholars of other Islamic faiths ( Ibadites , Muʿtazila , Zaidites ) as well as with representatives of non-Islamic religions. Many of these conversations took place in the circle of the Barmakid vizier Yahyā ibn Chālid. Later, however, the vizier turned against Hisham and discredited him because of his political views with the caliph, so that Hisham had to go into hiding.

Hisham ibn al-Hakam wrote numerous works, none of which has survived. One of the most striking features of his teaching was his corporealism ( taǧsīm ). He said that there are only bodies in the world and that God is also a body. At the political level he worked out an imamate theory that became the basis of imamite teaching. This included the idea of ​​the infallibility of imams and the principle of their determination by designation ( naṣṣ ). He taught about the companions of the Prophets that, with few exceptions, they had apostatized because they did not recognize the Imamate of ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib . Therefore, Sunnis saw him as an extremist Rāfidite and an enemy of Islam. Even within the Imamite Shia, hisham was not undisputed. Some imamites accused him of having caused the arrest of the seventh imam Mūsā al-Kāzim (d. 799) through his disputes . Some of the teachings he handed down were believed to be false accusations.

Life

Origin and personal living conditions

Hisham was a client of the Banū Shaibān or the Kinda from Kufa . He was born in Wāsit and grew up there. He later moved to Baghdad . There he had a trade in the district of al-Karch. His house was next to the Waddāh Palace in the street that led to the pond of the Banū Zarzar, where curios and Ḫalanǧ trees were sold. Hishām worked as a cloth merchant ( baiyāʿ al-karābīs ) and also sold clothes. He shared his shop with the Ibadite Kalām scholar ʿAbdallāh ibn Yazīd. Despite considerable differences in doctrinal views, the two maintained their business partnership throughout their lives. When ʿAbdallāh ibn Yazīd asked for the hand of his daughter Fatima, however, Hishām pointed out that she was a believer, after which ʿAbdallāh ibn Yazīd never asked him again.

Religious background

According to the Imamite tradition, Hisham was Jahmit, d. H. a follower of Jahm ibn Safwān (d. 746) before joining the Shiite imam Jafar as-Sādiq. His conversion to the Shia must have taken place very early, because another report says that he "at the time when the beard began to sprout on his cheeks" ( auwal mā ḫtaṭṭa ʿāriḍāhu ), in Minā, a meeting of Shiite sheikhs chaired by the Imams attended. After his conversion to Shia, he often had contact with the Daisanite Abū Shākir ad-Daisānī and held disputations with him. The Daisānīya was a Gnostic sect that goes back to Bardesanes and belongs to the Christian spectrum. Another theologian with whom Hishām disputed in his early years was the Muʿtazilite theologian ʿAmr ibn ʿUbaid (d. 761). Hisham is said to have involved him in a dispute about the Imamate and defeated him in the process.

After the death of Jafar as-Sādiq in 765, Hishām belonged to a group of scholars who, unlike other Shiites, immediately recognized his son Mūsā al-Kāzim as his successor. The Imam is said to have entrusted him with 15,000 dirhams so that he could make a profit.

Kalām activities under al-Mahdī and Hārūn ar-Raschīd

During the caliphate of al-Mahdī (775-785), Mūsā sent a messenger to him to refrain from all theological arguments. The background was that al-Mahdī had the Shiite sects ( firaq ) persecuted at that time . However, it is not clear whether hisham adhered to this prohibition of silence. While in one tradition it is said that he abstained from any disputes until the death of al-Mahdī, in another tradition it is stated that the Imam gave him several admonitions and finally reproached him for being with his continued Kalām activity put my own life in danger.

After Hārūn ar-Raschīd came to power in 786, Hishām belonged to the circle of Kalām scholars whom the Barmakid vizier Yahyā ibn Chālid invited to religious disputations in his house on Sundays. Al-Masʿūdī reports of a discussion about love ( ʿišq ) in this circle, in which twelve other scholars from different religious directions took part in addition to hishām . These included the two Muʿtazilite theologians an-Nazzām and Bishr ibn al-Muʿtamir as well as two disciples of Hishām, namely ʿAlī ibn Mansūr and Chalīl as-Sakkāk. According to Ibn an-Nadīm, Hishām even presided over these disputation sessions. According to a report handed down by al-Sheikh al- Mufid, the caliph Harun al-Rashid was also present at a religious dispute that Hisham had with his Ibadite partner ʿAbdallāh ibn Yazīd.

Most of Hisham's opponents of the disputation were Muʿtazilites. He had discussions with Abū l-Hudhail about the comparative description of God ( tašbīh ), the dependence of divine knowledge ( taʿalluq ʿilm al-bārī ) and the attributes of God. He delivered particularly heated disputes with the Muʿtazilite Abū Bakr al-Asamm (d. 816). Al-Asamm later wrote his own book to refute Hisham's teachings on the figure of God.

The intrigue of Yahyā ibn Chālid

Around the middle of the 790s, however, the relationship with the barmakid vizier deteriorated. According to a report that goes back to the Imamite legal scholar Yūnus ibn ʿAbd ar-Rahman (d. 823), this was because Yahyā ibn Chālid took offense at disparaging speeches of Hishām about philosophy. Of greater importance, however, was that Yahyā ibn Chālid was in a rivalry with the imamite Ja ibfar ibn Muhammad, who had gained the favor of the caliph through military achievements and took over the education of the Abbasid prince al-Amin . Since Yahyā ibn Chālid feared the disempowerment of the Barmakids by Jafar in the event of al-Amīn assuming power, he endeavored to uncover the imamites' secret financial networks and to denigrate them to the caliph as a whole.

This also had an effect on the relationship with Hisham ibn al-Hakam. According to the Imamite tradition, the vizier tried to expose Hishām before the caliph Hārūn ar-Rashīd by asking him in his presence to give his judgment on a dispute which ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib and al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muttalib once before first caliph Abū Bakr to carry out the inheritance of the prophet. Yahyā's request was aimed at forcing Hishām to reveal his Shiite views to the caliph and to put al-ʿAbbās, the ancestor of the Abbasids , in the wrong. Hisham, who did not want to deny his own belief, was able to pull his head out of the noose in this situation by agreeing that both contendingists were right and relating them to the two angels contending in the Qur'an ( Sura 38 : 21-24). Just as they actually only came to David to examine him, the quarrel between ʿAlī and al-ʿAbbas only had the function of examining Abū Bakr, while in reality the two had no quarrel at all. The caliph is said to have been very pleased with Hisham's response.

According to a report that goes back to the Imamite legal scholar Yūnus ibn ʿAbd ar-Rahman (d. 823), the vizier Yahyā ibn Chālid was now looking for another way of convicting Hishām, and advised the caliph that Hishām was not him, but considered another person to be an imam appointed by God and would obey him if he called for an uprising. The caliph then asked Yahyā ibn Chālid to call a disputation session with the Kalām scholars so that he could secretly listen to their speeches behind a curtain. Yahyā ibn Chālid then called a meeting at which the Muʿtazilit Dirār ibn ʿAmr, the Zaidit Sulaimān ibn Jarīr, the Ibadit ʿAbdallāh ibn Yazīd, the Zoroastrian Mobed and the Jewish Exilarch appeared. Hisham initially did not attend the meeting due to illness, but was summoned by Yahyā after an argument staged by Yahyā to act as arbiter between the contestants. After Hisham settled the dispute, the vizier and Sulayman ibn Jarir asked him intricate questions about the imamate. Since Hisham confirmed in his reply that he which Alid looked committed to unconditional obedience, which the caliph considered as sufficient proof of his disloyalty. After Hisham had already left the meeting, he ordered the vizier to have him and his companions arrested. Hishām fled via al-Madā'in to Kufa, where he died of illness some time later in the house of Ibn Sharaf.

The relationship between this incident and the arrest of Imam Mūsā al-Kāzim in 795 is unclear. While one report emphasizes that Hishām's statements were one of the reasons for the imam's arrest, others assure that the Imam has already been arrested before the dispute overheard by the caliph.

date of death

The dates given for Hisham's death vary widely. While al-Kashschī mentions the year 179 (= 795 AD) as the date of death, Ibn an-Nadīm states that he died shortly after the fall of the Barmakids (803), according to some even during the caliphate of al-Ma 'mūn (813-833). For a death after 799, the fact that al-Ashʿarī calls him a Qatī. The Qatʿīya were those Imamites who after the death of the seventh Imam Mūsā al-Kāzim in 799 asserted the transfer of the Imamate to his son ʿAlī ar-Ridā with certainty. Also the statement handed down by ʿAbd al-Jabbār ibn Ahmad that an-Nazzām stopped in Kufa on the way to the Hajj and had discussions with Hishām Kalām, indicates that he lived in Kufa for a longer period of time.

Works

Ibn al-Nadim into his Fihrist for Hisham a list of 26 fonts on, three more titles in the Shiite Ridschāl -Werk of on-Nadschāschī (d. 1058) listed. However, none of these works has survived independently; only quotations from the works of later authors have survived.

In research, the Kitāb Iḫtilāf al-nās fī l-imāma ("Book on the difference of opinion between people regarding the Imamate") and the Kitāb al-Mīzān ("Book of standard") have been discussed. Wilferd Madelung suggested that the Kitāb Iḫtilāf al-nās fī l-imāma was the common source for the presentation of the early Shiite sects in the Kitāb Firaq aš-Šīʿa ("Book on the Sects of the Shia") by al-Hasan ibn Mūsā an-Naubachtī (d. 921) and in Saʿd ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Ashʿarī al-Qummī. An-Naubachtī is said to have used this work as the basis for his presentation for the period from the beginnings of Islam to the imams Jaʿfar as-Sādiq and Mūsā al-Kāzim. One of his arguments here is that Naubachtī in this first part does not only deal with the sects of the Shia, but "the dissent of the entire Islamic community on the imamate question".

However, Madelung's theory was questioned by Hossein Modarressi. He is convinced that the Kitāb Iḫtilāf al-nās fī l-imāma is identical to the version of the report on Hishām's last disputation in the house of the vizier Yahyā ibn Chālid, which Ibn Bābawaih presented in his work Kamāl ad-dīn wa-tamām. niʿma offers. The presentation of this disputation begins with the vizier's request to Hishām and his Ibadite business partner to dispute "about your differences of opinion with the Imamat" ( fī-mā ḫtalaftum fīhi min al-imāma ). Thereupon Hisham ibn al-Hakam spreads the entire Imamitic Imamate doctrine before the assembled Kalam scholars and in the presence of the caliph. Modarressi suspects that the title of the work is derived from the choice of words of the vizier at his request. The explanations of Hisham in Ibn Bābawaih show no content-related overlap with the texts of an-Naubachtī and al-Qummī. Therefore, Modarressi considers it more likely that the Kitāb al-Mīzān , which dealt with the doctrinal differences between the various Shiite groups in the time of Hishām, or a Sunni work, was the common source of an-Naubachtī and al-Qummī.

In addition, Hischām has written a "Book on Providence ", a "Book on the Reasons of Religious Prohibitions and Obligations" ( Kitāb ʿIlal at-taḥrīm wa-l-farāʾiḍ ) as well as various refutations, for example against the Imamite Kalām scholars Hischām al- Jawālīqī and Shaitān at-Tāq, against the Muʿtazila , the dualists ( aṣḥāb al-iṯnain ) and against Aristotle . His refutation of Aristotle concerns the Tawheed .

Teaching

Hishām's discussions with other theologians and heretics are very often cited in both Sunni and Muʿtazilite and Shiite works. His teaching can be roughly reconstructed from this.

Ontology and physics

One of the most striking teaching points of Hischām in the field of ontology was his corporealism ( taǧsīm ). Al-Masʿūdī even referred to him as "the head of the corporealists" ( šaiḫ al-muǧassima ). Hisham believed that there were only bodies in the world. In his opinion, air was a fine body. He even saw taste, smell, warmth and colors as a body.

Movements and actions such as standing, sitting, willing and unwilling, obedience and insubordination, hisham considered attributes of the bodies that are neither identical with nor different from them. When the Muʿtazilit asked Abū l-Hudhail Hishām how he inferred that the attribute was not identical with, but not different from, the thing described with it, he replied: "Because my action cannot be identical with me or anything other than me Because I only admit differences to the bodies and substances that exist in themselves. But since my action does not exist in itself, but cannot be identical with me either, it must be said that it is neither identical with me nor anything other than me . "

Another important lesson was his rejection of atomism . Hisham believed that bodies were infinitely divisible. He also took the view of penetration ( mudāḫala ), i.e. H. In his opinion, two bodies can penetrate one another and thus be in the same place. He also said that a body can move from one place to another in the manner of a leap ( ṭafra ) without crossing all the intervening units of space. These teachings were later adopted by the Muʿtazilite Kalām scholar an-Nazzām .

Hisham believed the earth to be a ball held in suspension by a body of air or fire inside it. This body is not dependent on anything to support it from below, because it does not belong to falling bodies, but to those that strive upwards. He explained earthquakes by saying that the earth is composed of various elements that are connected to one another. If one element becomes stronger and the other weakens, an earthquake occurs. If the element in question then becomes even weaker, there is a lowering ( ḫaṣf ).

Doctrine of God

God as a body

Hisham also meant that God was a body. Regarding the resemblance of God to other bodies, different views are passed down of him. Abū l-Hasan al-Ashʿarī states that the physicality of God for Hishām primarily meant that he is existent ( mauǧūd ). For body, existing and thing were interchangeable terms for hisham. Tradition has it that, according to his teaching, God's body is not similar to visible bodies. Ibn ar-Rāwandī, on the other hand, mentioned that Hishām considered similarity necessary from a certain point of view, because otherwise the visible bodies would not point to him.

In other reports on Hisham's teaching, however, the physicality of God appears very concrete. Al- Ashʿari communicated that Hishām defined God as a limited, three-dimensional body ( ism ) made of shining light. It is in a fixed place, resembles a metal bar and shines on all sides like a round pearl. Color, taste, smell and what you feel when you touch it all coincide with him. Hisham is said to have expressed to the Muʿtazilite Abū l-Hudhail that this body comes and goes, sometimes moving and sometimes resting, one time sitting and the other standing. In his view, however, God was initially in no place. Only after he had created space through his movement was he given a place, namely the throne. When Abū l-Hudhail asked about the size of this body, he replied that it was smaller than Abū Qubais, the local mountain of Mecca . In al-Maqdisī (10th century) there is the additional statement that Hishām defined God as a massive body that is neither hollow nor porous. For the description of God as light, Hisham is said to have referred to sura 24:35: "God is the light of heaven and earth. His light is like a niche in which there is a lamp."

It is possible that Hisham also represented changing views on the exact nature of God. As Abū l-Hasan al-Ashʿarī reports, he is said to have expressed five different opinions in a single year: One time he claimed that God was like a crystal ( billaura ), the other time he said that he was like a metal bar was, once more he took the view that he had no shape at all, the fourth time he said his length was seven spans of his hand, finally he turned away from all these views and taught that he was one body but unequal other bodies ( ǧism lā ka-l-aǧsām ). From the fact that Hishām at times took the view that God was seven spans long in his own hand, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī concluded that he gave him a human shape because every human being was roughly as long as seven spans of his Hand. The teaching of other contemporary Imamite theologians such as al-Jawālīqī and Mu'min at-Tāq, according to which God has a form like humans, however, Hishām rejected.

The attributes of God

In contrast to the Muʿtazilites, Hisham meant that God does not know things in advance, but only when they happen. He justified this with the fact that a primal knowledge of God about these things would have to include that they also existed from the beginning. There could only be a knower if there was an associated known knowledge. He categorically ruled out the possibility that the knowledge relates to something non-existent. From the Koran he justified this view with the statement in sura 10:14 "Then we made you successors on earth after them, to see how you act."

In his opinion, knowledge is a descriptive attribute ( ṣifa ) of God, which is neither identical with him, nor part of him, or anything other than him. One could not claim about this knowledge that it is initially eternal ( qadīm ) or created in time ( muḥdaṯ ), because it cannot accept any further attribute as an attribute. He took the same view of God's power, his sight and hearing, his life and his will. In this way he also avoided the problem raised by the Muʿtazilites of the multiplicity of God's accidents which threatened his unity .

In the dispute about the composition of the Koran , Hisham took a neutral position. In his view, which was in agreement with that of Jafar as-Sādiq, the Qur'an was neither created, nor created, or uncreated, but an attribute of God that cannot take on any other attribute. He compared God's speech to a lute being played on. Hischām also represented the specific Imamitic teaching of the possibility of changing God's decisions ( badāʾ ).

Hisham imagined the knowledge of God in a very material form. According to a report that goes back to al-Jahiz , he said that God got his knowledge through rays that emanate from him, touch the individual objects of knowledge and also penetrate the earth. This notion is based on an ancient theory of optical perception known as the "Feeler Theory". Accordingly, the optical perception takes place through visual rays that emanate from the eye, scan the room and then return to the eye with the information obtained.

Man and his actions

According to Hischām's teaching, the human being consists of two things: the lifeless body ( badan ) and the acting mind ( rū, ), which is endowed with sensations, has the ability to understand and is a "light from the lights" ( nūr min al-anwār ). Max Horten suspected that this idea goes back to dualistic ideas of ancient Iran. Otto Pretzl, on the other hand, assumed that Hischam had borrowed this idea from the Bardesanites , who viewed light as the bearer of life, while darkness, on the other hand, was dead and ignorant.

Ibn Qutaiba said of Hisham ibn al-Hakam that he had a strict determinism ( iǧbār šadīd ) that went beyond what the Sunnis ( al-qāʾilūn bi-s-sunna ) taught. This contrasts with other reports, according to which he emphasized the freedom of human action. He taught that God could not have any foreknowledge of human actions because otherwise there would be no real test ( iḫtibār ) or they would not have a free choice ( iḫtiyār ) in their actions. The fact that God asks Moses and Aaron in the Koran to go to Pharaoh and speak gently to him because he might be admonished (sura 20: 43f.), He sees as proof that God is with man by his Action leaves freedom of choice.

According to Hisham, human actions have two aspects. They are both the result of choice and of necessity. They are a free decision insofar as man wants and "acquires" it, a necessity insofar as it can only proceed from him when the driving cause arises. As the cause, he considered the moment that triggered the action, which God allows to occur.

Imams and prophets

Hisham taught that the imamate was a textual fixation ( naṣṣ ) of God and his Messenger Muhammad for ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib and his pure descendants like al-Hasan and al-Husain . He explained to the Muaztazilite mAmr ibn al-ʿUbaid that the Imam has the same position towards people as the heart ( qalb ) towards the sense organs : just as the sense organs depend on the heart, so too do people depend on the Imam. Regardless of whether the imam is present or hidden, man must believe that he is alive until he receives news of his death.

After ʿAlī's death, the Imamat is inherited among the descendants of him and Fātima bint Muhammad until the day of resurrection. Each imam appoints his successor by express designation ( naṣṣ ). Whoever obeys the Imam is a true believer, whoever opposes or rejects him is a kaafir . In order to keep the faith and the community of believers, must or the Imam and his followers have their religious beliefs, if necessary, in terms Taqiya practice. So ʿAlī himself had never publicly announced his claim to the Imamate out of fear of the Prophet's companions, but kept it secret. The imam is not supposed to rebel against the existing illegitimate government , and unauthorized rebellion is prohibited.

According to Hisham, the imam is infallible in all his actions and words , but, unlike the prophets, receives no revelation ( waḥy ). Conversely, he meant that the prophets, unlike the imams, could commit sins. He took this from the statement addressed to Mohammed "that God may forgive you your earlier and later guilt" in sura 48 : 2. The difference between the prophet and the imam, in his view, is that when the prophet is committed to a sin, the revelation draws attention to his wrongdoing, while the imam does not have this possibility, so that he must be sinless. Hisham meant that there are certain miraculous signs ( aʿlām muʿǧiza ) that only prophets are capable of. However, he did not include walking on water because he believed that even a non-prophet could do that.

The collective apostasy of the Companions of the Prophets

In Hisham's view, Mohammed had designated designAlī as his authorized representative, imam and “ representative of God in his community” ( ḫalīfat Allah fī ummati-hī ), on the one hand through his words at Ghadīr Chumm : "Everyone whose lord I am am, he also has "Alī for Lord", on the other hand also through the following statements:

  • "You have with me the rank that Aaron had with Moses , only there is no other prophet after me",
  • "I am the city of knowledge and ʿAlī is its gate" and
  • "You fight for the interpretation ( taʾwīl ) of the Koran, just as I fought for its sending down ( tanzīl )."

Alī, according to Hishām's idea, was the best and most knowledgeable person in the Ummah and was infallible. With a few exceptions, namely Miqdād ibn al-Aswad al-Kindī, Salmān al-Fārisī , Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī and ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, the Muslims had turned away from him and accepted Abū Bakr as caliph. In his view, that meant they had fallen away from the faith . Hisham considered the first caliph Abū Bakr to be particularly malicious. According to his account, he kicked Fātima bint Muhammad in the stomach, causing her to miscarry , from which she eventually died. With ʿAlī's opponent Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān , Hishām emphasized that he had already been on the wrong side at the Battle of Badr .

Because of the collective apostasy of the Prophet's companions, which he assumed, Hisham also harbored great doubts about the Koran and Sunna . He said that the Koran that Muhammad left his community had been distorted, changed and falsified. Various things have been added and others left out, so that one can no longer distinguish between what is certain and what is doubtful and what is generally valid from what is specifically meant. According to al-Malatī's account, Hishām was even of the opinion that the true Koran had been abrogated and lifted up into heaven, whereas the Koran that people were holding in their hands was not written until the time of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān . Since most of the Prophet's Companions were in his view unbelievers , the Sunnah is also invalid in its tradition.

reception

Within the Schia

After Hisham's death, his teaching was spread and defended mainly by his disciples Yūnus ibn ʿAbd ar-Rahmān (d. 823) and Muhammad ibn Chalīl as-Sakkāk and later by al-Fadl ibn Shādhān (d. 874) from Nishapur . The Shiite bibliographer Ibn an-Nadīm (d. 995 or 995) praised Hishām: He was one of the Shiite Kalām scholars who "started the discourse about the Imamate and refined the Madhhab " ( man fataq al -kalām fī l-imāma wa-haḏḏab al-maḏhab ).

But hisham also met with rejection from many imamites. He was accused of having ruined Imam Mūsā al-Kāzim with his talk. ʿAlī ibn Hadīd from Madāʾin is said to have even taught, with the consent of the ninth imam Muhammad al-Jawād (d. 835), that one should not pray behind the followers of Hishām. The Imamit Saʿd ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Qummī (d. 913/14) later wrote a book about the blameworthy points ( maṯālib ) by Hishām and his disciple Yūnus ibn ʿAbd ar-Rahmān. His contemporary ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī (d. After 914), who was an important teacher of al-Kulainī , defended Hisham's teaching. Saʿd responded with a Kitāb ar-Radd ʿalā ʿAlī ibn Hāšim fī maʿnā Hišām wa-Yūnus ("Book of Refutation of ʿAlī ibn Hāšim concerning Hišām and Yūnus").

Later Shiites were particularly offended by the corporealist concept of God handed down by Hisham. The Muʿtazilite scholar Ibn Abī l-Hadīd wrote in the 13th century: "The passionate followers of Hishām ibn al-Hakam from the Shia in this day and age claim that he did not represent corporealism in the strict sense, but only taught that God a body, unlike the visible bodies, is [...], even if al-Hasan ibn Mūsā an-Naubachtī , one of the Shiite scholars, wrote about him in his 'Book of Teachings and Religions' ( Kitāb al-ārāʾ wa-d -diyānāt ) has transmitted pure corporealism ( at-taǧsīm al-maḥḍ ). "

But the teachings of God's knowledge handed down by Hisham were also no longer considered compatible with Imamite teachings. So wrote al-Sheikh al-Mufid (d. 1022): "God the Exalted, knows about everything before it happens. Nothing happens without his knowing it beforehand. [...] That is the madhhab We do not acknowledge what the Muʿtazilites have said otherwise about Hisham ibn al-Hakam. In our opinion it is a false accusation against him on their part and a fault of the Shiites who followed them in it, and that of him have reported. " Other imamites believed that hisham disbelieved because of his teaching about the prophets.

Outside the Schia

Outside the Shia, Hisham ibn al-Hakam was accused of having introduced Daisanite teachings into Islam. The Sunni scholar Abū l-Husain al-Malatī (d. 987) told of Hishām that he was first a materialistic mulhid ( mulḥid dahrī ), then switched to dualism and Manichaeism and finally converted to Islam only under duress. Then he worked on the destruction of Islam ( hadm al-islām ) and in doing so surpassed all previous enemies of Islam. The Hishāmīya, the teaching established by Hishām ibn al-Hakam, saw al-Malatī as one of the worst heresies. He said that the Hishamites were the real Rāfidites , of whom the Prophet said "that they reject religion" ( anna-hum yarfiḍūn ad-dīn ). Ibn Qutaiba (d. 889) regarded Hishām ibn al-Hakam as an "extremist Rāfidite" ( rāfiḍī ġālī ).

The Muʿtazilites saw in Hishām ibn al-Hakam above all an opponent of the founders of their teaching direction. Ibn ar-Rāwandī suggested that al-Jāhiz had polemicized so strongly against the Rāfidites in his works only because he wanted to take revenge for what Hishām ibn al-Hakam had done to his Muʿtazilite teachers.

literature

Arabic sources
Secondary literature
  • Tamima Bayhom Daou: The Imami Shii conception of the knowledge of Imam and the sources of religious doctrine in the Formative Period: from Hisham b. al-Hakam (d. 179 AH) to Kulini (d. 329 AH). PhD thesis, University of London 1996. Digitized
  • Tamima Bayhom-Daou: "Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam (d. 179/795) and His Doctrine of the Imām's Knowledge" in Journal of Semitic Studies 48 (2003) 71-108.
  • Michele Angela Margherita De Angelis: The collected Fragments of Hisham ibn al Hakam Imamite Mutakallim of the second century of the Hegira together with a discussion of the sources for and an introduction to his teaching . New York Univ., Diss., 1974.
  • Josef van Ess: Theology and Society in the 2nd and 3rd Century Hijra. A History of Religious Thought in Early Islam. Berlin-New York 1992-1997. Vol. I, pp. 349-379, Vol. V, pp. 70-100.
  • Josef van Ess: The one and the other: observations on Islamic heresiographic texts . 2 Vols. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 2011. Vol. I, pp. 210-214, 249-256.
  • Max Horten : The philosophical systems of the speculative theologians in Islam . Bonn 1912, pp. 170-178. Digitized
  • Alexander Hainy Khaleeli: "Hisham ibn al-Hakam: Arch-Heretic?" in Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies 3 (2010) 283-299.
  • W. Madelung: Art. "Hi sh ām b. Al-Ḥakam" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition . Vol. III, pp. 496b-498a.
  • W. Madelung: "Comments on the Imamitic Firaq Literature" in Der Islam 43 (1967) 37-52.
  • Wilferd Madelung: "The Shiite and Khārijite Contribution to Pre-Ashʿarite Kalām " in Parviz Morewedge (ed.): Islamic Philosophical Theology . SUNY, Albany, 1979. pp. 120-139.
  • Hossein Modarressi: Tradition and survival: a bibliographic survey of early Shi'ite literature . Oneworld, Oxford, 2003. pp. 259-268.
  • Ḫiḍr Muḥammad Nabhā: Musnad Hišām Ibn-al-Ḥakam . Dār al-Hādī li-ṭ-Ṭibāʿa wa-n-Našr wa-t-Tauzīʿ, Beirut, 2006.
  • Ḫiḍr Nabhā: Munāẓarāt Hišām Ibn-al-Ḥakam fī maǧālis Hārūn ar-Rašīd . Dār al-Maḥaǧǧa al-Baiḍāʾ li-ṭ-Ṭibāʿa wa-n-Našr wa-t-Tauzīʿ, Beirut, 2009.
  • Ḫiḍr Muḥammad Nabhā: Maqālāt al-Hišāmain, Hišām Ibn-al-Ḥakam wa-Hišām Ibn-Sālim . Dār al-Maḥaǧǧa al-Baiḍāʾ, Beirut, 2013.
  • Mustafa Öz: Art. "Hişâm b. Hakem" in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm ansiklopedisi Vol. XVIII, p. 153f. Digitized
  • Otto Pretzl : "The early Islamic atomic theory. A contribution to the question of the relationship between early Islamic theology and Greek philosophy" in Der Islam 19 (1931) 119-29.
  • Muṣṭafā Ḥaidar as-Sāda: ʿIlm al-kalām ʿinda l-imāmīya .. an-našʾa wa-t-taṭauwur: Hišām Ibn-al-Ḥakam namūḏaǧan . Dār al-Auliyāʾ li-ṭ-Ṭibāʿ wa-n-Našr wa-t-Tauzīʿ, Beirut, 2012.
  • Aḥmad Ṣafāʾī: Hišām Ibn-al-Ḥakam: mutakallim-i maʿrūf-i qarn-i duwwum-i hiǧrī wa šāgird-i mubarraz-i Maktab-i Ǧaʿfarī . Čāpḫāna-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān, Tehran, 1342 h.š. (= 1963).
  • AS Tritton: Muslim theology . Hyperion Press, London, 1947. pp. 74-78.
  • William Montgomery Watt , Michael Marmura: The Islam II. Political developments and theological concepts. Stuttgart u. a. 1985. pp. 188-191.

Individual evidence

  1. So Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, Vol. I, p. 175.
  2. So aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 219.
  3. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, p. 608.
  4. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 219.
  5. See Modarressi: Tradition and survival . 2003, p. 260.
  6. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. V, pp. 443f.
  7. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 220.
  8. Cf. aš-Šarīf al-Murtaḍā: al-Fuṣūl al-muḫtāra min al-ʿuyūn wa-l-maḥāsin . Dār al-Mufīd, Beirut, 1992. p. 52. Digitized .
  9. See Madelung: "The Shiite and Khārijite Contribution to Pre-Ashʿarite Kalām ". 1979, p. 124.
  10. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VII, pp. 234-236.
  11. Cf. Al-Hasan ibn Mūsā an-Naubachtī : Kitāb Firaq aš-šīʿa . Ed. H. Knight. Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat ad-daula 1931. p. 66. Digitized .
  12. So aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 229.
  13. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 226f.
  14. So aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 226f.
  15. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 230f.
  16. Cf. Ibn Bābawaih: Kamāl ad-Dīn wa-tamām an-niʿma . 1991, pp. 338f.
  17. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VI, pp. 370-374.
  18. Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, p. 175.
  19. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, pp. 615-617.
  20. Cf. aš-Šahrastānī: al-Milal wa-n-niḥal . P. 187. - Ger. Transl. 212.
  21. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VII, pp. 232f.
  22. Cf. ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār ibn Aḥmad: Faḍl al-iʿtizāl wa-ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila . Ed. Fuʾād Saiyid. Tunis 1974. p. 267. Digitized .
  23. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 193, No. 3.
  24. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 221.
  25. See E. Kohlberg: Art. "Mūsā al-Kāẓim" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition Vol. VII, p. 646a.
  26. According to Ibn Qutaiba, it was about the village of Fadak, cf. Kitāb Taʾwīl muḫtalif al-ḥadīṯ . 2009, p. 126. - Frz. Transl. 54.
  27. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, pp. 614f.
  28. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, pp. 221-224.
  29. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, pp. 221-224.
  30. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, p. 610.
  31. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 219.
  32. Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, Vol. I, p. 175.
  33. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963, p. 63.
  34. Cf. ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār ibn Aḥmad: Faḍl al-iʿtizāl wa-ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila . Ed. Fuʾād Saiyid. Tunis 1974. p. 254.
  35. Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, Vol. I, pp. 175f.
  36. See the completed list of works in van Ess: Theologie und Gesellschaft. 1993, Vol. V, pp. 70f.
  37. See Modarressi: Tradition and survival . 2003, pp. 260-268.
  38. a b Cf. Madelung: Comments . 1967, pp. 43-45.
  39. Cf. Ibn Bābawaih: Kamāl ad-dīn wa-tamām an-niʿma . 1991, pp. 338-344.
  40. See Modarressi: Tradition and survival . 2003, p. 265.
  41. See Modarressi: Tradition and survival . 2003, p. 266.
  42. See Modarressi: Tradition and survival . 2003, pp. 262, 264f, 268.
  43. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VII, p. 232.
  44. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 84.
  45. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, pp. 75, 77, 85.
  46. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 84.
  47. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VII, p. 233.
  48. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963, p. 59.
  49. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 77.
  50. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963, p. 61.
  51. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . S. 67 and Pretzl: "The early Islamic atomic theory." 1931, pp. 125f.
  52. Cf. Horten: The philosophical systems . 1912, p. 178.
  53. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 83.
  54. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. pp. 208, 521.
  55. Cf. Pretzl: "The early Islamic atomic theory." 1931, p. 119.
  56. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. p. 32f.
  57. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. pp. 32, 207.
  58. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 74.
  59. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 75.
  60. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. p. 33.
  61. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 65.
  62. See Madelung: "The Shiite and Khārijite Contribution to Pre-Ashʿarite Kalām ". 1979, p. 123.
  63. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 88.
  64. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 66.
  65. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 67.
  66. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 237.
  67. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, pp. 618f.
  68. See Madelung: "The Shiite and Khārijite Contribution to Pre-Ashʿarite Kalām ". 1979, p. 131.
  69. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1992, Vol. I, pp. 365f.
  70. Cf. al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. pp. 60f.
  71. Cf. Horten: The philosophical systems . 1912, p. 176.
  72. Cf. Pretzl: "The early Islamic atomic theory." 1931, p. 129.
  73. Cf. Ibn Qutaiba: Kitāb Taʾwīl muḫtalif al-ḥadīṯ . 2009, p. 126. - Frz. Transl. 54.
  74. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, pp. 88f.
  75. So al-Aš Aarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn . 1963. pp. 37, 494.
  76. So al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 66f.
  77. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 89.
  78. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 92.
  79. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, pp. 92f.
  80. Cf. al-Masʿūdī: Murūǧ aḏ-ḏahab . Vol. VII, pp. 234-236.
  81. Cf. at-Tustarī: Maǧālis al-muʾminīn . Vol. I, p. 610.
  82. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, pp. 97f.
  83. See Bayhom-Daou: "Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam". 2003, p. 75.
  84. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 67.
  85. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 68.
  86. Cf. al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 20.
  87. Cf. al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 20.
  88. Cf. al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 20.
  89. Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, Vol. I, p. 175.
  90. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society . 1993, Vol. V, p. 97.
  91. Cf. al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 20.
  92. Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm: Fihrist . 1871, Vol. I, p. 175.
  93. Cf. van Ess: Theology and Society in the 2nd and 3rd Century Hijra. 1992, Vol. I, p. 352.
  94. Cf. aṭ-Ṭūsī: Iḫtiyār maʿrifat ar-riǧāl . 2006, p. 236f.
  95. See Madelung: "The Shiite and Khārijite Contribution to Pre-Ashʿarite Kalām ". 1979, p. 130.
  96. See Madelung: Comments. 1967, p. 43.
  97. Cf. Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd: Šarḥ Nahǧ al-balāġa . 2001, Vol. III, p. 143. Digitized
  98. Cf. aš-Shaiḫ al-Mufīd: Awāʾil al-maqālāt fī l-maḏāhib wa-l-muḫtārāt . It. Ibrāhīm al-Anṣārī. Maṭbaʿat Mahr, 1413h. P. 54f. Digitized
  99. Cf. al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq . P. 67.
  100. Compare Abū l-Ḥusain al-Ḫaiyāṭ: Kitāb al-Intiṣār wa-r-radd ʿalā Ibn ar-Rāwandī al-mulḥid . Ed. HS Nyberg . Cairo 1925, p. 40.
  101. Cf. al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 19.
  102. Quoting al-Malaṭī: Kitāb at-Tanbīh . 2009, p. 19.
  103. Cf. Ibn Qutaiba: Kitāb Taʾwīl muḫtalif al-ḥadīṯ . 2009, p. 126. - Frz. Transl. 53.
  104. See al-Ḫaiyāṭ: Kitāb al-Intiṣār wa-r-radd ʿalā Ibn ar-Rāwandī al-mulḥid . 1925, p. 142.