IMPIETY AND RELIGIOUS DISSENT
to ght against the rising Óanbal tide (if we dene the conict from a sociological perspective), or perhaps against radical Óanbal ideas (from the theological perspective)—in the course of the thirteenth century.66 ¤iyå al-Dn Ibn al-Athr compares the high-ranking and wellreputed anthropomorphists with the advocates of philosophy and the mutazila; he regards both as partisans of dangerous deviant beliefs.67 Izz al-Dn al-Sulam renders the advocate of anthropomorphism somewhat less severely—as an innovator, rather than a heretic, nonetheless claiming that upholders of such doctrines deserve excommunication.68 In my understanding, the fear of strife, disunity and sectarianism fostered the unlikely alliance between the mutually hostile Ashars and the moderate Óanbals, and the marginalization of radical Óanbals and Mutazils. 8.4. Antinomian Forms of Asceticism and Sufism Some ascetics and Í¨f groups, such as the Óarriyya, the Íaydariyya, and the muwallahs—fools for God (such as the Damascenes Jalål al-Dn al-Darguzn, Y¨suf al-Qamn and Al al-Kurd),69 chose degradation and life on the margins of society as their preferred spiritual path. AlDarguzn, who dwelled in the Damascene cemetery of Båb al-Íaghr, wore only a few leaves to cover his private parts. He was still and silent,
a somewhat dierent formulation in Maqdis, Ibn Qudåma, 10–11, 42. On the disputation regarding those questions, see Wensinck, Muslim Creed, 69–70. 66 In a long article of 1962, George Makdisi attacks the common notion that the Ashariyya became the leading current in the Islamic world, claiming that the Ashars had to ght for recognition even within the Shå madhhab (their natural home, as it were) as late as in fourteenth century Damascus (Makdisi, Ashar, 51–80). Madelung disagrees, nding the Ashars well-established in twelfth-fourteenth century Baghdad and Damascus (Madelung, The Spread, 110, n. 3). Pouzets work conrms Madelungs stand, regarding thirteenth century Damascus (Pouzet, Damas, 90, 201–202). 67 Ibn al-Athr, ¤iyå al-Dn, al-Mathal, 2:148–149. 68 Al-Sulam, Fatåwå, 258, 287. He categorizes anthropomorphism as reprehensible, and relegates the teaching of proper theological tenents to the category of the moral obligation to command right and forbid wrong (al-amr bi-l-mar¨f wa-l-nahyi an al-munkar). See Subk, abaqåt, 8:223. 69 See Dols, Majn¨n, 13, 378–410. I must repeat Michael Winters observation concerning the early Ottoman period, as it seems to apply equally to the period discussed here: this categorization . . . diers from the terminology used by contemporary Muslim writers, since adherents of the antinomian derwish orders were not regarded as Í¨fs (Winter, Society and Religion, 25).