Maisonneuve & Larose

Making and Unmaking a Sect: The Heresiographers and the Ṣufriyya

Author(s): Keith Lewinstein
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Studia Islamica, No. 76 (1992), pp. 75-96
Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595661 .
Accessed: 19/12/2011 13:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT:
THE HERESIOGRAPHERS
AND THE SUFRIYYA(1)

I. Introduction.
It is in the nature of heresiography to obscure the history of
doctrine. The medieval heresiographers construct from the resi-
due of early dogmatic disputes a schematic and tendentious
account of the Community's past. As many have noted, this
account rests on a different conception of orthodoxy from that
preferred by modern scholars since Bauer. Heresiographers,
unlike today's critical historians, do not see the beliefs eventually
sanctioned by the Community as having evolved out of an earlier,
undifferentiated pool of competing doctrines. They instead
attach an ancient pedigree to the orthodoxy of the day, and take
the latter to have existed over and apart from heterodoxy from the
start. What counts as orthodoxy is thus cleared of any offending
genealogy. (2)
This sharp distinction between heresy and right belief is
apparent not only in what the heresiographers say, but in how they
say it. Most heresiographical works take as a principle of organi-
zation the ongoing fragmentation (iflirdq) of the Community: a
number of sects branch off from an original orthodoxy, and them-

(1) An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the
Middle East Studies Association (Toronto 1989). I am indebted to Professor Peter
von Sivers for a number of thoughtful comments and suggestions made at that
time; and to Professor Michael Cook, for help in my initial attempts to work out the
arguments presented here.
(2) Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salva-
tion History (Oxford 1978), pp. 98 f., 116.
76 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

selves give rise to further divisions. Where once there was unity
and truth, there is now multiplicity and falsehood. This arrange-
ment of the material works to underscore the error of the secta-
rians. Their unbelief is apparent not only in the nature of their
doctrines, but in their identity as discrete groups generated by
(and contributing to further) schism. (3)
Within this iftirdq-based framework, the heresiographers fre-
quently produce sects from the names of prominent (and not so
prominent) individuals. An -iyya suffix attached to the name of
an accused heresiarch creates at least the illusion of a distinct sec-
tarian following. It also works to isolate heresy by associating it
with specific individuals rather than with the Community at
large. In this way, heresiographers are able to present intellectual
history as a series of departures from a fully formed ortho-
doxy. With the eponym serving to identify each group's origins,
orthodoxy is made safe from any heterodox contamination.
But what of sects whose beginnings cannot so easily be made to
fit this scheme? How do writers committed to an iflirdq frame-
work account for groups which lack a clear line of descent? How
might such groups be equipped with the requisite parentage and
doctrinal rationale? These are the questions I wish to consider in
this paper.
The heresiographers' treatment of the Sufriyya Kharijite sect
works nicely to illustrate our problem. The label "Sufriyya" is
attested in the Maghrib and Oman from the second century A.H.,
when historians begin to speak of Kharijite tribal groups as either
Sufrite or Ibadi. The two competed for popular support in the
same areas, although their rivalry had little, if anything, to do
with doctrine. (4) However serious the conflict may have become
at times, it does not appears that these labels were usually unders-
tood as referring to mutually exclusive sectarian groups. This is
suggested by an Ib5ad tradition in which the first Sufrite and Ibadi

(3) Nagel, "Das Problem der Orthodoxie im frihen Islam," Studien zum Minder-
heitenproblem im Islam, 1 (Wiesbaden 1973), pp. 7ff.
(4) For this rivalry (which was not without periods of cooperation), see Schwartz,
Die Anfdnge der Ibaditen in Nordafrika (Wiesbaden 1983), passim; and Lewicki,
"The Ibadites in Arabia and Africa," Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, 13:1 (1971),
pp. 75 ff. And cf. Wilkinson, "The Early Development of the Ibadi Movement in
Basra," Studies in the First Century of Islamic Society (Southern Illinois University
1982), pp. 143 f.
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 77

missionaries sent to the Maghrib are pictured as having arrived on

the very same camel. (5)
If the periodic antagonism between the two was more mundane
than theological in origin, it must nevertheless have made a consi-
derable impression on the Sunni heresiographers. Authors of firaq
books clearly felt obliged to find a place for the Sufriyya in their
accounts of the Khawarij. The difficulty lay in turning this
Sufrite-Ibadi tribal conflict into a genuine sectarian schism which
the heresiographical literature could accommodate.
In the following, we shall focus on two aspects of this process of
sect construction: the effort to find first-century Iraqi credentials
for the Sufriyya consistent with the heresiographical interest in
iflirdq; and the attempt, at a secondary stage, to hang a collection
of teachings on the group. The way in which each was accomplis-
hed can tell us much about the mechanics of the firaq literature.

II. The Khdrijite Tafarruq and the Sufriyya.

The Sufriyya functions for the heresiographers as one of the four
original Kharijite sects (usul al-Khawdrij) from which all later
Kharijite groups ultimately descend. These "mother sects" are
commonly identified as the Azariqa, Najadat, Ibadiyya, and
Sufriyya. (6) The usul framework employed in the firaq literature
is very likely connected to an account of the genesis of the Khari-
jite sects which had appeared in the historical tradition by the
mid-second century. (7) The foundation story preserved by the

(5) Schwartz, Anfinge, pp. 98, 276f. Things might, of course, have appeared
otherwise to the Sufriyya themselves. Unfortunately, we have no Sufrite literary
remains; their history is written by the Ibadis and Sunnis.
(6) See, for example, Ash'ari, Maqdldt al-Isldmiyy?n wa-'khtildf al-Musall?n, ed.
H. Ritter (Istanbul 1929-33), 101.10-.12; Nashwan b. Sa'id al-Himyari, al-Hur
al-'in, ed. K. Mustafa (Tehran 1973), 178.8-.9 (citing Balkhfs Maqdldt); and pseudo-
Nashi' al-Akbar, in van Ess (ed.), Fruhe mu'tazililische Haresiographie: Zwei Werke
des Ndsi'al-Akbar (gest. 293H) (Beirut 1971), 68.4-.10. At least one ZaidTtext adds
the Baihasiyya to these usul (Ja'far b. Ahmad, Ibdnat al-Mandhij fi Nas..hat al-
Khawdrij [Cairo, Dar, 25499b/film 25709], fol. 155a.1-.4). The significance of this
addition will become apparent below.
(7) The account we have in the historical literature may itself have been shaped
by the earliest heresiographical thinking on the subject. The origins of the firaq
genre are traditionally located in the age of the Caliph al-Mahdi (158-69/775-85) (cf.
Kashshi, Rijdl [Karbala' n.d.], 227.15-.22, and 230.11-.13). It is also at about this
time that Juynboll places the construction of the text and isndd of the well-known
seventy-three sects hadiih ("The sataftariqu Tradition Under a Magnifying Glass,"
unpublished paper delivered at the Hebrew University's Colloquium "From Jahi-
liyya to Islam," 1985, p. 22; I owe this reference to Michael Cook). The tradition
78 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

historians turns on events in Basra during the second fitna, and

places in the year 64 the fragmentation (tafarruq) of the Khawarij
into separate sects. If we follow Tabarl's version, four Kharijite
personalities are said to have left Basra for Mecca in order to inter-
view Ibn al-Zubair: Nafi' b. al-Azraq, 'Abdallah b. Saffar, 'Abdal-
lah b. Ibad, and Hanzala b. Baihas. The names are significant, as
each will become the eponym of a separate Kharijite sub-sect (Aza-
riqa, Sufriyya, Ibadiyya, and Baihasiyya). When Ibn al-Zubair is
unwilling to satisfy certain Kharijite doctrinal requirements, the
four return to Basra disappointed and soon fall out with one ano-
ther. Nafi' leaves in order to elaborate the extreme secessionist
stance characteristic of the Azariqa; others strike out for Yamama
where they eventually join Najda b. 'Amir (the eponym of the
Najadat), and a letter from Nafi' to the remaining "moderate"
Khawarij of Basra leads to the decisive break between Ibn Saffar
and Ibn Ibad, and thus to the formation of the Sufriyya and Iba-
diyya. (8)
The appeal of such an account to historians and especially to
heresiographers is understandable. It very neatly explains the
profusion of Kharijite firaq in terms of a basic difference of opinion
between those who founded the original groups. The movement
divides at a specific point in time for easily understandable rea-
sons. Conveniently, perhaps, this fragmentation takes place just
when the Community itself is dissolving into fitna. In any case,
the tale seems to reflect an important truth: it was then that Nafi'
b. al-Azraq and others visibly separated themselves from the
moderates at Basra and worked out a secessionist Kharijite posi-
tion. The account has not only a pleasing literary symmetry to
recommend it, but a kernel of historical truth as well.
While it is not surprising that the circumstances of the second
fitna should have given rise to tensions within the Kharijite move-
ment, the tafarruq episode used to represent these tensions seems
nevertheless contrived. The placement of the principal Kharijite
eponyms together just at the point of fragmentation is almost too

presumably reflects the appearance of extended schematic firaq works. Ibn Batta
(d. 387) attributes a heresiographical framework clearly based on this hadilh to an
earlier figure, 'Amr b. Murra (d. 116) (van Ess, "Bibliographische Notizen zur isla-
mischen Theologie," Die Well des Orients, 11 [1980], p. 131). This ascription is
unlikely to be accurate; I know of no other reference to 'Amr b. Murra (nor indeed
to anyone else of his generation) as a firaq author.
(8) Tabarn, Ta'rfkh al-Rusul wa-'l-Muluk (Cairo 1380/1960), 5:563.21-569.3 (from
Abu Mikhnaf); cf. Wellhausen, Die religios-politischen Oppositionsparteien im alien
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 79

neat, (9) and the suggestion of color in three of the four names (Ibn
al-Azraq, Ibn Saffar, Ibn Ibad) may well indicate that the account
has been shaped by literary concerns. This last consideration, in
fact, has led at least two scholars to suspect Ibn Saffar's historical
existence. (10) The possibility that he was born out of literary
necessity is also strongly suggested by the instability of his name
within the heresiographical tradition. He is most commonly
known to the heresiographers as Ziyad b. al-Asfar, (11) but he also
appears as Nu'man b. Sufr,(12) 'Ubaid al-Asfar, (13) 'Abdallah b.
Saffar, (14) and even by the name of the Umayyad general Muhal-
lab b. Abi Sufra.(15)
Given this instability, it is not surprising that the earliest Khari-
jite witness available to us, the Ibadi polemicist Salim b. Dhak-
wan, knows of no Ibn Saffar/al-Asfar, although the Sfrat Sdlim
appears to have been written in Iraq not long after the second
fitna. (16) Salim's apparent ignorance here squares with an

Islam (Berlin 1901), p. 28. Note that we are not told what became of Abu (here,
Ibn) Baihas. The implications of this will become apparent below.
(9) Pampus, Uber die Rolle der Hadriqya im friihen Islam (Wiesbaden 1980), p. 76.
(10) Wilkinson, "Early development," p. 132; and Cook, Early Muslim Dogma:
A Source-Critical Study (Cambridge 1981), p. 64. Both suspect that Ibn Ibad's
presence here is likewise due to this color motif. It is interesting to note in this
connection that the Kharijite rebel 'Atiyya b. al-Aswad, who appears in the initial
tafarruq context but only makes a name for himself later, founds the 'Atawiyya and
not the Aswadiyya.
(11) Ash'arl, 101.3; Balkhi, in Hur, 177.6; Baghdadi, al-Farq Bain al-Firaq (Cairo
1323/1905), 70.6; Ibn 'Abbad, al-Kashf 'an Mandhij Asndf al-Khawdrij (in Nashra-yi
Ddnishkada-yi Adabiyydt-i Tabriz, 2, 1347 sh.), 145.9. Cf. Sam'ani, Ansdb (Hydera-
bad 1396/1977), #2486.
(12) Maqrizi, al-Mawd'iz wa-'l-I'tibdr bi-Dhikr al-Khitat wa-'l-Athdr (2 vols.,
Baghdad n.d.), 2:254 (8 from bottom).
(13) Malati, al-Tanbih wa-'l-Radd 'ald Ahl al-Ahwd' wa-'l-Bida' (Istanbul 1936),
135.21 (from Khushaish).
(14) Balkhi, in Hur, 177.6-.7; Maqrizi, Khitat, 2:254 (8 from bottom); Ibn
'Abbad, 145.19; pseudo-Nashi', 68.6. The last is to my knowledge the only firaq
book to list Ibn Saffar (the name which figures in Tabari's account) as the only
option. Pseudo-NashFs close attention to the historical material is apparent in the
way he presents the mother-sect formulation: he makes the point that while all four
Kharijite ru'asd'appeared at about the same time, some were quicker than others to
call people to their doctrines (68.9-.10).
(15) Malati, 42.8. For the connections between the Muhallabids and the Ibadl
Imam Jabir b. Zaid (which presumably lie behind Malati's confusion), see Wil-
kinson, "Early Development," pp. 141 f; Cook, Dogma, pp. 63 ff; and Ennami, Stu-
dies in Ibddism (University of Libya, 1392/1972), pp. 46 f.
(16) See below, note 25.
 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

account of the events of 64, independent of Tabari-Abi Mikhnaf,

in which neither Ibn Saffar not Ibn Ibad figure at all. (17)
Watt, although rightly skeptical of Ibn Saffar/al-Asfar's histori-
cal existence, remains willing to concede the presence of a distinct
Sufrite group in first-century Basra. (18) He adduces two pieces of
evidence in support of this view: accounts describing the well-
known Kharijite rebel Salih b. Musarrih (d. 76) as a Sufrite; and a
passage from the Maqaldt al-Isldmiyyin of Abi '1-Hasan al-Ash'ari
(d. 324) in which a certain 'Ubaida (described there as the founder
of the Sufriya) is pictured as alive at some point before the death of
Najda b. 'Amir in 72. If we accept the accuracy of the first of
these reports and the authenticity of the second, the heresiogra-
phers cannot be far wrong in considering the Sufriyya a first-cen-
tury Kharijite sect.
Neither piece of evidence, however, points clearly to the early
existence of the sect. Despite the reports which name Salih as the
first Sufrite rebel,(19) I know of no good testimony either in the
Sunni or the Ibadi tradition that can place $alih firmly in any one
Kharijite camp. The Sunni heresiographers associate nothing
doctrinal with him beyond a general tendency toward piety and
asceticism: Ash'arl tells us that Salih is sometimes considered a
Sufrite although he originated no doctrine of his own, (20)Baghdadi
(d. 429) is frankly unsure of his affiliation beyond his opposition to
the Azariqa,(21) and Shahrastani (d. 548) does not connect him
with the Sufriyya at all. (22) Moreover, there is at least one indica-
tion in the Sunni tradition that Salih may actually have enjoyed

(17) Khalifa b. Khayyat, Ta'rlkh (Najaf 1386/1967), 251.19-252.17; cited in

Cook, Dogma, p. 182, n. 97. Might this be a cleaner (and pre-heresiographical)
version of the tafarruq episode than what we have in Tabari-Abi Mikhnaf?
(18) The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh 1973), p. 27. Contrast
Wilkinson, "Early Development," p. 132, on the difficulties in making distinctions
within the moderate Basran Khawarij before the emergence of an Ibadi political
organization in late Umayyad times.
(19) Tabari, 6:215.5: wa-qqla innahu awwal man kharaja min al-Sufriyya; Ibn
Qutaiba, al-Ma'drif (Cairo 1388/1969), 410.14. Cf. El (1), s.v. Sufriya (Levi Della
Vida).
(20) Ash'ari, 118.7-.8: lam yuhdith qawlan tafarrada bi-hi wa-yuqalu innahu kana
Sufriyyan.
(21) Farq, 89.7-.8: kdna mukhalifan li-7-Azariqa wa-qad qala innahu kdna
Sufriyyan wa-qlla innahu lam yakun Sufriyyan wa-ld Azraqiyyan.
(22) Al-Milal wa-'l-Mihal, ed. Cureton (London 1846), 95.2-.3. Even worse,
Shahrastanl associates the followers of Sflih's successor Shabib b. Yazid al-Shaibani
with the Baihasiyya, although there is nothing doctrinal about it and the reader is
referred to the historians for the story of Shabib (95.10-.11).
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 81

"Ibadi" support. (23) On the Ibadi side, the fifth-century (?) firaq
writer Qalhati has only historical akhbdr under his Salihiyya hea-
ding, and says nothing at all of any Sufrite connections. (24) Even
more striking is the absence of any reference to Salih or the
Sufriyya in the above-mentioned epistle of Salim b. Dhak-
wan. Were Salih a member of any one Kharijite sect, it is hard to
see how Salim could have neglected to mention him.(25)
The rebellion of Salih in 76, then, cannot be used to date the
emergence of a distinct Sufrite sect within the moderate Basran
Khawarij. His membership in the Sufriyya is most likely an
honor bestowed by later Sufrites in search of the Imams of their
past. (26)
The second piece of evidence adduced by Watt is Ash'ari's refe-
rence to a certain 'Ubaida, who, we are told, played a significant
role in the founding of the sect (al-Sufriyya nusibu ild VJbaida).
Watt takes as genuine the fragmentary story of 'Ubaida's disagree-
ment with Ibn Ibad, occasioned by a letter from the Kharijite
rebel Najda (d. 72) to the Khawarij of Basra.(27) After reading
the letter with Ibn Ibad, 'Ubaida expresses the general Kharijite

(23) See Ash'ari, 123.1, where certain Ibadis involve themselves in a dispute
within Salih's movement. Cookfinds no evidence of such involvement in the Ibadi
tradition (Dogma, p. 196, n. 20).
(24) K. al-Kashf wa-'l-Baydn (Arabic ms., Br. Museum Or; 2606), fol. 201a.16-
201b.16.
(25) Cook adduces the absence of Salih b. Musarrih from the Siral Sdalim to
clinch his argument for a dating of the text (if authentic) to the early 70's (Dogma,
p. 90). He is also at pains to show that the Kharijites mentioned approvingly in
the so-called first letter of Ibn Ibad to 'Abd al-Malik could not have been Salih's
Sufrite rebels of 76 ("This is no way to speak of a rival sect, whatever one's actual
sympathies for them," Dogma, p. 59). Both arguments presuppose the early exis-
tence of a distinct Sufrite identity: Salim antedates the Sufriyya and "Ibn Ibad"
could not have viewed them sympathetically. Neither argument seems especially
compelling, whatever the other merits of Cook's analysis. Salim's omission and
"Ibn Ibad's" sympathy might just as well suggest that Basran Kharijite thinkers
were unaccustomed to making Sufrite-Ibadi distinctions in the first cen-
tury. While this does not necessarily affect Cook's dating of either text, it does at
least make possible Madelung's slightly later dating of the Sirat Salim ("The Early
Murji'a in Khurasan and Transoxania and the spread of Hanafism," Religious
Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam [London 1985], III, n. la). Salim could have
written his epistle ca. 82 and still have ignored Salih if the latter were not seen as
representing an independent wing of the Kharijite movement.
(26) In similar fashion, other prominent Kharijite leaders from the past also
came to acquire Sufrite credentials; e.g. Abu Bilal Mirdas and the poet 'Imran b.
Hittan (see below, note 81).
(27) Watt, Formative Period, p. 27, citing Ash'ari, 101.4-.9.
82 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

view that opponents are to be considered polytheists, presumably

(though not explicitly) against the well-known Ibadi doctrine that
opponents are guilty merely of a lesser sort of unbelief (kufr al-
ni'ma). Watt does not offer any reasons for taking the passage to
be authentic and early; his assessment may well be influenced by
the appearance here of 'Ubaida rather than the more suspicious
Ibn Saffar/al-Asfar. (28) If it can be established, however, that the
'Ubaida passage is nothing more than a fragment of the historians'
tafarruq account, there would be less reason to take it as genuine
evidence for the early existence of a distinct sect.
Ash'ari's debt here to the Kharijite foundation story is apparent
on close comparison of the passage with the tafarruq episode as it is
presented in Tabari and in the Kdmil of Mubarrad. (29) All three
speak of a letter to the Basran Khawarij received by Ibn Ibad and
an associate. In each instance the letter causes a split within
Kharijite ranks.(30) And in each case Ibn Ibad's enunciation of
his kufr al-ni'ma doctrine provokes the same response on the part
of his companion: the companion tries to position himself squarely
between the tolerance of Ibn Ibad and the rigorous consistency of
Nafi' b. al-Azraq, leader of the secessionists. (31) It is true that Ibn
Ibad does not speak his mind in Ash'ari's version, but this is per-
haps only because Ash'ari does not want to get too far afield in his
Sufriyya chapter. 'Ubaida's insistence on considering ordinary
Muslims as idolators makes sense only in response to a more mode-
rate "Ibadl" position. (32)
Ash'ari's 'Ubaida passage is thus not solid evidence of any-
thing. It is dependent on a literary construction itself secondary
to the events which it describes. It is true that Ash'arl's version
might well be earlier than others (its ignorance of Ibn Saffar might
suggest this), but this is no assurance of its historicity. In fact,

(28) Khushaish has an 'Ubaid al-Asfar; see above, note 13.

(29) Kdmil, ed. M. A. Ibrahim (Cairo n.d.), 3:291.12-293.8; Tabari, 5:568.8-.21.
(30) In Tabari's account, the associate (there, Ibn Saffar) at first tries to hide the
letter, lest it lead to even more schism.
(31) Ibn Saffar in Tabari: bari'a 'lldhu minka fa-qad qassarla wa-bari'a 'lldhu min
Ibn al-Azraq fa-qad ghald; AbO Baihas in Mubarrad: inna Ndfi'an ghald fa-kafara
wa-innaka qassarta fa-kafarla.
(32) Note also that 'Ubaida's phrasing in Ash'ari actually echoes Ibn Ibad's (!) in
Tabari (although Ibn Ibad is speaking of an unreal condition). Ibn Ibad: law kdna
7-qawm mushrikin kdna [Ndfi' b. al-Azraq] aswab al-nds ra'yan wa-hukman fi-md
yushiru [= yasiru?/ bi-hi wa-kana siratuhu ka-sirat al-nabiyy fi 'I-mushrikin;
'Ubaida: mukhdlif[him mushrikun al-sira fi-him al-sira fi ahl harb rastil allah alla-
dhina harabuhu min al-mushrikin.
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 83

there are at least two good reasons to suspect any account which
establishes clear divisions within the moderate Basran Khawa-
rij. First, all versions of the tafarruq episode which tell of such
divisions turn on a dogmatic development of questionable authen-
ticity (at least in the first century): Ibn Ibad's kufr al-ni'ma doc-
trine. Cook has cast doubt on the role payed by Ibn Ib.ad and his
doctrine in early Ibadi circles, (33) and any event said to involve
both elements can only be taken with caution. Even if someone
called Ibn Ibad did in fact hold such a doctrine in first-century
Basra, as long as he is deprived of any real heresiarchic role for the
Ibadls his ability to provoke a Sufrite schism is considerably dimi-
nished.
The second cause for skepticism is that different versions of the
story do not agree about the sect supposedly spawned in this split
with the Ibadiyya. In the three accounts discussed thus far, Ibn
Ibad's associate is identified variously as 'Ubaida (Ash'ari), Ibn
Saffar (Tabarl), and Abf Baihas (Mubarrad). The first two names
are at least Sufrite by association, but the last is commonly linked
to another Kharijite sect altogether, the Baihasiyya. Might some
early versions of the story have been constructed to establish an
independent Baihasite (rather than Sufrite) identity?
It is worth noting in this context that the Tabari account does
not actually refer to the doctrine of Ibn Ibad's companion. The
latter simply charges Nafi' b. al-Azraq with extremism and Ibn
Ibad with excessive moderation. But from Ibn Ibad's language
("If our opponents were truly idolators, then Ibn al-Azraq's prac-
tice would be most correct")(34) one might infer that the opposing
doctrine must have involved an apparent inconsistency: a strict
insistence on regarding ordinary Muslims as mushrikun coupled
with a refusal to break relations with them. In other words, Ibn
Ibad's companion rejects both kufr al-ni'ma (the Ibadi rationale for
quietism) and the practice of the secessionist Azariqa.
Now, such a doctrine is elsewhere associated not with the
Sufriyya at all but with the Baihasiyya. In parallels preserved in
the Kdmil and the 'Iqd al-Farid, Ibn Ibad's companion (there, Abf
Baihas) is made to express the following view: "I hold that our
enemies are as the enemies of the Messenger of God, and that it is
permitted for us to live among them, just as the Muslims lived

(33) Cook, Dogma, pp. 64f. Cf. Schwartz, Anfdnge, p. 22; and Wilkinson,
"Early Development," p. 132.
(34) See above, note 32.
84 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

among them in Mecca while [their enemies] were practicing idola-

tors (wa-ahkdm al-mushrikin Iajrf fi-him). And I hold further
that [relations of] marriage and inheritance are permitted with
them because they are hypocrites who manifest Islam, even while
their status in God's eyes is that of idolators." (35)
It would seem, in short, that what we have in Ash'arl's account
is at least as much "Baihasite" as it is "Sufrite."(36) When the
Kdmil and 'Iqd versions (which set Abu Baihas against Ibn Ibad)
finally do describe the Sufrite position, the sect is said to be in
accord with the Ibadiyya, and furthermore to approve of quietism
to such an extent that the mass of Sufrites have become quie-
tists. In both of these versions, the logic of Tabari's account (in
which Ibn Saffar places himself between Nafi' and Ibn Ibad) is
destroyed. It is the Baihasiyya who instead offer a middle way,
and there is no distinguishing Sufrite from IbIad thinking. (37)
The tafarruq story says less about the origins of the Sufriyya
than about the schematic needs of historians and heresiogra-
phers. The confusion surrounding the sect which broke with Ibn
Ibad argues for the lack of a genuine pool of Sufrite doctrines in
the first two centuries. The absence of such a pool, and the efforts
of heresiographers to get around the problem, will now be taken
up.
III. Sufrite Doctrines.
Having established a Sufrite slot in their framework, heresio-
graphers set about filling it. Doctrines had to be discovered (or
produced) which might justify granting the sect a place among the
usul al-Khawdrij. Some of the later heresiographers managed this

(35) Kdmil, 3:292.1-.5; al-'Iqd al-Farid, ed. A. Amin (Cairo 1343), 1:223.9-224.1
(where, however, the tafarruq episode has lost its narrative shape). Shahrastani
mentions a Sufrite doctrine (which, to my knowledge, appears in no earlier source)
possibly connected to this Baihasite willingness to distinguish dunyd from dkhira
status: "We are believers in our own eyes, but we may be something other than
believers in the eyes of God" (Milal, 102.15-.16).
(36) But to muddy the waters even further, Balkhi has the Sufriyya (and not the
Baihasiyya) justifying relations with the idolators from the Prophet's practice in
Mecca (in Hur, 177.10-.12).
(37) Kdmil, 3:292.14-.16; 'lqd, 1:224.2-.4. The wording in both implies that the
Sufriyya actually agreed with the Ibadiyya on kufr al-ni'ma. 'Iqd:qdlat al-Sufriyya
bi-qawl Ibn Ibdd wa-ra'at al-qu'td haitd sdral 'dmmatuhum qaadan, following a refe-
rence to Ibn Ibad's celebrated doctrine; Kdmil: wa-'l-Sufriyya wa-'l-Najdiyya fi
dhdlika 'I-waql yaquluna bi-qawl Ibn Ibad (the Najdiyya are likewise said to profess
the doctrine of kufr al-ni'ma in Ash'ari, 86.5; cf. Farq, 56.4).
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 85

quite impressively. Shahrastani, for example, adds weight to his

$ufriyya chapter by citing several doctrines from Ziyad b. al-Asfar
himself. (38) Baghdadi seeks to accomplish the same by presenting
three separate Sufrite sub-sects, each going its own way on the
problem of classifying sinners. The author seems to imply that
behind this fragmentation lies an "original" core Sufriyya. (39)
Whatever the efforts of later writers, it is clear that there was no
widely attested body of material concerning the Sufriyya on which
the earliest heresiographers could draw. This is apparent from
Ash'ari's account of the sect, which is manifestly weaker than most
other sections of his Kharijite presentation. Sufrite and quasi-
Sufrite material is scattered throughout his presentation of the
Khawarij, and has very likely been collected from a number of
different sources. The material in the Sufriyya section proper
does not impress one as being particularly coherent, and in any
case there is not much of it. The slot allocated to the sect seems
too large for what Ash'ari has to offer us; it is almost as if the label
could command a place in the heresiographical framework, yet no
one was quite certain why. Ash'ari's formal presentation of the
sect consists of four separate narrative pieces thrown haphazardly
together: (40)
(1) Mention of Ziyad b. Al-Asfar as the founder. The sect is
distinguished by its disagreement with the Azariqa on the fate of
opponents' children in the afterlife (wa-hum ldyuwdfiquna 'I-Azdriqa-
fi 'adhdb al-a.tfdl fa-innahum Id yujfzuna dhalika).
(2) The 'Ubaid-Ibn Ibad passage discussed above.
(3) Summary of the mother-sect scheme, in which the Azariqa,
Ibadiyya, Sufriyya, and Najadat are said to be the Kharijite
usul. All other groups are ultimately of Sufrite descent. (41)
(4) Discussion of a distinctive view of sin held by an anonymous
group (td'ifa) among the Khawarij: Unbelief does not arise from
those transgressions for which a specific Qur'anic punishment
exists. Adulterers and slanderers are just that; they are neither

(38) Milal, 102.14-.18. Ziyad's statement here about almsgiving is elsewhere

associated by Shahrastani with a Tha'labite sect (98.16), rendering the attribution
to Ibn al-Asfar even more suspect than it would otherwise be. It might refect an
old tendency to consider the Persian sects satellites of the Sufriyya; see below,
Section Four.
(39) Farq, 70.7-.15.
(40) Ash'ari, 101.3-102.3.
(41) The importance of the last statement will be brought out below.
86 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

unbelievers nor believers. The sinner becomes an unbeliever only

by performing misdeeds for which no hadd is specified (e.g. omit-
ting prayer or fasting). (42)
This short presentation of Ash'arl's is not structurally
coherent. None of its pieces fit together especially well, and it
does not appear to have been crafted as an integrated presentation
of the sect. Section 1 is likely to have been pulled from the
middle of an earlier account: it cannot have been formulated origi-
nally as an introductory passage, as the disagreement which it
mentions concerns only a secondary issue. We have seen already
that Section 2 is a fragment of the tafarruq story. Its preference
for 'Ubaida over the more suitably heresiographical Ibn al-Asfar
distinguishes it from Section 1: the two passages probably reached
Ash'ari through separate lines of transmission, or at least were
combined quite late. In Section 3 the fingerprints of earlier here-
siographers are unmistakable. What little evidence we have sug-
gests that the usul scheme was created by writers before Ash'arl's
time who sought to gear their presentations to the Kharijite tafar-
ruq. (43) But it has no function at all in Ash'ari's framework,
except perhaps to justify the granting of a slot to the Sufriyya.
In addition to its structural weaknesses, the Sufriyya section in
Ash'ari is short on doctrinal material. Of the three doctrines men-
tioned or alluded to, none can support an independent Sufrite iden-
tity. Section 1 involves a secondary issue, Section 2 is at least as
much Baihasite as Sufrite; and the doctrine in Section 4 is not
explicitly attributed to the Sufriyya at all. Moreover, Ash'ari
elsewhere associates a similar-sounding doctrine with the Baiha-
siyya, and indicates that a "ta'ifa" of the Sufriyya agrees with
them. (44)

(42) Ash'ari, 101.13-102.2: md kdna min al-anmdl alaihi hadd wdqi'fa-ld yuta'addd
bi-ahlihi 'l-ism alladhi lazimahum bi-hi 'l-hadd wa-laisa yakfiru bi-shai' laisa ahluhu
bi-hi kdfiran ka-'l-zind wa-'l-qadhf wa-hum qadhafa zundt wa-md kdna min al-a'mdl
laisa 'alaihi hadd ka-lark al-saldt wa-'l-siydm fa-huwa kdfir wa-azalu'sma 'l-?mdm fi
'l-wajhain jami'an. E. A. Salem has missed the point here when he takes this to
illustrate the strictness of the Khawarij; laxity of some sort is clearly implied (Politi-
cal Theory and Institutions of the Khawarij [Baltimore 1956], p. 34).
(43) The Usul framework is set out at the top of pseudo-Nashi's Kharijite chap-
ter (68.4-.10). Although the text breaks off relatively early on, it would seem that
the usul scheme is the author's main organizing principle. Also, note that the
mother-sects are mentioned by Balkhi outside of his Sufriyya slot, which suggests
that they may have had an organizational function of sorts (Hur, 178.8-.9).
(44) Ash'arl, 116.4-.6: "Some of the Baihasiyya hold that one who commits adul-
tery is not considered an unbeliever until he is taken to the imam and punished
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 87

The apparent confusion between the Sufriyya and Baihasiyya is

broader than this one case. We have already seen it come into
play in the lafarruq account. There might well be another ins-
tance of it later in Ash'ari's Kharijite chapter, where it is said that
the Sufriyya hold a doctrine of sin in common with most of the
Khawarij: they equate every "dhanb mughallaz" with unbelief, ido-
latry, and worship of Satan. (45) The term dhanb mughallaz is unu-
sual, and its meaning in this context is not spelled out. It presu-
mably refers to actions equated by the Prophet with unbelief in a
figurative rather than literal sense. According to some (including,
perhaps, the original author of the passage in Ash'ari), Traditions
in which the Prophet likens qualities such as irascibility (taira) or
insincerity (riyd') to shirk are not to be taken literally; one need
not be even-tempered or always entirely sincere to find a place in
Paradise. The Prophet only spoke in this way because he wished
to frighten people away from such behavior by emphasizing its
seriousness (taghlfz). (46) What is interesting for us is that the root
gh-l-z occurs in a Kharijite context in only one other place: Bagh-
dadl's account of the Baihasiyya. There, we learn that sins for
which there is no explicit divine condemnation (hukm mughalliz)
are to be forgiven. The use of the root gh-l-z in these two cases is
no coincidence; it is a good indication of the difficulty heresio-
graphers had in keeping Sufrite and Baihasite data apart. (47)

according to the Law" (hattd yurfa'a ild 'I-imdm aw al-wdal wa-yuhadda). The
sinner is then presumably considered an unbeliever. This is not quite what we
have for the Sufriyya, for whom the adulterer is given an intermediate status bet-
ween believer and unbeliever even after the punishment is applied. Ash'ari notes
the difference himself. Later in his Kharijite chapter, Ash'ari cites the early Kha-
rijite heresiographer Yaman b. Ribab for the agreement between a qawm of the
Sufriyya and a group of the Baihasiyya on this doctrine (119.3-.9).
(45) Ash'ari, 118.9-.10; Hur, 177.8 (from Balkhi). Cf. the variant in Shahrastani
(Milal, 102.16-.18).
(46) For examples of such Traditions, and their interpretation by some as taghliz
and tarh?b, see Abf 'Ubaid, K. al-Imdn (published with a work of the same title by
Ibn Abl Shaiba), ed. M. al-Albani (Damascus n.d.), 87.7, 88.12-.15; cf. Madelung,
"Early Sunni Doctrine Concerning Faith as Reflected in the Kildb al-Imdn of Abf
'Ubayd al-Qasim b. Sallam (d. 244/839)," SI, 32 (1970), pp. 248 ff.
(47) Baghdadi, K. al-Milal wa-l-Nihal, ed. Nader (Beirut 1970), 81.5-.6 (reading
yiiqifna for yaqifna). It is worth noting that this work is often a much better guide
to the source behind Ash'ari than is the Farq. The Sufrite-Baihasite confusion
preserved here is likely to be pre-Ash'ari Nader's ascription of this text to Baghdadi
has been challenged by Gimaret; see E12, s.v. Milal wa-Nihal.
88 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

What we see here is part of a larger pattern within the firaq

literature's treatment of the Sufriyya. The Sufriyya are almost
always associated with other Kharijite sects, frequently those of
uncertain parentage within the iftirdq framework. Equipped with
a number of such satellites, the Sufriyya are made to appear more
legitimate as a Kharijite mother-sect.
IV. The Satellite Sects.
Suggestions of this process are to be found throughout the here-
siographical tradition. We see it, for example, in the treatment of
a Kharijite sect called the Shimrakhiyya. The sect is absent from
most of the standard heresiographical works, but is widely attested
in the eastern Hanafite firaq tradition.(48) On the few occasions
when they are mentioned in the standard Mu'tazilite-Ash'arite tra-
dition, the Shimrakhiyya are assigned either or both of two doc-
trines: (1) A general prohibition of murder in the ddr al-taqiyya; (49)
and (2) A willingness (which they are said to share with the
Sufriyya) to pray behind an imam of dubious religious status, as
long as the prayer is directed toward the qibla.(50) Neither is
inconsistent with what we hear otherwise of the Sufriyya, and
without always saying so explicitly, many writers appear to consi-
der them a Sufrite splinter group. Ash'arl, as we have seen, men-
tions the two sects in the same breath, and Abfi 'l-Qasim al-Kir-
manl assigns the Sufrite-Baihasite doctrine in Ash'arl's Section 4 to
the Shimrakhiyya. (51) The Ibadi Qalhati is straightforward about

(48) Lewinstein, Studies in Islamic Heresiography (unpublished Ph. D. disserta-

tion [Princeton 1989], pp. 268 ff). The doctrines associated with them by the eas-
tern writers are entirely different from those we have in the standard Ash'arite-
Mu'tazilite texts.
(49) Ash'ari, 120.1-.4 (from Yaman b. Ribab); Ibn 'Abbad, Kashf 147.21-.22;
Kirmani, Sharh Qawl Rasuil Allal..., apud Dedering, "Ein Kommentar iiber die 73
Sekten," Le Monde oriental, 24 (1930), 38.19; Saksaki, K. al-Burhdn fi Ma?rifat
'Aqd'id Ahl al-Adydn (Ar. Ms. Cairo, Dar, Kalam 578), fol. 5b.18-6a.l (citing an
anonymous K. al-Firaq). The heresiographers sometimes have them regard as
unlawful the murder of their own (unbelieving) parents even in the ddr al-hijra.
(50) Ash'ari, 126.11: wa-hakd aidan anna al-Shimrdkhiyya wa-'l-Sufriyya tusalll
khalfa man Id ta'rifu. My understanding here differs from that of Thomson, who
takes this quite literally ("Kharijitism and the Kharijites," MacDonald Presentation
Volume [Princeton and London 1933], p. 385). The sense is more explicit in the
parallel from Balkhi (IHur, 177.18.19). The implication is that man must be
content with an external show of faith, even if God has other means of determining
one's true status. Cf. the Sufrite doctrine mentioned above, note 35.
(51) "Ein Kommentar," 38.19-.21. Meanwhile, Kirmani's Sufriyya slot (38.12-
.14) is essentially empty, and seems to be composed entirely of filler. Some of this
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 89

it: the Shimrakhiyya are to be considered one of the principal

Sufrite sub-divisions. (52)
But if there is a consensus that the group is tied to the Sufriyya,
the basis of that tie is never spelled out. The group's laqab is
generally traced to an otherwise unknown figure, 'Abdallah b.
Shimrakh, himself possibly a heresiographical fiction. (53) We are
told nothing of this 'Abdallah's students or teachers, and are given
no sense of how his thinking relates to basic "Sufrite" teachings
(either positively or negatively). What we have is simply a vague
association which some heresiographers assert but none are able to
demonstrate.
The situation with the Fadliyya Khawarij is similar. They,
too, are vaguely associated with the Sufriyya, although in this case
there is no effort to equip the sect with even the flimsiest historical
fa?ade. Nowhere is there mention of an 'Abdallah b. al-Fadl, or of
any other eponym for that matter. (54) The earliest references to
the group of which I am aware are found in two traditionalist
works, the K. al-Imdn of Abf 'Ubaid (d. 224) and the K. al-Isti-
qdma of Abu 'Asim Khushaish (d. 253). Both associate only one
doctrine with the Fadliyya: they are stricter than the Sufriyya,
and refuse to follow the latter in excluding certain sins from the
category of kufr and shirk. (55) Two centuries later, though, Ibn
Hazm (d. 456) says nothing of this, and tells us only that the
Fadliyya regard anyone who pronounces the double shahdda to be
a believer (even in the eyes of God). (56) This is the doctrine repor-
ted by most heresiographers who mention the sect.(57) Why,

material is associated by'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani with the Sufriyya through what he
tells us is another "Sufrite" sub-sect, the Hafsiyya (al-Ghunya li-Tdlib? Tar?q al-
Haqq [Cairo 1375/1976], 86.15-.18). The Hafsiyya are normally considered an
Ibadi sub-sect.
(52) Qalhati, fol. 203a.2-.3.
(53) Baghdadi, though, has a certain Abu Shimrakh among the Fudaikiyya
(Farq, 69.14).
(54) The only exception is Khushaish, who has the laqab from "their chief,
Fadl." (See following note.)
(55) Abu 'Ubaid, 102.3-.8 (cited in Madedlung, "Early Sunni Doctrine," p. 253);
Malati, 136.20-.22 (from Khushaish).
(56) Al-Fisal fi 'I-Milal wa-'l-Ahwd' wa-'l-Nihal (5 vols., Cairo n.d.)
4:145.20.21. A similar doctrine is commonly associated with the Karra-
miyya. See Farq, 212.2-.4; and cf. the comments of Madelung, Religious Trends in
Early Islamic Iran (Albany N. Y. 1988), p. 40.
(57) Ash'ari, 118.11-119.1; Hur, 177.9, and .13-.17 (from Balkhi); Saksaki, fol.
4a.9-.10 (text: Mufaddaliyya).
90 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

then, should our earliest witnesses not refer to it? The notion of
faith in the tongue but not in the heart is simply too relevant to
the issues exercising Abu 'Ubaid to imagine him deliberately lea-
ving it out.
From Abfi 'Ubaid's silence, we might well conclude that the
Fadlite ?mdn doctrine known to the firaq writers had not entered
heresiographical circles before the mid-third century. The sect's
doctrinal rationale thus remained fluid until quite a late
date. Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine that it
could have had any historical existence in its own right. The
Fadliyya seems instead a literary construct, useful to writers see-
king a home for residual Kharijite doctrines. The sect can easily
be given a Sufrite identity because it is not clearly anything
else. And the Sufriyya, for its part, acquires in this way more
apparent legitimacy as a Kharijite mother-sect.
All this is, of course, highly speculative. The two cases mentio-
ned above are suggestive, but by themselves prove very little. In
the absence of second and third-century texts it is difficult to speak
with certainty about the literary strategies of the earliest heresio-
graphers. However, two features of the extant heresiographical
material argue for the satellite theory proposed here: the broad
application of the term "Sufriyya" in Ibn Hazm's presentation,
and an apparent (and very suggestive) modification of the standard
usul scheme at some point before the late third century.
The term "Sufriyya" is used referentially by Ibn Hazm; we are
never told exactly who they are or what they think. The group as
a whole is not once given exclusive custody of a single doc-
trine. In two places, doctrines are assigned to a "td'ifa" of the
sect, but one of these is hardly credible and the other is elsewhere
linked to another Kharijite group altogether. (58) The Sufriyya
proper never appear, and we instead hear only of groups said to be
Sufrite factions. Other than the Baihasiyya (expressly labeled
Sufrite here), all of these groups are commonly known to the stan-
dard heresiographers as sub-divisions of the Persian 'Ajarida and
Tha'aliba Kharijites.(59) Ibn Hazm is not unaware of this, and

(58) The first is presumably residual anti-Kharijite polemic, as it amounts to

legalized murder of co-religionists (Fisal, 4:145.7-.8). The second (4:145.22-.25)
implies that ignoranceof legal particularsis acceptableas long as one believes in the
Prophet. Shahrastaniascribes a similarly-wordeddoctrine to the otherwise unk-
nown Atrafiyya sect of the 'Ajarida Khawarij (Milal, 97.1-.4).
(59) The Baihasiyya, 'Ajarida,Tha'aliba,Rushaidiyya, Fudailiyya (= Fadliyya),
and Mukarramiyyaare mentionedas Sufriteat Fisal, 4:145. QalhatT,fol. 203a.2-.3,
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 91

mentions this connection in each case. Nevertheless, he repeate-

dly asserts that each group is ultimately descended from the (by
now rather shadowy) Sufriyya.
Ibn Hazm presents the Sufriyya, in short, as a cluster of smaller
sects whose connections to a Sufrite core group are never spelled
out. Three possible explanations for this immediately come to
mind: (1) The Sufrite links are of the author's own invention and
are thus unique to this text (i.e. they do not reflect any more
general heresiographical strategy); (2) They have a reality beyond
the text, and reflect the situation of the Khawarij in Ibn Hazm's
day; or (3) The connections are actually the product of earlier here-
siographers aiming to strengthen a weak Sufrite slot.
The generally loose structure of the Fisal makes the first of these
possibilities unlikely. Ibn Hazm's presentation is conspicuously
lacking an iftirdq framework. Because the author does not gear
his presentation to the continual fragmentation of the Community,
he himself has no compelling reason to strengthen a weak Sufrite
slot through the invention of satellite sects. And given the fluid
organization of his entire Kharijite chapter, it is difficult to ima-
gine him driven by neatness to attach each minor Persian group to
a first-century mother-sect.
The second of these possibilities, i.e. that such connections
reflect developments on the ground observed by Ibn Hazm, was
first raised by Levi Della Vida. According to this reading of the
text, the Sufriyya gradually absorbed these smaller Persian
schools, and eventually became the principal Kharijite sect of eas-
tern Islam. (60) The absorption theory finds some support in Ibn
Hazm's assertion that the Ibadiyya and Sufriyya were the only
Kharijite sects left in his day (wa-lam yabqa 'l-yawm min firaq
al-Khawdrij illa 'l-Ibddiyya wa-'l-.Sufriyya).(61) This may very
well have been the case, especially in the North African Kharijism
with which Ibn Hazm was understandably more familiar. But
nothing here demonstrates that the Persian sects were ever absor-
bed by the Sufriyya. Were such a close historical connection to
have existed, we would expect it to be apparent in the eastern
Hanafite heresiographical literature, where the lion's share of the
Kharijite account is devoted to the Persian 'Ajarida and Tha'aliba

considers the Tha'aliba and its sub-divisions to be Sufrite. Shahrastani may know
of a similar practice; see above, notes 38 and 58.
(60) ElI, s.v. Sufriya.
(61) Fisal, 4:145.11.
92 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

sects. The term Sufriyya is not, however, even known to the eas-
tern writers. (62) Since there is also no evidence to place the 'Aja-
rida and Tha'aliba sects in the Islamic West (where they might
have merged with the Sufriyya), the connections in Ibn Hazm can-
not be taken to reflect concrete historical developments.
We are left, then, with the third possibility: the satellite arran-
gement employed in the Fisal (and suggested in places by Shahras-
tani?)(63) attests to the thinking of earlier heresiographers. We
know that much of Ibn Hazm's material is independent of the
account in Ash'ari, and related somehow to what we have in the
pseudo-Nashi' al-Akbar text (comp. ca. 236).(64) It is possible,
moreover, that even Ibn Hazm's seemingly personal observation of
the contemporary Kharijite scene (quoted above) owes something
to a statement made 200 years earlier by pseudo-
Nashi'. (65) Might pseudo-Nashi', or whatever sources are behind
him, have created the satellite scheme which was eventually to
appear in Ibn Hazm?
The question cannot be answered definitively, as pseudo-Nashi's
K. al-Usul breaks off before either the Sufriyya or the Persian sects
are described. (66) It is likely that if the author knew of the Per-
sian firaq, he would have treated them in the context of the
mother-sect scheme; not only does pseudo-Nashi' have an obvious
distaste for loose ends, (67) but he presents the mother-sect scheme
at the top of the chapter almost as a formal statement of organiza-
tion. (68) It is a good bet that he would not have tolerated unaffi-
liated sects.

(62) See Lewinstein, Studies, Part Two.

(63) See above, notes 38 and 58.
(64) See Lewinstein, "The Azariqa in Islamic Heresiography," BSOAS, 54 (1991),
pp. 262-264. If direct dependence cannot be established, there is at least a common
body of sources. For the dating of the text, see Madelung, "Friihe mu'tazilitische
Haresiographie: Das Kitab al-Usul des Ga'far b. Harb?" Der Islam, 57 (1980).
(65) Pseudo-Nashi', 68.7-.9. The mother-sect arrangement is justified with the
statement "You will not find today any Kharijite who does not affiliate with one of
these four [usul groups], claim that he holds their doctrines, and dissociate from
those Kharijites who disagree." Ibn Hazm and pseudo-Nashi' are the only heresio-
graphers I know of who place the usul framework in a contemporary context.
(66) One of the 'Ajarida sects, the Kh5zimiyya, is uniquely treated as an Azra-
qite sub-sect and given a new set of doctrines (pseudo-Nashi', 69.6-.13).
(67) Cf., for example, his care to provide summary sketches at the end of each
short section of the text (17.14-.18 and passim, and note van Ess's statement at
p. 26 of the commentary).
(68) 68.4-.10. The author does not refer to the usul tradition mechanically, as
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 93

If pseudo-Nashi' does not testify directly to a widespread use of

satellites to prop up the Sufriyya, he may do so indirectly. There
is a conspicuous silence in the text which suggests a secondary
attempt to locate orphan Kharijite sects within the Sufriyya. We
have seen that pseudo-Nashi', in referring to the Kharijite usul
groups, states that they are the parents of all contemporary
sects. Ash'ari, however, singles out the Sufriyya for special men-
tion, and tells us that most later Kharijite firaq have a Sufrite
pedigree. (69) Ash'ari's slightly older contemporary, Abf 'l-Qasim
al-Balkhi (d. 319), mentions the Sufriyya-centered scheme preser-
ved in Ash'ari only as a variant on the simpler approach attested in
pseudo-Nashi'. (70) Why did the latter not, in similar fashion,
report the variant which later crops up in Ash'arl?
Once again we are forced to argue from silence. It seems reaso-
nable to assume that had pseudo-Nashi' known the version preser-
ved in Ash'ari's Sufriyya section, he would not have neglected to
mention it. Given the weight which we have seen pseudo-Nashi'
attach to the usuil program, the variant in Ash'ari would have been
for him an extremely convenient heresiographical device. His
silence may well suggest that the Sufriyya-based variant was intro-
duced no earlier than the mid-third century. It is possible that
this seemingly innocuous modification of the usul scheme testifies
to a growing tendency among writers to link previously unattached
sects to the Sufriyya. (71)

V. Conclusions.
It seems clear that the Sufriyya do not have an especially strong
claim on a place among the usul al-Khawdrij. The tendency to

do most later writers. He goes out of his way to justify it and underline its
accuracy; see above, notes 14 and 65.
(69) Ash'ari, 101.1-.2 (wa-kullu asndf siwd 'I-Azdriqa wa-'l-Ibddiyya wa-'l-Naj-
diyya fa-innamd tafarra'u min al-Sufriyya).
(70) In Hur, 178.8-.9. Note that Balkhi does not quote this in his Sufriyya
section (as Ash'ari does), but instead mentions it at the very end of his Kharijite
account. Ash'ari may have dropped the simpler (non-Sufrite) version when moving
the passage into his Sufriyya section.
(71) Interestingly, it was at about this time that the Maqdldt book of Husain
al-Karabisi (d. 248) appears to have superseded earlier works on the Khawarij. It
is said to have become the primary source for information on the Kharijites and
other sectarians (muhawwal al-mutakallimin fi ma'rifat madhdhib al-Khawdrij wa-
sd'ir ahl al-ahwd') (Subki, Tabaqdl al-Shdfi'iyya [Beirut n.d.], 1:252.6; Baghdadi,
Us.ul al-Din [Beirut 1401], 308.15-.16). Might this suggest that the mid-third cen-
tury saw a significant re-arrangement of Kharijite heresiography?
94 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

associate a large number of questionable sub-sects with them can-

not disguise the weakness of their position. Despite the assu-
rances of the heresiographers, the sect does not fit the common
pattern of descent from a specific heresiarch responsible for well-
defined doctrinal innovations. Ibn al-Asfar and his doctrines were,
rather, created at a secondary stage to explain the existence of
Kharijite groups already identified as Sufriyya.(72)
That the label may be older than the eponym is implicitly allo-
wed by the heresiographical tradition itself. In addition to the
usual derivation from Ibn al-Asfar, two alternative significations
for the term Sufriyya are preserved in some sources. The first of
these is "Sifriyya" (from sifr, zero), apparently a derogatory term
used to accuse the group of spiritual emptiness. They are ciphers
when it comes to religion. (73) This etymology is favored by Watt,
who argues that the sect changed the kasra to a damma (and per-
haps proposed a derivation from Ziyad b. al-Asfar?) in order to rid
itself of the unflattering label. (74) It seems to me, however, that
the usage "Sufriyya" is almost too clever by half, and is itself
likely to be secondary wordplay; it works best on paper, and its
irony requires knowledge of the more customary form "Sufriyya".
A second alternative derivation has the support of Levi Della
Vida: "Sufriyya" with a damma, referring not initially to an Ibn
al-Asfar, but to the pallor (sufra) which overcame them as a result
of continual worship (wa-hum qawm nahakalhum al-'ibdda fa-
asfarrat wujuhuhum).(75) There is indeed something here that
rings true; it fits nicely with other accusations of Kharijite over-
indulgence in prayer and night vigil. (76) Moreover, the equation

(72) The process through which this may have occurred will be described
below. Here, it is interesting to note that it conforms to a heresiographical pattern
described by Wansbrough in which originally generic terms give way to personal
names. Wansbrough does not refer to a specifically Islamic example, but cites the
emergence of the eponym Ebion from Hebrew ebionim ("poor") as a designation for
at least one Judaeo-Christian sect (Sectarian Milieu, p. 122, and the works cited
there).
(73) Maqrizi, Khiiat, 2:254 (6 from bottom).
(74) Watt, Formation, p. 26.
(75) Kdmil, 3:275.12-.13, where it is also stated that most mutakallimun favor
this meaning over the ascription to Ibn al-Asfar. Cf. Abu Hatim al-Razi, Kitdb
al-Zina, vol. 3, apud Samarra'i, al-Ghuluww wa-'l-Firaq al-Ghdliya fi 'l-Haddra 'l-
Isldmiyya (Baghdad 1392/1972), 283.19 (where the source is probably Mubarrad);
Ibn al-Da'i, Tabsirat al-'Awdmm fi Ma'rifat Maqaldt al-Andm (Tehran 1313 sh.),
40.3-.5 (probably from the Z?na); and 'Iqd, 1:224.4. Cf. EI1, s.v. Sufriya.
(76) See, for example, Ibn al-Jawzi, Talbis Iblis (Cairo 1368), 91.19-.21, where
 MAKING AND UNMAKING A SECT 95

of pallor with piety is known elsewhere in Islamic sectarian voca-

bulary. For example, 'All is said in one Imami hadlth to have
characterized his Shi'a as "yellow faced from keeping night vigils"
(sufr al-wujuh min al-lahajjud).(77) More such examples could
undoubtedly be produced, particularly from Suifi literature(77a).
Two instances of this usage in a Kharijite context are especially
significant for us. The first is connected with the rebel Salih b.
Musarrih (d. 76), whom we have seen to be reckoned a Sufrite by
some. His posthumous association with the Sufriyya may have
had something to do with a reputation for religious devotion: he is
said to have been extremely pious and to have gone yellow in the
face as a consequence. (78) The second example of this usage
comes in a specifically Ibadi context. The well-known rebel Abf
Hamza al-Mukhtar b. 'Awf, in a sermon delivered after his seizure
of the Hijaz in 129, refers in a positive way to the yellowed bodies
of his pious followers. (79)
Abfi Hamza's language, together with his Ibadi affiliation, sug-
gests that the term "Sufri" might early on have referred to Khari-
jites of many persuasions. It was not originally the possession of
any one group. This general signification may explain a rather
puzzling passage in Baghdadi's Farq. In an historical account
appended to his Sufriyya chapter, Baghdad! uses the label to refer

Ibn 'Abbas (as 'All's emissary) notes the physical evidence of excessive piety on the
bodies of the Khawarij (festering brows and calloused knees from continual prostra-
tion, and faces grave from frequent night vigils). Note also that the Azariqa Kha-
rijites are called by Malati ashdb lail wa-wara' wa-ytihdd (41.11).
(77) Warram b. Abl Firas, Tanbfh al-Khawdtir (Najaf 1383), 317.25; al-Shaikh
al-Tfsi, Amal (Najaf 1384), 2:189.1; cited in Kohlberg, "Imam and Community in
the pre-Ghaybe Period," in S. Arjomand (ed.), Authority and Political Culture in
ShT'ism (Albany N.Y. 1988), p. 49, n. 62.
(77a) Apart from descriptions of ascetic behavior, the root s-f-r is found in at
least two other contexts in early Islam: millenarian prophecies, and characteriza-
tions of the Christians/Byzantines as Banu 'l-Asfar. The data on both have been
industriously gathered and analyzed by M. I. Fierro in her unpublished paper "al-
Asfar," presented to the XVe Congres de l'Union Europ6enne des Arabisants et
Islamisants (Utrecht, September 1990). I wish to thank Dr. Fierro for making that
paper available to me. For the messianic connections, see also Madelung, "The
Sufyani Between Tradition and History," SI, 63 (1986), pp. 5-48; and idem, "Apo-
calyptic Prophecies in Hims in the Umayyad Age," JSS, 31 (1986), esp. pp. 176-77.
(78) Tabari, Ta'rikh, 6:216.8: kdna rajulan ndsikan mukhbitan musfarr al-wajh
sdhib 'ibada. According to Ibn Qutaiba, Salih was venerated after his death, and his
tomb became a popular site of visitation (Ma'arif, 410.14-.15).
(79) K. al-Aghdn( (Cairo n.d.), 20:107.25; and Khalifa, Ta'rikh, 407.9-.10. The
passage is not found in all versions of the sermon.
96 KEITH LEWINSTEIN

to the main body of Kharijites in Basra before the fragmentation

the second fitna. (80) This could of course be nothing more than an
anachronism, but the passage as a whole is remarkably innocent of
the tafarruq tradition and might well preserve an authentic
memory of a time when Sufriyya could simply have referred to
Kharijites in general. (81)
There is no evidence that the term Sufriyya was ever the pri-
mary way of identifying Kharijites in the first century, and I
would not want to suggest otherwise. The Kharijite reputation
for piety, however, coupled with the descriptive use of sufr, may
indicate that the label had broad Kharijite relevance in the first
century. Its range would have narrowed somewhat as Azraqites
and Najdites withdrew from the general movement at Basra and
established their own sectarian identities, and even further as an
Ibadi political organization came into its own in the late Umayyad
period. Eventually, it might have come to be applied to those
non-secessionist Kharijites who competed against the Ibadiyya for
popular support. Given the later importance of these Sufrite
groups as Ibadl rivals, the heresiographers had to acount for their
origins and offer a doctrinal rationale for their existence. It was
in this context that Ibn al-Asfar and the satellite sects were born.
Keith LEWINSTEIN
(Providence, R.I.-U.S.A.)

(80) Farq, 71.8: qatala [Ibn Ziyad] man wajadahum bi-'l-Basra min al-
Sufriyya. The context is the death of Abf Bilfl Mirdfs in 61, three years before
the Kharijite tafarruq is supposed to have happened.
(81) Baghdall's Sufriyya account is unique in its naming Abu Bilfl the first
Sufrite Imam. As a pre-tafarruq hero, Abf Bilal transcends later Kharijite divi-
sions, and was in fact claimed by the Ibadls as well (Wilkinson, "Early Develop-
ment," p. 133). According to Baghdadi, he was succeeded as head of the Sufriyya
by 'Imran b. Hittan (d. 84), a figure elsewhere associated with the sect. But even
'Imrfn's Sufrite credentials are open to question, and Cook takes him to be a pos-
thumous recruit to the sect (Dogma, p. 102, n. 8). In any case, there is no room for
a Ziyad b. al-Asfar in Baghdfad's account, and no trace of the group's supposed
tafarruq origins.