On the Origins of Wahhabism

MICHAEL C O O K At some time towards the middle of the twelfth/eighteenth century, the young NajdT scholar Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (1115-1206/1703^-92) experienced something like a conversion.1 From that point on, his understanding of monotheism seems to have been such that he considered most of the professed Muslims of his day to be polytheists who should be fought till they accepted Islam. The first WahhabT state (1158-1233/1745^1818) was the product of the fusion of this radical vision with the political fortunes of the Al Sa'ud, until then the petty chiefs of the NajdT oasis of Dir'iyya. What then was the source of the Shaykh's doctrinal insight, if such it was ?2 Could it be something he came by on his travels in search of learning ? Was it a result of reading books, as was suggested by the Baghdad! Haydarl (d. 13 00/18 82), who regarded the career of the Shaykh as an object-lesson in the dangers of reading too much without talking to other scholars ?3 Or was it an intuition the origin of which it would be fruitless to pursue ? My primary concern here is to analyse the conflicting accounts of the travels which the Shaykh undertook prior to the inception of his political career. I shall then attempt a brief survey of the writers who are likely to have influenced him. This will not resolve the issue of the source of the Shaykh's inspiration, but it may help to narrow it somewhat. The WahhabT sources give a sober and restrained account of the Shaykh's itinerary. He visits the Hijaz, especially Medina; he returns, then visits Iraq, specifically Basra; and he comes home by way of al-Ahsa'.4 There is little variation within the WahhabT sources
1 A draft of this paper was presented at the Mellon Seminar on "New approaches to the study of pre-modern Islamic history" in Princeton in February 1991, and a summary at the annual meeting of the American Oriental Society in Berkeley the following month. I am grateful for the comments I received on both these occasions, and particularly to Nimrod Hurvitz and Khaled Abou El Fadl. I am also indebted to Frank Stewart for reading and commenting on a draft, to Jerome Clinton for philological advice, and to Hedi BenAicha for help in locating a source. 2 I should make it clear that, while generally aware of the purport of the Shaykh's doctrine of shirk, and of the hostility it encountered, 1 am unable to identify the precise respects in which it differed from the views of his predecessors and contemporaries. I have not found the existing secondary literature helpful on this score, and a thorough study of the relevant sources by someone qualified to undertake it would considerably advance our understanding of early Wahhabism. 3 Ibrahim FasTh ibn Sibghat Allah al-HaydarT al-BaghdadT, 'Urnvan al-majd jt bayan ahwctl Baghdad wa'l-Basra wa-Najd (Baghdad, 1962), p. 228.14. 4 The clearest account is that of Ibn Bishr (d. 1290/1873) {'Unwan al-majd flta'nkh Najd (Beirut, n.d.), pp. I7f; hence Mahmud ShukrT al-AlusT, Ta'nkh Najd (Cairo, 1347), pp. 1121). Ibn Ghannam (d. i225/i8io) states that the Shaykh visited the Hijaz and Basra several times, and went to al-Ahsa" (Rawdat al-ajkar (Bombay, 1337), i, p. 31.4; he also refers to a pilgrimage to the Hijaz soon after puberty (ibid., p. 30.21)). Ibn Ghannam's account

JRAS, Series 3, 2, 2 (1992), pp. 191-202

192

Michael Cook

except in the matter of order: some sources have him visit Basra before the Hijaz.5 One late WahhabT source has him visit Baghdad.6 His two main teachers in Medina were a NajdT, 'Abdallah ibn Ibrahim ibn Sayf,7 and an Indian, Muhammad Hayat al-Sindl (d. 1163/1750).8 Ibn Sayf is recounted to have shown Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab a collection of books which he described as "weapons I have prepared for Majma'a" (his home-town in Najd).9 The Shaykh is reported to have asked Muhammad Hayat his opinion of those who came to intercede {yad'una wa-yasta'Tthuna) at the tomb of the Prophet; to this he replied by quoting Moses's denunciation of the idolatrous tribe whom the Israelites wished to emulate.10 Both, then, are pictured as reformists, if not very active ones; but neither is clearly identified as the source of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine.11
is the basis of those given by 'Abd al-Latif ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hasan (d. 1293/1876) (Misbdh al-zalam (Bombay, n.d.), p. 6.19) and Sulayman ibn Sahman (d. 1349/1930) in two of his works (al-Diya' al-shariq (Cairo, 1344), pp. sf; Kashf ghayahib al-zalam (Bombay, n.d.), pp. 935). For secondary accounts of the WahhabT
itinerary, see H. Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques de TakT-d-DTn Ahmad b. TaimTya (Cairo, 1939),

pp. 5O7f (despite the major contribution made by Laoust to Hanbalite and WahhabT studies, this account is based on late sources, and is not reliable in detail); The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition (Leyden and London, i960- ), art. "Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab", cols. 677bf (H. Laoust; also unreliable in detail); G. S. Rentz, Muhammad
ibn 'Abd al- Wahhab (1703/041792) and the Beginnings of Unitarian Empire in Arabia (University of California, Ph.D.

1948), pp. 24-33. 5 So the WahhabT chronicle rendered in F. Mengin, Histoire de I'Egypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly (Paris, 1823), ii, p. 449 (and cf. ibid., i, p. 378): he went to Basra to continue his studies, then decided to visit Medina and Mecca, then returned to his native land. This chronicle is ascribed to a grandson of the Shaykh named "le cheykh Abderrahman el-Oguyeh" (ibid., i, p. vi); presumably this is 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hasan (d. 1285/1869). Elsewhere the latter states that the Shaykh "travelled to Basra, then to al-Ahsa" and the Haramayn" (so an epistle of his apud Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 264.10). The Shaykh's grandson Sulayman ibn 'Abdallah (d. 1233/1818) states that the Shaykh visited "Basra and the Hijaz" (see his al-Tawdih 'an tawlnd al-khalldq (Riyad, 1984), p. 25.6; the ascription and date of this work would bear investigation); and a French rendering of an account of WahhabT history ascribed to him says explicitly that the Shaykh went first to Basra,
then to Mecca ([}. B. L. J. Rousseau], Me'moire sur les trois plusfameuses sectes du Musulmanisme (Paris, 1818), p. 27).

A tarjama of the Shaykh by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Hasan's son 'Abd al-LatTf mentions visits to Basra and the Hijaz (more than once), and to al-Ahsa' (Majmii'at al-rasd'il wa'l-masa'il at-Najdiyya (Cairo, 13469), iii, p. 380.5; except in the matter of order, his account seems to derive from Ibn Ghannam's). An anonymous, probably Syrian, but pro-WahhabT source has the Shaykh visit Basra, then Medina (Kayfa kana zuhiir shaykh al-lslam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, ed. 'A. S. al-'UthaymTn (Riyad, 1983), p. 46.1; on this work see 'A. S. al'Uthaymin, "Kayfa kana zuhur al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab", al-'Arab, XIII (1978)). 6 Sulayman ibn Sahman, Tabri'at al-Shaykhayn (Cairo, 1343), p. 162.5. 7 Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 31.6; Sulayman ibn 'AbdallJh, Tawdtl), p. 25.9; Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, pp. 17.14, 85.16. His son IbrahTm died in Ii89/i775f (Ibn 'Isa, Ta'rikh ba'd al-hawadith al-waqi'ajt Najd, ed. H. al-Jasir (Riyad, 1966), p. 34.11). 8 Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, pp. 17.18, 85.16. On him see J. Voll, "Muhammad Hayya [sic] al-SindT and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: an analysis of an intellectual group in eighteenth-century MadTna", Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXXVIII (1975), pp. 32f. 9 Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 17.16. 10 lima ha'ulS'i mutabbamn ma hum fthi wa-bStilun ma kanii ya'maliin ( Q 7 : 139) (Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd,

p. 17.20). In the text of the British Library manuscript of the work, it is the Shaykh who delivers himself of this judgement (Or. 7,718, f. 6a.6). 11 Other scholars with whom the Shaykh is said to have had contact in the Hijaz are Shaykh 'AIT AfandT alDaghistanT (Sulayman ibn 'Abdallah, Tawdih, p. 25.6, noted in 'A. S. al-'UthaymTn, Ta'rikh al-mamlaka al'Arabiyya al-Su'udiyya (n.p., 1984), p. 64, note 1), and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-KurdT al-Shafi'T (Ahmad ibn ZaynT Dahlan, al-Durar al-saniyya ft 'l-radd 'ala 'l-Wahhabiyya (Cairo, n.d.), p. 147.7; cf. D. S. Margoliouth in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition (Leyden and London, 1913-38), art. "WahhabTya", col. 1086a).' AIT al-Taghistam (born c. 1125/1713, d. 1199/1785) was in fact younger than the Shaykh; his stay in the Hijaz was prior to his settlement in Damascus in 1150 (MuradT, Silk al-durar (Bulaq, 1301), iii, p. 215.5). Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-KurdT was younger still: he died in 1194/1780 at the age of 67 (ibid., iv, p. 112.8), which implies a date of birth of 1126-7/171415.

Origins of Wahhabism

193

Only one teacher is mentioned in the context of the Shaykh's stay in Basra: a certain Muhammad al-Majmu'T.12 Here, for the first time, we also have some action. Ibn 'Abd alWahhab denounces polytheism in the city, and is drummed out of town; Majmu'T approves of his initiative, and suffers for it.13 Unfortunately, no one seems to have identified this scholar in any non-WahhabT source.14 Majmu'a at least was real.15 At this point, in the WahhabT accounts, the Shaykh wished to proceed from Zubayr, whither he had fled, to Damascus, the major academic centre of the Hanbalite world. But he lacked the means to do so, and was thus constrained to return home.16 His route took him through al-Ahsa', where he stayed with a Shafi'ite scholar.17 We can now turn to the non-WahhabT sources. Here an extensive and colourful itinerary appears in a rich if unreliable source, the anonymous Lam' al-shihab fi sTrat Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.ls This is an account of WahhabT history written somewhere in the region of the Persian Gulf; it was completed in 1233/1817, probably for a British official. Its author was clearly not a WahhabT, but he was not unsympathetic to the Saudi cause. According to this account,19 the Shaykh set out on his travels at the age of 37.20 (Assuming the birthdate of ni5/i7O3f given by the WahhabT sources,21 this would have been in 1152/1739^) He went to Basra, where he would sit incognito in the mosque of the Majmu'a quarter (there is no mention of Muhammad al-Majmu'T); in due course he attracted the patronage of the governor and the wary interest of the qadT. He would seem to have passed a total of six years in the city.22 He then lived for five years in Baghdad,23
12 Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 18.5 (and cf. ibid., p. 85.17, where he vaguely refers to him as sahib al-Basra). Ibn Bishr explains that Majmu'a is a village of Basra, and adds a report on the authority of a scholar whose pupil he had been on the high standing enjoyed by this Muhammad's descendants in their locality (ibid., p. 18.8). Ibn Ghannam states that the Shaykh studied with a large number of scholars in Basra, but does not name any of them ; he adds that it was in Basra that he stayed longest to study (Rawda, i, p. 32.23). 13 Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, pp. 18.6, 18.11. Ibn Ghannam tells us of the Shaykh's propaganda for

monotheism (tawhtd), of the reproofs he administered in his circle, and of the attempts of local polytheists to

confute him (Rawda, i, p. 33.1); but he says nothing of the circumstances in which the Shaykh left town. 14 HaydarT, who ought to know, only repeats Ibn Bishr's account (HaydarT, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 229.9). 16 Buckingham, who visited Basra in 1817, describes the " Bab-el-Meejmooah " as one of the five gates of the city, facing south-south-east (]. S. Buckingham, Travels in Assyria, Media, and Persia (London, 1830), ii, p. 130). The mosque of Majmu'a is listed in an Ottoman provincial gazetteer (Basra vilayeti salnamesi (Basra, 1308), 16 p. 79.3). Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 18.16. " Viz. 'AbdallSh ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Latif al-Shafi'T al-AhsaT (ibid., p. 18.19). The Shaykh subsequently recalls their meeting in a polemical epistle addressed to him (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 61.3). Sulayman ibn 'Abdallah speaks of 'Abd al-LatTf al-AhsaT al-'AfaliqT and Muhammad al-'Afaliql al-Ahsa'T (Tawdih, p. 25.10). 18 On this source see M. Cook, "The provenance of the Lam' al-shihabftsxrat Muhammad ibn ' Abd al-Wahhab", Journal of Turkish Studies, X (1986). 19 Anon., Lam' al-shihSb ft sTrat Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, ed. A.M.Abu Hakima (Beirut, 1967), pp. 15-22. 20 Ibid., p . 15.11. This was after 23 years o f study with t w o Najdr teachers, Shaykh ' A b d al-Rahman ibn A h m a d o f Burayda and Shaykh Hassan al-TamTmT o f the QasTm. Here and below, I a m unable t o identify most o f the persons mentioned in this narrative. 21 Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, i, p . 30.2; Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p. 416.5. Since the Shaykh died in 1206/1792, any birthdate m u c h earlier than 1115 is implausible. 22 Lam' al-shihdb, pp. 15-17. T h e account mentions the names o f t w o successive governors, ' U m a r Aqa and Jirjis Aqa, and t w o successive qadh, Shihab al-D!n and Husayn al-IslambulT, together with a p r o m i n e n t scholar, Shaykh Anas. T h e latter might be the Shaykh Anas Bash A'yan al-Basra w h o in 1140/1727f reconstructed the d o m e over the t o m b o f the ShadhilT Shaykh M u h a m m a d A m l n a l - K a w w a z (d. 953/15461) (see 'A. Bash A'yan

194

Michael Cook

after which he spent a year travelling through Kurdistan.24 His next destination was Iran.25 After two years in Hamadan, he proceeded to Isfahan, where his arrival coincided with the end of Safavid rule and the beginning of that of Nadir Shah.26 (This could not be later than 1148/1736, the year in which Nadir assumed the title of Shah!) In his seven years in Isfahan, he mastered Peripatetic philosophy,27 and cultivated Ishraqism and Sufism. From Isfahan he set out for Rayy; after an unfortunate experience in a village on the route, 28 he reached Qumm, whence he shortly moved on to Anatolia (al-Rum). 29 He then spent six months in Aleppo, a year in Damascus, two months in Jerusalem, and two years in Cairo. 30 Finally he returned home by way of the Hijaz; this was in the days of Sharif Surur.31 (Surur ruled from 1186/1773 to 1202/1788.32 On the other hand, on the figures given, the Shaykh's return home could be not much more than eleven years after his arrival in Isfahan, which as we saw was not later than 1148/1736 !)33 His activities along his route are marked by a colourfulness34 to which my prosaic summary does less than justice. Since the Lam1 al-shihab was used by Margoliouth in his article on the Wahhabiyya for the first edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam,35 this account has become well-known in the secondary literature, in both the Middle East
36

and the West.37 It has generally, and

rightly, been treated with some scepticism. Despite its occasional references to specific but anonymous sources,38 neither the picaresque character of the account nor its impossible chronology inspire confidence. The essence of this account also appears doubtless from parallel sources, written or oral in some Persian works of the Qajar period.39 Writing in the 1250s or 1260S/1830S or al-'Abbasi, al-Basrajt adwariha al-ta'rikhiyya (Baghdad, 1961), p. 81); but this hardly seems appropriate company for the Shaykh, w h o makes hostile references to this t o m b cult in his epistles (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 139.3, 208.8). 23 Lam' al-shihab, pp. I7f. Mention is made of a Shafi'ite scholar, Shaykh 'Abd al-RahTm al-Kurdr. 24 2S 26 Ibid., p. 18.17. Ibid., pp. 19-21. Ibid., p. 19.7. 27 His teacher was MTrza Jan al-Isfaham, commentator on the Sharh al-Tajrid (the reference is to the Tajrid of NasTr al-DTn al-TusT) (ibid., p. 19.7). O u r author is thinking of the tenth/sixteenth-century scholar HabTb Allah MTrzajan al-ShTrazT (cf. the editor's footnote; C . Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischeti Litteratur, supplementary volumes (Leyden, 1937-42), i, p. 926, ii, p. 594; K. ZiriklT, A'lam (Beirut, 1979), ii, col. 167a). 28 At this point he is accompanied b y a Baghdad! disciple named 'Air al-Qazzaz. 29 Lam' al-shihab, p. 21. Here he is taken t o the city of " A b u Libas", which 1 a m unable to identify; his presence there leads many to convert from Hanafism to Hanbalism. 30 Ibid., pp. 2if. H e studied at the Azhar with Shaykh M u h a m m a d Zayn al-DTn Abu 'Abdallah al-Maghribi. 31 Ibid., p. 22. In Mecca he m e t the mufti Shaykh 'Abd al-GhanT al-Shafi'T. 32 Dahlan, Khulasat al-kalam jt bayan umara al-balad al-haram (Cairo, 1305), pp. 207.23, 224.25. 33 N o r could it be any earlier than ten years after 1148/1736 - which takes us at least to the birth of the first Saudi state! N o t e also that o u r source indicates the Shaykh to have spent at least 24 years on his travels, which would imply a return n o earlier than 1176/1762^ 34 N o t e h o w he changes his name at every stage (Lam' al-shihab, p. 19.3), and oscillates between revealing and 35 concealing what he was about (ibid., p. 21.21). T h e relevant passage is at col. 1086a. 36 For example, it was quoted (without reference to its source) b y A h m a d AmTn as literal truth (A. A m m , Zu'ama" al-islahjt'l-'asr al-hadith (Cairo, 1948), p. 10; I o w e this reference to Michael Bonner). See also 'A. 'A. 'Abd al-RahTm, al-Dawla al-Su'iidiyya al-iila, second edition ([Cairo], 1975), p. 34 and note 1. ('Abd al-RahTm categorically rejects the account for four reasons, of which the first (the lack of any indication that the Shaykh knew Persian) and the second (the absence of any trace in his writings of the ideas he might have assimilated on such travels) carry some weight, while the third and fourth are based on faulty premises.) 37 See particularly Rentz, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, p. 32, note 1. Rentz rejects the account on g r o u n d s of chronology, and considers it "excessively romantic" and "utterly at variance with what is known of the Shaikh's character". 38 Lam' al-shihab, pp. i s . 4 , 18.5, 19.15, 22.4. T h e a u t h o r professes that he is b o u n d t o relate only w h a t he has heard and verified (ibid., p . 18.18). 39 For these works, see H. M. Mudarrisi TabatabaX " Ravabit-i Iran ba hukumat-i mustaqill-i Najd (1208-1233 hijn qamarT)", Barrasitia-yi tdrikhi, XI, no. 4 (1976), pp. 79f; 'A. A. FaqThI, Wahhabiyan (Tehran,

Origins of Wahhabism

195

1840s, Muhammad TaqT Sipihr (d. 1297/1880)40 states that 'Abd al-Wahhab (sic), after studying with a certain Muhammad in Basra, proceeded to Isfahan, where he pursued various sciences.41 This account in turn is identical in substance with that given by an earlier historian, 'Abd al-Razzaq Maftun DunbulT (d. i243/i827f).42 The distinguished scholar Mirza-yi QummT (d. 123 1/18151)43 wrote about a year before his death a letter to Fath-'AlT Shah (ruled 1212-50/1797-1834) in which he recollected that, while in Najaf in his early twenties (sc. in the early 117os/late 1750s),44 he had heard of one Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab from 'Uyayna who visited Arab Iraq (including the holy cities) and, apparently, Persian Iraq.45 A yet earlier source is the Tuhfat al-'alam of 'Abd al-LatTf ShushtarT (d. 1220/1806) ;46 in an appendix to this account of his travels, written in 1219/1804^ he too mentions the visit of Shaykh 'Abd al-Wahhab (sic) to Isfahan, that centre of the Greek philosophical tradition (Yiinankada), and his study with distinguished scholars there; his return home is placed not later than about H7i/i757f. 47 This account in turn closely parallels that of MTrza Abu Talib Khan Isfahan! (d. I22o/i8o5f),48 who wrote in I2i8/i8o3f;49 MTrza Abu Talib has the further detail that the Shaykh's travels extended to Khurasan and the frontier of Ghazna. Again, these accounts do not inspire much confidence. But this is not the end of it. Two sources attest the currency of reports of an Iranian connection at a much earlier date. One is the German traveller Carsten Niebuhr. In his account of the "new religion" which had appeared in Najd, Niebuhr describes how its future founder, after studying in Najd, lived for some years in Basra, and also travelled to Baghdad and Persia.50 Niebuhr was in Arabia in A.D. 1762-3 and (briefly) 1765 - i.e. in the
1364 [sh.]), p p . 1446, 262-79. MudarrisT pronounces in favour of the historicity of the Shaykh's j o u r n e y to Iran on the g r o u n d s that the Persian sources confirm the testimony of the Lam' al-shihab. These studies supersede that of S. al-Shahrastam, " H a l talaqqa m u b d i ' a l - W a h h a b i y y a durusahu ft Isfahan?", al-'lrfan, LVII (1969). ShahrastanT's article also appeared in an Arabic magazine published in T e h r a n (al-Ikha', X , n o . 162 (1 J a n u a r y 1970), p . 18), u n d e r the title " a l - S h a y k h M u h a m m a d ibn ' A b d a l - W a h h a b wa-dirasatuhu ft Isfahan"; this was b r o u g h t to the attention of H a m a d al-Jasir, w h o energetically rebutted it in his " J a w a n i b m i n hayat al-Shaykh M u h a m m a d ibn ' A b d a l - W a h h a b " , al-'Arab, IV (1970), especially p p . 9 3 9 - 4 4 ( w h e r e t h e account o f t h e Lam' al40 shihab is also discussed). See C . A. Storey, Persian Literature (London, 1927-), i, p p . 152-4, n o . 191). 41 M u h a m m a d TaqT Sipihr, Nasikh al-tavarikh: salatm-i Qajariyya (Tehran, 1344 sh. and 1385), i, p . 118.14. Cf. also Rida-QulT Khan Hidayat (d. 1288/1871), Tarikh-i rawdat al-safa-yi Nasiri, printed with MTrkhwand, T5rikh-i rawdat al-saja ( Q u m m , 1338-9 sh.), ix, p . 380.18. 42 ' A b d al-Razzaq Maftun D u n b u l r , Ma'athir-i sultauiyya (Tehran, 1351 sh.), p . 82.11. For this a u t h o r see Storey, Persian Literature, i, p p . 3 3 4 ^ n o . 4 2 6 ; the w o r k is a history of Fath-'AlT Shah to 1229/1814. 43 For his life and w o r k s , see H . M . MudarrisT TabatabaT, " P a n j n a m a az Fath-'AlT Shah-i Qajar ba-MTrzayi Q u m m T " , BarrasTha-yi Tarikln, X , n o . 4 (1975), p p . 2 5 4 - 8 . 44 His date of birth is given as 1 1 5 1 / I738T (Agha B u z u r g al-TihranT, Tabaqat a'lam al-shfa (Mashhad, 1404), ii, part 1, p . 52.8); and he is k n o w n to have arrived in Najaf in 1174/I76of (MudarrisT Tatataba'T, " P a n j n a m a " , p. 255, n o t e 37). 45 I k n o w the contents of this letter only from the citation in FaqThT, Wahhabiydn, pp. 267f. W i t h regard to the Shaykh's visit to Iran, he says: zahir iu-ast ki ba-'lraq-i 'Ajam ham amada bud (ibid., p . 267.8). N o t e that this is the only o n e of these Iranian sources in w h i c h the Shaykh's n a m e is given correctly. 46 For this w o r k and its appendix, see Storey, Persian Literature, i, p p . H23f, n o . 1561. 47 ' A b d al-LatTf ShushtarT, Tuhfat al-'alam, ed. S. M u v a h h i d (Tehran, 1363 [sh.]), p. 477.13. T h e Shaykh's b a c k g r o u n d is presented as HanafT. (MTrza-yi Q u m m T , by contrast, k n o w s that the WahhabTs are Hanbalites.) 48 Storey, Persian Literature, i, p p . 144-6, n o . 173. 49 MTrza A b u Talib Khan IsfahanT, Masir-i Talibi, ed. H . Khadivjam (Tehran, 1352 sh.), p . 409.20 ( = C . Stewart (trans.), Travels o/Mirza Abu Taleb Khan (London, 1814), iii, p p . i68f). T h e date of composition is given as I 2 i 8 / i 8 o 3 f b y the a u t h o r (Persian text, p . 4 . 2 3 ; English translation, i, p . 3). 50 C . N i e b u h r , Beschreibung von Arabien ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1772), p . 346. ( T h e English translation (Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East (Edinburgh, 1792), ii, p. 131, doubtless from the French translation,

196

Michael Cook

later 1170s; his testimony thus antedates all accounts so far considered by several decades.51 The other early source - the earliest of all, though unfortunately less explicit - is the Shaykh himself. He tells us in an epistle to 'Abdallah ibn Suhaym, a cleric of Majma'a, that his arch-enemy Ibn al-Muways had written to the people of Washm (also in Najd) mocking his doctrine as an innovation from Khurasan.52 This testimony cannot be later than 1175/1761^ since both 'Abdallah ibn Suhaym and Ibn al-Muways died in the epidemic which raged in Sudayr in that year.53 There are some further attestations of non-canonical journeys which, though by no means so early, are worth taking into consideration.54 According to the Iraqi scholar M. S. Khattab,55 the historian of Mosul, YasTn al-'UmarT (d. after 1232/1816), relates that the Shaykh had visited that city and studied under Mulla Ahmad al-JumaylT (d. 1170/1757) ;56 if this is true, he could have been present in the city during a heated controversy over the local cult of the alleged prophet St George.57 With this is to be compared an account of the Shaykh's stay in Mosul given by Sir Harford Jones, the British Resident at Baghdad, in December of A.D. 1798 (i.e. 1213): "During his residence at Mousul, Moollah Mohammed openly announced as orthodox the doctrines which he held, and these were esteemed so dangerous by the Ecclesiastics and Men of the Law there that he was compelled to leave Mousul."58 A "short stay at Mousul" is also mentioned by Waring.59 Curiously, Mosul is not included in the elaborate itinerary of the Lam' al-shihdb.

Description de I'Arabic (Copenhagen, 1773), p. 298) speaks of " several journeys to Bagdad, and through Persia"; but the German original says only that he "reisete auch nach Bagdad u n d Persien".) Burckhardt, by contrast, says merely that he " h a d visited various schools of the principal cities in the East" (J. L. Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahdbys (London, 1830), p . 274). 51 As indicated b y 'A. S. al-'Uthaymln ("NTbur wa-da'wat al-Shaykh M u h a m m a d ibn ' A b d a l - W a h h a b " , Majallat Kulliyyat al-'ulum al-ijtima'iyya (Riyad), ii (1978), p . 178). 62 Kataba li-ahl al-Washm yastahzi'u bi'l-tawhid wa-yaz'umu annahu bid'a wa-annahu kharaja min Khurasan (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 148.14). In another epistle to 'Abdallah ibn Suhaym, the Shaykh again states that his enemies maintain that his doctrine comes from Khurasan {za'amtum annahu la yakhruju ilia min Khurasan, ibid., p. 129.10, and cf p. 129.24). For the background to these polemics, see M . C o o k , " T h e expansion of the first Saudi state: the case of Washm ", in C . E. Bosworth et al. (ed.), The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis (Princeton, N.J., 1989), pp. 673-5. 63 Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p . 42.22 (and cf. Ibn Tsa, Ta'rikh, p. 111.5). 54 There are also sources which k n o w only his studies in Medina: [D. Badia y Leyblich], Travels of AH Bey (London, 1816), ii, p. 128; SiddTq Hasan Khan al-Qannawjf (d. 1307/1890), Abjad al-'ulum (Damascus, 1978, and Beirut, 1395), iii, p. 194.9 (this work was first published in Bhopal in 1295-6; in that edition the text of the tarjama of the Shaykh (pp. 871-7), though less legible, is also less corrupt). 55 M . S. Khattab, " a l - I m a m M u h a m m a d ibn ' A b d al-Wahhab ft madinat al-Mawsil", in Jami'at al-Imam M u h a m m a d ibn Sa'ud al-Islami, Markaz al-buhuth, Buhiith usbu" al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (Riyad, 1983), i, p. 75. 58 YasTn ibn Khayr Allah al-'Umari, Ghara'ib al-athar (Mosul, 1359), p. 34 (under the year 1208/17931) (not seen). For 'UmarT's hostility towards the WahhabTs, doubtless underplayed by Khattab in deference to his Saudi hosts, see P. K e m p , Territoires d'lslam: le monde vu de Mossoul au XVIlIe siecle (Paris, 1982), pp. 79-84. T h e passage translated here from the same page of the chronicle makes n o mention o f Mosul, and refers t o a j o u r n e y t o the Yemen (ibid., p. 79). 67 Khattab, " a l - I m a m M u h a m m a d ibn ' A b d al-Wahhab fi" madinat al-Mawsil", p p . 8 2 - 4 ; and cf. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, art. "Djirdjls" (B. Carra de Vaux). 68 India Office, G / 2 9 / 2 5 , fF. 438b-439a; for the date, see ibid., f. 438a. This report has been published from another copy in M . A. Khan, " A diplomat's report o n Wahhabism of Arabia", Islamic Studies, VII (1968), pp. 41-4. T h e Shaykh's itinerary is given here as Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, and Mosul, after which he returned h o m e ; he had likewise been obliged to flee from Damascus for his dangerous opinions. 59 E. S. Waring, A Tour to Sheeraz (London, 1807), p. 119. In Mosul the Shaykh "publicly supported the purity, excellence, and orthodoxy of his tenets", a phrasing which m a y indicate that Jones and W a r i n g are not fully independent sources. Waring's tour took place in A.D. 1802 (i.e. 12161).

Origins of Wahhdbism

197

In addition to Mosul, Damascus and Baghdad are also named.60 The Yemeni historian Lutfullah ibn Ahmad (d. 1243/18271), whose history covers the years Ii89-i224/i775f-i8o9f, reports that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had studied in Damascus following his stay in Medina and prior to his visit to Basra.61 Woolly French accounts have the Shaykh travel in Mesopotamia and Syria, suffering rejection in Damascus and expulsion from Baghdad and Basra.62 The Moroccan chronicler NasirT (d. 1315/1897) states that he visited Syria.63 Several secondary sources mention Damascus.64 The Baghdad! HaydarT, writing in 1286/1869^ states that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had come to Baghdad and studied with his ancestor Sibghat Allah al-Haydarl.65 Taken together, these testimonies leave the question of the Shaykh's travels in some confusion. Who are we to believe? The WahhabTsources are privileged, inasmuch as they transmit to us the tradition of the WahhabTs themselves; they are also, of course, unlikely to transmit anything the Shaykh did not want posterity to know - such as a Shfite connection. At the same time these sources are notably threadbare, so that one can hardly rely on their completeness; and in the form in which we have them, they are no earlier than the non-WahhabT sources. The non-WahhabT sources contain much that is demonstrably false, and some of what they say could have its origin in anti-WahhabT polemic (or rumour); on the other hand, they include Niebuhr, the oldest explicit source we have. No source is contemporary with the events, and even the reference of Ibn alMuways to an innovation from Khurasan is likely enough to have been penned only after the passing of a generation. Perhaps the best that can be said is that the Shaykh almost certainly spent some time in Basra: it is already named by Niebuhr, and appears prominently in both the WahhabT and the non-WahhabT sources.66 Moreover, it must by now be obvious that the various narratives of the Shaykh's travels do not provide us with

60 As noted, both are included b y Jones, as also b y W a r i n g ( w h o has the Shaykh flee from the alarmed " p r i e s t s " o f Damascus). In a later w o r k Jones names only Damascus a m o n g the "various schools, and colleges of the East" visited b y the Shaykh (Sir Harford Jones Brydges. An Account of the Transactions of His Majesty's Mission to the Court of Persia, in the Years 1807-u (London, 1834), ii, p . 7 ; this w o r k was d r a w n t o m y attention by Malcolm Yapp). As w e have seen, both Damascus and Baghdad figure in the account o f the Lam' al-shihab. 61 See ' A . M . al-Hibshl, " T a ' r l k h al-da'wa al-Wahhabiyya m i n m a k h t u t YamanT", al-'Arab, VII (1972), p. 35.16. 62 |J. B. L. J. Rousseau], Description du Pachalik de Bagdad (Paris, 1809), p. 131 (and cf. his Me'moire sur les trots plus fameuses sectes du Musulmanisme, p. 2); L. A. Corancez, Histoire des Wahabis (Paris, 1810), p. 9 (I owe my knowledge of this work to R. M. Burrell). 63 A h m a d i b n Khalid al-NasirT, al-lstiqfa" li-akhbar duwal al-Maghrib al-aqsa (Casablanca, 1954-6), viii, p. 119.18. 64 Philby in his earlier w o r k s stated o r suggested that the Shaykh had studied in Baghdad and Damascus (see the references given in Rentz, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, p. 32, note 1); b u t he later substituted a canonical account o f the travels o f the Shaykh (see H . S. Philby, Sa'udi Arabia (London, 1955), p p . 35f). Lapidus has the Shaykh study in Damascus (I. M . Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies ( C a m b r i d g e , 1988), p . 673). A statement that Ibn ' A b d a l - W a h h a b visited Syria appears in a tarjama interpolated b y the editors into the biographical dictionary of Kamal al-DTn al-GhazzT (al-Na't al-akmal li-ashab al-imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ed. M . M . al-Hafiz and N . Abaza (Damascus, 1982), p . 336.3). 66 HaydarT, 'Unwan al-majd, p . 236.18. Baghdad is also included by Jones, W a r i n g , and Philby in his earlier works. 66 Possibly the anti-WahhabT tract of the Basran QabbanT may have something to contribute on the Shaykh's visit to Basra. For this tract, of which there is a manuscript in Hyderabad, see Brockelmann, Geschichte, supplementary volumes, ii, p. 532, no. 7; and cf. Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 209.9, referring to "the volume (mujallad) composed by QabbanT". Brockelmann states, without the authority of the Hyderabad catalogue, that the work was written in 1157/1744; according to 'Azzawl, the date was 1155/1742 (see 'A. al-'Azzawi, Ta'rikh al-'lraq bayn ihtilalayn (Baghdad, 193556), vi, p. 336).

198

Michael Cook

a clear source for his doctrine, for all that they suggest contact with scholars who may have shared some of his views. What then of the other possibilities set out at the beginning of this article? That the sources of the Shaykh's doctrine were literary was, as we have seen, the view of HaydarT. It is also suggested by Ibn Bishr's statement that he came by his insight before he went on his travels, at a time when he was reading widely.67 This possibility is clearly worth pursuing, and I have accordingly attempted to survey the authorities to which the Shaykh most frequently refers in his more relevant writings.68 I exclude Koran and hadtth, for all that these are the only authorities which the Shaykh himself holds to be indefeasible;69 and I make no claim to be comprehensive. The pattern is nevertheless unmistakable. We can best begin with a series of negative points. The first is the dearth of reference to the views of Hanbalite scholars prior to the late seventh/thirteenth century.70 Even Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) himself plays no real part in the establishment of the central doctrines of Wahhabism.71 This will not surprise anyone familiar with early Hanbalism. Despite their common heritage, the older Hanbalite authorities had doctrinal concerns very different from those of the WahhabTs;72 and they were notorious for a religiosity which others regarded as steeped in superstition. It is in line with this that the Hanbalite biographer Ibn Abl Ya'la (d. 526/1131) shows no embarrassment in his references to tomb cults and similar practices,73 just as latter-day shirk is not a prominent theme even in the TalbTs Iblis of the Hanbalite preacher Ibn al-JawzT (d- 597/1201).74 There is one Hanbalite scholar of this epoch whom the Shaykh cites for a strong condemnation of the veneration of tombs: Abu'1-Wafa' ibn'AqTl (d. 513/1119).75
Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, pp. 16.6, 17.8. This is n o m o r e than a first approach. As will become clear, there is a dissertation to be written by a student w h o is prepared t o take the time to become thoroughly familiar with the relevant works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Q a y y i m al-Jawziyya, and to read the Shaykh's works and the rest of the early polemical literature against that background. Incidentally, a good many of the Shaykh's citations from earlier scholars might then be shown to have reached h i m only through their works. 69 As he puts it in an epistle to a Syrian beduin chief: " I tell those w h o oppose m e that what people have to do is to follow what the Prophet enjoined upon his community. I say to t h e m : ' Y o u have the books; consult them, and take nothing from what I say; but when you learn from your books what the Prophet said, follow it even if most people g o against i t " (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 196.17). Elsewhere he states that he does not call men to the way of any Soft, legist, or theologian; rather he calls them to God and the sunna of His Prophet (ibid., p. 62.7). 70 Laoust states in his article " I b n 'Abd a l - W a h h 5 b " in the second edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam (col. 679a) that the Shaykh's doctrine is most closely linked to early Hanbalite formulations; this is misleading. 71 There are, of course, the occasional references to Ibn Hanbal that might be expected of a Hanbalite scholar (see, for example, Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 68.10, 156.10, 226.22). 72 There is one passage (ibid., i, pp. 123^7) in which the Shaykh refers repeatedly to the substantive doctrine of Ibn Hanbal. B u t this is in response to allegations of his enemy Ibn al-Muways in the domain of what he calls 'Urn al-asma" wa'l-sifat (ibid., p. 123.3) a domain as central to early Hanbalism as it was peripheral to Wahhabism. 73 For examples, see Ibn AbT Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. M . H . al-Fiqi (Cairo, 1952), i, pp. 382.15, 382.17, 388.2; ii, pp. 63.17, 234.13, 241.9. Contrast the hawqala and other expressions of editorial outrage in Fiql's 7i Cf. the table of contents of Ibn al-JawzT, TalbTs Iblis (Beirut, n.d.). footnotes to these passages. 75 Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, ii, p. 36.25, in a long epistle of I i 6 7 / i 7 5 3 f to the people o f ' U y a y n a (ibid., pp. 24-52) which is particularly rich in citations. Ibn 'Aqil is also cited prominently, alongside Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn alQ a y y i m , in an epistle to M u h a m m a d ibn 'Id (d. 1180/17661) (ibid., i, p. 140.19; for this epistle, see Cook, " E x p a n s i o n " , pp. 6731). Characteristically, the Shaykh knows Ibn 'Aqil's condemnation of tomb-cults only through a citation by Ibn al-Qayyim (as noted by the editor to the printing of the epistle in Muallajat al-Shaykh al-imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, ed. 'A. Z . al-RumTef al. (Riyad, 1398), qism 1, p . 302, note 1; the passage is found at Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ighathat al-lahfan, ed. M . H . al-Fiql (Cairo, 1939), i, p. 195.3).
68 67

Origins of Wahhabism

199

Ironically, his attitude may owe more to his youthful flirtation with Mu'tazilism76 than to his lifelong allegiance to Hanbalism. The second point is the lack of citation of Hanbalite scholars who lived subsequent to the late eighth/fourteenth century. There is only one exception worth noting: the Shaykh makes frequent reference to a standard work of Hanbalite law dating from the

tenth/sixteenth century, the Iqna' of HujawT (d. 968/1560).77 The third point is that non-Hanbalite scholars tend not to be cited unless the Shaykh is addressing himself to a non-Hanbalite audience, actual or hypothetical. As he explains it himself: "I dispute with a HanafT by [adducing] the views of the later Hanafts; [as for] the MalikT, the Shafi'ite and the Hanbalite, I dispute with each of them by [adducing] the books of the later scholars among them, upon whom they rely". 78 Thus he provides surveys of the non-Hanbalite schools adducing appropriate authors from each: "As for the views of the followers of other imams regarding takjtr, we may cite a little from the much they have said. As for the HanafT view... As for the MalikT view... As for the

Shafi'ites... " 7 9 Sometimes his concern is specifically with the Shafi'ites; here he displays a particularly high regard for the great traditionalist Shafi'ites of eighth/fourteenthcentury Damascus, DhahabT (d. 748/1348) and Ibn KathTr (d. 774/1373).80 References to non-Hanbalite scholars outside such contexts are rare.81 The upshot of the Shaykh is to confirm on the two what great in essence we already knew : 8 2 the Hanbalite scholars of dependence

eighth/fourteenth-century

76 For this episode, see G. Makdisi, "Nouveaux details sur I'affaire d'lbn 'AqTl", in Melanges Louis Massignon (Damascus, 1957), iii, pp. 9iff. " See, for example, Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 122.6, 128.16, 150.1, 151.5, 1579, 1922, 202.15, 203.10, 214.3, 218.5, 223.16. An epistle addressed to Sulayman ibn Suhaym (ibid., pp. 178-88) contains no less than ten references to this text. Many of the references are to HujawT's discussion of apostasy (Iqna', ed. 'A. M. M. alSubkT (Cairo, 1351), iv, pp. 297-308); that at Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 157.9, is to a passage in which HujawT prescribes the destruction of domes built over graves (Iqna', i, p. 233.8; this is in fact a quotation from Ibn alQayyim). References to other Hanbalite lawbooks are rare (for a couple of instances, see Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 67.3, 218.6). (I am not, of course, concerned with the Shaykh's references to Hanbalite lawbooks in more n a r r o w l y legal contexts.) 78 Ibid., i, p. 199.25 (in an epistle to the Iraqi scholar Ibn al-SuwaydT (d. 1200/1786)); c o m p a r e Mu'allafat, qism 5, p. 144.14 (in an epistle t o M u h a m m a d i b n Sultan). A law-school is clearly envisaged here as being at the same time a theological c o m m u n i t y . 79 Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, ii, p p . 38.7, 38.25, 39.4 (in the epistle o f n 6 7 / i 7 5 3 f t o t h e people o f ' U y a y n a ) . For similar surveys, see ibid., i, p p . 151.14-154.4 (in a letter t o 'Abdallah ibn S u h a y m ) ; Mu'allafat, qism 5, pp. 177.3-180.2 (in an open letter t o t h e scholars o f Islam). T h e scholars adduced include t h e Hanafts BazzazT (d. 827/1424), Ibn Q u t l u b u g h a (d. 879/1474), a n d t h e y o u n g e r Ibn N u j a y m (d. 1005/1596); t h e MalikTs T u r t u s h ! ( d . 520/1126) and Q a d i 'Iyad (d. 5 4 4 / 1 1 4 9 ) ; and the Shafi'ites A b u Shama (d. 665/1267) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852/1449). I a m indebted t o Hossein Modarressi for assistance with the identification o f the HanafT authors cited b y t h e Shaykh. 80 Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, i, p p . 62.8, 67.14 (in an epistle t o 'Abdallah ibn M u h a m m a d i b n ' A b d al-LatTf alA h s a i ) ; ibid., p . 227.2 (in a letter to ' A b d a l - W a h h a b ibn 'Abdallah ibn 'Tsa). In t h e first o f these epistles (ibid., pp. 6073) t n e Shaykh makes extensive reference t o Shafi'ite (and other) authorities, while at t h e same time seeking t o subvert t h e very idea o f adherence to scholarly authority. 81 F o r example, he cites SuyutT's Awa'il in an epistle t o Sulayman ibn S u h a y m (Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, i, p. 186.9). 82 Cf. Laoust's formulation in his article " I b n ' A b d a l - W a h h a b " in t h e second edition o f The Encyclopaedia of Islam (col. 679a). In his analysis o f the relationship b e t w e e n Ibn T a y m i y y a and W a h h a b i s m in his m o n o g r a p h on Ibn T a y m i y y a (Essai, p p . 506-40), Laoust emphasises the strength o f the links with regard t o the intercession of the Prophet (ibid., p . 519), ji'/wrf against t h e perpetrators o f shirk (ibid., p. 529), and t h e distinction between uluhiyya a n d rububiyya (ibid., p. 531); b u t he also suggests that t h e Shaykh a n d his followers w e r e quicker t o declare people infidels (ibid., p . 525), m o r e violent in their attacks on shirk (ibid., p . 529), and in particular m o r e zealous in their fanaticism against d o m e d t o m b s (ibid., p . 530).

200

Michael Cook

Damascus, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350).83 Both are numbered by the Shaykh among the most outstanding of the "later scholars" (nxutdakhkhirun).84 Ibn Taymiyya - often referred to as "the Shaykh al-Islam", or simply "the Shaykh " appears frequently in the pages of our Shaykh's writings.85 So likewise does Ibn al-Qayyim.86 What is more, this dependence provides the target for some of the earliest attacks on the doctrines of the Shaykh.87 We possess an abbreviated text of an epistle written not later than 1163/1750 by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Afaliq al-Ahsa'T to 'Uthman ibn Mu'ammar, the ruler of 'Uyayna.88 Ibn 'Afaliq, who has occasion to make frequent reference to Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim in the course of his polemic,89 at one point offers a forthright view of the source of WahhabT doctrine: the books of Ibn al-Qayyim, which the Shaykh and his followers have, of course, misunderstood.90 Ibn 'Afaliq seems also to have targeted the Shaykh's dependence on Ibn Taymiyya.91 A similar attack was launched in H7o/i756f by the Sunnising and militantly traditionalist ZaydT Ibn al-AmTr al-San'am (d. 1182/1768).92 Ibn al-AmTr, as we shall shortly see, had initially approved of the activities of the Shaykh. But in 117o/i756f he had had an opportunity to examine some of his works, and from this he concluded that the Shaykh was an ill-educated man who had not studied with scholars who could have given
83 References to other Hanbalite scholars of this milieu are rare. T h e Shaykh refers to Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1393) as one of the most outstanding of the "later scholars" (muta'akhkhirun) (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 62.19, 226.25, an<* cf. p. 67.14). Ibn ' A b d al-Hadi (d. 744/1343) is mentioned for his life of Ibn Taymiyya (ibid., 84 p. 211.13). Ibid., i, pp. 62.19, 63.17, 226.25, and cf. p. 62.8. 85 For reference to Ibn Taymiyya, see, for example, ibid., i, pp. 130.8, 140.21, 148.23, 150.3, 150.9, 150.18, 181.10, 211.24, 225.3, 227.4. An epistle to Ahmad ibn ' A b d al-Kanm of al-Ahsa" (ibid., pp. 214-21) contains several references to Ibn Taymiyya (ibid., pp. 214.22, 218.10, etc.). T h e Shaykh's epistle of I i 6 7 / i 7 5 3 f to the people o f ' U y a y n a contains numerous references to Ibn Taymiyya (ibid., ii, pp. 27.6, 30.9, 35.3, etc.). Several works of Ibn Taymiyya are explicitly mentioned in these epistles, including the Iqlida' and his refutation of the mutakallimun. 86 See, for example, Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, pp. 64.8, 67.10, 127.16, 141.4, 154.15, 187.6, 201.1, 211.4, 217.23, 224.10, 227.3. T h e epistle of u 6 7 / i 7 5 3 f to the people o f ' U y a y n a likewise contains references to Ibn al-Qayyim (as ibid., ii, pp. 32.2, 38.3, 49.1). A m o n g the works of Ibn al-Qayyim named are the I'lam al-muwaqqi'w, the Ighathat al-lahfin, and al-Turuq al-lwkmiyya. 87 A n obscure passage in o n e o f the Shaykh's epistles suggests that this t h e m e m a y also be found in QabbanT's polemic. According to the Shaykh, QabbanT had stated that he opposed only Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and ten others, of w h o m the Shaykh was the last (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 209.12). 88 Ibn 'Afaliq, Risala, MS. Berlin 2,158, ff. 56a-73b (for this text, see W . Ahlwardt, Verzeichniss der arabischen Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin, 1887-99), > P- 477; I arn indebted to the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz for supplying m e with a microfilm). T h e epistle can be dated not later than 1163/1750 since Ibn M u ' a m m a r was assassinated in that year (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, ii, p. 16.7; Ibn Bishr, 'Unwin al-majd, p. 30.5). 89 See, for example, Ibn 'Afaliq, Risala, ff. 60b.9, 68a.1 (Ibn T a y m i y y a ) ; ibid., ff. 56b.19, 57a.9 (Ibn alQ a y y i m ) . C o m p a r e the Shaykh's epistle to A h m a d ibn 'Abd al-Karlm (also of al-Ahsa') responding to the doubts the latter had formed regarding the Shaykh's doctrine as a result of reading Ibn Taymiyya (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 214.14); Ibn 'Abd al-Karlm had also mentioned a passage by Ibn al-Qayyim (ibid., p. 215.3). 90 Ibn 'Afaliq, Risala, f. 64b.8. H e explains that Ibn al-Qayyim had not declared the c o m m u n i t y at large to be unbelievers. H e had, however, firmly condemned the views of a n u m b e r of pseudo-Muslim groups (such as antinomian SufTs and believers in incarnation) w h o are generally agreed to be infidels when they affirm their beliefs; the Wahhabls had mistaken this for a declaration of the infidelity of the community. 91 In an epistle to M u h a m m a d ibn 'Abbad (d. 1175/17611), a cleric (mutawwa') of Tharmada', the Shaykh refers to a letter in which Ibn 'Afaliq had maintained that tawlnd (sc. the Shaykh's doctrine) was the religion (dm) of Ibn Taymiyya, and that when the latter proclaimed it in afatwa, the scholars of the day declared him an infidel and all hell broke loose against him (qamal 'alayhi '1-qiyama) (Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 135.15; for this epistle, see C o o k , " E x p a n s i o n " , p. 673). 92 For accounts of his life and works, see ShawkanT, al-Badr al-tali' (Cairo, 1348), ii, pp. 133-9, n o . 417; 'A. M . al-Hibshi, "Mu'allafat M u h a m m a d ibn Isma'Tl al-AmTr al-San'anT", al-'Arab, VII (1973).

Origins of Wahhabism

201

him guidance; instead he had read some works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, and adopted their views in a naive and imperfect fashion.93 He states that he himself quoted extensively from Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim in his rebuttal, since it is on them that the Hanbalites rely.94 The centrality of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim is thus both evident in the works of the Shaykh and confirmed in the attacks of his enemies. It will be clear from this that the Shaykh acknowledges no near-contemporary scholar as an authority, and I know of none who could plausibly be suspected to be the source of his doctrine. Thus there is at one stage a striking similarity of views regarding the prevalence of shirk between the Shaykh and his older contemporary Ibn al-AmTr (born 1099/1688). We know that Ibn al-Armr initially commended the efforts of the Shaykh,95 and that the latter was aware of this approval.96 But the work which Ibn al-AmTr devoted to the issue of latter-day shirk91 was written not earlier than 1163/1749^ at a time when the Shaykh had already manifested his cause in Najd;98 and its position on the key issue of jihad is somewhat ambiguous.99 The lack of proximate inspiration is confirmed by two early polemical epistles, one written by an enemy of the Shaykh, the other by the Shaykh himself. The first is an open letter written by Sulayman ibn Muhammad ibn Suhaym, a cleric (mutawwa') of Riyad.100 He reports that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab had sent a letter swearing that his doctrine {'Urn) had
93 SiddTq Hasan K h a n , Abjad al-'uliim, iii, p . 197.12. This critique o f t h e S h a y k h appears elsewhere in t h e m o u t h o f a certain 'Abdallah AfandT al-RawT al-BaghdadT, w r i t i n g at the instance o f S u l a y m a n Pasha, w h o ruled B a g h d a d from 1194/1780 to 1217/1802 (see S u l a y m a n ibn 'Abdallah, Tawdih, p p . 14.13, 24.7, 38.14, 52.2). 94 SiddTq Hasan K h a n , Abjad al-'uliim, iii, p . 198.1. 95 I b n G h a n n a m in his life o f the S h a y k h (Rawda, i, p p . 569) a n d Ibn Bishr in his tarjama o f Ibn al-AmTr ('Unwan al-majd, p p . 50-3) q u o t e t h e p o e m w h i c h t h e latter w r o t e in s u p p o r t o f the Shaykh's cause. This w a s in Ii63/i749f. Neither mentions the second poem, composed in Ii7o/i756f and accompanied by a commentary, in which Ibn al-Amir retracted his support. For the story of these poems, see H. al-Jasir, "al-Silat bayn San'a' wa'1-Dir'iyya", al-'Arab, XXII (1987), pp. 433-5; SiddTq Hasan Khan, Abjad al-'uliim, iii, pp. I97f. A further contribution to the poetry of the early WahhabT controversy was made by the Basran sayyid YasTn ibn Ibrahim in 1168/1755; his work is a refutation of Ibn al-AmTr's first poem (British Library, Or. 3,112, ff. ia-5a (for the date, see f. 5a. 11); and see C. Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1894), p . 118, n o . 194). 96 T h e Shaykh quotes a verse from " t h e Y e m e n i ' s " p o e m in his epistle of u 6 7 / i 7 5 3 f to the people of ' U y a y n a (Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, ii, p . 42.9 (cf. ibid., i, p . 57.1, and Ibn Bishr, 'Unwan al-majd, p . 52.1); for the dating o f the epistle, see Ibn G h a n n a m , Rawda, ii, p. 24.2). 97 Ibn al-AmTr, Tathir al-i'tiqdd 'an adran al-ilhad (Cairo 1954); cf. HibshT, " M u ' a l l a f a t " , p . 687, n o . 32. T h e w o r k is noted b y Ibn Bishr in his tarjama of Ibn al-AmTr ('Unwan al-majd, p . 50.5). Its leitmotiv is polemic against the qubiiriyyun (Tatlrir, p p . 34.11, 36.16, 37.19, etc.). 98 Ibn al-AmTr at o n e point quotes four verses from his p o e m in h o n o u r o f the Shaykh (ibid., p . 33.1). N o t e also his inclusion of Najd a m o n g the regions in which he had seen or heard of polytheism (ibid., p . 19.14). That he makes n o reference to his second thoughts o n the Shaykh perhaps suggests a date of composition not later than

H70/i756f.
99 In o n e passage the hypothetical interlocutor observes that, if the offenders are mushrikun, it is o b l i g a t o r y t o wage jihad against t h e m . I b n al-AmTr replies that this is indeed t h e v i e w o f s o m e authorities (ta'ija min a'immat al-'ilm), a n d proceeds t o spell o u t t h e escalation w h i c h , o n this v i e w , w o u l d lead t o w a r (ibid., p . 35.13). T h e absence o f a n y statement o f a c o n t r a r y v i e w , and the tone o f the passage as a w h o l e , suggest that this is also his o w n v i e w ; a n d an incidental statement in a n o t h e r passage supports this (ibid., p . 28.16). B u t an element o f a m b i g u i t y remains, a n d it gains significance in t h e light o f Ibn al-AmTr's explanation o f his incipient d o u b t s r e g a r d i n g his s u p p o r t o f the S h a y k h : h e h a d heard o f the killing a n d p l u n d e r i n g w h i c h t h e S h a y k h practised in all lands w e r e against his o p p o n e n t s , a n d o f his v i e w that t h e M u s l i m s at large (al-umma al-Muhammadiyya) infidels (see t h e citations in SiddTq Hasan K h a n , Abjad al-'uliim, iii, p . 197.9, and I b n S a h m a n , Tabri'at alShaykhayn, p . 8 3 . 1 1 ; and cf. ibid., p p . 94.13, 174.9). C D n S a h m a n w r o t e his w o r k t o p r o v e that Ibn al-AmTr could n o t h a v e written t h e offending p o e m , cf. Jasir, " S i l a t " , p . 435.) 100

See I b n G h a n n a m , Rawda,

i, p . 38.20. This Ibn S u h a y m w a s a p r o m i n e n t e n e m y o f the Shaykh

(ibid.,

P- 37-17).

202

Michael Cook

been unknown to his teachers (masha'ikh), to his own father,101 or to the people of the 'Arid (the part of Najd in which he lived). Ibn Suhaym then goes on to ask whether Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine was something he received by revelation, or in a dream, or from the devil (al-shaytan) ,102 The second epistle was written by the Shaykh not later than Ii58/i745f,103 and is perhaps the very letter referred to by Ibn Suhaym. It may well be the oldest source we possess for the life of the Shaykh. In it he confirms the essence of Ibn Suhaym's report: "I will tell you about myself. By God, apart from Whom there is no god, I sought learning (talabtu 'l-'ilm), and those who knew me believed that I had some; yet at that time I did not know the meaning of'there is no god but God', nor did I know the religion of Islam, before this blessing (khayr) which God vouchsafed to me. Likewise not one among my teachers knew it; if any of the scholars of the 'Arid claims that he knew the meaning of'there is no god but God', or knew the meaning of Islam, before this time, or maintains that any of his teachers knew it, he lies, fabricates, leads people astray, and falsely praises himself."104 In a culture which had scant regard for claims to originality in matters of faith, this statement is a remarkable one. Unfortunately the Shaykh does not elaborate on the character of the divine blessing, or the time and place of its bestowal.
101 Laoust's statement in his article " I b n 'Abd a l - W a h h a b " in the second edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam that "there exists a dissertation by his father against the cult of saints" (col. 678a) is erroneous (see Cook, " E x p a n s i o n " , p. 695, note 157). 102 Ibn Ghannam, Rawda, i, p. 143.17. H e adds that all the people of the 'Arid witnessed this oath. 103 Ibn Ghannam states that the epistle was written while the Shaykh was still in 'Uyayna (ibid., i, p. 188.15). 104 Ibid., i, p. 189.12. T h e qadi of Dir'iyya, 'Abdallah ibn 'Tsa ibn 'Abd al-Rahman, appends an endorsement to this letter in which the same theme is stressed (cf. ibid., p. 189.19): he says that the greater part of his life had passed without his knowing what he n o w knew of the various forms (anwa") of shirk (ibid., p. 194.9), and that it had only n o w become apparent to him that jihad is mandatory against the followers of the infidel mystics Ibn ' A r a b ! (d. 638/1240) and Ibn al-Farid (d. 632/1235) (ibid., p. 195.1, quoting (522:78). Elsewhere the Shaykh quotes Q 6 : 1 6 1 : " A s for me, m y Lord has guided m e to a straight p a t h . . . " (ibid., p. 62.6).