Karrāmīya

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The minaret of Jam , in the design of which, according to more recent art-historical interpretations, shows karramitic influence

The Karrāmīya ( Arabic كرّامية, DMG Karrāmīya ) was a religious movement of Islam that existed between the 9th and the early 13th centuries and had its main distribution areas in Khorasan , Transoxania and the eastern fringes of Iran . It goes back to the Sīstān ascetic Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad ibn Karrām (d. 869), who preached in the area around Nishapur and later emigrated to Jerusalem with many of his followers . After him, the Karrāmites were also referred to as the "followers of Abū ʿAbdallāh" (aṣḥāb Abī ʿAbdallāh) . The early Ghaznavids and the early Ghurids provided the Karrāmīya with sovereign support. The most important center of the community remained Nishapur until the end of the 11th century. After their decline there, the Karrāmīya only survived in Ghazna and Ghor in what is now Afghanistan .

In the early days, the Karrāmites were particularly noticeable for their pronounced outward piety and asceticism . Later they made their mark through their own theological teachings. This included that they ascribed a body and a place to God and viewed the creation process as an event that takes place in God himself and is only transferred to the world through his creation word kun (“Be!”). Another characteristic of karramitic teaching was that it restricted the testimony of belief to a single verbal confession. In the field of norms , the Karrāmites followed the Hanafi madhhab , but they had some special teachings, so that the Karrāmīya was also considered an independent madhhab. The karrāmitic rules of worship were notorious for their laxity. From the 10th to the 12th century, the possibilities have koran scientific , jurisprudential , häresiographische and hagiographic works received karrāmitischer authors. Since these authors do not reveal their own denominational identity in it, the karrāmitic character of the texts in question has long remained hidden.

history

The founder

Life

The founder of the Karrāmīya was Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad ibn Karrām as-Sidschistānī, who is said to come from the Arab tribe of the Banū Nizār. He was born around 806 near Zarang, the most important city of Sīstān at the time, a few kilometers north of today's city of Zabul . The biographer as-Samʿānī explains that his name was Ibn Karrām because his father tended vineyards (karm) and was therefore called Karrām . Ibn Karrām traveled from Sīstān to study in Khorasan and initially joined the great ascetic of Nishapur Ahmad ibn Harb (792-849). He then spent some time with Ibrāhīm ibn Yūsuf al-Mākiyānī in Balch , with ʿAlī ibn Hudschr in Merw and with ʿAbdallāh ibn Mālik ibn Sulaimān in Herat . Ahmad ibn Harb was so important to the further development of Ibn Karrām that the Karrāmites started their movement with him and considered him one of their own.

After a five-year stay in Mecca as “neighbor” (muǧāwir) of the sanctuary, Ibn Karrām returned via Jerusalem to Nishapur and then back to Sīstān, where he sold his property to lead a life of poverty. From then on he only dressed in coarse furs. According to the statement of the Ismāʿīlite heresiographer Abū Tammām, Muhammad ibn Karrām displayed self-mortification (taqaššuf) and renunciation of the world (zuhd) and practiced the principle of trust in God (tawakkul), i.e. that is, he went into the desert with a number of his followers without provisions, water or mounts.

After he had won many people for his teachings, the Tahirid governor of Sīstān Ibrāhīm ibn Husain Qusi, who officiated from 840 , had him arrested and questioned. Because of the piety and asceticism shown by Ibn Karrām, the governor shied away from executing him and limited himself to expelling him from Sīstān. So Ibn Karrām went with his followers to Ghur , Ghardschistān and the rural areas of Khorasan to preach there. In Ghardschistān they succeeded in converting the population to the karrāmitic doctrine. Then he went to Nishapur, where at that time the Tahiride ʿAbdallāh ibn Tāhir (r. 828-845) ruled as governor of Khorasan. In the fertile area around Nishapur, Ibn Karrām was also able to convert a number of villagers to his teaching.

Already during Ibn Karrām's lifetime there were two theologians who decidedly opposed his teaching, namely the Heratian hadith scholar ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd ad-Dārimī (d. 894) and the Hanafit Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Yamān al-Samarqandī (d . 881/82). The latter wrote a refutation of the Karrāmites, which, however, has not survived. ʿAbdallāh ibn Tāhir's indirect successor Muhammad ibn Tāhir (r. 862–873) had Ibn Karrām imprisoned for several years.

The lion gate in Jerusalem where Ibn Karrām was buried, around 1900.

After his release, Ibn Karrām left Nishapur in Schauwāl 251 (= October / November 865) and moved to Jerusalem. The Yemeni heresiographer as-Saksakī says that he was accompanied by "800 squadrons from the crowd" (ṯamānimiʾat katība min ǧull an-nās) when he left Nishapur. Ibn Karrām's emigration to Jerusalem had great religious significance for his followers, who narrated a hadith according to which the Prophet Mohammed had foretold that at the end of time a man named Muhammad ibn Karrām would appear who would revive the Sunnah and the community of believers would perform a hijra from Khorāsān to Jerusalem, just as he himself performed a hijra from Mecca to Medina.

Ibn Karrām's sermons in the forecourt of the Dome of the Rock attracted large crowds, who formed the starting point for the local Karrāmitic community. He died in Safar 265 (= January / February 870) and was buried at the Jericho Gate (= Lion Gate ) in Jerusalem.

Works

In the heresiographic literature, two books by Muhammad ibn Karrām are mentioned and partially quoted. One book is called Kitāb ʿAḏāb al-qabr ("Book of Punishment") and deals with various theological topics. From it some passages in ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādīs al-Farq baina al-firaq are quoted. The other book is mentioned by the Imamite heresiographer Ibn ad-Dāʿī ar-Rāzī (d. After 1132) and has the title Kitāb as-Sirr ("Book of the Secret"). The quotations that Ibn al-Dāʿī kept from the book show that it was concerned with the question of divine wisdom. With a catalog of various questions discrepancies in the divine plan of creation and in the revealed law are shown and thus the Muʿtazilitic Aslah theory, according to which the world is the best of all possible worlds, is reduced to absurdity.

Adh-Dhahabī claims that most of Ibn Karrām's books were not written by himself, but by his follower Ma'mūn ibn Ahmad as-Sulamī. As-Saksakī thinks that Ibn Karrām was even illiterate and therefore dictated his books to his followers.

Spread of the movement in the 9th and 10th centuries

The Karrāmīya spread mainly in the areas that were under the rule of the Tahirids in the 9th century , namely Khorasan , Transoxania and the eastern fringes of Iran

During the ninth century, the Karrāmīya spread over many areas of the central and eastern Islamic world. The Damascus scholar Taqī ad-Dīn al-Hisnī (d. 1425) speaks of the fact that there are 70,000 followers of Ibn Karrām in the east. The main circulation area of ​​the movement was Khorasan , Transoxania and the eastern borders of Iran. The Karrāmites exercised some influence in Nishapur, Herat and Ghartschistān and also had their own communities in Ferghana , Chuttal, Juzdschan , Marw ar-Rūdh and Samarkand . Wherever the Karrāmites settled, they established Chanqāhs. The Chanqāh was a new type of facility that was used for gathering, accommodating guests, and preaching at the same time. Initially, this institution was so characteristic of the Karrāmīya that its followers were simply referred to as "the inhabitants of the Chanqāhs" (sukkān al-ḫāniqah) . Later, the Chanqāh was adopted as an institution by the Sufis .

Most is known about the Karrāmīya in Nishapur, where they represented a strong and belligerent faction under the leadership of the Banū Mahmaschādh. The ascetic Abū Yaʿqūb Ishāq ibn Mahmaschādh (d. 993), who came from this family, was one of the most important Karrāmitic personalities. Through his sermon he is said to have converted more than 5,000 men and women of the Ahl al-kitāb and Majūs in the area of ​​Nishapur to Islam. The Persian historian ʿAbd al-Ghāfir al-Fārisī reports that under his leadership the Karrāmīya flourished in Nishapur.

Another center of the community was Jerusalem. Muhammad ibn Karrām is said to have brought more than 5000 families from Khorasan and the surrounding area to Jerusalem. This had to do with the karrāmitic teaching that the people should be gathered in Jerusalem on the day of resurrection . Moving to Jerusalem should improve their position on the Day of Resurrection because then they would be closer to the meeting place. The geographer Shams ad-Dīn al-Muqaddasī , who wrote a work on the various regions of the Islamic world around 985, reports that there were a large number of Karrāmites in Jerusalem who had their own Chanqāhs there, in which they held Dhikr sessions held. In other sources it is reported that a group of Karramites stayed at Ibn Karram's tomb continuously. The local population is said to have had great sympathy for them because of their efforts in worship.

In Fustāt , the Karrāmites even had their own quarter in the 10th century. In addition, about 4,000 followers of Ibn Karrām lived as hermits in Lebanon. Al-Muqaddasī reports that he had read in a book by a karrāmitic author from Nishapur that the Karrāmites had 700 chanqāhs in the Maghreb , but found that there was not a single one there. The Andalusian scholar Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) claims to have met a Sufi in Almería who represented karramitic teachings.

Confrontations with other groups during the Samanid period

In the 10th century the Karrāmīya became more and more the target of interdenominational polemics. Abū l-Qāsim as-Saffār (d. 938), the head of the Hanafis in Balkh, accused the Karrāmites of misleading the people to false theological teachings (maqālāt) with their asceticism . In the Persian version of the Kitāb as-Sawād al-aʿẓam by Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī (d. 953), which had the function of an official catechism in the field of the Samanids , the Karrāmīya is listed among the 72 erring sects of Islam and stated that it was "worse and more ignorant" than all other sects. In addition, a hadith is cited in the name of ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar , according to which the Prophet Muhammad foretold the appearance of the Karrāmites in Khorasan and cursed them. In the hadith, Muslim believers are instructed not to greet karramites, not to ask about them when they become sick, and not to go to their funeral when they die.

The Samanid military leader in Khorasan, Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Sīmdschūr, let in 370 d. H. (= 980/81 AD) the Ashʿarite theologian ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (died 1037) and the Karrāmitic theologian Ibrāhīm ibn Muhādschir compete against each other in a public disputation. It is not known how this disputation ended. Al-Baghdādī had a very bad image of the Karrāmites. He said that, on the one hand, she had to be declared unbelieving because of her image of God , but also because, according to her teaching, no nīya was necessary for compulsory prayer , a teaching which, as al-Baghdādī said, “contradicts the view of the entire Umma stands ”. As he himself reports, he had put together a separate book on the "shamefulness" (faḍāʾiḥ) of the Karrāmites. The Asharite scholar Ibn Fūrak (d. 1015) made great efforts to refute the karrāmitic teachings.

Al-Muqaddasī in his work Aḥsan at-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm names a number of places where the Karrāmīya were involved in disputes with other groups. He reported for Dschurdschān of wild fights and quarrels between Karrāmiten and Hasaniden . In Nishapur, the Karrāmīya had a dispute with the Shia , and this dispute had developed out of a conflict between two fanatical groups who lived in different parts of the city. It was probably no accident that the Karrāmīya got involved in these quarrels. According to al-Muqaddasī, party spirit ( ʿAsabīya ) was one of the four basic qualities that distinguished the Karrāmīya. In Herat the Karrāmīya were in conflict with the so-called ʿAmalīya. This group was so named because, in contrast to the Karrāmīya, they taught that belief does not consist of the Shahāda , but of the work (ʿamal), by which in particular the five pillars of Islam were meant. Another place where fanatical attacks were made against the Karrāmites was Biyār near what is now Shahrūd . Al-Muqaddasī was particularly attached to this place because his maternal family had emigrated from there to Jerusalem two generations earlier.

Al-Muqaddasī himself defended the Karrāmites against accusations of heresy in his work. He points out that they are "people of renunciation of the world and of worship" (ahl az-zuhd wa-taʿabbud) who aligned themselves with Abū Hanīfa , and says that because of this they cannot be called “heretics” (mubtadiʿūn) . The relationship between Karrāmites and Hanafis is not very easy to determine, however, because al-Muqaddasī also notes that the Karrāmīya as a teaching direction includes both Kalām and Fiqh . This can only be interpreted in such a way that the Karrāmites basically followed the teaching of Abū Hanīfa, but represented some special teachings in Fiqh.

Defense of the karramitic teachings by Ibn al-Haisam

A source from the 10th century reports that the Karrāmites considered it permissible to spontaneously invent hadiths and ascribe them to the Prophet in disputes with religious opponents who questioned the correctness of their teaching and required a hadith to confirm it. They are said to have justified this with the fact that their madhhab was the truth and that the prophet could only have preached the truth. If they told of him that he said this or that what they believed in, then they would have to speak the truth.

In dealing with the other Islamic schools of thought, the Karramites soon resorted to the methods of Kalam . Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad Ibn al-Haisam (d. 1019), who is described by al-Shahrastānī as the Mutakallim of the Karrāmīya, as those who took part in this type of “speech” were called, emerged in particular . Asch-Shahrastānī describes that “Ibn al-Haisam endeavored to correct the doctrine of Abu ʿAbdallāh on every point in such a way that he reduced it from an obnoxious absurdity (muḥāl fāḥiš) to a way that is also understood by the discerning for example the doctrine of the physicality of God ”. It is also known from Ibn al-Haisam that he rejected the name Karrāmīya for his own community and preferred the readings Karāmīya or Kirāmīya in order to make this community part of the concept of "honor" (Arabic karāma ) or the "venerable" ( arab. kirām from so-called karīm ) to be able to relate. The name Karrām was probably avoided because it related the community to wine production.

As Ibn Abī l-Hadīd reports, Ibn al-Haisam was of the opinion that the basis of the teaching and confession of the Karrāmites ultimately goes back to Alī ibn Abī Tālib . He gave two different ways of transmission. One of them led through Sufyān ath-Thaurī and Zaid ibn ʿAlī , the other through the Shiite scholars of Kufa . Ibn Karrām’s teacher Ahmad ibn Harb may have played a role in this attempt to reduce the karrāmitic teaching to Alī. Ahmad ibn Harb handed over Sufyan al-Thawri of'Alī a prayer that this supposedly at the Kaaba of al-Khidr had received.

Sovereign patronage under the early Ghaznavids

The Karramites gained their greatest political influence during the early Ghaznavid period towards the end of the 10th century. This had to do with the fact that Sebüktigin (ruled 977-997), the founder of this dynasty, granted them his support. After adh-Dhahabī , Sebüktigin himself followed the karrāmitic teaching. His secretary and head of the office, Abū l-Fath Bustī, is said to have been Karrāmit. He wrote in a double verse that was also included in the official chronicle of the first Ghaznavids , the Taʾrīḫ al-Yamīnī of ʿUtbī (died between 1036 and 1040):

Al-Fiqhu fiqhu Abī Ḥanīfata waḥda-h
wa-d-dīnu dīnu Muḥammadi bni Karām
inna llaḏīna arā-hum lam yuʾminū
bi-Muḥammadi bni Karām ġairu kirām

The only true legal system is that of Abū Hanīfa ,
and the only valid religion is that of Muhammad ibn Karām.
Those who, I see, do not believe
in Muhammad ibn Karam are not honorable.

The meter requires that one read the name of the founder of the community not with Tashdīd as Ibn Karrām, but as ibn Karām or ibn Kirām. This shows that the name was pronounced at the court of Sebüktigin as taught by the Karramite theologian Ibn al-Haisam. According to a report cited by adh-Dhahabī with reference to the Persian historian Jaʿfar al-Mustaghfirī (d. 1042), Sebüktigin's karrāmitic orientation was also evident when he took Balch in 997. On this occasion he is said to be the Qādī and the scholars confronted karramitic ascetics in the city and asked them what they thought of them. When the Qadi replied that they thought these men were unbelievers, Sebüktigin asked what they thought of himself. When the Qādī replied that if he followed the karrāmitic teachings, he should not be judged otherwise, Sebüktigin had the Qādī's skull shattered and the other scholars locked up.

Sebüktigins son Mahmūd (r. 998-1030) continued the promotion of the Karrāmīya in the first years of his rule. He made the preacher and ascetic Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishāq Ibn Mahmaschādh, leader of the Karrāmites of Nishapur, his confidante and had a ribat built for him on the way to Sarach . The Persian local historian ʿAbd al-Ghāfir al-Fārisī (d. 1134/5) writes that "with him the rule of the Karrāmites came to light " (wa-ẓaharat bi-hī daulat al-Karrāmīya). Ibn Mahmaschād called the people of Nishapur to Sunna and destroyed a new mosque that the Shiites had built. However, his ruthless action against real and alleged heretics and his extortion of protection money aroused general dissatisfaction in Nishapur.

After the year 402 d. H. (= 1012 AD), Maḥmūd withdrew his protection from the Karrāmites. The background to this change in religious policy is examined in a report by the Ghaznavid court chronicler al-ʿUtbī. According to this, a Qādī from Ghazna named Abū l-ʿAlā 'went on a pilgrimage to Mecca that year. On the way back he met in Baghdad with the caliph al-Qādir bi-Llāh (r. 991-1031), who gave him a letter and a secret oral message for Sultan Mahmūd. After the Qādī had returned to Ghazna and brought the message of the caliph to the Sultan, a conversation about the Karrāmīya took place at his court, in which their teachings on the physicality of God and the fact that the name of God Allaah belonged to the accidents were presented particularly negatively. The Sultan then expressed his contempt for these teachings, called Abū Bakr Ibn Mahmaschādh and confronted him about it. Ibn Mahmaschādh was able to save himself by renouncing all the teachings that were subject to him. The Sultan then sent letters to his governors asking them to check the Karramitic clergy. Those who turned away from their teachings were left alone and allowed to keep their posts. Those who persisted in their teaching were arrested and banned from teaching.

Even after Mahmud's turn in religious politics, the Karrāmites seem to have hoped for the support of the ruler in their theological disputes. Tādsch ad-Dīn as-Subkī reports that the Karrāmites denounced their opponent, the Ashʿarite scholar Ibn Fūrak, to Mahmūd for heresy and disbelief . Mahmūd then had Ibn Fūrak come to Ghazna and asked him about his teachings. Since Ibn Fūrak was able to defend himself successfully, he was soon allowed to return to his hometown. As-Subkī claims, the Karrāmites then had Ibn Fūrak poisoned.

Abū l-Muzaffar al-Isfarā'īnī (d. 1078) reports on a theological dispute between the Ashʿarite theologian Abū Ishāq al-Isfarā'īnī (d. 1027) and a Karrāmite in the circle of Mahmūds. Since the Karrāmites in the end had nothing more to say, they are said to have incited the mob against al-Isfarā'īnī until the Sultan himself opposed them and defended him. After the dispute he is said to have stated to his vizier that al-Isfarā'īnī "had thrown their god on the ears of the Karrāmites" (ḫudā-yi Karrāmiyān rā ba-sar-i īšān ba-zad).

Fate of the Karramites in Khorasan during the Seljuk period

The Karramites remained an important social element in Khorasan until the end of the 11th century. Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Fārisī, who wrote a story of Nishapur around 1124, mentions in this work three karrāmitic madrasas that were located within the city. With Abū Bakr ʿAtīq ibn Muhammad as-Sūrābādī (d. 1101) the city also had an important karrāmitic Koran exegete. In the town of Baihaq, which corresponds to the modern town of Sabzevar, shortly before 1023 a rich citizen donated four madrasas, one for the Hanafis , one for the Karramites, one for the Shafiites and one for the Zaidis , with which he expressed that he considered these four groups to be equal. The karrāmitic madrasa was in the Mahalla Schādrāh.

The foundation in Baihaq shows that a combination of karrāmitic theology and Hanafi norms, as recommended by the Ghaznawid poet Abū l-Fath al-Bustī, was by no means self-evident. According to the imamitic heresiographer Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī (d. After 1132), most of the Karrāmites had their own system of norms, only a minority followed in the legal applications (furūʿ) of Abū Hanīfa's teaching . In February 1096 there was even violent fighting in Nishapur between the Karramites on the one hand and the Hanafites and Shafiites on the other, in which numerous people were killed. The Shafiites were led in these battles by Abū l-Qāsim, son of al-Juwainīs , the Hanafis by the Qādī Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn as-Sā'id, and the Karrāmites by Mahmaschādh. Shafiites and Hanafis asked for help from Baihaq, causing the violence to spread to this place as well. The clashes finally ended with a victory of the Shafiites and Hanafis against the Karramites. The Karramite medrasas were destroyed and many Karramites were killed.

After these events, the karrāmīya in Nishapur seems to have lost its importance. Abū Saʿd as-Samʿānī (d. 1166) reports that he could not find any more Karrāmites in the city during his time. And Ibn Funduq (d. 1169) reports that during his time in Baihaq, in contrast to the other madrasas, there was no trace of the karrāmitic madrasa left. However, the Karrāmīya remained in the villages for a while. Yāqūt ar-Rūmī mentions in his geographic lexicon that in Bidschistān, a village in the outskirts of Nishapur, there was a karrāmitic scholar named Abū l-Qāsim Muwaffaq al-Bidschistānī, who was very popular with the crowd. He had around 520 d. H. (= 1126 AD) with a certain Abū l-Qāsim ibn al-Husain lessons, so he was probably active as a scholar in the period afterwards. The writings of Ahmad-i Dschām (1049–1141), who was one of the most important mystics of Eastern Iran in his time, show that he too had a close relationship with the karrāmitic community, possibly even belonging to it himself.

It still seems to have been possible to combine karrāmitic theology and Hanafi norms, because the imamite author ʿAbd al-Jalīl Qazwīnī (ca.1165) reports that at the level of theology there were four types of Hanafis in his day difference:

  1. those who were Karramites,
  2. those who were Muʿtazilites ,
  3. those who were najarites and
  4. those who followed Abū Hanīfa's teaching not only in the legal applications of Sharia law , but also in the “foundations of religion” (uṣūl ad-dīn).

New patronage by the Ghurids and decline

The Karramites remained in large numbers in Ghor , the mountain region in central Afghanistan, and in Herat . The members of the Ghurid dynasty, which experienced its rise in the 12th century, were all Karrāmites. According to Minhādsch ad-Dīn Jūzdschānī , the Gurid sultans Ghiyāth ad-Dīn Muhammad (d. 1202/03) and his brother Muʿizz ad-Dīn Muhammad (d. 1205/06) were originally also followers of the Karrāmīya. However, when Muʿizz ad-Dīn ascended the throne of Ghazna in 1173, in accordance with the views of the inhabitants of this city and the area ruled by him, went over to the Hanafi Madhhab . Ghiyāth ad-Dīn initially remained loyal to the Karrāmīya. In 1189 he commissioned a monumental four-volume Koran manuscript, which he had provided with the commentary of the karrāmitic scholar Abū Bakr as-Sūrābādī. F. B. Flood suspects that he donated this manuscript to a karrāmitic madrasa. Later, however, Ghiyāth ad-Dīn switched to Shafiite teaching.

Ibn al-Athīr , the Ghiyāth ad-Dīns conversion to the Shafiite teaching direction on the year 595 d. H. (= 1198/99 AD), reports that this took place after a Shafiite legal scholar named Wajīh ad-Dīn Abū l-Fath Muhammad ibn Mahmūd al-Marwadhī explained the Shafiite teaching and the “imperfection” of the karrāmitic teaching. This legal scholar had been invited by the court poet Fachr ad-Dīn Mubārakschāh. After the ruler converted, the Karramites tried to harm Wajīh ad-Dīn, but were unable to do so. Ibn al-Athīr gives another explanation for the fact that the two brothers broke away from the karrāmitic teaching. In fact, when they conquered Khorasan, they were said to have been told that the Karramites were despised throughout the land and were advised to renounce their teachings.

After his conversion, Ghiyāth ad-Dīn built his own schools for the Shafiites, built a mosque for them in Ghazna and also showed great consideration for them in other ways. He paid particular tribute to the Shafiite scholar Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī , to whom he built a madrasa in Herat near the Friday mosque . It developed into an attraction for legal scholars from different countries. Ar-Rāzī had a very bad opinion of the Karrāmīya. He said their whole business revolves around "showing off, falsifying and showing ascetic exercises."

For the Karrāmites, the resetting by the ruler Ghiyāth ad-Dīn was a hard blow. Sadr ad-Dīn ʿAlī Haisam Nischāpūrī, the head of the karrāmitic madrasa in Afshīn in Ghardschistān, wrote a poem in which he strongly criticized the Sultan's turning away from the Karrāmīya. However, this poem only earned him the ruler's anger and forced him to leave the area of ​​Ghūr for a year. The Karrāmites in Herat envied Fachr ad-Dīn because of his privileged position with Ghiyāth ad-Dīn and hated him, especially Diyā 'ad-Dīn, the nephew of Ghiyāth ad-Dīn, who was married to his daughter.

According to Ibn al-Athīr it came in the year 595 d. H. at Ghiyāth ad-Dīn in the Ghuridic capital Fīrūzkūh for a major disputation between Karrāmitic, Hanafi and Shafiite scholars, at which also Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī and the Karrāmite Qādī Ibn'd ad-Dīn ʿAbd al-Madhud al-Dīn ʿAbd al- participated. The latter was very popular with the Karramites because of his asceticism, extensive knowledge, and family background. Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī attacked Ibn al-Qudwa several times personally during the disputation. The latter gave a sermon the next day in which he accused Fachr ad-Dīn of spreading the teaching of Aristotle , blasphemous sayings of Ibn Sīnā and the philosophy of al-Fārābī , and of attacking the religion of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet. The Karramites are said to have been so moved by this sermon that they wept. Riots subsequently broke out, killing several people. In order to calm the population, the ruler had to promise to expel Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī from the city. He then returned to Herat. Ibn al-Qiftī reports that it was said that ar-Rāzī died of a poison administered to him by the Karrāmites.

In the 13th century the Karrāmīya got more and more into a marginal position in their core areas. The Hanafi scholar Masʿūd ibn Schaiba, who was active at this time, reports that it is only a small heap (širḏima) in the mountains of Ghūr and the area around Ghazna, which the Hanafis disdain and occasionally some of them even cursed them. However, according to the Yemeni heresiographer as-Saksakī (d. 1284), there were followers of Ibn Karram in Khorasan and other places until his time. After the Mongol invasion, the Karrāmīya seems to have finally disappeared, as there are no further reports of encounters with its followers. Later authors who write about the Karrāmīya, such as Ibn Taimīya , only repeat what they found in the older literature.

Piety and asceticism

Constant worship (taʿabbud), renunciation of the world (zuhd) and self-mortification (taqaššuf) have been important principles in Karrāmīya since Muhammad ibn Karrām . By opponents, the Karrāmites were often referred to only as the "self-mortifying" (al-mutaqaššifa) . According to al-Muqaddasī, fear of God (tuqā), humility (ḏull) and begging (kudya) were among the four basic qualities that distinguished the Karrāmīya. Obviously the Karramites were also recognizable by their special clothing. The writer Abū Haiyān at-Tauhīdī (d. 1023) describes them in one of his works as the " burnous bearers" (aṣḥāb al-barānis). The Shafiite heresiographer al-Saksakī describes that they wore burnoos and had prayer chains in their hands .

The Karrāmites were also known for their refusal to work (inkār al-kasb) . In the Kitāb as-Sawād al-aʿẓam by Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī, this attitude is criticized and classified as an unlawful innovation . The karrāmitic rejection of gainful employment (kasb) also plays an important role in the commentary by as-Sarachsī on the Kitāb al-Kasb of al-Shaibānī . As-Sarachsī reports there the karrāmitic doctrinal conception, according to which gainful work is only allowed as a ruchsa, i.e. as an exceptional release from observing certain commands and prohibitions, and points out that this view is in contrast to the majority opinion of Sunni legal scholars, according to which gainful employment is allowed a religious duty to survive .

However, many people who were outside the community felt the karrāmitic asceticism as artificial and criticized it. One example is Abū l-Hasan Silm ibn al-Hasan al-Bārūsī, a sheikh from a village near Nishapur, who is reported to have been asked by Ibn Karrām about his followers. He is said to have replied: "When they returned the desire in their interior to the outside, and asceticism returned to their looks inside, then they were real men." He also reportedly said that he among followers Ibn Karrāms much prayer See , much fasting and much humility (ḫušūʿ) , but not the “light of Islam” (nūr al-islām). In a tradition cited by the imamite heresiographer Ibn Dāʿī ar-Rāzī, the Karrāmites are said to have fasted during the day and prayed at night to impress people, and that they also wore old clothes, but in reality only sought to to fill your stomach.

Theological teachings

The theological teachings of the Karrāmīya are mainly known through the presentation of authors of other faiths who have dealt with this community in their own theological or heresiographic works. These include in particular the Ash diearites Abū l-Hasan al-Aschʿarī , ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 1037), Abū l-Muzaffar al-Isfarā'īnī (d. 1078), al-Juwainī (d. 1085) and Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d. 1209), the Ismāʿīlites Abū Tammām (10th century) and Nāsir-i Chusrau (d. 1072), the Zaidit al-Hākim al-Juschamī (d. 1101) and the Imamit Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī (died after 1132). With them it must be taken into account that they were hostile to the Karrāmīya and in some cases even considered them to be a group outside of Islam.

Doctrine of God

God as a body

According to consensus reports, the Karramites taught that God was body and substance (ǧauhar) . How much Ibn Karrām imagined God to be a corporeal being can be seen from the fact that he called his own son 'Abd al-Jazim (servant of the corporeal ) . Al-Maqrīzī therefore counted the Karrāmīya among the corporealists (muǧassima) and described them as a counter-movement to the Muʿtazila . Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī claims that the Karrāmites claimed that God is "a person like men and is shaped like men," but no other source confirms this.

Rather, the Karramites had a very specific concern when they applied the term “body” (ǧism) to God. Ar-Rāzī quotes it with the words: “We do not mean that God is composed of parts, but we mean by this that he does not need a substrate (maḥall) and is on its own (qāʾim bi-n-nafs) . " Al-Juwainī (d. 1085) explains that when the Karrāmites said" standing by themselves "they meant that God was" mutaḥaiyiz ". According to Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī, the Karrāmites gave God a direction (ǧiha) and a place. Abū l-Qāsim an-Nīsābūrī (d. 1157) quotes it with the statement that God as the previous one (al-qadīm) belongs to one direction and has always been separate from the world. What made him part of one direction they called separation (bainūna).

The conception of the “body” as one who is “standing alone” (al-qāʾim bi-nafsi-hī) was apparently never shared by all Karrāmites. Al-Juwainī reports that a small group of them thought that the body was "that which exists" (al-mauǧūd) , others thought that the body is that which stands on its own, but most of them took the view that the body is something that touches something else on one of its sides. The Abū l-Qāsim an-Nīsābūrī, writing a little later, indicates other majority ratios. According to him, the conception of the body as "standing alone" was held by most of the Karramites. Others have taught that the body is that which can take on attributes , and still others that it is that which touches something else on one of its sides.

Abū Tammām counted the Karrāmīya because of their image of God to the Muschabbiha, those religious groups who compare God with things here and there. Further directions that he imputing this group that were Kullābīya , the Ash'ari who Hischāmīya that Muqātilīya and Mughīrīya . Nāsir-i Chusrau, on the other hand, reports that the Karrāmites rejected any kind of Tashbīh, i.e. the comparison with things here and there, with God. According to his account, there was at least one group of karrāmitic theologians who affirmed the incomparability of God in this world. They said that God was "one body" but "not like [other] bodies". This seems to reflect the teaching of Ibn Haisam. He is said to have endeavored to show that the karrāmitic doctrine differs from that of the Muschabbiha. He argued that, unlike the Muschabbiha, the Karrāmites ascribed no shape or form, no hollowness or roundness, and no fullness of hair or touching with the hand to God. Rather, they only adhered to what the Koran said about God without determining how. Abū Tammām reports that the Karrāmites taught that God could also be seen in the hereafter.

The relationship of God to his throne

The Karramites were particularly concerned about the relationship between God and his throne. This has to do with their rejection of Jahmitic theology, which saw God as an unlimited being. The Koranic basis for the karrāmitic statements about the relationship between God and his throne was sura 20: 5 : “The merciful sat down on his throne” (ar-Raḥmān ʿalā l-ʿarš istawā). According to al-Baghdādī, the Karrāmites taught that God has a limitation from below and touches his throne there. Abū Tammām reports that the Karrāmites taught that God is a body connected to the divine throne (mulāṣiq li-l-ʿarš). According to al-Maqrīzī, they believed that God was a body that was only limited from below. This body could meet bodies that are below it. He is on the divine throne (ʿarš) and the divine throne touches him.

Apparently, however, some Karramites were interested in avoiding the impression that the relationship between God and his throne was understood as real contact. Al-Baghdādī quotes one of them as saying, “I am not saying that he touches his throne (anna-hū mumāss bi-ʿarši-hī), but I say that he meets him in such a way that there is nothing between them unless the throne descends so that a body can enter between them. ”Elsewhere, al-Baghdādī states that the Karrāmites as a whole have the term“ touch ” (mumāssa) on this question through“ meeting ” (mulāqāt) replaced.

The idea that God touches his throne has probably to do with the Karramites' special understanding of space. Al-Juwainī reports that some of them believed that when the particles of matter (wasāʾiṭ) were removed, the stars would collide. This view is believed to have led them to teach that if God were to remove the air between heaven and earth, the sky would lower and the earth would rise until both collided.

The intra-carramatic dissent about the greatness of God

During the dispute between Abū Ishāq al-Isfarā'īnī and the Karrāmite at the court of Mahmūd of Ghazna, the Karrāmit al-Isfarā'īnī is said to have asked whether it could be said that God was on the throne and that the throne was a place for him be. Al-Isfarā'īnī is said to have denied and illustrated the impossibility by laying his palms on top of each other and saying: “If one thing is so on another, then it can only be larger, the same size or smaller than it. Then there has to be something defining that defines it. But everything that is fixed is limited, and the limited cannot be a god because it requires something fixed and a limit. ”This argument is said to have confused the Karramites. Some are said to have said that it was larger than the throne, others that it was the same size. The Karramitic scholar Ibrahim ibn al-Muhadjir believed that it was as wide as the throne.

This intra-carramic dissent is mentioned by several other authors. Al-Baghdādī reports that some of the Karrāmites assumed that the entire throne would be filled by God and, in the event that thrones opposite him were created, he would also fill them all because he was greater than all of them combined. Others, however, assumed that God did not tower over his throne at the side of touch. This view was mainly represented and defended by Ibrāhīm ibn Muhādschir.

According to Abū l-Qāsim an-Nīsābūrī, a group of the Karrāmites taught that the "majesty" (ʿaẓama) of God means that despite his oneness he is on all parts of the throne, the throne is below him, and he is above all as he is above the word “opposite” (ḥaḏwa) . Another group of them, on the other hand, taught that his majesty meant that in spite of his oneness from one side, he met more than one and met all parts of the throne.

Al-Juwainī reports that the group among the Karrāmites who took the view that the body was something that touched something on one of its sides was again divided into two subgroups: some considered contact from below to be permissible, they concluded however, on the other sides, others thought contact from the other sides was also possible and imagined God to be surrounded by the bodies that he had created.

God's attributes and names

According to Nāsir-i Chusrau, the Karrāmites referred to God as knowing, powerful and alive and ascribed other praiseworthy attributes to him, which humans can also have, but said that “knowledge”, “power” and “life” are different with God in other contexts. Life, power, knowledge, hearing and eyesight were, according to the karrāmitic view, at the beginning eternal essential attributes (ṣifāt aḏ-ḏāt) of God. Anything beyond that, they saw not as attributes, but as predicates (nuʿūt) that are created. A group of Karramites is said to have held the opinion that God has two knowledge, one with which he knows the things known and another with which he knows the same knowledge. According to the karrāmitic view, knowledge, will and perceptions could also be present in the dead, but they considered the existence of power only possible in the living. The power related to speaking is what the Karramites called the speech of God (kalam Allaah).

According to the karrāmitic teaching, those names of God that are derived from his actions also had an eternal existence. God is said to have been a creator (ḫāliq) and breadwinner (rāziq) even before creation (ḫalq) and livelihood (rizq) existed . Al-Baghdādī quotes the Karrāmites as saying: “We say: God was Creator and Nourisher in an absolute way before. But we do not say with the genitive: he was already the creator of the creatures and the nourisher of the nourished. We only use this genitive if there are creatures and nourished ones. ”According to karrāmitic teaching, God was creator through his“ creativeness ” (ḫāliqīya) and breadwinner through his“ nourishment(rāziqīya) being. They explained creativity as “the power to create” (al-qudra ʿalā at-taḫlīq).

Of the Karrāmite Ibrāhīm ibn Muhādschir, however, it is reported that he regarded the names of God as accidents in him, just as he also thought that every name was an accident in what is named. He claimed that Allah was an accident that took place in an initially eternal body, and that all other names of God such as Rahmān, Rahīm, Chāliq were different accidents in God.

The process of creation as an event in God

A distinctive feature of karrāmitic teaching was that according to it, things can happen in God himself. According to Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī , the Karrāmites believed that God was the “substratum of events” (maḥall al-ḥawādiṯ) . Al-Baghdādī and al-Isfarāʾīnī name as the events (ḥawādiṯ) for which, according to Karrāmitic teaching, God is a substrate, his encounter with the throne, his words, his will, his perception of audible things and his perception of visible things. These five things are, in the karramitic view, accidents that happen in God's being.

According to karrāmitic teaching, the five events in God's being happen solely through God's power (qudra). This also applies to his statements about the past and future in the revealed books. The bodies and accidents of the world, on the other hand, are not objects of God's power (maqdūrāt) because he creates them only with his words and his will. The Karrāmites taught that everything that arises in the world arises only when God utters the word “be” (kun) and wants it to arise . In the same way, everything that goes to nothing in the world should only go to nothing when God says the word “Disappear!” (Ifna) to him and wants his downfall. And if he has created a body or an accident, they have to last until God tells them to go away and He wants their downfall. Just as God cannot create anything in the world without many accidents having occurred in him beforehand, God cannot make anything disappear from the world without accidents having occurred in him, including his will that what is disappearing disappears. However, al-Baghdādī reports elsewhere that the Karrāmites disagreed as to whether nothing (al-ʿadm) also belongs to the events that can happen in the being of God. While some of them thought it was possible, the majority of them ruled it out.

According to the Karrāmitic doctrine, God is undoubtedly the one who creates all things by his power, but creation (īǧād) is not something that is brought about, but happens. The Karrāmites justified this view with the fact that otherwise an endless recourse to a final cause would be necessary. Abu l-Muzaffar al-Isfarā'īnī thinks that the Karrāmiten, in their doctrine that events in the nature of God done by the Madschūs were affected. They claimed that Yazdān had thought to himself that an adversary might arise who could fight him in his realm. He then worried, and because of this thought, putrefaction developed in his being, out of which he created Satan . When the Karramites heard about it, they are said to have based their doctrine of God on it as the substratum of events. According to Al-Juwainī, the Karrāmites were the only religious group after the Majūs who believed that a sequence of events in God was possible.

Another peculiarity of the teaching of the Karramites was that they distinguished between the speech (kalām) and the word (qaul) of God. While they took the former as an attribute of initially eternal (qadīm) , they said of the latter that it was "happening" (ḥādiṯ) and "going on in God" (qāʾim bi-Llāh), but not "brought about" (muḥdaṯ) be. They related this doctrine to the Koran: In their view it was not created , but “happened”. The fact that the Karrāmites did not see the speech of God in the Koran but rather the “Word of God” (qaul Allaah) set them apart from all other Islamic groups.

Prophets, Imams and Friends of God

As Ibn Hazm reports, the Karramites taught that prophets can commit sins great and small, but that they are protected from lies in the conveyance of the religious message by the ʿIsma . According to al-Baghdādī, they taught that divine sentiment and prophethood are two meanings that existed in the Rasūl and the Prophet from the beginning, other than his ʿIsma, his miraculousness and his sending out by God. They differentiated between the Rasūl messenger and the Mursal messenger by saying that the Rasūl is the one in whom this meaning is found and the one in whom this meaning is found must be sent by God. The mursal envoy, on the other hand, is the one whom the sender has already sent.

They further taught that in the event of the appearance of a prophet calling to his religion, the one who hears or hears that call is obliged to declare it to be true and to confirm it without having been instructed of its evidence. Al-Baghdādī suggested that the Karrāmites had adopted this idea from the Ibadites , who taught that a prophet's claim that he was a prophet was sufficient evidence (ḥuǧǧa) . He whom the call of the prophets did not reach must believe what reason required, namely that God had sent messengers to his creatures. Indeed, they believed that if God had confined himself to only one Rasūl messenger from the first time of commitment until the resurrection, he would not have been sane (ḥakīm) . According to Abū Tammām, on the other hand, the Karrāmites taught that the Prophet Mohammed was not proof because he died while the proof of God could not die.

Like the Imamites , the Karrāmites believed that the Imam is determined by designation (naṣṣ) , but they held the view that the designated Imam after the Prophet Mohammed was not ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib , but Abū Bakr . They derived this from the Koran word in sura 48 : 16: "Say to those desert Arabs who have been left behind: You will be called to a people of immense power, against whom you will have to fight if they do not surrender". They related this word from the Koran to Abū Bakr, who was the first to call for a fight against the " apostate Arab tribes " after the death of the Prophet . The Karramites also believed that there could be two imams at the same time. One group among them is said to have taught that ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib and Muʿāwiya I were imams at the same time. Only, in contrast to Muʿāwiya, ʿAlī adhered to the Sunnah . Yet the followers of each of them would have had a duty to obey their imam. Ibn Dāʿī ar-Rāzī reports that some Karrāmites even recognized the imamate of Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya , although he had wrongly shed the blood of the prophet's grandson al-Husain ibn ʿAlī . They are said to have justified this with the fact that the bloodshed of the caliph appointed by God was already predicted in the Koran ( Surah 2:30 ) and approved there.

Like al-Hakīm at-Tirmidhī , the Karrāmites used the word Walī (“friend of God”) for mystics or saints . Al-Baghdādī says the Karrāmites thought that some friends of God were even better than some prophets. It must be taken into account here that auliyāʾ ("friends of God") was also the common name for the karrāmitic ascetics and Chanqāh residents. Some Karrāmites are also said to have claimed that their founder Ibn al-Karrām was better than ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd and many Sahāba , the companions and companions of the Prophet. Al-Baghdādī says that the only reason they did not dare to choose him over the Prophet Mohammed was because they were afraid of the sword. Ibn Dāʿī ar-Rāzī reports something else. According to him, some Karrāmites are said to have thought Ibn Karrām also better and more important than the Prophet Mohammed.

The belief

According to Abū l-Hasan al-Ashʿarī, the Karrāmites claimed that belief is confession (iqrār) only with the tongue, not with the heart. They are said to have insisted that belief is only telling the truth with the tongue, not knowledge in the heart. They are also said to have taught that the Munāfiq ūn were true believers in Muhammad's time and that kufr in relation to God consists of denying and denying him. According to Abū Tammām, no one has faith in God in their hearts, not even friends of God or prophets. Al-Maqrīzī reports even more extreme things about the Karrāmites: They are said to have taught that belief consists only of the formula Lā ilāha illā Llāh (“There is no god but God”), regardless of whether one is convinced of it or not.

Al-Baghdādī gives particularly detailed explanations of the doctrine of the Karrāmites. Accordingly, they meant that faith was a unique confession, namely the “ yes(balā) of the creatures when the original contract was concluded, when God “ drew their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam ” ( Sura 7 : 172) and they testified let him be their master. The Karramites claimed that this “but” would continue to work on people until the day of resurrection . All people, regardless of whether they have believing or unbelieving parents, should come into the world as believers based on their earlier confession in the original contract. Since the children are believers in the original contract because of their "yes", they should all come to paradise in the event of death. But when the person grows up and shows himself kufr , he is judged differently depending on the status of the parents. If his parents were unbelievers, then he too is considered an unbeliever. But if only one of them was a believer, then he is considered an apostate . If, however, the one who has fallen away from Islam confesses again, then his first confession after the apostasy should count as faith. But the repetition of the confession does not count as belief.

As reported by al-Baghdādī, the Karrāmites equated the beliefs of the Munāfiqūn with the beliefs of the prophets, angels and other believers. The Munāfiqūn thought they were true believers, but they also thought it possible that a believer could be in hell forever, like ʿAbdallāh ibn Ubaiy, the leader of the Munāfiqūn, just as they thought it possible that an unbeliever could go to paradise comes, like ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, namely when he has been forced to make a blasphemous utterance before his death. Al-Hākim al-Jushamī lectures the doctrine of the Karrāmites that God can bring the unbelievers out of the fire of hell. Ibn Hazm reports, however, of a dissent among the Karrāmites with regard to the Munāfiqūn: While some said that they were believers and would come to Paradise as such, another group said that they were believers, but at the same time also co- sellers , and as such in hell would come.

Several scholars considered the Karrāmīya because of their conception of faith as a sub-sect of murji'ah so Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Nu`aym al-Isfahani . Abū Tammām saw a closeness between them and the group of the Najārīya, who also belonged to the Murji'a, with regard to the karrāmitic teachings on the actions of men. The Karrāmites themselves, however, did not see themselves as Murji'a, but used the term for groups that denied the duty of the works.

Dissemination of theological teachings and secrecy

The teachings of the physicality of God and God as the substratum of things arising do not seem to have been very well known among the simple followers of the Karrāmīya. ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī reports that he himself had met a group of simple followers of the Karrāmīya who had only heard of the physicality of God by name and also did not know that their clergymen learned the doctrine of the origin of events in essence Represented God.

It is possible that the Karrāmites had some kind of Arcane discipline . As Ibn ad-Dāʿī reports, Muhammad ibn Karrām had written the verse of the Koran on the back of his “Book of the Mystery” with his own hand: “Only the cleansed should touch it” (Sura 56:79). Al-Hākim al-Jushamī says the Karrāmites have secret doctrines, which they call "principles" (aḥkām) and which resemble the secrets of the Batinīya . Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī also suspected the Karrāmites of secrecy. He was firmly convinced that they actually believed that God was a composite body, but that they did so from Taqīya , i.e. the idea that it is permissible to hide one's faith in danger to life and limb, and out of fear did not say openly.

Norms

Most of the peculiarities of the Karrāmīya in the doctrine of norms related to the performance of religious rites. They showed a certain leniency in this area. Al-Muqaddasī names four points in which the Karrāmites differ from all other Islamic groups: their indulgence (musāmaḥa) with regard to the nīya in their ritual duties, their permission to say the obligatory prayer on the back of a mount, their recognition of the validity of the Fasting a person who accidentally ate after sunrise and the validity of a morning prayer that did not finish at sunrise. In one of the manuscripts of the work, a fifth point is mentioned, namely that the Karrāmites considered it permissible to hold the Friday prayer outside a city ( miṣr ǧāmi weniger ) with fewer than forty people. Like the Ashāb al-hadīth , the Karrāmites also allowed the wudū to simply stroke the turban .

Other peculiarities are mentioned in al-Maqrīzī . Accordingly, Ibn Karrām taught, for example, that it is sufficient for the traveler to only say the two takbirs of the fear prayer (ṣalāt al-ḫauf) . He also considered it permissible to pray in a robe that had been immersed in an impure liquid. In his opinion, prayer, fasting , zakāt , hajj and the other worship exercises were valid even if they were not preceded by a declaration of intent . According to him, the declaration of intent was only necessary for supererogatory acts (nawāfil) , i.e. when someone did more than his duty required. In his opinion, ritual prayer could also be ended with food, drink or sexual intercourse.

Other peculiarities of the Karrāmites in the area of ​​norms related to the area of ​​sexuality. According to Abū Tammām, they taught that it is forbidden for a man to marry a woman if he had previously had sexual relations with her mother. Ibn al-Karrām is also said to have taught that sexual intercourse with boys or young men of the unbelievers is worship , regardless of whether it is Muschrikūn , Majūs , Jews or Christians. He derived this from sura 9 : 120, where it says: "They make no idea (lā yaṭiʾūna mauṭiʾan) that arouses the resentment of the unbelievers, and they get nothing from an enemy unless they are credited with a righteous deed." A karrāmitic poet is said to have written about this rule:

wa-kam min Yahūdīyin malīḥin ʿalautu-hū
wa-aḥsanu šai'in Muslimun fauqa kāfirin

How many pretty Jews have I climbed,
a Muslim over an unbeliever is the best thing.

In the Usūl al-fiqh , too, the Karrāmites seem to have represented individual special teachings. So they are said that they do not in the assessment of human actions means things knew, but only merits and sins, each impact to the benefit or detriment of the people. They derived this from the Quranic word in sura 10:32: "According to the truth, what can there be other than error?"

By a group of them is reported to have regard to the assessment of Ijtihad the principle its outcome kull muǧtahid muṣīb ( "Wherever someone falls an independent judgment, he makes something right") followed, both in legal applications (furū') as also with the basics (uṣūl). They only made an exception for heretics (zanādiqa) . In this teaching, which al-Muqaddasī characterizes as Murji'ite , the group relied on the alleged saying of the Prophet that his community should split into 73 sects, 72 of which come to Paradise and one to Hell.

Subsects

Various karramitic sub-sects are mentioned in the Islamic heresiographical works. They should hold different views, but have recognized each other. The number of these sub-sects is given differently: al-Baghdādī names three, Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī seven, and asch-Schahrastānī twelve. Information is only available on the following sects:

Hīdīya
It goes back to Hīd ibn Saif, a disciple of Ibn Karrām. The members of this subgroup are said to have openly taught that God is a body.
Razīnīya
It can be traced back to Razīn, another student of Ibn Karrām from Gardschistān.
Muhādjirīya
It was traced back to Ibrāhīm ibn Muhādschir, a disciple of ʿAmr al-Mazūlī. This al-Mazūlī was a disciple of ʿAbdān as-Samarqandī, ʿAbdān of Muhammad as-Sidschzī and this in turn of Ibn Karrām.
ʿĀbidīya
It was traced back to ʿUthmān al-ʿĀbid, who took over from Abū l-Fadl al-ʿĀbid, who in turn took over from ʿAmr al-Mazūlī.
Tūnīya
It was traced back to Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdallāh, another disciple of ʿAmr al-Mazūlī.
Haisamīya
It goes back to the aforementioned Kalām scholar Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad ibn al-Haisam, who is considered one of the most respected personalities of the Karrāmīya. He had learned from Muhammad ibn Jafar, who was another student of al-Mazūlī. A difference between ʿĀbidīya and Haisamīya was that the former considered the distance between God and the Divine Throne to be finite, while the latter considered it to be infinite. Majd al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Madschīd ibn ʿUmar Ibn Qudwa, who disputed with Fachr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī at the court of the Ghurid ruler Ghiyāth ad-Dīn, belonged to this sub-cult of the Karrāmīya. Al-Bazdawī describes the Haisamīya as a synthesis of Karrāmīya and Qadarīya .
Ishāqīya
It probably refers to Abū Yaʿqūb Ishāq ibn Mahmaschādh (d. 993), whose family was the mainstay of the Karrāmīya in Nishapur.
Tarā'ifīya
The founder of this sub-sect was the scholar Ahmad ibn ʿAbdūs at-Tarā'ifī (d. 958).

Further sub-cults mentioned in the Arabic sources are the Haqā'iqīya, the Nūnīya, the Zarībīya, the Wāhidīya, the Hamāqīya, the Sūrmīya, the Sauwāqīya, the Maʿīya and the Dhammīya.

Karrāmitic learning

Koran Studies

The real strength of karramitic scholarship lay in the Koranic studies . The Koranic works that are now classified as karrāmitic include:

  • The Kitāb al-Mabānī li-naẓm al-maʿānī. This is the introduction to a commentary on the Koran, which has been an important source of Western Koran studies since the 19th century and was published in 1954 by Arthur Jeffery . Since the only manuscript in which the work has survived is written in the Maghribi style , it was previously assumed that the work is of North African or Andalusian origin. The karrāmitic origin of the work, which began in 425 (= 1033 AD), was only discovered in the 1980s by A. Zysow. The most important evidence of the karrāmitic orientation of the text is a passage in which the author quotes the founder of the community as the "legal guiding Imam (al-imām al-hādī) Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad ibn Karrām". The famous karramitic theologian Muhammad ibn al-Haisam is also mentioned in several places. The author of the work is not named, but Zysow assumes that he belonged to the circles of the well-known Karrāmitic theologian Muhammad ibn al-Haisam. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the chains of transmission in the work and various codicological indications, the Iranian scholar Hasan Ansārī Qummī takes the view that it is the karrāmitic Koran scholar Abū Muhammad Hāmid ibn Ahmad Ibn Bastām (d. 1038) from Nishapur.
  • The Persian Koran commentary Tafsīr at-tafāsīr by Abū Bakr ʿAtīq ibn Muhammad as-Sūrābādī (d. 1100), in which four generations of Karrāmites are quoted with their interpretation of various verses of the Koran. A monumental Koran manuscript with as-Sūrābādīs commentary was commissioned in 1189 by the Ghurid sultan Ghiyāth ad-Dīn. The manuscript is now in the Iranian National Museum . The commentary itself was edited in five volumes in Tehran in 2002/03.
  • The work al-Fūṣūl by Abū Hanīfa ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Ahmad (10th / 11th century), in which various verses of the Koran are commented on. The text, which is a mixture of Persian and Arabic, contains numerous sayings handed down by Muhammad ibn Karrām. The work has survived in four manuscripts, three of which are in Iranian libraries and one is in the British Museum . The latter, however, is incomplete.
  • The Qisas-al-Anbiyā 'work of Abū l-Hasan al-Haisam ibn Muhammad al-Būschandschī (d. 1075), a grandson of Abū ʿAbdallāh Muhammad ibn al-Haisam. It is preserved in the manuscript Princeton Yahuda 439. Its first part was edited in 2006 in Amman.

Heresiography

The heresiographic Kitāb ar-Radd ʿalā ahl al-bidaʿ wa-l-ahwāʾ ("Book of the Refutation of the Followers of Unlawful Innovations and Heresies") by Abū Mutīʿ Makhūl an-Nasafī (d. 930) has a karrāmitic orientation. In this work the teachings of the Harūrīya , Rawāfida , Qadarīya , Jabrīya , Jahmīya and Murji'a are subjected to a comprehensive criticism. Each group is divided into twelve subgroups. In this way the author reaches the number of 72 sects who, according to one prophetic word, are said to have gone astray. The author does not reveal his own theological identity. When he speaks of his own religious direction, he always only refers to it as the position of the “community” (ǧamāʿa). While Marie Bernand had classified the book as Hanafi in her edition, Ulrich Rudolph has shown that the author follows Ibn Karrām’s theology without showing this dependency offensively.

Treatise on-Nutaf fī-fatawa

With the treatise an-Nutaf fī l-fatāwā, which is ascribed to the Hanafi Ober-Qādī Abū l-Hasan ʿAlī ibn Husain as-Sughdī (d. 1068), an independent karramitic work on Islamic norms has probably been preserved. The treatise, which is designed to be comparative, does not have an overtly karrāmitic character, but it does convey the jurisprudential views of an Abū ʿAbdallāh, who according to A. Zysow can be identified with Muhammad Ibn Karrām. Zysow deduces this from the fact that the teachings ascribed to Abū ʿAbdallāh in the text show great agreement with what al-Muqaddasī and the heresiographers report on the karrāmitic doctrine of norms. He believes there is a possibility that the text could offer a reformulation of the Karramite doctrine that freed it from its more obnoxious features, just as Ibn al-Haisam had previously reformulated Karramite theology. The Hanafis are presented in the work as an independent group to which the aforementioned Abū ʿAbdallāh does not belong.

According to Zysow, the author's affiliation to the Karrāmīya is also supported by the fact that, on the one hand, he usually only establishes rules if he ascribes them to Abū ʿAbdallāh, and on the other hand, he sometimes presents the karrāmitic teaching position as the accepted teaching without a clear ascription. He suspects that an-Nutaf was written for Karramite law students , some of whom were Hanafites and others who followed Ibn Karram and his successors such as Muhammad ibn Sāhib. The work was valued in teaching because of its clear representation of Hanafi law, its karramitic origins were later forgotten, so Zysov's assumption.

hagiography

Originally there were also several karrāmitic works of a hagiographic character. For example, the two karramitic scholars Ishāq ibn Mahmaschādh (d. 993) and Muhammad ibn al-Haisam have compiled works on the Fadā'il or the praiseworthy qualities (manāqib) of Muhammad ibn Karrām.

Only the Persian collection of anecdotes Raunaq al-maǧālis (in some manuscripts the title differs from Raunaq al-qulūb ) by Abū Hafs ʿUmar ibn Hasan an-Naisābūrī as-Samarqandī, which was probably written in the second half of the 11th century, has survived . It was one of the oldest collections of religious and ethical stories in the Persian language. The book contains 25 pages of anecdotes from the life of Ibn al-Karrām. In his dissertation, Hatoum provides English translations of some representative anecdotes. At one point a Kitāb Manāqib al-ustāḏ Isḥāq ("Book on the Praiseworthy Qualities of Ustādh Ishāq") is cited, which is probably a hagiographic work on Ishāq ibn Mahmaschādh. An anonymous abridged version of Raunaq al-maǧālis was published in 1975 by RadAlī Rajā'ī . The book was also popular in an Arabic translation, of which several manuscripts exist. ʿUthmān ibn Yahyā al-Mīrī later made a short version of it.

Karrāmitic influence on the minaret of Jām

The eastern side of the minaret with the arched panels and the diamond-shaped knot located on the upper right edge of the picture.

According to Finbarr B. Flood's interpretation, karrāmitic influence can also be seen in the design of the Jām minaret , the most important monument of Guridic architecture. On the lower shaft of this minaret runs a series of narrow Arabic writing bands that overlap and cross each other, thus forming panels filled with geometrical ornaments. The entire text of Sura 19 is reproduced in these tapes . Since the form and content of this volume of inscriptions are unusual, there have been several attempts to relate it to certain historical circumstances in the construction of the minaret. Ralph Pinder-Wilson, for example, related them to the victories of the Ghurids in India in 2001 and took the view that the attacks against idolatry contained in Sura 19 (verses 49 and 81) refer to the new polytheistic subjects of the Ghurids. As the latest research shows that the minaret was built in the year 570 d. H. (= 1174/75 AD) and thus falls in the time before the Guridic expansion into India, Flood considers such an interpretation to be ruled out.

Flood points out that the densest and most elaborately decorated ornament appears on the eastern side of the minaret, which is where the gaze falls when the person praying according to the qibla . This is located above an arched panel that appears to form a mihrab and consists of a diamond-shaped knot formed by the intersection of various tapes containing verses 34 and 35 of sura 19. In the German translation they read: “This is Jesus, Mary's son, as the word of truth (qaul al-ḥaqq) about which they are at odds. It is not up to God to adopt a son - that is far from it! If he decides on a thing, he only speaks to her, 'Be!' and then she is (kun fa-yakūn). “Flood thinks that this Koranic statement was chosen for the central decorative element on the minaret because it could serve to confirm the doctrinal conception of the Karrāmīya, according to which the things of the world are not through God's eternal attribute of omnipotence, but only through being with accidents corresponding creation word kun be created.

literature

Arabic and Persian sources

  • Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. Edited and translated into English by Wilferd Madelung and Paul E. Walker under the title: An Ismaili heresiography: “Bāb al-shayṭān” from Abū Tammām's Kitāb al-shajara. Brill, Leiden 1998 (Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts 23).
  • ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baġdādī : Al-Farq baina l-firaq. Ed. Muḥammad ʿUṯmān al-Ḫišn. Maktabat Ibn Sīnā, Cairo undated, pp. 189–197. Digitized.
  • ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baġdādī: Kitāb al-Milal wa-n-niḥal. Ed. TO Nader. Dar el-Machreq, Beirut 1970. pp. 149-154. Digitized.
  • ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. Maṭbaʿat ad-Daula, Istanbul 1928. Digitized.
  • Abū l-Yusr al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. Ed. Hans Peter Linss and Aḥmad Ḥiǧāzī as-Saqqā. Al-Maktaba al-Azharīya li-t-Tūrāṯ, Cairo 2003. Digitized.
  • Al-Ǧuwainī : aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. Ed. ʿAlī Sāmī an-Naššār u. a. Munšaʾāt al-Maʿārif, Alexandria 1969. Digitized.
  • Minhāǧ ad-Dīn Ǧūzǧānī : Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī. Ed. William Nassau Lees. Calcutta 1864. pp. 77-80. Digitized. - English transl. Major HG Raverty. Gilbert & Rivington, London 1881. Vol. I, pp. 384 f. Digitized.
  • Ibn Ḥazm : al-Faṣl fi-l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-n-niḥal. Ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Naṣr; ʿAbd-ar-Raḥmān ʿUmaira. 5 Vol. Dār al-Ǧīl, Beirut 1985. Vol. V, p. 74.
  • Saiyid Murtaḍā Ibn Dāʿī Ḥasanī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm fī maʿrifat maqālāt al-anām. Ed. ʿAbbās Iqbāl. Maǧlis, Tehran 1313hš. Pp. 64-74. Digitized.
  • Abū l-Muẓaffar al-Isfarāyīnī: At-Tabṣīr fī d-dīn wa-tamyīz al-firqa an-nāǧiya ʿan al-firaq al-hālikīn. Ed. Kamāl Yūsuf al-Ḥūt. ʿĀlam al-kutub, Beirut 1983. pp. 111-117. Digitized.
  • Al-Maqrīzī : al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār bi-ḏikr al-Ḫiṭaṭ wa-l-āṯār. Ed. M. Zaynihim, M. aš-Šarqāwī. 3 Vols. Maktabat al-Madbūlī, Cairo 1998. Vol. III, pp. 403, 423.
  • Shams ad-Dīn al-Muqaddasī : Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm. Ed. MJ de Goeje. 2nd ed. Brill, Leiden 1906. Digitized.
  • Nāsir-i Chusrau : Kitāb-i ǧāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain. Ed. Tahuri, Tehran 1984. pp. 45-52. - English translation under the title: Between Reason and Revelation. Twin Wisdoms Reconciled. Tauris, London / New York 2012. pp. 51–56.
  • Abū l-Qāsim an-Nīsābūrī: al-Ġunya fī ʿilm al-kalām. Muṣṭafā Ḥasanain ʿAbd al-Hādī. Dār as-Salām, Cairo 2010. Vol. I. Digitized.
  • Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī : Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. Maktabat an-Nahḍa al-Miṣrīya, Cairo 1938. p. 67. Digitized.
  • ʿAbbās ibn Manṣūr as-Saksakī: al-Burhān fī maʿrifat ʿaqāʾid ahl al-adyān. Ed. Bassām ʿAlī Salāma al-ʿAmūš. 2nd ed. Maktabat al-Manār, az-Zarqā ', 1996. pp. 35 f. Digitized.
  • Abū Saʿd as-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad Ḥilw. Makatabat Ibn Taimīya, Cairo 1981. Vol. X, pp. 374-376. Digitized.
  • Muḥammad aš-Šahrastānī : al-Milal wa-n-niḥal. Ed. Aḥmad Fahmī Muḥammad. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut 1992. pp. 99-105. Digitized. - German translator Theodor Haarbrücker. 2 vols. Halle 1850–51. Vol. I, pp. 119-127. Digitized.
  • Tāǧ ad-Dīn as-Subkī : Ṭabaqāt aš-Šāfiʿīya al-kubrā. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad Ḥulw and Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ṭanāḥī. 10 vols. Maṭbaʿat ʿIsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, Cairo 1967. Digitized.
  • Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdalǧabbār al-ʿUtbī: Kitāb al-Yamīnī. With the commentary of Aḥmad al-Manīnī. Būlāq 1869. Vol. II, pp. 309-314. Digitized. - English translator James Reynolds. Oriental Translation Fund, London 1858. pp. 471-484. Digitized.

Secondary literature

  • Salih Aydin: The understanding of al-Kalām, the theory of al-Īmān and the religious policy of the Karrāmīya. Dissertation, University of Vienna. Faculty of Philological and Cultural Studies. 2011. Abstract with PDF.
  • Clifford Edmund Bosworth : The rise of the Karrāmiyyah in Khurasan. In: Muslim World. 50 (1960) 5-14.
  • Clifford Edmund Bosworth: The Ghaznavids. Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran (994-1040). Reprint, Librairie du Liban, Beirut 1973. pp. 185-189.
  • Clifford Edmund Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition . Vol. IV, pp. 667a-669b.
  • Jacqueline Chabbi: Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan: IIIe / IXe siècle - IVe / Xe siècle. In: Studia Islamica. 46, 5-72 (1977). Here pp. 38–43.
  • Josef van Ess : Unused texts on Karrāmīya: a collection of material. Winter, Heidelberg 1980.
  • Josef van Ess: The one and the other: observations on Islamic heresiographic texts. 2 vol., Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2011. ISBN 978-3-11-021577-9 , vol. I, pp. 625–630.
  • Finbarr B. Flood: Objects of translation. Material culture and medieval “Hindu-Muslim” encounter. Princeton University Press, Princeton 2009. ISBN 978-0-691-12594-7 , pp. 100-102.
  • Claude Gilliot : Les sciences coraniques chez les Karrāmites du Khorasan: Le Livre des Fondations. In: Journal Asiatique. 288 (2000) 15-81.
  • Claude Gilliot: Koran Studies among the Karrāmites. Notes on the author of the Kitāb al-Mabānī. In: Stefan Wild (ed.): Norm and deviation. Files from the 27th German Orientalist Day (Bonn - September 28 to October 2, 1998). Ergon-Verlag, Würzburg 2001. ISBN 3-935556-68-3 , pp. 309-315.
  • Afaf Abdel Baki Hatoum: An Eleventh Century Karrāmī Text: Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nīsābūrī's Raunaq al-Majālis. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1991.
  • Cağfer Karadaş: Kerrâmiyye ve İtikâdı. In: Kelam Araştırmaları. 5: 2 (2007) 41-62. Digitized.
  • Sönmez Kutlu: Kerrâmiyye. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi . Vol. XXV, pp. 294a-296c. Digitized.
  • Wilferd Madelung: Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran. Persian Heritage Foundation, Albany 1988. ISBN 0-88706-700-X , pp. 39-53.
  • Margaret Malamud: The Politics of Heresy in Medieval Khurasan: The Karramiya in Nishapur. In: Iranian Studies. 27, 37-51 (1994).
  • DS Margoliouth : Karrāmīya. In: Encyclopedia of Islam . Brill, Leiden 1913-1936. Vol. II, pp. 828a-829b.
  • Suhair Muḥammad Muḫtār: at-Taǧsīm ʿinda l-muslimīn: Maḏhab al-Karrāmīya. Cairo 1971. Digitized.
  • Ulrich Rudolph: Al-Māturīdī and Sunni theology in Samarkand. Brill, Leiden u. a. 1997. ISBN 90-04-10023-7 .
  • Jean-Claude Vadet: Le Karramisme de la Haute-Asie au carrefour des trois sectes rivales. In: Revue des études islamiques . 48, 25-50 (1980).
  • Travis Zadeh: The vernacular Qurʾan: translation and the rise of Persian exegesis. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012. ISBN 0-19-726512-X , pp. 464-504.
  • Aron Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society. 108 (1988) 577-587.
  • Aron Zysow: Karrāmiya. In: Encyclopædia Iranica . Vol. XV, pp. 590-601. Released 2011. Online version.
  • Aron Zysow: Karrāmiyya. In: Sabine Schmidtke (Ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016. ISBN 0-19-969670-5 , pp. 252-262.

Individual evidence

  1. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 580.
  2. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. 1981, Vol. X, p. 375.
  3. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. 1981, Vol. X, p. 374.
  4. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. 1981, Vol. X, p. 375.
  5. Al-Ḫaṭīb al-Baġdādī: Taʾrīḫ Baġdād. Cairo 1931. Reprint Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut undated, Vol. IV, p. 118. Digitized.
  6. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb . 1981, Vol. X, p. 375.
  7. Bosworth: Karrāmīya in EI². Vol. IV, p. 667.
  8. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55, engl. Part p. 58.
  9. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 590b.
  10. As-Subkī: Ṭabaqāt aš-Šāfiʿīya al-kubrā. 1967. Vol. II, p. 305.
  11. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  12. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 64.
  13. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 189.
  14. As-Subkī: Ṭabaqāt aš-Šāfiʿīya al-kubrā. 1967. Vol. II, p. 305.
  15. van Ess: Unused texts Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 75.
  16. Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: EI². Vol. IV, pp. 667b-668a.
  17. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. Vol. X, p. 376.
  18. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 35 f.
  19. ʿAbdallāh al-Ǧūraqānī: al-Abāṭīl wa-l-manākīr wa-ṣ-ṣiḥā wa-l-mašāhīr. Ed. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān al-Faryawāʾī. 2 Vol. Riyād 1994. P. 290 f. Digitized.
  20. Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: EI². Vol. IV, pp. 667b-668a.
  21. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. 1981, Vol. X, p. 376.
  22. van Ess: Unused texts Karrāmīya. 1980, pp. 12-17.
  23. Shams ad-Dīn al- Ḏahabī: Tārīḫ al-Islām. Ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd as-Salām Tadmurī. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, Beirut 1993. Vol. XIX, p. 312. Digitized.
  24. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 35.
  25. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 592a.
  26. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 323.
  27. Chabbi: Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan. 1977, p. 37 f.
  28. See Mutahhar ibn Tāhir al-Maqdisī: Kitāb al-Badʾ wa-t-tārīḫ. Ed. Clement Huart. Paris 1899. Vol. V, p. 141. Digitized.
  29. Chabbi: Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan. 1977, p. 43.
  30. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. Vol. X, p. 376.
  31. Bosworth: The rise of the Karrāmiyyah in Khurasan. 1960, p. 13 f.
  32. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 58, engl. Part p. 59.
  33. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, pp. 179, 182.
  34. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 35.
  35. Shams ad-Dīn al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm. Brill, Leiden 1906. p. 202.
  36. van Ess: Unused texts Karrāmīya. 1980, pp. 31, 80.
  37. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 238.
  38. Ibn Ḥazm: al-Faṣl fi-l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-n-niḥal. Ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Naṣr; ʿAbd-ar-Raḥmān ʿUmaira. 5 Vol. Dār al-Ǧīl, Beirut 1985. Vol. V, p. 74.
  39. Cf. Zadeh: The Vernacular Qurʾan. 2012, p. 465.
  40. Ulrich Rudolph: Al-Māturīdī and Sunni theology in Samarkand. Brill, Leiden 1997. pp. 107-109.
  41. Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī: Tarǧuma-i as-sawād al-aʿẓam. Intišārāt-i Bunyād-i Farhang-i Īrān, Teheran 1969. S. 178, 186 f.
  42. van Ess: Unused texts Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 23 f.
  43. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 337.
  44. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn . 1928. p. 190.
  45. Al-Baġdādī: al-Milal wa-n-niḥal. 1970, p. 153.
  46. See Ibn Ḫallikān : Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ az-zamān. Vol. IV, p. 272. Digitized. - Engl. Transl. William Mac Guckin de Slane , Vol. II, p. 674. Digitized.
  47. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 371.
  48. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 336.
  49. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906. p. 41.
  50. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 336.
  51. ^ Marie Bernand: Le Kitāb al-radd ʿalā al-bidaʿ d'Abū Muṭīʿ Makḥūl al-Nasafī. In: Annales islamologiques 16. (1980) 39-126. Here p. 118 f. (Arabic text).
  52. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 356 f.
  53. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 365.
  54. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 37.
  55. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, pp. 596b-597a.
  56. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55 f., Engl. Part p. 58.
  57. Aš-Šahrastānī: al-Milal wa-n-Nihal. P. 103. - Ger. Transl. 124.
  58. Van Ess: Unused Texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 8 f.
  59. Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd: Sharḥ Nahǧ al-balāġa. Ed. Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm. Cairo 1960. Vol. VI, p. 371 f.
  60. Cf. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 584b.
  61. al-Ḫaṭīb al-Baġdādī: Taʾrīḫ Baġdād. Cairo 1931. Reprint Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut o. D. Vol. IV, p. 118 f. Digitized.
  62. Shams ad-Dīn a-Ḏahabī: Tāʾrīḫ al-islām. 421-440. Ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd as-Salām Tadmurī. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, Beirut 1993. p. 69. Digitized.
  63. Shams ad-Dīn aḏ-Ḏahabī: Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ. Ed. Shuʿaib al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusain al-Asad. Mu'assasat ar-Risāla, Beirut 1983. Vol. XVII, p. 484. Digitized.
  64. Al-ʿUtbī: Taʾrīḫ-i Yamīnī. 1869. Vol. II, p. 310, lines 20 f. - Engl. Transl. P. 472.
  65. van Ess: Unused texts Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 8 f.
  66. Shams ad-Dīn al- Ḏahabī : Tārīḫ al-Islām. Ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd as-Salām Tadmurī. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, Beirut 1993. Vol. XXIX, p. 70. Digitized.
  67. ʿAbd al-Ġāfir ibn Ismāʿīl al-Fārisī: al-Muntaḫab min as-Siyāq li-tārīḫ Nīsābūr. Ed. Muḥammad Aḥmad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut 1989. pp. 22 f.
  68. Al-ʿUtbī: Taʾrīḫ-i Yamīnī. 1869. Vol. II, p. 312. - Engl. Transl. 473.
  69. Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: EI². Vol. IV, p. 669a.
  70. Al-ʿUtbī: Taʾrīḫ-i Yamīnī. 1869. Vol. II, p. 313 f. - Engl. Transl. 474 f.
  71. As-Subkī: Ṭabaqāt aš-Šāfiʿīya al-kubrā. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad Ḥulw and Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ṭanāḥī. Maṭbaʿat ʿIsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, Cairo 1967. Vol. IV, pp. 130 f. Digitized.
  72. Al-Isfarā'īnī: At-Tabṣīr fī d-dīn. 1983, p. 112.
  73. ^ Richard Bulliet: The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1972. p. 253.
  74. Cf. Zadeh: The Vernacular Qurʾan. 2012, p. 464.
  75. Ibn Funduq: Tārīḫ-i Baihaq. Ed. A. Bahmanyār. Tehran 1317hš, p. 194.
  76. Ibn ad-Dāʿī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 76.
  77. Ibn Funduq: Tārīḫ-i Baihaq. Ed. A. Bahmanyār. Tehran 1317hš, p. 268 f.
  78. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. X, p. 101. Digitized.
  79. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. 1981, Vol. X, p. 376.
  80. Ibn Funduq: Tārīḫ-i Baihaq. Ed. A. Bahmanyār. Tehran 1317hš, p. 194, 220 f.
  81. Cf. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld: Jacut's Geographical Dictionary from the manuscripts of Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London and Oxford, at the expense of the German Oriental Society. FA Brockhaus, Leipzig 1866–73. Vol. I, p. 497. Digitized.
  82. Cf. Muḥammad Reżā Šāfiʿī Kadkanī: Rawābiṭ-i Šaiḫ-i Ǧām ba-Karrāmīyān-i ʿaṣr-i ḫ w īš. In: Guẕašta wa-āyanda-yi farhang wa-adab-i Īrān. 37 (1393hš) 173-205. Online version.
  83. ʿAbd al-Ǧalīl Qazwīnī: Kitāb an-Naqḍ maʿrūf bi-Baʿḍ maṯālib an-nawāṣib fī naqḍ baʿḍ faḍāʾiḥ ar-rawāfiḍ az taṣānīf-i ḥudīūd-i 560 hiǧrī qamar. Ed. Ǧalāl ad-Dīn Muḥaddiṯ Urmawī. Čāpḫāna-i Sipihr, Tehran 1952. p. 74.
  84. Ibn al-Aṯīr : al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 101. Digitized.
  85. Ǧūzǧānī: Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī. 1864, Vol. I, p. 77. - Engl. Transl. P. 384.
  86. ^ Flood: Objects of translation. 2009, pp. 94-96.
  87. Ǧūzǧānī: Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī. 1864, Vol. I, p. 77. - Engl. Transl. P. 384.
  88. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 101. Digitized.
  89. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 101. Digitized.
  90. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 99 f. Digitized.
  91. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  92. Ǧūzǧānī: Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī. 1864, Vol. I, p. 78 f.
  93. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 99.
  94. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 99 f. Digitized.
  95. Ibn al-Qifṭī: Taʾrīḫ al-ḥukamāʾ. Dieterich, Leipzig 1903. p. 192. Digitized.
  96. Quoted in Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, 584a.
  97. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 35.
  98. Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: EI². Vol. IV, p. 669a.
  99. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 35.
  100. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 595b.
  101. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906. p. 41.
  102. Abū Ḥaiyān at-Tauḥīdī: Aḫlāq al-wazīrain. Maṯālib al-wazīrain al-Ṣāḥib ibn ʿAbbād wa-Ibn al-ʿAmīd. Ed. Muḥammad Thanǧī. Damascus 1965. p. 229. Digitized.
  103. As-Saksakī: al-Burhān. 1996, p. 36.
  104. Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī: Kitāb as-Sawād al-aʿẓam. Istanbul 1887. p. 27.
  105. See Michael Bonner: The Kitāb al-kasb attributed to al-Shaybānī: Poverty, Surplus, and the Circulation of Wealth. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society. 121/3 (2001) 410-427. Here pp. 423a-425a.
  106. Muḥammad aš-Shaibānī: Kitāb al-Kasb. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Ġudda. Dār al-Bašāʾir al-islāmīya, Beirut 1997. p. 96. Digitized.
  107. As-Samʿānī: al-Ansāb. Vol. II, p. 34. Digitized.
  108. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 64.
  109. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, 583b.
  110. See e.g. B. Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  111. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, 583a.
  112. Cf. al-Maqrīzī: al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār. 1998, Vol. III, pp. 403, 423.
  113. Abū l-Qāsim as-Samarqandī: Tarǧuma-i as-sawād al-aʿẓam. Intišārāt-i Bunyād-i Farhang-i Īrān, Tehran 1969. p. 186.
  114. Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Asās at-taqdīs . Ed. Aḥmad al-Ḥiǧāzī as-Saqqā. Maktabat al-Kullīyāt al-Azharīya, Cairo 1986. pp. 100 f. Digitized.
  115. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 422.
  116. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  117. An-Nīsābūrī: al-Ġunya fī ʿilm al-kalām. 2010, Vol. I, p. 381.
  118. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 401.
  119. An-Nīsābūrī: al-Ġunya fī ʿilm al-kalām. 2010, Vol. I, p. 407.
  120. See e.g. B. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part pp. 52-79, engl. Part pp. 56-69.
  121. Nāṣir-i Ḫusrau: Kitāb-i ǧāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain. 1984, p. 33. Ormsby p. 42.
  122. Nāṣir-i Ḫusrau: Kitāb-i ǧāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain. 1984, p. 45. Ormsby p. 51.
  123. Aš-Šahrastānī: al-Milal wa-n-Nihal. P. 103. - Ger. Translated p. 125 f.
  124. See e.g. B. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55, engl. Part p. 58.
  125. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 595a.
  126. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 337.
  127. See e.g. B. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55, engl. Part p. 58.
  128. Cf. al-Maqrīzī: al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār. 1998, Vol. III, p. 403.
  129. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 77.
  130. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 112.
  131. See Zysow: Karrāmiyya. 2016, p. 256.
  132. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 508.
  133. Al-Isfarā'īnī: At-Tabṣīr fī d-dīn. 1983, p. 112.
  134. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 190.
  135. An-Nīsābūrī: al-Ġunya fī ʿilm al-kalām. 2010, Vol. I, p. 388.
  136. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 401.
  137. Nāṣir-i Ḫusrau: Kitāb-i ǧāmiʿ al-ḥikmatain. 1984, p. 45. Ormsby p. 51.
  138. Abū Šakūr as-Sālimī: at-Tamhīd. Al-Maṭbaʿ al-Fārūqī, Delhi 1892. p. 50.
  139. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 95.
  140. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 29.
  141. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 62.
  142. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 122.
  143. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 190.
  144. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 530.
  145. Maimūn ibn Muhammad an-Nasafī: Tabṣirat al-adilla fī uṣūl ad-dīn ʿalā ṭarīq al-imām Abī-Manṣūr al-Māturidī. Ed. Claude Salamé. 2 vol. IFEAD, Damascus 1990/93. Vol. I, p. 308.
  146. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 196 f.
  147. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 64.
  148. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  149. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 93, lines 14 f.
  150. Al-Isfarā'īnī: At-Tabṣīr fī d-dīn. 1983, p. 113.
  151. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 193.
  152. Aš-Šahrastānī: Nihāyat al-iqdām fī ʿilm al-kalām. Ed. Alfred Guillaume. London 1934. p. 114.
  153. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 93.
  154. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 337.
  155. Al-Baġdādī: al-Milal wa-n-niḥal. 1970, p. 150.
  156. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 190.
  157. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 71.
  158. Al-Isfarā'īnī: At-Tabṣīr fī d-dīn. 1983, p. 113.
  159. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 529.
  160. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 62.
  161. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 65.
  162. Al-Ǧuwainī: aš-Šāmil fī uṣūl ad-dīn. 1969, p. 530.
  163. Ibn Ḥazm: al-Faṣl fi-l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-n-niḥal. Vol. V, p. 74.
  164. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 154.
  165. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 195.
  166. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55., engl. Part p. 58.
  167. ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār ibn Aḥmad : Sharḥ al-uṣūl al-ḫamsa. Ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm ʿUṯmān. 3rd edition. Maktabat Wahba, Kairo 1996. p. 671. Digitized.
  168. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 154.
  169. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 70.
  170. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 25.
  171. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 298.
  172. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 592a.
  173. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 298.
  174. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 66.
  175. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn wa-iḫtilāf al-muṣallīn. Ed. Hellmut Ritter . Steiner, Wiesbaden 1963. p. 141.
  176. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55 f., Engl. Part p. 58 f.
  177. Cf. al-Maqrīzī: al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār. 1998, Vol. III, p. 403.
  178. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 250.
  179. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 257.
  180. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 259.
  181. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 257.
  182. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 250.
  183. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928. p. 250.
  184. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 25.
  185. Ibn Ḥazm: al-Faṣl fi-l-milal wa-l-ahwāʾ wa-n-niḥal. Vol. V, p. 74.
  186. Abū l-Ḥasan al-Ašʿarī: Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn wa-iḫtilāf al-muṣallīn. Ed. Hellmut Ritter . Steiner, Wiesbaden 1963. p. 141.
  187. Abū Nuʿaim al-Iṣfahānī: Ḥilyat al-Auliyāʾ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyāʾ. 10 vols. Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, Beirut 1405h. Vol. IX, p. 245. Digitized.
  188. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55 f., Engl. Part p. 58 f.
  189. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906. p. 38.
  190. Al-Baġdādī: Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 1928, p. 341.
  191. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 65.
  192. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 25.
  193. Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Asās at-taqdīs. Ed. Aḥmad al-Ḥiǧāzī as-Saqqā. Maktabat al-Kullīyāt al-Azharīya, Cairo 1986. pp. 100 f.
  194. al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906. p. 40.
  195. Cf. al-Maqrīzī: al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-l-iʿtibār. 1998, Vol. III, p. 403.
  196. Abū Tammām: Kitāb aš-Šaǧara. 1998, arab. Part p. 55., engl. Part p. 59.
  197. Ibn Dāʿī Rāzī: Kitāb Tabṣirat al-ʿawāmm. 1313hš, p. 68 f.
  198. ^ Aš-Šaibānī: Kitāb al-Kasb. 1997, p. 219.
  199. Al-Muqaddasī: Kitāb Aḥsan at-taqāsīm. 1906, p. 38 f.
  200. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 189.
  201. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  202. Aš-Šahrastānī: al-Milal wa-n-Nihal. P. 99. - Ger. Translated p. 119.
  203. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 27.
  204. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 27.
  205. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 28 f.
  206. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 27 f.
  207. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 28.
  208. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 28.
  209. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  210. Ibn al-Aṯīr: al-Kāmil fī t-taʾrīḫ. Ed. CJ Tornberg. Vol. XII, p. 99. Digitized.
  211. Al-Bazdawī: Kitāb Uṣūl ad-Dīn. 2003, p. 82.
  212. Bosworth: Karrāmīya. In: EI². Vol. IV, p. 668.
  213. Al-Baġdādī: Al-Farq baina l-firaq. P. 189.
  214. Aš-Šahrastānī: al-Milal wa-n-Nihal. P. 99. - Ger. Translated p. 119.
  215. See Faḫr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī: Iʿtiqādāt firaq al-muslimīn wa-l-mušrikīn. 1938, p. 67.
  216. See Mutahhar ibn Tāhir al-Maqdisī: Kitāb al-Badʾ wa-t-tārīḫ. Ed. Clement Huart. Paris 1899. Vol. V, p. 145. Digitized.
  217. van Ess: One and the other. 2011, p. 630.
  218. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 578.
  219. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 577.
  220. Cf. Zadeh: The Vernacular Qurʾan. 2012, p. 483 f.
  221. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 592b.
  222. ^ Flood: Objects of translation. 2009, pp. 94-96.
  223. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 598b.
  224. Moḥammad-Reżā Shafiʿi Kadkani : Čihra-yi dīgar-i Muḥammad ibn Karrām Siǧistānī dar partaw-i suḫanān-i nau-yāfta az ū. In: Moḥsen Bāqerzāda (ed.): Arǧ-nāma-yi Īraǧ. 2 vols. Čāpḫāne-yi ʿAzizi, Tehran 1998a. Vol. II, pp. 61-113. Here especially p. 69, 95-102.
  225. On the manuscript in the British Museum, cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, pp. 41-55.
  226. Cf. on him van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, pp. 68-73.
  227. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 598a.
  228. ^ Marie Bernand: Le Kitāb al-radd ʿalā al-bidaʿ d'Abū Muṭīʿ Makḥūl al-Nasafī. In: Annales islamologiques 16. (1980) 39-126. Digitized.
  229. Rudolph: Al-Māturīdī and Sunni theology in Samarkand. 1997, pp. 88-105.
  230. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 587a.
  231. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 577.
  232. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 582a.
  233. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 587b.
  234. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 587.
  235. Ibn al-Ǧauzī: Kitāb al-mauḍūʿāt min al-aḥādīṯ al-marfūʿāt. Ed. Nūr ad-Dīn Ǧīlār. 4 Vols. Maktabat Aḍwāʾ as-Salaf, Riyad 1997. Vol. II, p. 308. Digitized.
  236. Cf. Zysow: Two unrecognized Karrāmī texts. 1988, p. 578, footnote 8.
  237. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 41.
  238. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 31 f.
  239. Cf. van Ess: Unused texts on Karrāmīya. 1980, p. 32.
  240. Zysow: Karrāmiya. 2011, p. 592b.
  241. Flood: Jām Minaret. In: Encyclopædia Iranica . Vol. XIV, pp. 432-436. Digitized.
  242. ^ Flood: Objects of translation. 2009, p. 99 f.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on December 25, 2016 in this version .