The blinding emerald: Ibn al-Rawandi's 'Kitab al-Zumurrud.'

• Author: Stroumsa, Sarah

INTRODUCTION

A CENTRAL ISSUE IN EARLY ISLAMIC THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS is the question of who is to be counted as a believer (mumin). In asking this question medieval Muslim thinkers sought to define the essence of Islam and to delineate the borders of the Muslim community. Their views were sometimes formulated in positive terms, but quite often they addressed the issue in a roundabout way, seeking to define who is not a believer. In this context, Muslim writers pay relatively little attention to non-Muslims, who are seen as outright infidels, and concentrate on the study of those who are seen as heretics, that is to say, people who are supposedly Muslims, but who adhere to non-orthodox beliefs. The study of accusations of heresy can thus serve as an important tool in the attempt to understand the development of Muslim self-perception.

Not all heresies were seen as equally deviant. While some opinions, though fiercely disputed, were treated as wrong interpretations of Islam, others were viewed as definitely outside Islam.(2) The present study will focus on the case of one of the most notorious heretics, Ibn al-Rawandi. In Muslim consciousness Ibn al-Rawandi has become a byword for denial of the phenomenon of prophecy. But in the last few decades scholars have given attention to certain Muslim texts that seem not to share this harsh view. Josef van Ess, in particular, has offered a radical reinterpretation of this thinker, arguing that in Ibn al-Rawandi's eyes, as well as in the eyes of many of his contemporaries, his views concerning prophecy were still acceptable for a Muslim.(3)

Our knowledge of Islamic theology in the third century is admittedly still very deficient. It is mostly dependent on later sources, and as new sources become available, we must be prepared to rethink traditional views. Some ideas, about the legitimacy of which later Muslim orthodoxy had a definite opinion, were probably still open for debate in the third Islamic century.(4) Views that could be defined as heretical in the fifth century may well have been treated with more leniency in the third and early fourth. But prophecy in general, and the prophethood of Muhammad in particular, was not one of those open issues.(5) By the third century, belief in prophecy was not open for discussion; a person who denied that Muhammad was a prophet stood outside the pale of Islam. Ibn al-Rawandi's case, when properly understood, vividly demonstrates this fact.

The present study will deal with what is perhaps Ibn al-Rawandi's most notorious book, "The Book of the Emerald" (Kitab al-Zumurrud, henceforth, Zumurrud). Part I of this paper presents in brief the available data concerning Ibn al-Rawandi and the Zumurrud, and reviews the relevant scholarly opinions. Part II is a detailed analysis of one passage from the Zumurrud. Part III reviews the Muslim sources that are supposedly favorable to Ibn al-Rawandi, and discusses the connection between Ibn al-Rawandi's heresy and the form of the Zumurrud; and part IV is an attempt to summarize what we know about the Zumurrud and its contents.

1. IBN AL-RAWANDI AND THE KITAB AL-ZUMURRUD

   1. IBN AL-RAWANDI

      If one were to write a biography of Ibn al-Rawandi that contained only the information on which there is consensus, it would be quite short.(6) Abu al-Husayn Ahmad b. Yahya b. Ishaq al-Rawandi was born in Marwarrudh about the year 815 A.D. He joined the Mutazila of Baghdad, and gained prominence among them. But when he approached the age of forty he became estranged from his fellow Mutazilites, and formed close alliances with non-Mutazilites, both Muslims (Shiis) and non-Muslims (Manichaeans, Jews and perhaps also Christians). He wrote against the Mutazila, and they reciprocated in kind.

      Our sources contain much material beyond this short biography. But for every detail other than those mentioned above there are at least two contradictory versions. Some sources suggest that Ibn al-Rawandi may have died eround 860, others that he lived to the year 910.(7) And while most of the sources describe him as an outspoken and dangerous heretic, some appear to present him in a neutral or even positive light.

      These differing perceptions of Ibn al-Rawandi are reflected in Ibn al-Nadim's Fihrist (compiled ca. A.D. 988), which offers two lists of Ibn al-Rawandi's books. One contains respectable scholarly publications, the other an impressive collection of heretical works: in support of the eternity of the world, against the idea that God is wise, against the Quran, against the prophet Muhammad, against all prophets. This dichotomy is often explained in the sources as the result of the development of Ibn al-Rawandi's thought. Thus al-Balkhi (d. 931), cited by Ibn al-Nadim, can speak of the books written by Ibn al-Rawandi in his righteous period (ayyam salahihi), as opposed to those written after he had gone astray (ayyam fasadihi).(8)

      Modern scholars are as divided as the medieval authorities. It is generally agreed that Ibn al-Rawandi was indeed a heretic, but there is no agreement as to the nature of his heresy. Some look for the roots of his heresy in his connections with Shiism,(9) and depict him as a Mutazilite gone wild;(10) some regard him as an Aristotelian philosopher,(11) while others see him as a radical atheist,(12) and some stress the political challenge he presented to the Islamic polity.(13)

      At the same time, scholars try to account for the more positive view of Ibn al-Rawandi in some Muslim sources.(14) Josef van Ess in particular has suggested an original interpretation that aims at accommodating all the contradictory information. Van Ess notes that the sources which portray Ibn al-Rawandi as a heretic are predominantly Mutazilite and stem from Iraq, whereas in eastern texts he appears in a more positive light. As an explanation for this difference, van Ess suggests "a collision of two different intellectual traditions," i.e., those in Iran and in Iraq. He further suggests that Ibn al-Rawandi's notoriety was the result of the fact that after Ibn al-Rawandi left Baghdad, "his colleagues in Baghdad ... profiting from his absence ... could create a black legend."(15) In other words, van Ess believes that Ibn al-Rawandi, although admittedly eccentric and disputatious, was not a heretic at all.

   2. THE KITAB AL-ZUMURRUD

      A. Facts and Probabilities

      Although the contradictory information about Ibn al-Rawandi touches on various aspects of his personality, the greatest difficulties concern his book against prophets, the Kitab al-Zumurrud, regarding which the sources appear to offer two diametrically opposed accounts. I shall begin by setting out some facts that we know for certain about the Zumurrud, and some inferences that can be drawn with a high degree of probability from such facts. This will be done on the basis of only those sources that explicitly mention the Zumurrud.

      i. The character of the book. There is unanimous agreement that the Zumurrud was a book that was directed against prophecy. Al-Khayyat, for instance, describes the book in the following words:

      The book known as Kitab al-Zumurrud, in which he [i.e., Ibn al-Rawandi] mentioned the miracles of the prophets, peace upon them, such as the miracles of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, God's blessing on them. He disputed the reality of these miracles and claimed that they were fraudulent tricks (makhariq) and that the people who performed them were magicians and liars; that the Quran is the speech of an unwise being, and that it contains contradictions, errors and absurdities. He included in it a chapter entitled: "Against the Muhammadans in particular," meaning the community of Muhammad, God's blessing on him.(16)

      ii. The authorship of the Zumurrud. Almost all the sources present Ibn al-Rawandi as the author of the Zumurrud. Only two sources deviate slightly from the consensus. In a passage of the Tathbit dalail al-nubuwwa of Abd al-Jabbar al-Hamadhani (d. 1025), the Zumurrud appears twice: once as a book written by Abu Isa al-Warraq,(17) and two lines later as written by Ibn al-Rawandi.(18) And Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201) says that Ibn al-Rawandi and al-Warraq each charged the other with writing this book, although they agreed on the criticism of the Quran that the book contained.(19)

      iii. The form of the Zumurrud. The book contained arguments both for and against the existence of prophets. This is stated explicitly in the Majalis Muayyadiyya of the Ismaili al-Muayyad fi'l-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1077). The Majalis Muayyadiyya is the only source that contains relatively long citations of arguments against prophecy which are identified explicitly as belonging to the Zumurrud.(20) Al-Muayyad does not claim to have read the Zumurrud itself; he says that he relies on a refutation of the book written by an Ismaili missionary (dai), and he claims to quote from this refutation. In the quotation the dai says:

      We have come across an epistle composed by Ibn al-Rawandi. He called it The Emerald and attributed it to the Barahima.(21) The epistle is about the rejection of the existence of prophecy. In it he [i.e., Ibn al-Rawandi] listed arguments advanced by those who support the existence of prophecy, and others presented by those who deny the existence of prophecy.(22)

      Books dealing with kalam often take the form of a dialogue. There were two standard ways of presenting such a dialogue. One was for the author to respond to a hypothetical interlocutor, so that the form would be in qala ... qulna ("if he were to say ... we would reply") or in qala ... yuqal lahu ("if he were to say ... he should be told"). The other was to present the dialogue as having occurred between two real people.(23) The Majalis Muayyadiyya shows that the dialogue in the Zumurrud was of the second kind. Discussing a certain passage from the Zumurrud, Muayyad cites "the heretic" Ibn al-Rawandi and "his opponent" (khasmuhu) and reports their exchange of arguments. This passage, whose...