É. Apor , I. Ormos (ed.): Goldziher Memorial Conference, June 21–22, 2000, Budapest.
SZOMBATHY, Zoltán: Some Notes on the Impact of the Shu übiyya on Arabic Genealogy
ZOLTÁN SZOMBATI IY To start with, it is all too often assumed that the supporters of the shu übiyya formed some easily definable intellectual camp with a feeling of unity and a selfchosen designation, a movement as it were 1, the boundaries of which can, or could, be drawn with reasonable precision. The fundamental criterion of a scholar's belonging to the shufibiyya is thought to be a marked hostility towards the Arabic cultural heritage and an equally marked penchant for the foreign, especially the Persian, traditions that converged to produce the singular cultural mix of the Abbasid period. There are, however, some very serious problems with applying this seemingly simple criterion, of which 1 will now list five. *** 1. The first problem to reckon with is the regrettable scarcity, indeed almost total lack, of sources from within shuübi circles. The paucity of first-hand evidence from shufibi sources results in a situation where our sole basis for classifying anyone as a shufiibi and reconstructing shu cubiyya views is "refutations" and hostile remarks by contemporary or later adversaries. 4 Given this dearth of solid evidence, one ought to be extremely wary of considering excerpts taken by one author from the work of a rival as reflections of shufiibi tendencies. Accusations of shu übí leanings and foul anti-Arab predilections by contemporary fellow-scholars, while occurring in abundance, are but very doubtful help, given the pervasive atmosphere of bitter competition among Abbasid-era scholars. 5 Closely related to this last point is the next problem, which I consider an exceedingly important aspect of the issue that has received but scant recognition. 2. Significantly, while a number of well-known intellectuals in Abbasid-era Iraq are regularly described in Arabic sources as shufiibis, there is practically no scholar who declared himself to be so, and one cannot help wondering whether this term is not 1 Goldziher calls it a "party", see Goldziher (1967) I, 137: "the party of the Shu cübiyya". 4 To my knowledge, it is quite similar to the case of some mediaeval heresies like the Qarmati tenets, of which no internal sources are extant. Abü cUbayda would accuse al-Asma cT of being a miser and a parochial mind; while the latter would refer to him as "that son of a weaver", a less than laudatory sobriquet. Another famous scholar, Hammäd al-Räwiya, was declared by a colleague, Yünis b. Habib, to be guilty of grammatical mistakes (lahn ), erroneous recital of poems, lying, and misspelling words. See Abü 1-Tayyib, Marätib 85, 118. Goldziher ascribes the ill feeling between Abu cUbayda and Ibn al-A cräbi, and between Abü cUbayda and al-Asma ci, to the shufibiyya controversy; see Goldziher (1967) I. 183. [And for the no more cordial rapport between al-Asma cT and Ibn al-A cräbi, cf. al-Anbäri, Nuzha 95; alcAskari, Tashif 185; alSuyüti, Bughya 42.] To me, the quite material motives often fuelling such jealousy of métier (which also get mentioned by Goldziher) sound a far more likely cause of this rivalries too. Cf. al-Qifti, Inbäh II, 202. Significantly, some experts of hadith criticism refused to give credit to judgements on the reliability of a scholar by a contemporary colleague. See al-SakhäwI, f ián 121. 256
