Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of 'Ayn al-Qudat
al-Hamadhdni
By HAMID DABASHI. Richmond: Curzon. 1999. Pp. xxi, 671. Price HB
£65.00. 0-70071-002-7.
On the night of 6-7 Jumada II 525/5-6 May 1131, Abu al-Ma'ali 'Abd
Allah ibn Muhammad al-MiyanajI al-HamadhanT, known as 'Ayn al-Qudat,
was seized, tortured, and put to death. His contemporary 'Imad al-Dln
al-Isbahan! numbered him among the victims of the vizier Abu al-Qasim
DargazTnl; Sufi hagiography has made him a martyr in the style of Hallaj.
Both political and religious factors contributed to his untimely and tragic
death at the age of 33; but the circumstances surrounding his death remain
obscure, and this book does little to clarify them. The author's style is so
repetitive, jargon-ridden and argumentative as to be virtually unreadable;
and the publishers have evidently seen fit to employ neither copy-editors nor
proof-readers who might have weeded out the repetitions, inconsistencies,
mistakes in grammar and usage, and misprints which mar every page.
I cannot deal here with Dabashi's treatment of 'Ayn al-Qudat's 'narratives',
except to question whether any of his writings can truly be called that.
The approach, as a whole, is highly subjective. Tellingly, what drew the
author to 'Ayn al-Qudat was his repeated use of 'first personal pronouns';
his 'almost arrogant, decidedly self-confident voice ... which is so rare, so
extraordinary in "Persian" and "Islamic" intellectual history', made Dabashi
'suspicious of all such categorical imperatives as "Persian" or "Islamic" ' (586).
Such suspicions are not ungrounded; but it is not true that 'after nearly two
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
BOOK REVIEWS 373
hundred years of recorded "Islamic Studies", not a single alternative
approach has even been noted or suggested to the dominant positivist
discourse of Orientalism' (39). Numerous studies have challenged this
'discourse'; but these are ignored in favour of Orientalist-bashing, attacks
on 'militant Islam' (Orientalism's 'mirror image', as both seek 'to tell the
rest of the world what "Islam" is' [2-3]), and on 'academic Sufis' and that
'bizarre combination of mystically minded crypto-converts and politically
bankrupt Muslim apologists' whose 'totalizing metanarrative [of Sufism]
... has succeeded, as it is rooted in the positivism of the Orientalist discourse'
(10). These nebulous entities (precise examples are thin on the
ground) provide the windmills against which Dabashi proceeds to tilt.
But if 'Islam', 'Sufism', 'Persian (or Islamic) mysticism' and so on are
'essentialist', 'academic' or 'Orientalist' constructs, Dabashi nevertheless
buys into them to support his argument for 'Ayn al-Qudat's 'subversiveness'.
He accepts without question the image of the Seljuqs as SunnI zealots;
the view that all Islamic institutions were fixed at an early date (cf. I l l ,
230); and the notion that Sufism was 'institutionalized' (complete with
'orders') by the early sixth/twelfth century (cf. 524, 592, 601; but see also
560, where he speaks of 'emerging Sufism'). In short, he accepts the
traditional (and by now largely discredited) view of 'Islamic orthodoxy'
supported by the 'ulatna' and the ruling establishment. (His relegation of
the Isma'llls to the status of heretics and terrorists discounts their real
importance in the religious and cultural—not to mention political—life of
the period.) And yet, as he acknowledges, this was an age when " 'Islams"
were being yet again invented and challenged' (109)—not only by 'political
forces', but by thinking Muslims. However, in order to demonstrate 'Ayn
al-Qudat's 'subversiveness', he must first posit an 'Islamic orthodoxy' to be
subverted.
The linguistic vehicle of 'Islamic orthodoxy' is, apparently, the Arabic
language. 'Ayn al-Qudat (like other writers of his time) wrote in both
Arabic and Persian; and it might be argued that choice of language was
related to intended audience. But despite the fact that Persian had been used
for poetry and prose for over two centuries, Dabashi considers it 'marginal'
—'remissive, transgressive ... non-canonical, prohibited, superseded,
defeated, relegated to the margin of the Sacred Arabic' (551), 'always
tangential to the central patriarchy of Arabic' (557); and 'Ayn al-Qudat's
choice of his 'maternal language' is 'the supreme symbolic of subverting the
juridical order of his paternal Arabic' (556).
But 'Ayn al-Qudat's Persian 'is a peculiar Persian ... full of Qur'anic and
Hadlth phrases in Arabic ... [His] construction of this Persian/Arabic ...
a language of his own making, links his subversive imagination to the most
sacrosanct ancestral authority of his history' (598, emphasis added). 'Ayn
al-Qudat was hardly unique in employing this 'peculiar Persian'; it was used
by his contemporary Ahmad Ghazzall (the connection between whose
Savanih and 'Ayn al-Qudat's own writings is ignored, despite the close
association between the two scholars), and even earlier, in 'Abd Allah
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
374 BOOK REVIEWS
Ansari's Mundjdt. And it is difficult to view either Abu Hamid Ghazzall's
Kimiyd-yi sa'ddat (an abbreviated Persian version of his Arabic Ihya'
'uliim al-din), or Nizam al-Mulk's Siyar al-muluk—both heavily larded
with quotations from Qu'ran and Hadlth—as 'subversive'.
Turning to literature (specifically, poetry), Dabashi argues that 'the
Persian Sufis of the Seljuq period,' having been 'effectively checked and
balanced by the jurists and their legal/political power ... took full
advantage of an entirely different opportunity': poetry, which 'became
subservient to the variable causes of Sufism and almost forgot that it had an
independent claim on reality . . . . When Persian poetry began to propagate
and celebrate the answers that Sufism, as a body of established and evolving
doctrines, had independently reached outside poetry, it robbed itself of its
own possible and potential access to its own answers' (128-9, emphases
added). The real influence of Sufism on poetry begins only in the late sixth/
twelfth century, with 'Attar in particular. Dabashi mentions one prominent
earlier poet: Sana'I, 'a court poet of exceptional gifts' who, after a 'spiritual
conversion', put these gifts 'at the disposal of religious ideas' (129). The
'conversion' myth was propagated by later writers such as Dawlatshah; and
while it is true that Sana'I, having failed to secure court patronage, turned
to writing religious poetry (for religious patrons), his 'secular' output is
equally abundant. (Dabashi also discusses, at some length, the quatrains
attributed to, and the legends concerning, such figures as Abu Sa'ld Abu
al-Khayr, Baba Tahir HamadhanI, and 'Umar Khayyam; on this subject I can
only comment that both the attributions and the legends are highly suspect.)
Dabashi's understanding of the development of Persian literature is, at
best, shaky, and contains many factual errors. For example: the attribution
of the Tarjumdn al-baldgha to Farrukhl (151) has long been disproven
(RaduyanI was its author); Mas'ud-i Sa'd-i Salman was not 'a fellow
HamadhanI' (152)—pace the ever-unreliable Dawlatshah—but was born in
Lahore; NizamI Ganjavl did not write Vis u Rdmln for the Seljuq sultan
Mahmud (529 n. 39), or for anyone else (it was written in the mid-fifth/
eleventh century by Fakhr al-Dln GurganI). Equally shaky is Dabashi's
handling of the historical sources for the period in which 'Ayn al-Qudat
lived, and especially for the reign of Mahmud ibn Muhammad ibn
Malikshah (511-25/1118-31), for which he relies heavily on such later
writers as Rashld al-Dln Tablb, NakhjavanI, Hamd Allah Qazvlni, and
Nasir al-Dln Munshl Kirmanl. Najm al-Dln Qumml's (not QumI) account
of the vizier Dargazlnl is considered reliable 'because he wrote ... some
sixty years after [Dargazlnl's] death' (486); contemporary sources, such as
Anushlrvan ibn Khalid (Mahmud's sometime vizier) and 'Imad al-Dln are
under-utilized. One might also suggest that such western authors as Ibn
al-Qalanisi and Ibn al-Athir are not the most reliable for earlier events in
Persian Iraq.
Errors of fact abound, especially (but not only) as concerns the pre-Seljuq
period and, in particular, the Ghaznavids. The Ghaznavids had not 'ruled
over eastern Iran since 366/1186' (sic; read 977) (111); while Sabuktigln
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
BOOK REVIEWS 375
ruled in Ghazna from 366, the Ghaznavids supplanted the Samanids only
around 387/997. Sultan Muhammad's regnal dates are incorrect (131).
Both the Ghaznavids and the Seljuqs are termed 'newly converted foreign
powers' (477); while this may be (partially) true of the Seljuqs, the
Ghaznavids were neither 'newly converted' nor 'foreign', but were products
of the Samanid system and were, until the Samanids' collapse, their vassals.
There were no Ghaznavids in Khurasan in 1097 (517).
Dabashi's discussion of Nizam al-Mulk also relies heavily on later historians
and on the legends that grew up around this personage. Rashld
al-Dln is the first to state that Malikshah dismissed his vizier in favour of
Taj al-Mulk (cf. 480 and elsewhere); earlier writers note only that his
power was seriously diminished due to the machinations of Taj al-Mulk
and Malikshah's wife Turkan (not Tarkan) Khatun. The Siyar al-muliik
(Siyasatnama) is often invoked as illustrating social and political conditions
under the Seljuqs; for example, Dabashi asserts that perhaps its 'most
striking aspect' is its demonstration of 'the status consciousness of Turkish
tribal warlords who depended on Persian theories and practices of kingship
as a crucial instrument of their legitimacy' (487-88). Nizam al-Mulk
complains that under the Turks the proper hierarchy has been upset,
no-one knows his place, Turks call themselves by titles appropriate to Tajiks,
and so on.
Eager to demonstrate Nizam al-Mulk's support for Sufism, Dabashi cites
(not quite accurately) an account in the Asrar al-tawhid (mid-sixth/twelfth
century) concerning his reverence for Abu Sa'ld Abu al-Khayr as evidence
of 'the historical dimensions of the Sufi institutional power in this period'
(see 124-6). The account is one of several in the Asrar geared towards
demonstrating that the vizier owed his greatness to the Shaykh. (Ibn
Funduq, writing around the same time, states that it was his grandfather's
admonition to Nizam al-Mulk to renounce aspiration to high estate and
'unnatural' desires that made him a firm adherent of the SharT'a. Medieval
writers had their own agendas.)
A sense of historical perspective is notably lacking (although Dabashi
does attempt to sort out the 'political'—read 'power'—struggles of which
'Ayn al-Qudat may have been a victim). Thus for example, noting the disturbances
produced by the Crusades in the west (in Toledo [!], Mahdiyya
[North Africa], Sicily, Syria and so on), Dabashi states that 'the capture of
Aleppo in 421/1128 marks 'the most significant event in ['Ayn al-Qudat's]
lifetime' (518-19). Significant for whom? The Crusades were of supreme
irrelevance to most eastern writers, and receive barely a mention in the
histories.
Errors of fact, lack of perspective: this book abounds in them. But its
greatest defect is its incessant repetition. Accounts and episodes are repeated
time and time again. Chapter 2 virtually repeats most of Chapter 1. Passages
from 'Ayn al-Qudat's writings are quoted and re-quoted. Birth, death,
and regnal dates are repeated almost every time the individual in question
is mentioned (e.g., on pages 69-70 Sanjar's dates appear twice). Such
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010
376 BOOK REVIEWS
repetitions could have been weeded out, if not by the author, then by an
assiduous copy-editor, as could the frequent errors and inconsistencies in
transcription, dating, usage, grammar, and so on, of which what follows is
only a brief sample.
Errors in transcription: Sulghurid for Salghurid; Ablls for Iblls (299);
al-Hirawi for al-HarawI (i.e., from Herat). Inconsistencies in transcription:
DargazInl/al-DaragazInl (99); Shehab (140)/Shihab (141); Slyavush/Siyawash
(245), Sayavash/Slyawash (305-6); Seljuqs/Seljuqids (e.g. 484-5; see also
509, for Seljuq/Saljuqid/Seljuqid on the same page). Errors in dates:
Averroes' birth date, 520/1126, was not 'the year of 'Ayn al-Qudat's death'
(140; 'Ayn al-Qudat was executed in 525/1131).
Errors in vocabulary, usage, and grammar: 'decidedly' for 'decisively'
(133); 'visage' for 'vision' (188); 'abruptive' for 'abrupt' (201); 'axle' for
'axis' (262); 'flock(s)' for 'lock(s)' (of hair; 290, 520); 'tell' for 'say' (390);
'trifle' for 'trivialV'trifling' (408); 'withdraws' for 'draws' (439); 'unrightful'
(sic) for 'unlawful' (508); 'everything else ... were' (241); 'contemplate
upon' (332); 'much [for many] important things,' 'much [for very] childish'
(349, 350); 'prohibited against' (431); 'seeked' for 'sought' (491); 'in Tigris'
for 'on the Tigris' (491); 'instigated with' (492); 'laid siege on' (590); 'these
apocryphal story' (551). Misprints: al-BurdawI for al-Bundarl (103 n. 1);
Daftari for Daftary (156-7, nn. 57-9, 68); 'escatology' for 'eschatology'
(223); awrat for surat (261; one hopes this is a misprint!); 'guest' for 'quest'
(389); and countless others. Many of the translations are questionable; the
Index is hopeless; the Bibliography is a mess. ('Ayn al-Qudat's writings are
listed under both ""Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhanl'" [652; complete with
quotation marks!] and 'al-Hamadhani, 'Ayn al-Qudat Abu al-Ma'all 'Abd
Allah ibn Muhammad ibn 'All al-Miyanaji (known as 'Ayn al-Qudat)'
[656]. And why, for example, is Shawql Dayf listed as 'Dayf, Duktur
Shawql' [654]?)
'Ayn al-Qudat deserves better. (And why does the author express
scepticism as to whether he was or was not a 'practicing judge'? see e.g. 9.)
He deserves better than the ritualistic invocation of Weber, Durkheim,
Derrida, Foucault, and a whole panoply of others, in such jargon-ridden
statements as:' "All human knowledge," we have known since Max Scheler,
"insofar as man is a 'member' of a society in general, is not empirical but
'a priori' knowledge." The a priority [sic] condition of that knowledge is
the dialogical result of the subjectivity of an " I " encountering the essentializing
objectivity of a selected "We"' (25). He deserves better than to
be a pawn in a game of 'us and them', of 'we', 'the Orientals' ('Us, the
interpreted' [32]), versus 'them', the 'interpreters'. This book reveals less
about the complexities of 'Ayn al-Qudat's life, or of his writings, than it
does about the complexes of its author.
Julie Scott Meisami
Oriental Institute, Oxford
Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on April 21, 2010