Page 216 - Arabiab Studies (IV)

206 Arabian Studies IV

his replacement by the Imam Rashid b. al-Na?ar can never now be
known, there is no point in keeping the issue open as the Rustaq
party does: instead one should abstain from judgement as docs the
Nizwa party and thus heal the breach which prevents the Ibadi
community in Oman from fulfilling its proper purpose.
The book, of 46 babs, divides into two unequal parts. In the first
(7 babs) the development of the dispute is traced; this historically
is the interesting part. The argument runs as follows:
From the time of Mahbub b. al-Rahil (W.40a; the Basran Imam
in whose time the Imamate became properly organized in Oman)
to that of his son Muhammad b. Mahbub (W.40b), indeed to that
of ‘Azzan b. al-$aqr and al-Fadl b. al-Hawari, there was no schism
in the din al-Ibadiyyah (sic; a somewhat over simplified view, but
just valid for Oman). These last two men were like two eyes in a
face, the most learned men of their generation. But whereas ‘Azzan
died (268/881-2) before the ‘events’, al-Fa<Jl (W.43) knew them,
and what is more supported Musa. The three most prominent
‘u/ama’ of the ensuing period (covering the civil war itself and its
immediate aftermath) were the deaf A. Jabir Muhammad b. Ja‘far
(W.46), the lame A. ‘Abdullah Nabhan b. ‘Uthman and the blind
A. ’1-Mu’thir (W.36). The first supported Musa, the second
more-or-less took a neutral line, whilst the third gave full support
(wilayah) to al-$alt and excommunicated (bara’ab) Musa and
Rashid. A. Mu’thir’s line, says A. Sa‘Id significantly, has been
imposed on us (cf. the Rustaq party’s edict of 443/1052 discussed
in my article in A.S., 139).
A. Sa*Id then goes on to consider the views of their successors in
detail. Amongst those with whom he associates (wilayah) are A.
’1-flawari (W.34) who moved from a dissociating to a neutral posi­
tion (wuquf) on Musa, and A. Jabir’s son (W.46), A. ‘All al-Azhar,
who, like his father, was originally a supporter of Musa, but then
changed to a neutral position when he saw the consequences of
keeping this issue open.
The third ‘generation’ lived after these events and simply based
their views on the evidence and arguments of their predecessors.
Amongst these was A. Ibrahim Muhammad b. Sa‘Id who abstained
from Musa and Rashid, although basically following the line of A.
Jabir and his son al-Azhar. A. Ibrahim called a meeting at Su’al
Nizwa and its members (who seemed to have included al-Azhar, A.
Khalid Kis b. al-Mala, and ‘Uthman b. Muhammad b. Wa’il),
agreed to take a neutralist standpoint with regard to Musa and
Rashid. Thus was bom the Nizwa party. It won over two more
important figures, A. ‘Abdullah Muhammad b. Ruh b. ‘Arab!
(W.32) and A. Muhammad ‘Abdullah b. Muhammad b. A.

l