Search Results

Author:

, fallen angel or Ḏj̲inn in the legendary tradition of Islam (does not occur in the Ḳurʾān). He gets his name from the biblical ʿAzāzēl (Leviticus xvi, 8, 10, 26), perhaps demon of the desert (see L. Koehler, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros , 693). In point of fact the Muslim tradition extends and develops that of some of the Apocrypha (Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham) and of Jewish texts, in which ʿAzāzēl is more or less connected with the fallen angels ʿUzza and ʿAzāʾēl (in Muslim tradition, Hārūt and Mārūt, [q.v.]); the ḥadīt̲h̲ , however, would appear to innovate in considering ʿAzāzʾēl as the name of Iblīs [q.v.] before his fall, a tradition which is traced back to Ibn ʿAbbās and which is even repeated in al-Insān al-Kāmil of al-Ḏj̲īlī.

Author:

b. baʿūr (ā), Bilʿam b. Beʿor of the Hebrew Bible. The Ḳurʾān does not mention him, unless perhaps in an allusion in vii, 175 [174] 176 [175]. The commentators and historians keep the main elements of the Biblical story in their accounts of him (Numbers xxii-xxiv, xxxi, 8) and following the Jewish Aggada which likewise has given other features of his portrait, make him responsible for the fornication of the Israelites with the daughters of Moab and Midian (Numbers xxv); note that he tends to absorb the figure of Balaḳ, who appears rarely in the Muslim sources. Some traditions deviate from the Hebrew sources in making Balʿam an Israelite or in dating him in the time of Joshua, an anachronism which despite Sidersky does not go back to a Samaritan tradition. —The statements of the tafsīr on Kurʾān vii, 175 [174] are used by the mystics, at least since Muḥāsibī, to make of Balʿam the prototype of the spiritual man led astray by lust and pride.—The Ps.-Balk̲h̲ī attributes to Balʿam somewhat confused philosophical views on the eternity of the world.—On the identification of Balʿam with Luḳmān (a tradition taken up by Petrus Alphonsi) see EI 1, s.v. Luḳmān.

Author:

(or ʿamāliḳa ), the Amalekites of the Bible. Not mentioned in the Ḳurʾān, this ancient people is connected by Muslim literary tradition to the genealogical table in Genesis x, either to Shem (through Lud-Lāwud̲h̲ or Arpak̲h̲s̲h̲ad), or to Ham. They take the place of the Philistines (the people of Ḏj̲ālūt-Goliath) and of the Midianites (Balaam persuaded them to incite the Israelites to debauchery), and the Pharaohs are alleged to be of their race. On the other hand, in the mythical pre-Islamic history of Arabia and in the legendary cycle of the Yamanite migrations, they are listed among the first tribes speaking the Arabic tongue, with Ṭasm, Ḏj̲adīs and T̲h̲amūd. At the time of Hūd, they lived in the Ḥid̲j̲āz, but the same prophet is supposed to have preached to them in Babel. Ishmael’s first wife, who was repudiated, was an Amalekite. Their moral corruption merited their destruction. The evil deeds of King ʿAmlūḳ belong to the folklore concerning jus primae noctis. Joshua fought against them, and the establishment of Jewish tribes at Yat̲h̲rib is said to be an unforeseen result of the war of extermination waged on them by Jushua’s order, but not fully carried out. David also made war on them. Reference is also made to an Amalekite settlement in the Yamāma. Even the confused memories of the Palmyrene empire of Odenathus and Zenobia have been associated with the Amalekites. Nöldeke has clearly shown that apart from the confused biblical references, there is no historical basis to these accounts.

Author:

, Jewish sect of the adepts of ʿĀnān b. David (c. 760 A.D.), rather incorrectly considered to be the founder of the Karaite schismatic faction; his schism was only one of many which affected Rabbinical Judaism during the 8th-9th centuries. The Muslim authors seem to have taken most of their information about ʿĀnān and his sect from Karaite sources, especially Ḳirḳisānī, but they have only used a small part of the mass of information supplied by him. The author of the al-Badʾ wa ’l-Taʾrīk̲h̲ represents ʿĀnān as a sort of Muʿtazilite, who professes the divine unity and justice and rejects anthropomorphism. The ʿĀnāniyya of Ibn Ḥazm are in fact the Karaites. Al-Bīrūnī is interested in their particular views regarding the calendar. Al-S̲h̲ahrastānī, in addition to briefly mentioning their calendar and their prohibitions concerning food (M. Badran has rejected the correct reading into the footnote) comments on their favourable attitude to the person of Jesus. The later Muslim sources throw no fresh light on the subject. No Muslim author mentions the alleged meeting between ʿĀnān and Abū Ḥanīfa in the prisons of al-Manṣūr. Although ḳiyās is recognized as a source of the law both by the Karaites and by the Ḥanafīs, there is nothing to suggest that the latter influenced the former.

Author:

, Abu ’l-Walīd Marwān (Hebrew name Yōnāh, Latin name Marinus [?]), Jewish physician and philologist, born at Cordova circa 380/990, died at Saragossa about fifty years later. His very important works, written in Arabic, as a grammarian and lexicographer of the Hebrew language do not concern us here. Ṣāʿid b. Aḥmad Ibn Ṣāʿid al-Andalusī (whose notice was reproduced by Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa), however, praises him as a logician and the author of an epitome of pharmacology, which is mentioned also by Ibn al-Bayṭār.

Author:

, D̲j̲aʿd , heretic, was a native of K̲h̲urāsān but spent most of his life at Damascus; he was imprisoned and then put to death, on the orders of His̲h̲ām b. ʿAbd al-Malik [q.v.], by K̲h̲ālid al-Ḳasrī [q.v.] on the day of the Feast of Sacrifices as a substitute for the ritual sacrifice of a sheep; the sources vary on the place and date of his execution: Kūfa or Wāsiṭ, 124/742 or 125/743. Very few facts are known on the doctrinal position of D̲j̲aʿd b. Dirham; it is, however, clear that anti-Marwānid political propaganda and theological propaganda directed against the Muʿtazilīs (whom their enemies wished to accuse not only of having non-Muslim ideologies but also of being influenced by the heretics of the early period of Islam) were in part the reason for the accusations directed at him during five centuries, from al-Dārimi to Ibn Taymiyya: he was accused of having advanced the doctrines, later specifically associated with the Muʿtazilis, of the created Ḳurʾān and of free will, errors which he was said to have led Marwān b. Muḥammad to hold; of having professed a radic̣al doctrine of denial of the Divine attributes ( taʿṭīl , of which the Muʿtazilīs were also accused), whence probably the saying attributed to him by K̲h̲ālid: “God did not speak to Moses, nor take Abraham as His friend”; he is described as a dahrī and appears prominently in the list of zindīḳs in the Fihrist according to some verses quoted by al-Muṭahhar al-Maḳdisī, the followers of Ḏj̲aʿd’s religion, beardless men (a characteristic borrowed from the portrait of the Manichean “Elect”), accuse the Prophet of lying and deny the resurrection. He is also associated with Ḏj̲ahm b. Ṣafwān [q.v.]; it is certain, however, that the latter did not profess the doctrine of free will. Without casting doubt on the authenticity of the majority of these statements, the co-ordination of which is, however, difficult, it should nevertheless be noted that there is no mention at all of D̲j̲aʿd b. Dirham in sources as important as the Taʾrīk̲h̲ of al-Ṭabarī (where he appears, Annales , i, 1396, sub anno 102, only as the author of an entirely conventional lament), the K. al-Intiṣār of al-K̲h̲ayyāṭ. the Maḳālāt al-Islāmiyyīn of al-As̲h̲ʿarī, and al-S̲h̲arḥ wa ’l-ibāna (“Profession of faith”) of Ibn Baṭṭa.

Author:

, traditionist born in 613/1217 on the island of Tūnā between Tinnīs and Damietta; at the end of his career he was professor at the Manṣūriyya and at the Ẓāhiriyya in Cairo, where he died in 705/1306. Apart from the works listed by Brockelmann, to be supplemented by the recent study of A. Dietrich, ʿAbdalmuʾmin b. Xalaf ad-Dimyāṭī’nin bir muhācirūn listesi , in Şarkiyat Mecmuasi , iii (1959), 125-55) he has left a dictionary of authorities, often cited and used by subsequent historians and biographers, called Muʿd̲j̲am S̲h̲uyūk̲h̲ ; it only survives at the present time in a single incomplete manuscript (Tunis, Aḥmadiyya , 911-2, —about 1185 entries out of the 1250 contained in the complete work) which was written at the author’s dictation. In this document are contained the Ḥadīt̲h̲ , and also other texts collected by al-Dimyāṭī in the course of his numerous voyages in Egypt, the two holy cities, in Syria, Ḏj̲azīra and in ʿIrāḳ between 636/1238 and 656/1258; these, together with the numerous reading-certificates which accompany them, will be the subject of a monograph by G. Vajda. Apart from his own works, al-Dimyāṭī is one of the most important figures of the last third of the 7th/13th century in the field of the handing down of traditions.

Author:

, The Goliath of the Bible appears as D̲j̲ālūt in the Ḳurʾān (II, 248/247-252/251) (the line of al-Samawʾal where the name occurs is inauthentic), in assonance with Ṭālūt [q.v.] and perhaps also under the influence of the Hebrew word gālūt , “exile, Diaspora”, which must have been frequently on the lips of the Jews in Arabia as elsewhere. The passage of the Ḳurʾān where he is referred to by name (his introduction in the exegesis of V, 25 seems to be sporadic and secondary) combines the biblical account of the wars waged by Saul and David (I Samuel xvii) with some traces of Gideon’s expedition against the Midianites (Judges vii, particularly the episode of the water drinking test to select warriors.

Author:

, person mentioned twice in the Ḳurʾān (second Meccan period): XIX, 57/56-58/57, “And mention in the Book Idrīs; he was a true man ( ṣiddīḳ ), a Prophet. We raised him up to a high place”, and XXI, 85-86, “And [make mention of] Ismāʿīl, Idrīs, D̲h̲u ’l-Kifl—each was of the patient, and We admitted them into Our mercy; they were of the righteous” (tr. A. J. Arberry). Among the explanations suggested for This name, obviously foreign and adapted, like the name Iblīs [q.v.], to the pattern ifʿīl , may be mentioned that of Casanova (in JA, cciv, 358, followed by Torrey, The Jewish foundation of Islam, New York 1933, 72) which connects it with ʿEzra (under the Greek form ’Εσδρας), and that which considers it to be a corruption of Andreas and referring either to the apostle Andrew (T. Nöldeke, in ZA, xvii, 84 ff.) or to a person with the same name, the cook of Alexander the Great who achieved immortality by accident, according to the romance of Alexander (R. Hartmann, ibid., xxiv, 314 ff.). In any case, the brief references in the Ḳurʾān have been sufficient for later Muslim legend, often filled out with material from apocryphal Biblical and Rabbinical sources, to identify him with characters in the Bible and the Apocrypha who ascended into Heaven: most frequently with Ḥanōk̲h̲ (Enoch, Arabic spelling Ak̲h̲nūk̲h̲). more rarely with Elijah (Ilyās) or al-K̲h̲iḍr (K̲h̲aḍir). On the other hand, as a result of the syncretism practised by the Hermetists, the astrologers and the alchemists, whose speculations are not easy to distinguish from one another and whose ideas tend to become identical, especially among the “Sabeans”, Idrīs has been introduced into the genealogy of the “Hermes” ( Hirmis [q.v.], pl. Harāmisa ) ; This thread can be traced from Abū Maʿs̲h̲ar ( K. al-Ulūf ), whose sources have not yet been identified, to Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa, not to mention still later compilations. Similarly Idrīs has been credited with a number of wise sayings, and Muslim mystic thought, particularly that with a philosophico-theosophical tendency, gives him a place among its mythical illuminati; Ibn al-ʿArabī describes him as “the prophet of the philosophers”; a number of works were attributed to him (Ibn Sabʿīn [q.v.] wrote a commentary on one, cf. Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ī K̲h̲alīfa, ed. Flügel, iii, 599, no. 7170); he is credited also with various inventions, arts of divination like geomancy and zāʾirad̲j̲a [q.v.], and with useful arts, particularly that of writing (which again connects him with Hermes and with the Babylonian god Nabū) and that of making garments (an attribute grafted by Balʿamī onto the Iranian myth of Gayōmart̲h̲); This reputation assured him a place among the patron saints of the craftsmen’s guilds and the representative figures of the futuwwa [q.v.].

Author:

, Abū Ayyūb Sulaymān b. Yaḥyā (in Hebrew: S̲h̲elōmōh ben Yehudāh; the Latin Avencebrol; Gabirol, or rather Gebirol, is perhaps Ḏj̲ubayr plus the Romance diminutive suffix -ol), Jewish poet and philosopher, born at Malaga circa 411/1021-2, died at Valencia 450/1058 (but this date is not absolutely certain). In addition to his works, mainly poetry, written in Hebrew, which do not concern us here, Ibn Gabirol wrote in Arabic a short treatise on morals ( Iṣlāḥ al-ak̲h̲lāḳ ), which summarizes without much originality (but adapting them to the needs of the Arabic-speaking Jewish public) the usual commonplaces of this literary genre [see ak̲h̲lāḳ ]; a collection of ethical sentences, which is preserved, apart from a few fragments, in a Hebrew version ( Mibḥar ha-penīnīm “Selected pearls”), the attribution of which is, however, uncertain; and, most important, a lengthy metaphysical treatise in dialogue form: the Arabic original of this, which, apart from a small number of quotations, is lost, most probably had as its title Yanbūʿ al-ḥayāt , Fons vitae in the Latin version made in the middle of the 12th century by the Toledan translator John of Spain with the help of Dominicus Gundissalinus. The Hebrew extracts, made by S̲h̲emṭōb Ibn Palḳera, are a century later; unlike the Latin version, which was well-known and used by the great Latin scholars such as Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, etc. (who did not suspect that the author was Jewish but took him for an “Arab”), these extracts remained practically unknown until they were identified by Salomon Munk in the middle of the 19th century.