Page 202 - Arabiab Studies (IV)

192 Arabian Studies IV
Iba<JI Imamate’ in Arabian Studies III: the notes supplement the
information given there. In order to provide continuity and avoid
repetition, the same number, prefixed by the letter W., will be
given to these authors as was used at the end of that article. The
abbreviation ‘Smith’, followed by a number, refers to the article
immediately preceding in the present publication.

A. Compilations
I. Abbreviated J.M.
An unnumbered and unidentified manuscript, possibly called
Jawhar al-Muqta§ir. A preliminary examination of this shows that
it really divides into three Parts with the following content:
Part I. Among the material here is:
1. The K. al-Jawhari of Ahmad b. ‘Abdullah b. Musa al-Kindl (W.49c), a
book on This includes extensive quotations from A. ’1-Mundhir
Bashir b. Muhammad b. Mahbub (W.40c), including his Mufraribah and a
work called al-IJukm ffl-hadath.
2. The K. al-Ihtida’ by the same author. It is an analysis of the difference
between the Rustaq and Nizwa parties and a discussion of the principles
involved. A number of important authors are quoted over the question of
deposing an Imam.
3. Various correspondence, principally concerning the Imam Muhammad
b. A. Ghassan, including
(i) al-Sirab ft iqr&r al-Imam Muframmad b. A. Ghassan
(ii) letter from Imam ‘Abd al-Rafcman Muhammad b. (sic) Malik b.
Shadhan to Sa‘Id b. Rashid b. ‘All and the people he led astray
(iii) Sirah of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. $alih (al-Nizwani)
(iv) Sirah of Ahmad b. ‘Abdullah b. Musa (al-Kindl W.49c)
The people of Nizwa had refused to acknowledge the Imam Muhammad
b. A. Ghassan (whose dates are very uncertain, but probably he in the
510’s A.H.), and had been brought to heel in a way that bordered on the
limits of good Imamate conduct.
The first document provides the background to events while (iii) and
(iv) are a fairly heated exchange between the teacher of the author of the
Mu$annaf and his pupil. In (iv) (the so-called Sirat al-Bararah) the latter
firmly supports the Imam and in the course of his defence discusses a
number of other dubious expeditions of interest for past Imamate history.
Item (ii) is rather a puzzle. Rashid b. ‘All was the Imam whose conduct
led to a split in the Rustaq party and their presentation of a rival Imam: at
one stage this was possibly Muhammad b. A. Ghassan. The name of the
letter-writer possibly points to their selection, at some other moment, of a
member of the old Imamate line who is here having trouble with the
ex-Imam*s son. In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that another
descendant of Shadhan b. al-Imam Salt b. Malik was possibly the last