© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi 10.1163/15700585-12341298

Arabica 6� (�0�4) 455-470

brill.com/arab

Bulletin critique

Agostino CilardoThe Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence: Law under the Fatimids. A critical edition of the Arabic text and English translation of al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s Minhāj al-farāʾiḍ, London, I.B. Tauris Publishers-The Institute of Ismaili Studies (« Ismaili Texts and Translations Series », 18), 2012, 142 p. + xi + 48 Arabic pagination, ISBN 978-1-78076-129-9, 35 €.

The title of the book The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence: Law under the Fatimids is misleading. The sub-title “A critical edition of the Arabic text and English translation of al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s Minhāǧ al-farāʾiḍ ” is also incorrect because attributing the treatise to al-Qāḍī l-Nuʿmān is spurious. No reliable Ismaili work ascribes Minhāǧ al-farāʾiḍ ’s authorship to Nuʿmān. The editor fails to present a dependable source or sound evidence for such an ascription. The mistaken attribution of this treatise to Nuʿmān seems to have originated from W. Ivanow who states in his A Guide to Ismaili Literature that the Minhāǧ al-farāʾiḍ is usually ascribed to Nuʿmān.1 Most likely, Ivanow relied for this information on a manuscript that he was able to consult which was ascribed to the authorship of Nuʿmān. However, he clearly states that it is mentioned neither in the Fihrist of Maǧdūʿ nor in the ʿUyūn al-aḫbār wa-ṣaḥīḥ al-āṯār of Idrīs ʿImād al-Dīn, the two most trustworthy sources for the works of Nuʿmān. He further adds that it is “apparently quite spurious.” Moreover, Ivanow’s lis-ting of the Minhāǧ as no 64a, which immediatetly follows the entry of the Daʿāʾim al-Islām, no 64, makes one wonder that he might have thought the Minhāǧ was part of the Daʿāʾim. In their respective catalogues, both Goriawala and Cortese merely state that it is ascribed to Nuʿmān without clearly stating that the manuscripts they described are attributed to Nuʿmān on the title page or not.2 Of the three manuscripts the editor has relied upon only one, namely

1 W. Ivanow, A Guide to Ismaili Literature, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1933, p. 37, no. 64a; id., Ismaili Literature, Tehran, Tehran University Press (Ismaili Society texts and translations Series, A, 15), 1963, p. 36, n. 88.

2 Muʿizz Goriawala, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Fyzee Collection of Ismaili Manuscripts, Bombay, University of Bombay, 1965, p. 25-26; Delia Cortese, Arabic Ismaili Manuscripts: The Zāhid ʿAlī Collection, London, I.B. Tauris, 2003, p. 118-119.

456 Bulletin critique

Arabica 61 (2014) 455-470

copy C (of the Zāhid ʿAlī collection), is ascribed to Nuʿmān while the others are anonymous.

There are an additional five copies of this manuscript in private collections and another copy in a public library that could have been easily obtained if the editor had known about them and tried.3

Similarly, the editor takes it for granted that the Yanbūʿ is also an authentic work of Nuʿmān. He states:

The Yanbūʿ is undoubtedly an Ismaili work, and its doctrine does not dif-fer much from that of the Iqtiṣār, Āthār and Daʿāʾim. However, the arrangement of the subjects and its exposition appear more rudimentary than the Daʿāʾim’s. Therefore, I believe that the Yanbūʿ could have been written before the Daʿāʾim.4

The above conclusion, similar to that of the Minhāǧ, was reached by the editor without sound arguments or evidence. Simply put, the Minhāǧ and the Yanbūʿ are not authored by Nuʿmān as demonstrated by Lokhandwalla and Poonawala.5 It is obvious that Cilardo’s acquaintance with Ismaili traditions and literature is perfunctory.

Moreover, his assumption that the Yanbūʿ could have been composed by Nuʿmān prior to his magnum opus, the Daʿāʾim is also groundless. The Yanbūʿ is in one volume and deals with muʿāmalāt (laws pertaining to human inter-course) only. While the Daʿāʾim, like other major works of Islamic law, is in two volumes and deals with both the ʿibādāt (acts of devotion and religious obser-vances) and muʿāmalāt. The present author has elaborated elsewhere the evo-lution of Nuʿmān’s theory of Ismaili jurisprudence based on the chronology of his works on jurisprudence.

The primary flaw of the book is the methodology. Simply stated, the author compares apples with oranges. Moreover, the basis of his whole analysis and discussion is focused on a very narrow issue of inheritance. It would have made better sense if the Minhāǧ, a very short treatise on the question of inheritance,

3 Ismail K. Poonawala, Biobibliography of Ismāʿīlī Literature, Malibu, CA., Undena Publishers, 1977, p. 67.

4 Cilardo, The Early History of Ismaili Jurisprudence, p. 84.5 See Ismail K. Poonawala, “Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān and Ismaʿili Jurisprudence,” in Medieval Ismaʿili

History and Thought, ed. F. Daftary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 117-143; id., “The Evolution of al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān’s Theory of Ismaʿili Jurisprudence Based on the Chronology of his Works on Jurisprudence,” in The Study of Shiʿi Islam, eds. F. Daftary & G. Miskinzoda (in press).

457Bulletin critique

Arabica 61 (2014) 455-470

was compared with the same section in the Daʿāʾim or other authentic works of Nuʿmān. The arrangement and the treatment of the subject matter dealt with the Yanbūʿ are totally different than any legal works of Nuʿmān. Thus, to place the Yanbūʿ side by side with the three authentic works of Nuʿmān, namely the Iqtiṣār, the Muḫtaṣar, and the Daʿāʾim and evaluate them from a very slen-der perspective of inheritance is an unsound approach. Nuʿmān’s theory of Ismaili jurisprudence evolved over a period of time as demonstrated by the present author. Cilardo’s approach raises the question: How can one relate such a prolific author like Nuʿmān from such a narrow perspective of inheri-tance? Certainly, one cannot disregard the major contributions of Nuʿmān in the development of the theory of walāya (devotion to the imām) and its inte-gration into the system of law and raise it to a pre-eminent rank. Strangely enough, with such a flawed methodology the editor tried to accommodate both the Minhāǧ and Yanbūʿ as authentic works of Nuʿmān under the hypo-thesis “the early history of Ismaili jurisprudence.” The average reader might be misled by the editor’s closing remarks wherein he merely reiterates the conclu-sion that was previously reached by scholars like Fyzee, Lokhandwalla and Poonawala, namely that the Daʿāʾim was the crowning achievement of Nuʿmān.

Chapter I entitled “The life and works of al-Qāḍī Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān,” which forms a substantial part of the book in addition to the Arabic text and English translation, is replete with major and minor errors. It is unfruitful to go into further details and refute all the errors. The present author has indicated in his previous study that there are references in the works of Nuʿmān regar-ding his religious affiliation.6 The editor has disregarded those internal references and expressed his doubts concerning Nuʿmān’s first doctrinal orien-tation. In short, the editor lacks familiarity with Ismaili history, its traditions and sources.

A cursory examination of the edited text further reveals numerous failings on the part of the editor. Most of the notes could have been avoided because they are nothing but notations of the scribal errors. Stating those errors in the description of the manuscripts would have been sufficient. Later corrections and the addition of omitted words from the text are generally noted in the margins when that copy is collated with the original copy (or another copy), or read in the ḥalqa (a small group of students studying under a learned shaykh). This is the normal scribal practice followed throughout the centuries. Unfortunately, the editor is confused with those marginal notes and could not decipher them correctly. Hence, instead of incorporating those corrections in the text, he has added them as footnotes. For example, on page 2 of the Arabic

6 See Poonawala, “Al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān and Ismaʿili jurisprudence,” p. 135-136, n. 17.

458 Bulletin critique

Arabica 61 (2014) 455-470

text, note 10 reads “A: min al-ikhwa on the mrg [margin].” I think that those words were missing from the manuscript A; therefore were added in the mar-gin and thus the error is rectified. There are also several typographical errors. Another issue worth mentioning is that the Arabic text is devoid of even the most minimal vocalization. The English translation is readable.

The common reader unless he/she is a competent scholar of Arabic would not be able to read a text full of technical vocabulary.

Finally, the question arises: How could such a book be published by the Institute of Ismaili Studies in London? The normal practice followed by all the reputed publishing houses is that, when a manuscript that is supposed to encourage Ismaili Studies is submitted for publication, it undergoes rigorous peer review by at least two expert scholars from that particular field. Strangely enough, as far as I am able to ascertain, the Institute of Ismaili Studies does not follow such a procedure. The decision about its publications is arbitrarily taken by one person in charge of academic research and publication. In other words there is no quality control. Had there been a peer review, I am certain those errors would have been avoided or rectified and the editor would have been advised to thoroughly revise his introduction as well as the edited Arabic text.

I hope that this type of oversight will not be repeated in the future.

Ismail K. Poonawala University of California at Los Angeles