Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:27:52.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shu'ûbîyah Controversy and the Social History of Early Islamic Iran*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Roy P. Mottahedeh
Roy P. Mottahedeh
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“In a state of rude nature”, wrote Edmund Burke, “there is no such thing as a people… The idea of a people is the idea of a corporation. It is wholly artificial; and made, like all other legal fictions, by common agreement. What the particular nature of that agreement was, is collected from the form into which the particular society has been cast”. Whether the Iranians in the early Islamic period — that is, the period from the seventh to the twelfth century — were in Burke's sense a “people” is a question that the cautious scholar would be eager to disregard and loath to handle. After all, those specialists on early Islamic Iran who have, directly or indirectly, expressed opinions on this subject have all too often projected events from the life of their own nation and times back to these earlier centuries. In no case is this projection more obvious than in the many essays written in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which see this question only as a question of “national liberation”: did the Iranians hate the Arabs, and did they hope to regain their empire by destroying, or profoundly reshaping, the empire of the Muslim caliphs?

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 161 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs”, The Writings and Speeches of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, Vol. IV (Boston, 1901), p. 169.Google Scholar

2 Ad-Dinawari, , al-Akhbâr at-Tiwâl (Leiden, 1888), p. 360;Google ScholarRabbih, Ibn 'Abd, al-'Iqd al-Farîd, Vol. 4 (Cairo, 1962), p. 469 (with slight differences).Google Scholar

3 Lecomte, G., Ibn Qulayba (Damascus, 1965), p. xiii.Google Scholar

4 Monroe, James T., The Shu'ubiyya in al-Andalus (Berkeley, 1970), p. 69.Google Scholar

5 Goldziher, Ignaz, Muslim Studies (London), Vol. 1 (1967), pp. 137–163;Google ScholarGibb, H. A. R., “The Social Significance of the Shuubiya”, Studies on the Civilization of Islam (Boston, 1962), pp. 62–73.Google Scholar

6 Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p. 55.Google Scholar

7 E.g., Rabbih, Ibn 'Abd, al-'Iqd al-Farîd, Vol. 3 (1952), p. 403.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., pp. 403–404. Actually, Muhammad's speech during the farewell pilgrimage occurs in several versions. The most egalitarian version, and the version most often quoted in Qur'ân commentaries on verse 49:13, reads: “Oh men, your Lord is one and your ancestors are one. You are all from Adam and Adam was from the dust. Behold, neither the Arab has superiority to the non-Arab, nor the red to the black, nor the black to the red except by virtue of righteousness. Truly, the noblest among you before God is the most righteous”. (A roughly similar version is found in several of the classic books of hadîth, including the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal.) This version is quoted, for example, without the Qur'ânic phrase, by al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273),Google ScholarJâmî Ahkâm, al-Qur'ân, Vol. XVI (Cairo, 1387/1967), p. 342.Google Scholar “Black” and “Red” were common terms for the Arabs and the Persians respectively; cf. Goldziher, Muslin: Studies, pp. 243–244.Google Scholar The earliest biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishâq (d. ca. 150/767), quotes a similar speech of Muhammad, which is almost as egalitarian in tone. He places this speech in the context of the conquest of Mecca, not of the farewell pilgrimage. This version, unlike the preceding versions, includes a full (and not partial) quotation of 49:13, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, A. (London, 1955), p. 553.Google Scholar

9 Al-Baidâwi, , Anwâr at-Tanzil, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1848), pp. 274–275.Google Scholar

10 ar-Râzî, Abû l-Futûh, Rauh al-Jinân, Vol. 3 (Teheran, 1383/1963–1964), p. 291. “Inborn characteristics” can, of course, have a very limited meaning. The oneness of mankind is not unambiguously defined in this passage.Google Scholar

11 The neighborhood also has a very limited juridical standing since its inhabitants are collectively liable for the blood money of a murdered man found in the neighborhood whose murderer cannot be identified.Google Scholar

12 Jâmî al-Bayân ‘an Ta’wîl al-Qur'ôn, Vol. XXVI (Cairo 1373/1954), pp. 138–140. “Nearness” or qurbah in the last phrase can imply both kinship and “spiritual” nearness as in Qur'ân 4:172. “Genealogy” in this last sentence is a translation for qarâbah, which is relationship through the male line; in most contexts of this essay, genealogical ties through the female line are of minor importance.Google Scholar

13 Tafsîr al-Qur'ân a1-Karîn, ed. 'Arshî, Imtiyâz 'Ali (Râmpûr, 1385/1965), p. 240. The editor makes a strong case for the authenticity of this work.Google Scholar

14 Cited from the unedited MS of al-Waraqah by Abû 'Ubaidah in att-Tabarî, Jâmî al-Bayân, XXVI, 139 n.I.Google Scholar

15 E.g., al-Farrâ' (d. 207/882), Ma'âni al-Qur'ân, Vol. III (Cairo, 1972), p. 72;Google Scholar an-Nasafi (d. 710/1311), Tafsîr, Vol. IV (Cairo, 1387/1968), p. 167;Google Scholar at-Tûsi (“Shaikh at-Tâ'ifah”) (d. 459/1067), at-Tibyân, Vol. IX (Najaf, 1382/1963), p. 352;Google Scholar as-Suyûtî (d. 855/1455), Tafsîr al-Jalâlain (Beirut, 1971), p. 684;Google Scholar al-Wâhidi (d. 468/1075), “al-Wajiz”, MS Princeton University Library, Yahuda Coll. 3771, 1. 526 B; Abû l-Laith as-Samarqandi (d. 383/993), MS Yahuda Coll. 2567, no pagination, under 49:13 az-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144), alKashshâf Vol. IV (Beirut, 1366), pp. 374–375. It is appropriate that az-Zamakhsharî, a strong anti-shu'ûbî, should identify with the school of at-Tabari.Google Scholar

16 E.g., Kathir, Ibn, Tafsîr, Vol. 6 (Beirut, 1966), p. 387.Google Scholar Cf. at-Tirmidhî, with the commentary of al-Mubârakfûrî, Muhammad, Tuhfah al-Ahwadhî, Vol. 6 (Cairo, 1965), p. 113, where the above hadîth is explained with this meaning, although the meaning “as a means to prolong one's line of descent” is given as a less likely explanation of the last phrase. This hadîth is also found in the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal.Google Scholar

17 Anon., , Tafsîr-i Qur'ân-i Majîd, ed. Matînî, Jalâl, Vol. 2 (Teheran, 1349 A.H. solar/1970–1971), p. 256.Google ScholarShahr can, of course, mean region; and since Persians of this period usually used the nisbah for the largest city in their region, a translation like city-region would be appropriate. Some early Persian commentaries translate sha'b as shâkh or shâkhah, “branch”, presumably because sha'aba (or, much more commonly, tosha“aba) can also mean to branch off; shâkh is also a common equivalent of shu'bah, “branch” or “division, portion” in Persian. In Maibûdi's Kashf ai-Asrâr (written Ca. 520/1126), Vol. IX (Teheran, 1339 solar/1960–1961), p. 256,Google Scholarshu'ûban wa-qabâ'ila is translated shâkh shâkh … va khânidân khâidân, “branch after branch … and family after family”. Shâkh shâkh can mean torn or piece by piece or divided into branches; cf. 'Dihkhudâ, Au Akbar, Lughat-Nâmah (Teheran, 1341 solar/1962–1963), fasc. 72, pp. 47–48.Google Scholar

18 Anon., Tafsîr, editor's introduction, pp. xxiii–xxvi. The Cambridge MS was copied in 628 A.H./1230–1231.Google Scholar

19 On ‘Atâ’ cf. Schacht, J., “‘Atâ’ b. Abi Rabâh” E.I.2, 1, 730.Google Scholar

20 E.g., (pseudo-) Ibn ‘Abbâs (as edited from one version by as-Suyûti, Tanwîr al-miqbâs (Cairo, 1951), p. 323; al-Wâhidî (d. 468/1076), “al-Wasit”, MS 1260, Garrett Coil., Princeton University Library, under 49:13 (no pagination); ath-Tha'labi an-Naisâbûri (d. 427/1035) “Kitâb ai-Kashf wa-l-Bayân”, MS 1255, Garrett Coll., Princeton, under 49:13 (no pagination); al-Qurtubi, Jâmî Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, XVI, 344.Google Scholar A different version of Ibn ‘Abbâs is quoted by at-Tabari (Jâmî al-Bayân, 26, 139)Google Scholar from Sa'id b. Jubair: that the shu'ûb are jummâ’, a word which means “clusters”. Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-'Arab (Beirut, n.d.), under “sha'aba” quotes Ibn ‘Abbâs as interpreting shu'ûb as jummâ' and qabâ'il as butûn, which would indicate that the somewhat neutral jummâ' is here understood in the sense of ‘super-tribe” given in some dictionaries. Still other sources quote Ibn ‘Abbâs as giving the interpretation characteristic of at-Tabari's tradition.

21 At-Tabarsi, (d. mid 6th/12th century) Majma' al-Bayân, Vol. XVI (Beirut, 1955), p. 97;Google Scholar al-Baghawi (d. 510/1117 or 516/1122) Ma'âlim at-Tanzil, Vol. IV (Bombay, 1273), p. 88;Google Scholar Maibûdî, Kashf al-Asrâr, IX, 264; al-Isfaráyini, called “Shâhfûr” (d. 471/1078–1079’, “Tâj at-Tarâjim”, Bodleian MS under 49:13. I am grateful to Mr. Donald Richards of Oxford for sending me photostats of the relevant pages of this manuscript.

22 Quoted in al-Qurtubi, Jâmî Akhâm al-Qur'ân, XVI, 344, who also quotes al-Mâwardi (pp. 344–345) as saying “It is possible that shu'ûb are those associated with (a1-mudâfûnailâ) regions and valleys, while the qabâ'il are those who share in genealogies”. The word “Iranians” after “Indians” in the quote from al-Qushairi is uncertain. The editor of alQurtubi has jibill since this last word is used in the Qur'ân to mean “a people”: I have used the reading jil since the editor admits that the word is unclear in the manuscript. The context requires some word like 'ajam or furs; the phrase jil al-'ajam is commonly used, e.g., Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-'Arab, II, 321, Ibn al-Jauzi (d. 597/1201) also seems to have been confused by the word since he writes that Aba Razin said that “the shu'ûb are the men of the mountains (jibâl) who do not trace their origin to any one person”. Zâd al-Masîr, Vol. VII (Damascus, 1965), p. 474. Al-Wâhidi, “al-Wasit”, gives (among several interpretations of 49:13) an explanation of shu'ûb identical with al-Qushairi, his close contemporary, but the word jibill/jil/jabal is unpointed in the manuscript.Google Scholar

23 Al-Baghawi, Ma'âlim at-Tanzil, IV, 88. Abû Rauq is presumably Abû Rauq ‘Atiyah b. al-Hârith al-Hamdânî (d. ca. 140/757). This interpretation is given in almost identical words in Maibûdi, Kashf al-Asrâr, IX, 264, who adds after “villages”, “and to lands ('aradin)”. A summary of this interpretation is given in Shâhfûr, “Tâj at-Tarâjim” (Bodleian MS, under 49:53) who says: “Some have said that shu'ûb, are groups which one traces to cities (bishahr-hâ bâz-khwânand) and qabâil are groups which one traces back to ancestors (pidarân).”Google Scholar

24 Rauh al-Jinân. Vol. X (Teheran, 1389/1969–1970), p. 261. The short tradition quoted in note 22 from Abû Râzin has apparently been seen in some version by Abû l-Futflh ar-Râzi. Abû Razin is probably Abû Razin Mas'ûd b. Mâlik al-Kûfi, ca. 90/708.Google Scholar

25 The slightly later commentary by another Râzi, the brilliant polymath Fakhr ad-Din (d. 606/1209) gives the nongenealogical explanation first (unlike most of the sources quoted so far, who gives it as an alternative to the genealogical explanation): the shu'ûb are groups “not knowing who joins them, like the ‘ajam; the qabâ'il are groups joined by a single known [ancestor] like the Arabs and Israelites”;Google Scholarat-Tafsîr al-Kabîr, Vol. 28 (Cairo, n.d.), p. 138.Google Scholar The only interpretation in the Tafsîr of the celebrated Lâhijî, Vol. IX (Teheran, 1340 solar/1961–1962), p. 223,Google Scholar is that the shu'ûb are the ‘ajam, perhaps because he attributes this interpretation not to Ibn ‘Abbâs but to Ja'far a-s âdiq, as does Tabarsi, an earlier Shi'ite. The nineteenth-century commentary of Sultân ‘Ali Shah Gunâbâdi, Bayân as-Sa'âdah, Vol. IX (Teheran, 1344 solar/1965–1966), p. 535, gives this same interpretation preference over any other.Google Scholar

26 Al-Jauhari, (d. Ca. 400/1010) as-Sihâh, Vol. 1 (Cairo, n.d.), p. 155.Google Scholar

27 Hanbal, Ahmad b., al-Musnad, ed. Shâkir, Ahmad M., Vol. 1 (Cairo, 1949), p. 363.Google Scholar

28 Adh-Dhahabî in his Siyar an-Nubalâ' says that Ibn Sidah “was a shu'ûbî who considered the 'ajam superior to the Arabs”; quoted from a MS by HYârûn, A.M., Nawâdir al-Makhtûtât (Cairo, 1954), p. 233.Google Scholar

29 Sidah, Ibn, a1-Muhkam, Vol. 1 (Cairo, 1958), p. 235;Google Scholar quoted by Manzûr, Ibn, Lisân al-'Arab, 2, 320–321,Google Scholar without reference to his source; quoted word for word by Ibn Ya'îsh, Sharh Mufassal as-Zamakhshari, ed. Jahn, G. (Leipzig, 1882), p. 4, wherein it is ascribed somewhat mysteriously to the Muhkam of Ibn Hubairah.Google Scholar

30 al-Barr, Ibn 'Abd, al-Inbâh, (Cairo, 1350/1931–1932), p. 43.Google Scholar I owe this reference to a footnote in Franz Rosenthal's translation of Khaldûn, Ibn, The Muqaddimah, Vol. 1 (Princeton, 1967), p. 266 n. 55.Google Scholar

31 Ya'ish, Ibn, Sharh mufassal az-Zamakhshari, p. 4.Google Scholar

32 At-Tabarsi, , Majma' al-Bayân, 16, 91.Google Scholar At-Tabarsi adds “Abu ‘Ubaidah said: ‘The shu'ûb are the ‘ajam’”. At-Tabarsi also uses shu'ûb as the plural of shu'ûbî, a usage sanctioned by Manzûr, Ibn, Lisân al'-Arab, 2, 323, on the analogy of Yahüd and Majûs.Google Scholar

33 Monroe, Shu'ubiyya in al-Andalus, p. 35.Google Scholar

34 E.g., Kartir, K. Z., quoted in Frye, Richard N., The Heritage of Persia (New York, 1966), p. 244.Google Scholar

35 al-Isfahânî, Abû l-Faraj, Kitâb al-Aghâni^, Vol. 3 (Cairo, 1929), p. 138.Google Scholar

36 See, for example, the references to the Bûyids in 'Uthmân, Mahmûd b., Die Vita des Scheich Abû Ishâq al-Kâzarûnî (Leipzig, 1948).Google Scholar

37 Al-Jâhi, “Dhamm al-kuttâb”, trans. Pellat, Ch. “Une charge contre les secrétaires d'état”, Hespéris, 43 (1956), 34.Google Scholar The struggle of the clerks to get the recognition and authority they wanted is a central theme of Sourdel's, D.Le Vizirat 'Abbâside (Damascus, 1959–1969); cf. particularly pp. 718–720 on the contrast with the Sasanian model.Google Scholar

38 al-Isfahâni, Abû l-Faraj, Kitâb al-Aghâni, 16, 107.Google Scholar

39 Monroe, Shu 'ubiyya in al-Andalus, p. 28.Google Scholar

40 Yâqût, , Mu'jam al-Buldan, Vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1868), p. 395.Google Scholar One of these two lines is also quoted by Qutaibah, Ibn, Kitâb ash-Shi'r, Vol. 2 (Cairo, 1967), p. 857, where the poet is given his usual nisbah, al-Khuraimi.Google Scholar

41 At-Tusi, , at-Tibyân, 9, 352–353.Google Scholar Respect for wealth is not an unusual sentiment in this context. Two commentaries on 49:13 quote the hadîth from the collection of at-Tirmidhi: “Hasab is wealth (mâl) and nobility (karam) is righteousness” (Al-Qurtubi, , Jâmî Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 16, 45,Google Scholar and al-Baghawi, , Ma'alim at-Tanzîl, 9, 88). Hasab means the total accumulation of distinctions acquired by a man's own deeds and the deeds of his ancestors.Google Scholar

42 Al-Bukhâri, , al-Jâmî as-Saghir, ed. Krehl, M. L., Vol. 2 (Leiden, 1864), p. 348. Slightly different versions of this hadîth are found in other chapters of al-Bukhârî and in almost all the major early collections of hadîth.Google Scholar

43 Al-Qurtubi, , Jâmî' Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 16, 318.Google Scholar

44 Al-Rûdhrâwari, , Dhail Tajârib al-'Umam (Cairo, 1916), p. 74.Google Scholar

45 Huizinga, J., The Waning of the Middle Ages (London, 1952), pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

46 Al-Baghawî, , Ma'âlim at-Tanzîl, 4, 88.Google Scholar

47 Ganj-i Sukhan, ed. Safâ, Dh., Vol. 1 (Teheran, 1339 solar/1960–1961), p. 9.Google Scholar Al-Jâhiz describes with stunning effect how the scores between men will be made equal only in death: “It is not possible for this world (ad-dunyâ) to be purified and cleansed of corruption and misfortune until all created beings die, and the world becomes equable for its inhabitants (tastawiya li-ahlihâ) … for that [purity] is a characteristic of the world of reward (dâr al-jazâ') [heaven], not of the world of [striving to do worthy] deeds (dâr al-'amal)”. “Manâqib at-Turk”, Rasâ'il, ed. as-Salâm, 'AbdHârûn, M. (Cairo, 1963), p. 35.Google Scholar Compare the sentiment of a late fourth/tenth or early fifth/eleventh century poet who is quoted by Tha'âlibi, Yatîmah, Vol. IV (Cairo, 1377/1957–1958), p. 159: “When hope is lost among men, then all men are equals (akfâ') ”.Google Scholar

48 Gibb, “Social Significance of the Shuubiya”, p. 72.Google Scholar

49 Al-Qummi, , Tafsîr, Vol. 2 (Najaf, 1387/1967–1968), p. 322, ending: fa-man takallama bihi fa-huwa 'arabî.Google Scholar

50 Cf. Goldziher, Muslim Studies, pp. 111–112.Google Scholar

51 Qutaibah, Ibn, “Kitâb al-'Arab”, in Rasâ'il al-Bulaghâ, ed. 'Ali, Kurd (Cairo, 1946), p. 345.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 350. The proverb in Kurd ‘Ali's text is given as “ibn jâr un-nijâr”, which seems to be a misreading of the proverb “kullu nijâr (ibilin) nijârulrâ”.Google Scholar given with the meaning as translated above by Jauhari, , as-Sihâh, 1, 823,Google Scholar and quoted from Jauhari by Manzûr, Ibn, Lisâi al-'Arab, 3, 585.Google Scholar

53 Qutaibah, Ibn, Kitâb ash-Shi'r, p. 351.Google Scholar

54 Huizinga, J., “Patriotism and Nationalism in European History”, in Men and Ideas (New York, 1959), p. 128. In this essay and in his Erasmus of Rotterdam Huizinga argues very persuasively that it is appropriate to speak of certain limited kinds of nationalism even in the context of medieval Europe.Google Scholar