1 For the îanbal“ movement, v. Ignaz Goldziher, “Zur Geschichte der hanbaliti-schen Bewegungen”, Zeitschrift für der deutsche morgenländische Gesellschaft 62 (1908):1-28; HenriLaoust, “Le îanbalisme sous le califat de Baghdad (241/855-656/1258)”, Revue des étudesislamiques 27 (1959):67-128; Simha Sabari, Mouvements populaires à Bagdad à l’époque “Abbaside”,Centre “Shiloah” des Études du Moyen-Orient et de l’Afrique, Université de Tel Aviv,Études de Civilisation et d’Histoire Islamiques (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’OrientAdrien Maisonneuve, 1981), ch. 4; Christopher Melchert, The Formation of the Sunni Schoolsof Law, Studies in Islamic Law and Society 4 (Leiden, 1997), ch. 7. For classical Su� sm,v. Louis Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane (Paris,1922); rev. edn. (Paris, 1954); Richard Gramlich, Alte Vorbilder des Su�tums 1: Scheiche desWestens and 2: Scheiche des Ostens, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,VeröVentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission, Band 42/1, 2 (Wiesbaden, 1996).

2 On îanbalism, v. George Makdisi, “L’islam hanbalisant”, Revue des études islamiques42 (1974):211-44, 43 (1975):45-76. On Su� sm, v. Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Ventureof Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago, 1973), esp. 2:203; also Ahmet T. Karamustafa, God’s UnrulyFriends (Salt Lake City, 1994), ch. 1.

3 Louis Massignon, The Passion of al-Hallˆj, trans. Herbert Mason, Bollingen ser. 98,4 vols. (Princeton, 1982).

THE îANËBILA AND THE EARLY SUFIS

by

CHRISTOPHER MELCHERT

Both the îanbal“ movement and classical Su� sm took shape inBaghdad in the ninth and early tenth centuries C.E.1 Both became

essential components of the high-medieval Sunni synthesis.2 As îanba-lism has been associated with severe morals and rigid orthodoxy, Su� smsometimes with moral laxity and usually with private exploration, it hasbeen widely assumed that îanbalism and Su� sm are contradictory.Indeed, those modern Muslims who reject Su� sm often support theircase by hostile remarks from Ibn Taym“ya (d. 728/1328), the most im-portant îanbal“ theologian of the Later Middle Ages. Western schol-ars, characteristically friendly toward Su� mysticism, have tended ratherto � nd that îanbalism and Su� sm are complementary. Louis Massignonsuggests that the îanˆbila were very close to the Su� îallˆ[, althoughnot to ’Amr al-Makk“ the Mˆlik“ and some other contemporary Su� s.3

George Makdisi � nds that later îanˆbila were often Su� s themselves,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2001 Arabica, tome XLVIII,3

an bila 353

4 George Makdisi, “The Hanbali School and Su� sm”, pp. 71-84 in Actas IV. Congressode estudos árabes e islâmicos (Leiden, 1971); also idem, “L’Islam hanbalisant”, 43:45-60. Forhostility to Su� sm, see also now Michael Cooperson, “Ibn îanbal and Bishr al-îˆf“:A Case Study in Biographical Traditions”, Studia Islamica, no. 86 (1997), 71-101, andFrederick de Jong and Bernd Radtke, eds., Islamic Mysticism Contested, Islamic Historyand Civilization, Studies and Texts, vol. 29 (Leiden, 1999).

5 V. above all Massignon, Essai.6 Jacqueline Chabbi, “Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements

ascétiques et mystiques au Ýurˆsˆn”, Studia Islamica, no. 46 (1977), 5-72; “Ré� exions surle sou� sme iranien primitif ”, Journal asiatique 266 (1978):37-55. The term “renunciant”

including even Ibn Taym“ya, and that the criticisms of îanˆbila suchas Ibn al-]awz“ and Ibn Taym“ya should be taken as applying strictlyto the excesses named, not to the whole Su� enterprise.4

It is no aim of this study to settle the question of whether Su� sm islegitimately Islamic, nor even to investigate the relations between îanˆ-bila and Su� s in the High Middle Ages. It does aim to characterizemore precisely the relation between the early îanˆbila of Baghdad andtheir contemporaries in the nascent Su� movement. There were mys-tical elements in the piety of Aúmad ibn îanbal and his followers, andhe himself may have been friendly toward BiÒr al-îˆf“; yet Aúmad wascertainly hostile to al-Muúˆsib“ and Sar“ al-Saqa “ and apparently tosome practices that would become mainstays of classical Su� sm. ýulˆmÝal“l, who instigated the Su� Inquisition of 264/877-78, is probablyto be dissociated from the îanˆbila. Still, the îanˆbila had no con-nections with the Su� s around al-]unayd, and it is not surprising that,over the next century and a half, classical Su� sm should have come tobe associated with the Óˆ� ’“ school and, especially in Ýurasan, AÒ’arism.The îanˆbila were evidently closer to the Basran renunciant Sahl al-Tustar“. The chief leader of the îanˆbila in the 320’s/930’s, al-Barbahˆr“,was a disciple of his, and seems to have shared some ideas with thepre-classical Su� s, particularly devotion to al-amr bi-l-ma’r�f wa-l-nahy ’anal-munkar, ordering the good and prohibiting evil.

The Emergence of Su�sm

Since Massignon’s work in the 1920’s, it has been widely agreed thatIslamic mysticism emerged from an earlier ascetical tradition.5 With thework of Jacqueline Chabbi in the 1970’s, it has furthermore emergedthat not all early Muslim mystics, let alone renunciants (zuhhˆd, nussˆk ),were expressly called “Su� s” ( §�f“ya).6 Leaving aside Ó“’“ forms, it maybe legitimate to equate “Islamic mysticism” and “Su� sm” in the eleventh

354 christopher melchert

century and after, but doubtfully before then. The term “Su� ” origi-nally referred to the wearing of wool (§�f ) rather than softer (and insummer cooler) cotton or linen. The � rst to be called a “Su� ” wasreputedly a Kufan named Ab� HˆÒim (d. 150/767-68).7 Aúmad ibnîanbal (d. 241/855) addressed the important Baghdadi mystic Ab�îamza as a “Su� ”, and the classical movement around al-]unayd wasalways called “Su� .” In Ýurasˆn, Su� sm, so-called, competed with alocal renunciant movement, Karrˆmism. Jacqueline Chabbi has shownthat Su� sm was introduced to Ýurasˆn from Iraq in the early tenthcentury.8

Originally, Su� sm was associated with al-amr bi-l-ma’r�f, ordering thegood. îˆr�n al-RaÒ“d imprisoned al-’Abbˆs ibn al-Mu"ammal al-ê�f“for “ordering the good.”9 The earliest Su� s in Egypt were rowdies inAlexandria who “ordered the good” and rejected the governor’s author-ity in the year 200/815-16.10 A Su� came to al-Ma"m�n in the 210’s/820’sto demand whether he ruled by choice of the Muslims or by forcibleimposition.11 Ibn ÿ�l�n (r. 254-70/868-84) had a Su� whipped andparaded on a camel for denouncing him after the Friday prayer.12 InBaghdad, Ab� l-îusayn al-N�r“ (d. 295/907-8) broke jugs of winebound for the caliphal palace.13 Bunˆn al-îammˆl (d. 316/928), orig-inally an Iraqi and sometime associate to al-N�r“ and al-]unayd, waspunished by Ibn ÿ�l�n’s son Ýumˆrawayh (r. 270-82/884-96) for dar-ing to “order the good.”14 Under al-]unayd, at last, Su� sm lost its

(for zˆhid and nˆsik ), suggested by Michael Cooperson, is more convenient than “ascetic”inasmuch as it suggests no opposition to “mystic.”

7 R. A. Nicholson, “An Historical Enquiry Concerning the Origin and Developmentof Su� sm”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 38 (1906):305. V. also Massignon, Essai, 131-33; rev. edn., 153-58.

8 Jacqueline Chabbi, “Remarques.” On the Karrˆm“ya and Su� sm, v. also SarahSviri, “îak“m Tirmidh“ and the Malˆmat“ Movement in Early Su� sm”, Classical PersianSu�sm, ed. Leonard Lewisohn (New York, 1993), 583-613.

9 Ab� Nu’aym, îilyat al-awliyˆ" wa- abaqˆt al-as�yˆ", 10 vols. (Cairo, 1351-57/1932-38), 10:159.

10 Al-Kind“, The Governors and Judges of Egypt, ed. Rhuvon Guest, E. J. W. GibbMemorial Ser. 19 (London, 1912), 162.

11 Al-Mas’�d“, Mur�[ al-Åahab, ed. Charles Pellat, ManÒ�rˆt al-]ˆmi’a al-Lubnˆn“ya,Qism al-dirˆsˆt al-tˆr“¢“ya, 11, 7 vols. (Beirut, 1973-74), 4:314-16 = Les Prairies d’or, ed.C. A. C. Barbier de Meynard & B. M. M. Pavet de Courteille, 9 vols. (Paris, 1861-77), 7:38-43. I thank Michael Cooperson for � rst referring me to this story.

12 After the shaykhs and notables had denied that he spoke for them: al-Maqr“z“,Kitˆb al-MuqaVˆ al-kab“r, ed. Muúammad al-Ya’law“, 8 vols. (Beirut, 1991), 1:438.

13 Al-þahab“, Tˆr“¢ al-islˆm, ed. ’Umar ’Abd al-Sal̂ m Tadmur“, 65 vols. to date(Beirut, 1987-), 22 (a.h. 291-300):71.

14 For Iraqi origins and association with al-N�r“ and al-]unayd, v. al-Sulam“, Kitˆb

an bila 355

ÿabaqˆt al-§��yya, ed. Johannes Pedersen (Leiden, 1960), 290. For the clash with Ýumˆ-rawayh, v. al-Sulam“, Miúan al-§�f“ya, apud al-þahab“, Tˆr“¢ 23 (A.H. 301-20):509. Inalternative versions, it was Ibn ÿ�l�n himself who had Bunˆn chastised and it was theqˆ¶“ Ab� ’Ubayd Allˆh (d. Baghdad, 313/925-26), who was appointed by Ýumˆrawayh(Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 10:324; al-þahab“, Tˆr“¢ 23:509f ).

15 E.g., v. A. J. Arberry, “New Material on the Kitˆb al-Fihrist of Ibn al-Nad“m”,Islamic Research Association Miscellany, Islamic Research Association ser., no. 12, 1 (1948):34.Sarah Stroumsa has argued that pre-classical Mu’tazilism was primarily an asceticalmovement: “The Beginnings of the Mu’tazila Reconsidered”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabicand Islam, no. 13 (1990), 265-93. On the emergence of classical Mu’tazilism only in thelast quarter of the ninth century, v. Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., s.v. “Mu’tazila”, byD. Gimaret, with references to the work of Josef van Ess.

16 Al-U§�l al-¢ams appears on the list of ]a’far’s works in Ibn al-Murta¶ˆ, Die Klassender Mu’taziliten, ed. Susanna Diwald-Wilzer, Bibliotheca Islamica 21 (Wiesbaden, 1961),73. According to Fu"ˆd Sayyid, it appears as al-U§�l al-¢amsa in al-îˆkim al-]uÒam“(al-Bayhaq“), Óarú “ ’Uy�n al-masˆ"il” f“ ’ilm al-u§�l: Fa¶l al-i’tizˆl wa- abaqˆt al-mu’tazila, ed.Fu"ˆd Sayyid (Tunis, 1974), 282fn. However, it is possible that “� ve” was merely a pro-jection backward, for our early sources merely name a book called al-U§�l: Ibn al-Nad“m, Fihrist, apud J. W. Fück, “Some Hitherto Unpublished Texts on the Mu’taziliteMovement From Ibn al-Nad“m’s Kitˆb-al-Fihrist ”, Professor Muúammad Óaf“’ PresentationVolume, ed. S. M. Abdullah (Lahore, 1955), 66; ’Abd al-]abbˆr, Fa¶l al-i’tizˆl wa- abaqˆtal-mu’tazila, apud Sayyid, ed., Fa¶l, 282. Josef van Ess attributes the � ve principles to

association with ordering the good and prohibiting evil, stressing ratherinner-worldly mysticism and outward inoVensiveness.

In Iraq, several proto-Mu’tazila of the earlier ninth century wereknown as Su� s.15 The Mu’tazil“ Su� s presumably combined the self-denial of most contemporary Su� s with their ordering the good andprohibiting evil, for al-amr bi-l-ma’r�f wa-l-nahy ’an al-munkar became thelast of the � ve basic principles of Mu’tazilism. They may have beenlisted � rst by the renunciant ]a’far ibn îarb (d. 236/850-51).16 Otherrenunciants of the day cultivated single-minded devotion to God andworked their way toward the mysticism of al-]unayd and the Su� saround him. These latter renunciants, never associated with Mu’tazilismand not usually with ordering the good and prohibiting evil, I shall call“proto-Su� s.” They are the early � gures quoted in apologetic manualssuch as al-Sarrˆ[, Kitˆb al-Luma’ f“ l-ta§awwuf, and the biographical dic-tionary of al-Sulam“, ÿabaqˆt al-§�f“ya.

Aúmad and the Proto-Su�s

There were mystical elements to Aúmad ibn îanbal’s personal piety,so it is not inconceivable that he should have been on good terms withthe proto-Su� s of his day. He believed in the power of relics: when hewas stripped for his chastisement, a purse was discovered in his sleeve

356 christopher melchert

containing two hairs from the Prophet.17 He later ordered that he beburied with one on each eye and a third on his tongue.18 His Musnadhas most of our úad“t reports concerning the abdˆl, extraordinarily piousMuslims whose number would remain constant, one always beingreplaced by some other on his death. The similarity to later Su� ideasof the qu b is plain.

A few proto-Su� s appear in Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ’s biographical dictionaryof the îanbal“ school, but most have only the most tenuous connec-tion with Aúmad and his associates. Here are the men who also havemain entries in al-Sulam“, ÿabaqˆt al-§�f“ya (page references to Ibn Ab“Ya’lˆ):

Ma’r�f al-Kar¢“ (d. Baghdad, 200/815-16), 1:381-389.Aúmad ibn Ab“ l-îawˆr“ (d. Damascus? 230/844-45), 1:78;Muúammad ibn Ab“ l-Ward (d. Baghdad, 263/877?), 1:317f;Ab� îamza (d. Baghdad, 269/882-83?), 1:268f;al-]unayd (d. Baghdad, 298/911?), 1:128f.

Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ relates a story through the qˆ¶“ Yaúyˆ ibn AkÆam bywhich Ma’r�f � rst said he had seen a young Aúmad, then approvinglyquoted him: “Whoever knows that he will be forgotten when he dieswill do well, not ill.”19 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ also relates a story from Ibn al-A’rˆb“, early biographer of Su� s and other renunciants (d. Mecca,340/951?), by which Aúmad identi� ed Ma’r�f as one of the abdˆl anddefended him against the charge that he had little religious knowledge(’ilm; i.e., úad“t ): “Is religious knowledge anything else than what Ma’r�fachieved?”20 Ma’r�f was a major Baghdadi renunciant, whose piety we

Ab� l-Hu ayl al-’Allˆf (d. 235/849-50?): Josef van Ess, “Une Lecture à rebours de l’his-torie du Mu’tazilisme”, Revue des études islamiques 46 (1978):218. ]a’far also wrote a bookcalled Na§“úat al-’ˆmma, which probably concerned ordering the good and prohibitingevil: ’Abd al-]abbˆr, Fa¶l, 282; Ibn al-Murta¶ˆ, Klassen, 73. His contemporary ’ísˆ ibnêubayú (d. 226/840-41), said to have introduced Mu’tazilism to Baghdad, is also cred-ited with a book called al-Na§ “úa: Ibn al-Nad“m, apud Fück, “Hitherto”, 62.

17 `êˆliú ibn Aúmad, S“rat al-imˆm Aúmad ibn îanbal, ed. Fu"ˆd ’Abd al-Mun’imAúmad (Alexandria, 1981), 63; Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 9:202; îanbal ibn Isúˆq, þikr miúnatal-imˆm Aúmad ibn îanbal, ed. Muúammad Na©aÒ (Cairo, 1977), 61.

18 Ibn al-]awz“, al-Munta½am f“ tˆr“¢ al-mul�k wa-l-umam , ed. Muúammad ’Abd al-Qˆdir ’A ˆ and Mu§ afˆ ’Abd al-Qˆdir ’A ˆ, with Nu’aym Zurz�r, 18 vols. (Beirut,1992), 11:288.

19 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt al-úanˆbila, ed. Muúammad îˆmid al-Fiq“, 2 vols. (Cairo,1371/1952), 1:381.

20 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:382, presumably from al-Ýa “b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ Ba©dˆd,14 vols. (Cairo, 1349/1931), 13:201. On Ibn al-A’rˆb“, v. Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des ara-bischen Schrifttums, 9 vols. to date (Leiden, 1967-), 1:660f. I thank Michael Cooperson,again, for pointing out Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ’s biography of Ma’r�f.

an bila 357

should expect to have been very close to Aúmad’s. Nevertheless, Aúmadapparently included nothing from Ma’r�f in his monumental Kitˆb al-Zuhd.21

The second � gure on the list, Aúmad ibn Ab“ l-îawˆr“, was a famoustraditionist, so his appearance is unsurprising. He would naturally havelooked up Aúmad on visiting Baghdad. The third, Muúammad ibn Ab“l-Ward, was an associate of important Su� s and their precursors: hewas disciple to the masters of al-]unayd, Sar“ al-Saqa “ and al-Muúˆsib“,among others, and sat with al-]unayd.22 Moreover, he was evidentlymentioned in the ÿabaqˆt of Ab� Bakr al-Ýallˆl (d. 311/923), earliestbiographical dictionary of the îanbal“ school. However, the sayings ofhis reported by al-Sulam“ are ascetical rather than mystical, and hehad no important Su� disciples. Moreover, the sayings of his quotedby Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ from al-Ýallˆl have to do with juridical questions,mainly water used for ritual ablutions and Aúmad’s allegedly copyingfrom the books of al-Óˆ� ’“, which Aúmad here denies having done.

Ab� îamza al-Ba©dˆd“, the fourth, was certainly closer than theothers to classical Su� sm. Ibn al-A’rˆb“ states that the � rst circle in theFriday mosque in Baghdad for the Su� s was that of al-îasan al-Mus�ú“(d. 256/869-70?), another disciple to al-Sar“ al-Saqa “, and that afterhis circle (when al-Mus�ú“ died?) came that of Ab� îamza.23 He isassociated with Aúmad by, again, Ibn al-A’rˆb“.24 He would sit inAúmad’s circle, the story goes, and Aúmad would ask him, “What doyou say about it, Su� ?”25 Here is evidence that Aúmad knew the term“Su� ” and applied it to an early mystic. His question sounds ironic,although Ibn al-A’rˆb“ indicates that Ab� îamza would repeat thestory with pride. At any rate, the story does not indicate any long-termengagement between Aúmad and Ab� îamza. Indeed, for all we know,

21 Ibn îa[ar lists transmitters in Aúmad’s K. al-Zuhd not found in the Six Books:Ta’[ “l al-manfa’a bi-zawˆ"id ri[ˆl al-a"imma al-arba’a, ed. Ikrˆm Allˆh Imdˆd al-îaqq, 2 vols. (Beirut, 1416/1996). Ibn îa[ar worked from a K. al-Zuhd that comprised abouta third as many úad“ reports as Aúmad’s Musnad (Ta’[ “l 1:243); that is, some 10,000—far greater than any of the extant versions, for which v. Sezgin, GaS 1:506.

22 Al-Sulam“, ÿabaqˆt, 236; Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 10:315.23 Ibn al-A’rˆb“, ÿabaqˆt al-nussˆk, apud al-þahab“, Siyar a’lˆm al-nubalˆ", 25 vols. (Beirut:

Mu’assasat al-Risˆla), 12 (ed. êˆliú al-Samr, 1983):581. Ibn al-A’rˆb“ also states thatAb� îamza preached � rst in the mosque of al-Ru§ˆfa (East Side), then in that ofMad“nat al-Man§�r (West Side; Ibn al-A’rˆb“, apud al-þahab“, Siyar 13 [ed. ’Al“ Ab�Zayd, 1983]:168). Perhaps al-Mus�ú“’s circle met in the former.

24 V. Sezgin, GaS 1:660f.25 Ibn al-A’rˆb“, apud Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:268; similarly, apud al-þahab“, Siyar

13:168.

358 christopher melchert

Aúmad saw him only once and merely recognized him for a renun-ciant by his dress.

Al-]unayd was the most important Su� leader of the century, whovirtually invented a new language for mystical experience. Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆidenti� es him as a îanbal“ on the mere basis of his telling stories aboutAúmad, and they need never have met. He does not seem to haveappeared in the ÿabaqˆt of al-Ýallˆl.

Two others appear in the ÿabaqˆt of Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ who are namedas masters of another � gure in the ÿabaqˆt of al-Sulam“, although notas leading � gures in their own right: Muúammad ibn al-îusayn al-Bur[ulˆn“ (d. 238/852-53) and Muúammad ibn Man§�r al-ÿ�s“ (d.Baghdad, 254/867?), masters of Muúammad ibn Masr�q (d. Baghdad,298/910?) alongside al-Muúˆsib“ and Sar“ al-Saqa “.26 Muúammad ibnMan§�r appears to have been included by al-Ýallˆl, as well.

Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ identi� es two other subjects as Su� s, but does notexplain in what sense or whether it involved their association withAúmad.27 Badr al-Ma©ˆzil“ (d. Baghdad, 282/895) was a prominentrenunciant whom al-Ýallˆl quotes Aúmad as praising.28 Unfortunately,Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ also quotes Aúmad as angrily complaining that al-Muúˆsib“ had impelled him to take up the opinion of ]ahm; i.e., aheretical doctrine concerning the Qur"ˆn (probably that its pronunci-ation was create).29 The famous renunciant BiÒr al-îˆf“ (d. Baghdad,227/841?) was known to the early îanˆbila, and is frequently quoted inîanbal“ books of the later ninth century such as Kitˆb al-Wara’ (eighteenentries, against none for any other famous proto-Su� ).30 However, thereis no entry for him in the ÿabaqˆt of Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ (although there isfor his sister Mu¢¢a). Aúmad knew of BiÒr but denied ever speakingwith him,31 and his praise was quali� ed by criticism.32 Massignon guessesthat his con� ict with BiÒr was sharper than the biographers admit.33

26 Al-Sulam“, ÿabaqˆt, 233 = Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 10:213.27 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:36f, 425f.28 Apud Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:78.29 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:233.30 Aúmad ibn îanbal (i.e., al-Marr�Å“), K. al-Wara’, ed. Zaynab Ibrˆh“m al-Qˆr� 

(Beirut, 1983).31 Aúmad ibn îanbal, Wara’, 70.32 “If BiÒr had married, his aVair would have been perfect”: al-Ýa “b al-Ba[dˆd“,

Tˆr“¢ 7:73.33 Massignon, Essai, rev. edn., 231. Massignon’s comparison of BiÒr to al-Muúˆsib“

is inapt inasmuch as al-Muúˆsib“ was clearly involved in kalˆm and u§�l al-�qh, in which� elds no one accused BiÒr of meddling.

an bila 359

34 Ya’q�b al-îanbal“, K. al-îur�f, apud Ibn îa[ar, Lisˆn “al-M“zˆn”, 7 vols. (Hyderabad,1329-31), 3:14.

35 Al-Ýallˆl, al-Sunna, apud Ibn al-]awz“, Talb“s Ibl“s, ed. Ýayr al-D“n (Beirut, 1970?),187 = ed. ’I§ˆm Fˆris al-îarastˆn“ (Beirut, 1994), 219; Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:233f; al-þahab“, Tˆr“¢ 18 (A.H. 241-50):209f. V. further Christopher Melchert, “The Adversariesof Aúmad Ibn îanbal”, Arabica 44 (1997):243f.

36 Al-Ýa “b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 8:215f, perhaps from al-Sulam“, K. Miúan al-§�f“ya.37 Al-Ýat“b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 8:215.38 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:23.39 Ibn Hˆni", Masˆ"il al-imˆm Aúmad, ed. Muúammad Zuhayr Óˆw“Ò, 2 vols. (Beirut,

1400), 2:176.

The most prominent renunciants among the îanˆbila who knewAúmad well were ’Abd al-Wahhˆb (d. 251/865?) and Ibrˆh“m al-îarb“(d. 285/899). Neither was remembered as important in the Su� tradi-tion. Altogether, then, a few � gures in early Su� sm were close to Aúmadibn îanbal—more than one might � nd close to contemporary � guresof a§úˆb al-ra"y—but the picture is decidedly mixed. If îanbal“ Tra-ditionalism and Baghdadi Su� sm came from the same milieu, they musthave begun to part very early; in the generation, perhaps, of Ma’r�fal-Kar¢“.

Aúmad is also quoted as having sharply criticized some proto-Su� s.Al-]unayd’s two masters were Sar“ al-Saqa “ (d. Baghdad? 253/867?)and al-îˆriÆ al-Muúˆsib“ (d. Baghdad? 243/857-58). Many other impor-tant Su� s were likewise disciples to Sar“ al-Saqa “, including Ab� Sa’“dal-Ýarrˆz and Ab� l-îusayn al-N�r“. Sar“ al-Saqa “ does not appearin the ÿabaqˆt of Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, and it was reported in another îanbal“work that Aúmad once accused him of unbelief for speculation aboutthe creation.34 As for al-Muúˆsib“, Aúmad is on record in numerousplaces as condemning him in the strongest terms for his engagementin kalˆm.35 He died in hiding from the îanˆbila, and only four per-sons prayed over him.36 Ab� Zur’a al-Rˆz“ (d. Ray, 264/878), anotherleading Traditionalist, also warned against the works of al-Muúˆsib“.37

Not only was Aúmad hostile to crucially important precursors of theClassical Su� s, he rejected principal Su� practices. Someone told Aúmadthat a man might work at qur’anic recitation, frequent the mosque, orseek úadi , but not two of these at once. Aúmad said it was incumbenton him both to frequent the mosque and to seek úadi .38 He rejectedthe practice of roaming from place to place, worshipping: “Siyˆúa hasnothing to do with Islam.”39 Someone told Aúmad of a group that metto pray, recite the Qur"ˆn, and recollect God ( yaÅkur�na Allˆh). Aúmadresponded that it was enough to read from the (public) bound copy,

360 christopher melchert

to recollect God to oneself, and to seek úadi . Meeting in public forthese purposes was an innovation to be condemned.40 On the whole,the Su� sm of al-]unayd, with its regular meetings for the exchange ofde� nitions, would have pleased him little.

The Later Ninth Century

Our sources for îanbal“ Traditionalism in the generation after Aúmadhave little to say about its relations with developing Su� sm save for the Inquisition of ýulˆm Ýal“l. ýulˆm Ýal“l (d. Baghdad, 275/888)was a renunciant and popular preacher who came to Baghdad at thebeginning of 264/Fall 877 and whose Inquisition took place the sameyear.41 ýulˆm Ýal“l was oVended by talk of love for God, preachinghimself that fear was more appropriate for creatures to feel. He � nallypersuaded the mother of the shadow caliph, al-MuwaVaq, to have themuútasib of Baghdad put under his authority, and so he drew up a listof seventy-odd Su� s to search out. Most of them � ed or hid them-selves, but some were arrested, and some of these were imprisoned fora time.

The Inquisition of ýulˆm Ýal“l is important in the � rst place forthe change of direction it produced in Baghdadi Su� sm. Al-]unaydescaped arrest by asserting that he was not a Su� at all but a studentof jurisprudence, speci� cally that of Ab� ïawr.42 Al-]unayd (and, nodoubt, the circle around him) went on to develop a new style of mys-ticism stressing outwardly acceptable behaviour and self-description.Triads such as separation-union-separation ( farq-[am’-farq ) and subsistence-annihilation-subsistence (baqˆ"-fanˆ"-baqˆ" ) replaced such old dichotomiesas separation-union, subsistence-annihilation. Hence the Su� might goso far, as before, as to lose consciousness of himself (an upsetting devel-opment to ascetics, used to emphasizing divine transcendence) but thenreturn to a transformed consciousness of reality, now described (reas-suringly to ascetics) as sobriety. At the same time, al-]unayd and his

40 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:255.41 Al-þahab“, Siyar 14 (ed. Akram B�Òayy“, 1983):71, quoting Ab� Nu’aym, but the

date is not in îilya 10:250, nor the same passage as quoted by al-Ýat“b al-Ba©dˆd“,5:134. Louis Massignon guessed both “about 266” (The Passion of al-Hallˆj, 1:80fn.) and“262/875” (1:576).

42 Ibn ’A ˆ’, apud Ibn al-]awz“, Naqd al-’ilm wa-l-’ulamˆ" (n.p., 1966), 167 = Talb“s,ed. ’Al“, 193 = ed. al-îarastˆn“, 225.

an bila 361

43 V. Christopher Melchert, “The Transition From Asceticism to Mysticism at theMiddle of the Ninth Century C.E.”, Studia Islamica 83 (1996):51-70, esp. 64-9.

44 Al-Ýa “b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 5:79.45 Aúmad ibn îanbal, Wara’, 117.46 The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., s.n. “Þulˆm àal“l”, by Wilferd Madelung;

Sezgin, GaS 1:511.47 Sezgin, GaS 1:511.48 Excerpts of the Damascus manuscript reproduced by Louis Massignon, Recueil de

textes inédits concernant l’histoire de la mystique en pays d’Islam (Paris, 1929), 212-4. It hasrecently been published in full as al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú al-sunna, ed. Muúammadibn Sa’“d al-Qaú ˆn“, 3rd printing (Cairo, 1416/1996). Cf. Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:18-43.

49 Its recent editor proposes that only al-Barbahˆr“, not ýulˆm Ýal“l, might havereferred to authorities of the third and fourth centuries: Qaú ˆn“, “Tar[amat al-imˆmal-Barbahˆr“”, Óarú, 16, citing Óarú, 54f = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:33. In context, how-ever, the reference to the sources of his doctrine, ’an Allˆh wa-’an ras�lihi . . . wa-’an a§úˆbihiwa-’an al-tˆbi’“n wa-’an al-qarn al-ƈliÆ ilˆ l-qarn al-rˆbi’, appears to me to refer not to thethird and fourth centuries but the third and the fourth generations after the Prophet.

school seem to have pushed mysticism in an inward direction, oVeringa style of mystical piety that would not interfere so clearly with thecollection of úadi , the support of a family, and so on.43

Was the Inquisition of ýulˆm Ýal“l important also as expressingîanbal“ hostility toward developing Su� sm? It seems unlikely, for ýulˆmÝal“l himself does not appear in the ÿabaqˆt of Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ. He wasstrongly condemned as a falsi� er of úadi by the îanbal“ traditionistAb� Dˆw�d al-Si[istˆn“ (d. Basra, 275/889).44 Finally, ýulˆm Ýal“l’spersecution of Su� s through the authority of the state contradictedîanbal“ policy. Aúmad’s successor al-Marr�Å“ (d. 275/888), ýulˆmÝal“l’s contemporary, quotes Aúmad as expressly discouraging one tocall on the ruler to correct a wrong.45

Admittedly, Wilferd Madelung and Fuat Sezgin have made out thatýulˆm Ýal“l was a îanbal“.46 The strong evidence of a connectionwith îanbalism is the attribution to him of a Kitˆb Óarú al-sunna.47

Except for a few paragraphs near the beginning, it is virtually identicalto passages of the Óarú “Kitˆb al-Sunna” that Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ quotes infull and attributes to al-Barbahˆr“ (d. Baghdad, 329/941), leader ofîanbal“ activists in the 320’s/930’s.48 Either the later îanbal“ leaderthoroughly agreed with ýulˆm Ýal“l on a range of questions and repro-duced his statement practically verbatim, or the attribution to ýulˆmÝal“l is erroneous. Nothing in the Óarú could have been written onlyin the tenth century.49 Apparently in favour of its attribution to ýulˆmÝal“l is its speci� c warning against those who speak of Òawq ( longing)

362 christopher melchert

and maúabba ( love), which Ab� îamza had introduced in Baghdad astechnical terms.50

Nevertheless, the document seems more likely to be al-Barbahˆr“’s,not ýulˆm Ýal“l’s, for several reasons. First, its stress on úadi from theProphet, not Companions, is inconsistent with îanbal“ works of theninth century, which lay equal stress on úadi from Companions.Additionally, it states that the worst heretics are the Rˆ� ¶a (extremeÓ“’a, in îanbal“ parlance), Mu’tazila, and ]ahm“ya (those who saidthe Qur"ˆn was create). Later, it names two Mu’tazila, Ab� HuÅayl (d. 235/849-50?) and îiÒˆm al-Fuwa “ ( �. � rst half 3rd/9th cent.), asarch-heretics.51 The Mu’tazila are nowhere near so prominent in thevarious creeds of Aúmad ibn îanbal himself, corroborating the recent� nding that the classical Mu’tazil“ school formed only near the end ofthe ninth century; that is, after the death of ýulˆm Ýal“l.52 A warn-ing against those who bid to longing and love (Òawq, maúabba ) does notrequire a Baghdadi origin, for there was also a speci� cally Basran groupthat spoke of love (maúabba) and the falling oV of fear to whom al-Barbahˆr“ might have directly reacted.53 Finally, the text names as aduty ordering the good and prohibiting evil.54 This was al-Barbahˆr“’sway, as we shall see, but in contravention of the previous îanbal“ tra-dition as represented by Ab� Bakr al-Ýallˆl and Aúmad himself. It wasalso not the way of ýulˆm Ýal“l, who did not take it upon himself tocorrect abuses but rather persuaded the ruler to lend him the powerof the state.

al-ÿabar“ and al-îallˆ[

Ab� Bakr al-Ýallˆl has appeared several times already as the � rstbiographer of the îanbal“ school. He also made the � rst collection of

50 Massignon, Recueil, 214 = al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 56 = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt2:34; al-Ýat“b al-Baghdˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 1:393. Ibn ’A ˆ" names Ab� îamza among thosewho were arrested: Ibn al-]awz“, Talb“s, ed. Ýayr al-D“n, 193 = ed. al-îarastˆn“, 225.

51 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 61, 63f = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:37f.52 Henri Laoust has identi� ed and numbered six creeds of Aúmad’s: La Profession de

foi d’Ibn Ba  a (Damascus, 1958), xv, xvi. They are to be found apud Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ,ÿabaqˆt 1:24-36, 130f, 241-246, 294f (repeated 329f ), 311-313, 341-345. Only half thecreeds even mention the Mu’tazila, twice to reject their doctrine concerning responsi-bility for actions, once for equating sin with unbelief. V. also Christopher Melchert,“Adversaries”, 239f. On the late formation of the classical Mu’tazil“ school, v. supra, n. 15.

53 Ibn al-A’rˆb“, ÿabaqˆt al-nussˆk, apud al-þahab“, Tˆr“¢ 20 (a.h. 261-80):277.54 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarh, 58 = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:35.

an bila 363

55 Al-Ýallˆl, K. al-îaÆÆ ’alˆ l-ti[ˆra wa-l-§inˆ’a wa-l-’amal wa-l-inkˆr ’alˆ man yadda ’ “ l-tawakkul f“ tark al-’amal wa-l-úu[[a ’alayhim f“ ňlika, ed. Ab� ’Abd Allˆh Maúm�d ibnMuúammad al-îaddˆd (Riyadh, 1407), 143-5.

56 Al-îˆkim al-Naysˆb�r“, Tˆr“¢ Naysˆb�r, apud al-Dahab“, Siyar 14:272; al-Ýa “b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 2:164; Ibn al-]awz“, Munta½am 13:217.

57 V. Melchert, “Adversaries”. 247fn.58 Massignon, Passion 1:32.59 Ibn al-]awz“, Munta½am 13:217; al-þahab“, Siyar 14:277; Ibn îa[ar, Lisˆn 3:295.

Yˆq�t names three unknowns, Ab� ’Abd Allˆh al-]a§§ˆ§, ]a’far ibn ’Arafa, and al-Bayˆ¶“: Yˆq�t, IrÒˆd al-ar“b, ed. Iúsˆn ’Abbˆs, 7 vols. (Beirut, 1993), 6:2450f. Ibn KaÆ“r,al-Bidˆya wa-l-nihˆya, s.a. 310, identi� es the îanbal“ leader as Ab� Bakr ibn Dˆw�d,chief of the üˆhir“ school of law in succession to his father. His date of death, 297/910,apparently rules him out, and it is easy to see how an “ab“ ” should have dropped outin al-Bidˆya wa-l-nihˆya; yet the üˆhir“ leader is named in both our printed editions andin two manuscripts that I examined in Istanbul.

60 Ibn îa[ar, Lisˆn 3:294-6.61 Ibn al-AÆ“r, al-Kˆmil, s.a. 317; ed. C. J. Thornberg, 13 vols. (Beirut: Dˆr êˆdir,

the juridical opinions of Aúmad, hence virtually founding the school oflaw. His Kitˆb al-îaÆÆ ’alˆ l-ti[ˆra is a polemic against leaving gainfulemployment in favour of religious exercises, and includes a sectionexpressly disparaging Su� s;55 however, it seems to be directed mainlyagainst Su� s of the generation of al-Marr�Å“ (i.e., before al-]unayd)who had threatened to become social parasites. It was during al-Ýallˆl’slifetime that the îanˆbila made trouble for Muúammad ibn ]ar“r al-ÿabar“ (d. Baghdad, 310/923). They blockaded him in his house,prevented anyone from coming to hear úad“t from him, and preventedhis being buried by day.56 I have identi� ed four medieval accounts ofwhy the îanˆbila were angry with al-ÿabar“, of varying credibility.57

One modern account is of interest in connection with the îanˆbilaand the early Su� s: Louis Massignon explains it by îanbal“ disgustwith al-ÿabar“ for disapproving of their rioting in support of îallˆ[,then in prison.58 Unfortunately, he cites no evidence, and none of themain sources supports it, either.

It was not under the leadership of al-Ýallˆl that the îanˆbila block-aded al-ÿabar“’s house, but of someone else, usually identi� ed as Ab�Bakr ibn Ab“ Dˆw�d (d. Baghdad, 316/929).59 Ab� Bakr was the sonof the îanbal“ traditionist Ab� Dˆw�d al-Si[istˆn“ but had a poor reputation as a traditionist, had studied astrology and medicine as wellas úadi , and apparently joined the îanbal“ movement only late in life.60

The movement that he directed for a time continued after his death,for we hear of bloody � ghting between the îanˆbila and followers ofal-ÿabar“ over the enthronement of Muúammad in heaven in the year317/927-28.61 Perhaps their leader now was Ab� Bakr al-Na[[ˆd

364 christopher melchert

(d. 348/960), for Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ groups úadi reports favouring theîanbal“ interpretation of Q.17.79 under his name.62

al-Barbahˆr“

By the next decade, a new îanbal“ leader had emerged, namelyAb� Muúammad al-Barbahˆr“. He was disciple to Aúmad’s successoral-Marr�d“, presumably in jurisprudence and úad“t (the two were scarcelydistinct to ninth-century Traditionalists), and, as noted, to Sahl al-Tustar“ in renunciation;63 hence a new connection between the îanˆ-bila and proto-Su� sm. In 321/933, the îanˆbila protested a proposalto curse Mu’ˆwiya in the mosques. The chamberlain ordered the arrestof al-Barbahˆr“, but he hid. Followers of his were exiled to Basra,though. In 323/935, followers of al-Barbahˆr“ rioted in favour of pub-lic morality, looting shops, attacking wine-sellers and singing girls, andsmashing musical instruments. In 327/939, the îanˆbila molested par-ticipants in a festival on the night of 14-15 Óa’bˆn. Al-Barbahˆr“ againmanaged to hide, but his lieutenant Dallˆ" was arrested and killed afteran escape attempt. In 329/941, the îanˆbila tried to destroy a rebuiltÓi’“ mosque. Al-Barbahˆr“ died in hiding that year.64

Al-Barbahˆr“’s enterprise of actively ordering the good and prohibitingevil may indicate borrowing from the pre-classical Su� tradition. As wehave seen, actively ordering the good in de� ance of recognized author-ity, if need be, was associated with Su� s from near the earliest use ofthe term. It did not have a long history among the îanˆbila. Thosewho undertook to establish public order in Baghdad after the removalof al-Am“n but before al-Ma"m�n had consented to move there werenot îanbal“ Traditionalists, as Wilferd Madelung has shown.65 Ibn Ab“Ya’lˆ reproduces six creeds from Aúmad ibn îanbal, none of which

1965-67), 8:213. Ibn al-AÆ“r does not name al-ÿabar“, but the occasion of the � ghting,the interpretation of Q.17.79, was one over which al-ÿabar“ had been at odds with theîanˆbila in his lifetime. V. previous note. Ibn al-AÆ“r describes the îanˆbila as fol-lowers of Ab� Bakr al-Marr�Å“.

62 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:9-11.63 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:18.64 This résumé of îanbal“ activism in the 320’s follows The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new

edn., s.n. “al-Barbahˆr“”, by H. Laoust. V. also Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:44; Laoust,Profession, xxxvii-xli; Sabari, Mouvements, ch. 4.

65 Wilferd Madelung, “The Vigilante Movement of Sahl b. Salˆma al-Khurˆsˆn“ andthe Origins of îanbalism Reconsidered”, Journal of Turkish Studies 14 (1990):331-7; contraIra M. Lapidus, “The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of EarlyIslamic Society”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975):363-85, esp. 382-4.

an bila 365

mentions that good Muslims should order the good and prohibit evil.66

Aúmad certainly believed in the duty (the phrase is qur’anic), but he didnot call attention to it. To the contrary, several of Aúmad’s creeds or-der obedience to eVective authority (al-a"imma, al-sul ̂ n) and warn againstrebellion.67 Collections of Aúmad’s juridical positions (masˆ"il ) commonlyhave subsections dealing with “ordering the good and prohibiting evil”,but they deal mainly with private correction, neither defying public au-thority nor impelling public authority to suppress wrongdoing.68

Ab� Bakr al-Ýallˆl wrote a book on the subject of “ordering thegood and prohibiting evil” which is extant and has been published.Nothing suggests that al-Ýallˆl approved of wine, singing girls, or novelfestivities in mosques; however, the tendency of his book is again andagain to discourage active interference. Private reproof is better thanpublic.69 A man asked al-Awzˆ’“, “Who should order the good and pro-hibit evil?” He answered, relates al-Ýallˆl, “Whoever sees that it willbe accepted from him”, presumably without violence.70 Confronted withwine, one should indeed pour it out or, if that is impossible, break thecontainer; however, one should not disturb covered containers or searchfor intoxicating liquors.71 If one hears singing or drumming, one shouldnot search for the source, and one should break musical instrumentsonly if they are exposed to view.72 It needs explanation why al-Barbahˆr“and his followers went against practically everything al-Ýallˆl had toldthem about ordering the good and prohibiting evil.

Only a few lines in Óarú al-sunna refer to renunciant concerns, butthey are generally consistent with the reported teachings of Sahl al-Tustar“. Al-Barbahˆr“ warns against those who assert that one sees Godin this world, then warns against thinking about God (al-�kra f“ Allˆh ).73

As for Sahl al-Tustar“, al-Sarrˆ[ mentions a party of Basran renun-ciants who reported seeing God on a throne with rays of light. Hethen tells the story of a disciple to Sahl al-Tustar“ who told him thathe had a vision of God every night. Sahl told him to spit on it. The

66 V. supra, n. 52.67 Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 1:26, 130, 244.68 I acknowledge the in� uence here of Michael Cook, who has kindly shown me the

relevant chapter of his forthcoming book on al-amr bi-l-ma’r�f.69 Al-Ýallˆl, Amr, 101f, 108.70 Al-Ýallˆl, al-Amr bi-l-ma’r�f wa-l-nahy ’an al-munkar, ed. ’Abd al-Qˆdir Aúmad ’A ˆ,

Nawˆdir al-TurˆÆ 2 (Cairo, 1975), 124.71 Al-Ýallˆl, Amr, 134f, 138, 141. Similarly, Aúmad ibn îanbal, Wara’, 118.72 Al-Ýallˆl, Amr, 115, 142.73 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 37 = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:23.

366 christopher melchert

following night, the disciple did spit, and indeed the disciple had nomore visions after that.74 Al-Barbahˆr“ declares that buying and sellingare licit, against Mu’tazil“ renunciants who preached the repudiationof gain (inkˆr al-kasb). This, too, is consistent with the teaching of Sahlal-Tustar“, although its emphasis seems closer to the îanbal“ tradi-tion.75 Al-Barbahˆr“’s warning against those who call to longing andlove, as well as those who sit privately with women, probably indicatescontinuing suspicion of the Su� s of Baghdad; however, it may have aBasran background, as noted, and once again is not hard to reconcilewith the teachings of Sahl, who excoriated renunciants who let fall fromthemselves the status of servanthood.76

Ordering the good and prohibiting evil do � gure in Óarú al-sunnaamongst the obligations of the Muslim (although al-Barbahˆr“ quali� esthem as “by hand, by tongue, and by heart, short of the sword”).77 Hestates, “It is not licit for anyone to refrain from giving counsel (na§ “úa)to any of the Muslims, the pious or reprobate, in the matter of faith.Whoever refrains has cheated (©aÒÒa) the Muslims. . . .”78 There is astriking verbal parallel with a famous reproach of al-N�r“ to al-]unayd:“You have cheated them ( ©aÒÒaÒ tahum), and so they have given you theplace of honour. I counselled them (na§aúatu lahum), and so they threwrocks at me.”79 Here, al-Barbahˆr“ stands close to the Su� traditionbefore al-]unayd; but Sahl al-Tustar“ also is quoted as calling for coun-sel to the Muslims, and al-Barbahˆr“ more likely learnt it from him.80

Ordering the good and prohibiting evil was also one of the � ve prin-ciples of the Mu’tazila. Al-Barbahˆr“ is not friendly towards the Mu’tazilain his creed.81 He rejects kalˆm even for apologetic purposes.

74 Al-Sarrˆ[, The Kitˆb al-Luma’ � ’l-tasawwuf, ed. Reynold Alleyne Nicholson, E. J. W.Gibb Memorial Ser. 22 (London, 1914), 428.

75 Sahl endorsed both actively earning one’s living (iktisˆb) and taking whatever Godshould send one’s way (tawakkul ): v. al-Sarrˆ[, Luma’, 195; Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 10:195;also Benedikt Reinert, Die Lehre vom tawakkul in der klassischen Su�k, Der Islam Studienzur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients, ed. Bertold Spuler, 3(Berlin, 1968), 247f, 272f. For the îanbal“ tradition, v. al-Ýallˆl, îaÆÆ.

76 Sahl al-Tustar“, Kalˆm Sahl, ed. al-êiqill“ ( �. 400’s/1000’s?), Köprülü (Istanbul)727/1, 103b.

77 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 58f = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:35.78 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 43f = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:26.79 Ab� Nu’aym, îilya 10:251f; al-Ýat“b al-Ba©dˆd“, Tˆr“¢ 5:132.80 Sahl al-Tustar“, apud al-Sulam“, al-Muqaddima f“ l-ta§awwuf wa-úaq“qatih, ed. Y�suf

Zaydˆn, Ma¢ � ˆt §�f“ya 1 (Cairo, 1987), 72f = al-Muqaddima, ed. îusayn Am“n (Baghdad,1984), 52, but Am“n reads al-ta¶úiya l“-l-muslim“n rather than al-na§“úa.

81 Al-Barbahˆr“ (attrib.), Óarú, 45 = Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:27 (against HiÒˆm al-

an bila 367

Stop at what is ambiguous in the Qur"ˆn and hadith. Explain nothing (lˆ tufassirÒay"an). Do not look for any device with which to refute here-tics, for you havebeen enjoined to silence before them. Do not give them power over you.82

The Mu’tazila, for their part, were not friendly towards al-Barbahˆr“and told damaging stories of him.83 Yet his acceptance of ordering thegood and prohibiting evil, by contrast with Aúmad’s silence and al-Ýallˆl’s extreme caution, does suggest partial agreement. Recurrentîanbal“ attraction to Mu’tazilism has been noticed in Ab� Ya’lˆ ibnal-Farrˆ", Ibn ’Aq“l, and Ibn Qayyim al-]awz“ya, among others.84

Al-Barbahˆr“ may be our earliest example of it. He may have beensimilar in this to his younger Basran contemporary Ibn Sˆlim (d.350’s/961-70), who likewise learnt from Sahl al-Tustar“ (probably notdirectly), opposed the AÒˆ’ira, and adhered to the îanaf“ school injurisprudence.

In conclusion, then, there seems to be no strong evidence that theearly Su� movement was very close to the contemporary îanbal“ move-ment. Aúmad was not close to any important proto-Su� s but he washostile to two of them, Sar“ al-Saqa “ and al-Muúˆsib“, and likewise tocrucial Su� institutions such as the gathering for recollection (Åikr ). TheSu� Inquisition of ýulˆm Ýal“l was probably not a îanbal“ aVair,although neither was there any îanbal“ resistance to it. Its appeal tothe ruler to maintain public decorum contrasts with both Aúmad’s preference for avoiding all communication with rulers and with therioting led by al-Barbahˆr“ in the next century. With al-Barbahˆr“, surprisingly, the îanbal“ and Su� traditions seem to meet, if only subtly.Early in the tenth century, there was indeed a party of the îanˆbilagiven to prayer and fasting;85 however, it was probably still closer tothe old renunciant tradition before al-]unayd than to contemporarySu� sm.

Fuwa “); Óarú, 61, 63 = ÿab. 2:37 (twice); Óarú, 64 = ÿab. 2:38 (against ïumˆma, Ab�HuÅayl, and HiÒˆm al-Fuwa “).

82 Al-Barbahˆr“, Óarú (attrib.), 65 (reading lˆ taqis Òay"an, also credible) = Ibn Ab“Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:39.

83 ’Abd al-]abbˆr, Fa¶l al-i’tizˆl, apud Fu"ˆd Sayyid, ed., Fa¶l, 325, s.n. Ab� l-Qˆsimibn Sahlawayh ( �. 4th/10th cent.).

84 For examples, v. George Makdisi, “Ethics in Islamic Traditionalist Doctrine”, pp. 47-63 in Ethics in Islam, ed. Richard G. îovannisian (Malibu, Calif., 1985).

85 Ibn Ba  a, apud Ibn Ab“ Ya’lˆ, ÿabaqˆt 2:43.