Robert Brunschvig
[41] THE TENDENCY IN ISLAM for equality among believers in principle is very deeply rooted in doctrine, and despite numerous and severe deviations from this principle, it is also visible in the practical facts. However, this concept may be less powerful, both in thought and in action, than the fundamental notion of Islamic brotherhood. The effects and limits of this notion require closer study, with regard to their permanence as well as their fluctuations. Even Qur'ānic revelation tends to give favour before God to most pious among the believers (49:13) and promotes, on the social level, brotherhood rather than equality. The spirit of reform that it tends to promote in this field is both firm and moderate: while the Revelation may have contributed to break certain frames and modify certain concepts, it is far from attacking the established order. The Book contains some verses that would later be quoted easily by conservatives intent on justifying and establishing social inequality, for example: "We... have exalted some in rank (darajāt) above the others, so that some may take others as their servants" (43:32, see also 6:165). The Qur'ān decrees important measures in favour of women, while at the same time confirming their inferiority (4:34). It aims at reducing slavery, but regards the status of slavery, even where Muslim slaves are concerned, as conforming to the divine plan (16:71, 75, 30:28). The defiance it shows towards nomad Arabs (e.g. 9:97, 49:14) was used later to authorise reservations with regard to them. On the other hand the road was opened, in particular by Sūra 33, even if one ignored all Shī`ī doctrine, for the Prophet and his family to be considered as privileged. [42] It is true that classical doctrine, whether it rests on "traditions" accepted as complementary to the Book or not, has never ascribed any great importance to genealogical or social differences among free Muslim males. This, however, makes it all the more instructive to observe those differences that have survived.
In the present study we shall focus our attention on the disparity among the professions and, in particular, the discriminatory treatment some of them received from a number of scholars. I should immediately make it clear that I will not include in this study those professions that, by their nature, violate Qur'ānic laws about illicit sexual relationships, usury, drinking wine and gambling: these are formally condemned, of course, from the start. Along with these, those, that might simply lead to one of these practices or that incite immoral or inhuman behaviour are doubtful to various degrees. They invite the mistrust of men of religion, which does not always pass without legal consequences, but they cannot be felled by the blow of a straightforward prohibition. We will meet some of them along the way. The main topic of our research, however, will be those professions that are not, or only with difficulty, open to reproach of this kind, and that nevertheless are discredited traditionally in Islamic thought.
The professions under discussion are essentially crafts or related to crafts. However, it is not manual labour as such that meets with disdain. On the contrary, Muslim religious tradition actually strives to value it. In a society where the economic activity considered superior and most honoured is that of the trader, the merchant rather than the producer, moralists would generally try to raise the role of agriculture and the crafts. The moralists' zeal alone, of course, would be proof that there was tension between theory and practice. Shī`ī and Ṣūfī influences may have played a part here and increased a natural tendency among the thinkers. The majority of teachers grant equal status to the four fundamental means of making [43] a living or earning money: agriculture (and animal breeding), crafts, commerce and wage-earning. Questions about preeminence among these four categories as well as within each of them, however, remain and cannot be dismissed by considering the indispensable character and the mutual complementarity of all the trades—a banal topic—or by a complacent listing of the professional activities carried out by ancient prophets or the very first Muslims.
Among the ancient or classical texts a very suggestive one is Al-Iktisāb fī l-rizq al-mustaṭāb, a small work regarded in the Ḥanafī school as originating with Abū Ḥanīfa's great disciple, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (d. 189/805) and transmitted through one of his disciples, Muḥammad ibn Samā'a (d. at an advanced age in 233/847-48). There is evidence that, to my mind, throws some suspicion on so august an origin, unless one proposes a later recasting.1 In any case this little text may be considered representative of a middle position that became apparent with a number of Sunnīs comparatively early: it gives a justification for every honest way of bread-winning, as opposed to both those who preach ascetic quietism and those who devalue certain crafts. Qur'ānic allusions to commerce that are adduced in its favour have to be taken literally, we are assured, and not figuratively/ Agriculture, crafts and commerce were all practised by the great forebears: Adam was a farmer and miller, Noah was a carpenter, Idrīs a tailor, Abraham a cloth merchant, David a manufacturer of armour ('21:18; 34:10-11), Solomon a basketmaker, Zachariah a carpenter, Jesus lived off his mother's spinning and sometimes gathered grain, Muḥammad was a shepherd or a farmer at different times, Abū Bakr was a cloth merchant, [44] 'Umar and 'Uthmān were food merchants.3 The "degrees" of people mentioned ill the Qur'ān (see above) have to be understood essentially as being the expression of a structure of social solidarity in which everyone needs, and is needed by, everyone else. The poor man needs the rich man's money, the rich man needs the poor man's labour, the farmer and the weaver need each others' work.4 Except in case of necessity, the author refuses, "like the majority of the fuqahā"', to proclaim as lawful those trades that public opinion considers low and contemptible (danā'a): shameful, mean, degrading practices, which are not really bread-winning but involve dishonesty and disloyalty in carrying out the profession.5 However, in spite of these declarations of principles, the question of preeminence is not excluded; he just tries to place it onto another level. Recalling the strife between commerce and agriculture, which divided "his masters", he stresses that the majority among the masters conceded that agriculture was preferable as being of wider utility (afḍalu....li-annahā a'ammu naf'an), because it increases man's physical ability to fulfil his religious duties and because charity is more manifest (al-ṣadaqa... aẓhar) in the fact that both man and beast benefit from it. Bread-winning that is devoid of charity (taṣadduq), he adds, cannot be granted any preeminence (afḍaliya) at all: as in the case of weaving (Ḥiyāka), even though it performs a reciprocal service (ta'āwun) towards the accomplishment of prayer (as it enables the covering of nakedness).6
Thus a hierarchy of the respective values of various trades (Ḥanafīiraf, ṣinā'āt or ṣanā'i') subsists or reappears in the orthodox literature of traditionists and moralists that flourished and spread between the third and fifth centuries AH. It counteracts to a certain extent the dominating tendency towards equality. The available information, which take the form of sayings attributed to the Prophet or some Imām, is not all considered equally authentic [45] and does not all enjoy similar prestige. Sometimes the reports are contradictory, images of ancient or contemporary social prejudice, reflections of contradictions in reality or in doctrine, or, again, of opposition between theory and practice. They can be interpreted as encouraging agriculture or animal breeding, but also as encouraging commerce—sometimes even favouring it ("nine tenths of subsistence are in commerce")—or at least approving of the dealings of an honest merchant (tājir āadūq), whereas dishonest dealings are threatened with punishment in the afterlife. One can also find confirmed, under the name of some ancient teacher, the superiority—which few people were prepared to admit—of the craftsman over the merchant7 In a still more unusual and more significant way, certain particular professions are enlarged: many texts describe the sale of fabrics (bazz), which Abū Bakr "the truthful", the first caliph, had followed, as the "trade of kings" ("the nine tenths of baraka are in this one"; "if he had a profession in Paradise, it would be selling cloth"). Selling spices is sometimes included in this flattering appreciation. A frequently quoted ḥadīth states that the manual work for virtuous men is tailoring and for virtuous women, spinning.8 Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (d. 386/996) and later al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) give a list of ten professions besides commerce, to group the occupations of the best among the early Muslims. In the rather astonishing order in which they are listed, these are: cobbler, street porter, tailor, bootmaker, fuller, shoemaker, blacksmith, spindlemaker, fisherman or hunter, papermaker.9 In favour of the papermaker al-Makkī quotes a saying by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and remarks that, according to some, the people whose observance of prayers is commended in the Qur'ān (24:37) [46] were blacksmiths and cobblers.10 The ḥadīth "the best of your trades is that of the cobbler", while considered doubtful by some rigorists, seems to have been known since an early date.11 The desire to rehabilitate these two discredited professions in the good opinion of the faithful was most certainly behind similar declarations.
On the other hand, repeated phrases seem to be determined to discredit the trades of moneychangers and the sale of cereals such as grain or flour, as there is the risk of usury in the former and incitement to buy up the market and raise the prices of foodstuffs in the latter. If a scrupulous person advises against the sale of shrouds and the butcher's and the goldsmith's trades it is, we are told, because a merchant of shrouds will wish people dead, butchery hardens the heart, and jewellery falsely embellishes this lowly world with gold and silver.12 Worry about religious morals is also the reason for discrediting the keepers of public baths and professional musicians. If it so happens that the concept of dirtiness is cited in connection with a certain disparaged profession,13 such as street sweeper, this is not at all the motif the scholars usually put forward, and this is a point that deserves our attention. What they emphasise, in this and similar cases, is the base (khasīs, danī') nature of the work and the baseness (root s-f-l) of the person who carries it out. This appears most frequently in the context of the traditional trilogy that confirms public disdain, in a rather unexpected association, for the weaver, the cupper and the tanner. In the case of the last-named, comment would be superfluous, but the two others, in particular the weaver, may be a surprise. However, both are stigmatised together more than once, especially in the formulaic expression: "people are alike (al-nās akfā'), with the exception of the weaver and the cupper".14 This requires some elucidation.
[47] The cupper, scarificator or phlebotomist who cups or bleeds his patients is the ḥajjām; the same person frequently works as a barber. Hadīths attributed to the Prophet, which are well documented from the second century AH, condemn the gain or salary (kasb, ijāra) of the cupper. There are versions that include it in the same reprobation as the price of the dog and prostitutes' payment. Why this disfavour? This trade has its indisputable use, and it does not seem to involve any infringement of Islamic laws. Some scholars have strained their wits to discover traits in its ancient practice that would be open to criticism under Islamic law: some would criticise that the price was not agreed before the treatment, others would suggest that pre-Islamic custom was for those who performed bleedings to sell the blood to others while now the sale of blood is forbidden by a ḥadīth.15 However, all these justifications seem to be rather late and forced,16 quite apart from the fact that the first one is disputable in Muslim law. They have hardly ever found favour with the 'ultimā'. It seems that the explanation has to be sought along a different path taking into account a traditional social disdain and considering evidence given by mediaeval authors about an anonymous tradition according to which the pre-Islamic Quraysh would have considered themselves dishonoured by collecting a ḥajjām's wages.17 Unfortunately, it has to be admitted that we must resign ourselves to proposing hypotheses. If we assume truly archaic ideas that go back to the earliest past, we have to be prepared for the discovery that they were not present, at least not consciously, in the early days of Islam. Are we to believe that the trade of cupper was at that time in the Hijāz an occupation for slaves? There is evidence—even some ḥadīths—pointing in that direction, whereas a "sūq of ḥajjāmīn" in the second, perhaps even the first century in [48] Medina is not mentioned as having been run by slaves.18 It would not be absurd to think that precisely at a time of transition, when a profession that had been that of slaves passed more and more into the hands of free men, some people would have felt the need to denounce the originally base nature of that profession.
This is an attractive view, though there is no proof for it, and without wishing to contradict it, we have to observe that the cupper had an unfortunate reputation in the Near East even before the rise of Islam. The Mishna, in the Talmud, cites side by side the professions of cupper (gārā`), keeper of bathhouses and tanner19 as preventing one from reaching the highest offices, namely royalty and high-priesthood. The commentary that follows is particularly remarkable: "For what reason? Not because they are impure, but because their trades are base (zīl)".20 The Talmud assures us that ten accusations are made against the gārā`: arrogant bearing, an insolent attitude, an impolite way of sitting down, meanness, greed, "he eats much, does not relieve himself, is suspected of fornication, theft and murder"; and explains in the following commentary that it happens that wives rob their husbands to benefit him or that he kills his patients by not bleeding them enough.21 On the same page the barber (sappār), distinguished by name from the cupper, is also shown as some kind of bandit whose contact with women is most suspicious. In the Sasanid world, which saw the definite version of the Talmud being written, it is quite possible that there was a large number of people who looked askance at those called ḥajjamīn in Arabic and accused them [49] of unpleasant behaviour. Was this or was it not a rationalisation of an archaic sentiment? The moralist al-Rāghib al Iṣfahānī (d. 508/1108) offers an account that is most likely a belated echo of their ancient situation in Persian lands, although the information should not be considered to be the literal truth throughout: "Khusraw confiscated their belongings every seven years, declaring that they became irrepressible once they were rich".22 It is noticeable that it is not a question of slavery in this case. However, the common trait of baseness undoubtedly overlaps with at least partially similar thought processes; it is also possible that later, in Islamic times, different factors came together.
The majority of the teachers of Islam wished to reduce or even end the condemnation of the ḥajjām's earnings; only very few among them wanted to forbid the profession completely (taḥrīm). They preferred to discuss the wording in the different versions of the ḥadīths advocating prohibition of the profession and thus to limit the influence the text might have23 or, even better, to consult other ḥadīths on the subject of legitimacy. There are in fact many according to which the Prophet did not fail to praise the ḥijāma as therapeutic and would even visit a ḥajjām if the need arose. These are the complex bases on which the scholars exercised their wits.24 Some were of the opinion that the law that had been issued could well be revoked later. Others argued that it only referred to one particular instance and the impurity of one individual. For others again, the decision stands, but is mitigated: the earnings of the ḥajjām are only "disapproved of' (makrūh). Among these champions of [50] "disapproval" there are some who only apply it to free men, basing their argument on one ḥadīth in which the Prophet is questioned on the subject by one of his Companions, Muḥayyiṣa ibn Mas'ūd. The latter was interested in the matter because he was patron to a cupper, and the Prophet said to him: "Feed your slaves on it". This seems to have been the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: could it be that he found, or preserved, the historically exact meaning of the prohibition? In any case, in his own school, as in the other Sunnī schools, the main solution to the problem is that to practise the trade is legal for everyone, because of the common weal and also because they reject the concept that what religion allows the slave should be forbidden to the free man.25 It is only preferable, as al-Shāfi'ī also argued,26 for the latter not to chose this disparaged profession (danī'a) of his own free will and also not to make any profit as patron of a ḥajjām. We must point out that at least a partial movement towards the rehabilitation of the profession can be seen in al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, who has recounted anecdotes favourable to several among them.27
Even more astonishing perhaps than the accusations levelled against the cupper are those with which the tradition also threatens the weaver (ḥā'ik). The question of dirtiness is even less relevant in his case, and from the Islamic point of view no a priori motive can be found. Goldziher points out28 that until the second century AH weaving was still work for women or slaves among the Arabs. This is a plausible explanation, since the phenomenon could be regarded as similar to what we [51] assumed for the cupṕer. If we realise that a psycho-social reaction may have caused a wave of contempt to arise among them as the occupation was increasingly exercised by free men before Arab eyes, the association between the cupper and the weaver would be even more understandable. However that may be, a contrast between the two is visible in the facts concerning the material condition and the behaviour of the two in the pre-Islamic world of the Middle East. We have stated that in certain quarters the cupper was accused of insolence and enriching himself unlawfully. The weaver, on the other hand, was only too easily considered poor and humble. In a country like Egypt, which had for a long time been a major producer of fabrics, the weavers' situation throughout antiquity was miserable. Together with other labourers who shared his lot, he was described since the heyday of the pharaohs as working hard for a meagre pittance in a workshop where "he was worse off than a woman, squatting, without air".29 Paying weavers a sub-standard rate had to be forbidden by law by Euergetes II in the second century BC.30 Technical progress, which brought with it an increase in production, the state or "capitalist" organisation, and the manufacture of luxury fabrics at high cost, certainly did not benefit the mass of weavers for centuries.31 The Muslim Middle Ages do not seem to have changed these conditions everywhere in the short term; at the beginning of the third century AH the Coptic weavers of the Delta who were dependent on courtiers and merchants complained that they "did not earn bread for their mouths".32 There is no doubt that there were similar conditions elsewhere. Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī has a nameless scholar answer a weaver who asked him which work he should do to humble himself: "There is [52] no profession more humble that yours, so keep it". The moralist goes on to comment on the nickname "greenbelly", which he says is quite suitable for the weaver, who is reduced to living on green vegetables.33 Even today, in the Tunisian Sahel, the insult is heard: "stony-broke weaver, knotter of threads" (ḥūkī mezlūṭ rabbāṭ khuyūṭ).34 If we interpret the second part of this popular formula with reference to the well-known evil spells of knots (which is not absent from the Qur'ān either; 113:4), could this not help us to find an archaic motive that the explanations of the scholars has not unveiled?
Such a lasting degradation, apparently irrevocable, called for religious justification. This did not fail to appear, and in the long run it may in turn have contributed to the persistence of this misery and disdain by uttering the stigmatising declaration with which we started in the first place.35 Very harsh comments on weavers have been ascribed to 'Alī, the Prophet's son-in-law: they are followers of Satan, to keep their company is evil and will lead to participation in the curse that lies on them for having urinated in the court of the Ka'ba, they stole the Prophet's sandals, the turban of St. John the Baptist, Khiḍr's knapsack, Sarah's spindle, and a fish from 'Ā'isha's stove, and they showed Mary, the mother of Jesus, the wrong path.36 This last accusation is taken up by scholars as important as Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī and al-Ghazālī.37 Even [53] before their time it was part of the Sunnī tradition of the third/ninth century, as it is mentioned in Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal's Musnad38 and takes on the form of a (non-Prophetic) tradition handed down by, among others, such illustrious second/eighth century ḥadīth authorities as Sufyān ibn 'Uyayna and al-Layth ibn Sa'd. Mary, the Musnad reports, was looking for Jesus and asked a weaver to tell her the way. He showed her the wrong way, and she called upon God to punish him. She then asked a tailor, who showed her the right way, and she called upon God in his favour. Al-Makkī and al-Ghazālī only tell the first part of this story and have weavers (ḥāka) instead of one weaver, most probably to provide justification for the curse falling on the whole profession. The exact nature of the curse is specified: "Oh my God, take the blessing from their earnings, let them die poor and make them contemptible in the eyes of the people!" This prayer, the texts add. was granted. We need to note that the emphasis is laid on the lasting poverty of this unfortunate group of craftsmen. As for the source of this story, which is most probably not a Muslim invention, we are justified to look for it in apocryphal Gospel texts from which so many sayings of Jesus or episodes about him have passed into Arabic.39 However, as far as I know, the current state of our knowledge does not allow us to discover the exact origin.40 In any case, there, is nothing surprising in the fact that the people around Jesus should be mentioned in the context of craftspeople. Muslim authors, as in the Christian traditions that inspired them, like to underline the fact that several of the people mentioned in the Gospel are in fact craftsmen.41
Still, there is a tendency among the scholars to assume a more lenient position towards both the weaver and the cupper. We have seen that early on, among the [54] Ḥanafīs, the religious utility of weaving was admitted, although it was not sufficient to secure any higher consideration. The idea that it allows the faithful to cover their nakedness—a particularly important duty in the prayer ritual—recurs frequently with various authors. There is a verse describing this: "If there was neither weaving nor those who follow this profession, genitals and backsides would be visible in the open air" (law lā l-ḥiyākatu wa-lladhīna yalūnahā, badati l-furūju wa-lāḥati l-adbār, in kāmil metre).42 When the theory of equality gained a foothold under Ṣūfī influence, a strict Mālikī like Ibn al-Hājj (eighth/fourteenth century) viewed the crafts basically from the point of view of solidarity and piety. And we even find, arising from this view, the craft of weaving newly appreciated and identified as a "group obligation" (farḍ kifāya), the usefulness of which is valued just below that of agriculture. He assures us that there have always been just and virtuous men in that profession, contrary to what conceited and ignorant people suggest. If it is true, as some maintain, that in the Qur'anic passage where the unbelievers ask Noah: "Should we believe in you when the lowest of the low (al-ardhalūn) follow you" (26:111), the latter were "the weavers" (al-qazzāzūn), that proves for Ibn al-Ḥājj that, while they may be low in the eyes of the unbelievers, they are in requital God's chosen ones.43 Along with the religious motive, another factor should not be neglected either: the fact that in some parts of the Muslim world weavers became richer, probably because of the trade in luxury fabrics, and achieved respectability as a consequence. There are allusions to this development in Tunis and Alexandria,44 and it seems that a similar development took place on the whole during the last centuries [55] of the Middle Ages. There is enough material here for systematic and more detailed research: as far as the rather sparse documentation permits, one should write the history of the profession, its technical and economic development as well as the social changes it brought about.
Despite Mary's curse, the earnings of the weaver are not the object of reproach comparable to that which the earnings of the cupper face in the classical ḥadīth literature. However, both professions are usually found in the same context in the legal sector—in the sense that we understand the law—where, in some way that depends on the respective scholar, social status is concerned: marriage and bearing witness have to be studied in this field.
Even though doctrine reduces the scope of its application and effects, one of the conditions for the validity of a marriage is a certain equality (kafā'a) between the partners; equality going one way only, however: the husband has to be worthy of the wife, not necessarily she of him.45 The elements constituting this equality differ considerably from school to school. Contrary to the strongly expressed position of the Ḥanafīs, the Mālikī school refuses to recognise the requirement concerning racial origin and profession. This is remarkable and significant for the history of this requirement as well as for its nature. Here we are only concerned with that part of the requirement mentioning the profession. Ḥanafī tradition itself recognises that the founder Abū Ḥnīfa. did not take profession into account. It was his great direct disciple Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798) who seems to have added it to the material; the Shāfi'īs (if not al-Shāfi'ī himself) and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and his disciples followed suit. In the disputes between advocates of the two solutions as presented by later legal scholars [56], the Mālikīs quote the Qur'ān in order not to take profession or race into account: "The noblest among you in the sight of Allāh are those who fear him most" (49:13). In the same vein they deny the authority of the ḥadīth excluding the weaver and the cupper from the equality of men, and it is pointed out that an individual is not necessarily bound to a particular profession for all his life. However, it has to be emphasised even more strongly that the argumentation attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa on the one hand and Abū Yūsuf and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal on the other is taken from social reality. They ha.ve Abū Ḥanīfa say that according to Arab custom ('āda) the degrading crafts were carried out by their "clients" (mawālī) without being true "professions" (ḥiraf), and consequently without being degrading professions. The other two then would reply that the "custom" ('āda, 'urf ) of their own day would confirm without hesitation the professional and degrading nature of the trades in question.46
Which are the trades mentioned by name as inferior, implying in principle that those who follow them will be prevented from marrying the daughter of a man who has a higher trade? Nearly always, the weaver and the cupper are mentioned in the first instance; the tanner and street sweeper are the ones most frequently added. In detailed works, especially those of later Hanaffs, the lists are longer: the barber, keeper of public baths, (prison) warden, shepherd, stable boy, veterinary surgeon and night-soil man are named. In this fashion, all the professions that are neither religious nor administrative in character are divided into two great categories: [57] those that are inferior or "base" (danī'a, khasīsa) and those that are superior or "raised" (rafī'a, jalīla). Only within each of these categories is marriage fully legal. All the authorities agree that cloth merchants, spice merchants, goldsmiths and money-changers are, while below the 'ultima', the higher category, and this is despite the religious suspicion affecting trades connected with gold and silver. However, this simplistic system leaves the legal scholars in the difficult position of having to grade all those craftspeople whose professions were not mentioned as inferior by Islamic tradition, but, on the contrary, were in some cases even praised, such as bootmakers, tailors, blacksmiths and coppersmiths, for instance. There is a certain disagreement and confusion among the authors on this subject. Some place this or that craftsman in the inferior category; others, whose authority seems to have grown, allow a middle category whose members may normally intermarry. A definite member of this category, undoubtedly intended as an example, is the tailor. In this way the legal scholars contributed to the conservation of the consciousness of an already distinct social hierarchy, at least to the extent that they believed it to be firmly established. In those cases where an undoubted development had loosened traditional structures, they were in general inclined to soften too strict a classification. In Alexandria they declared that at their time the weaver was considered sufficiently raised to be "matched" (kif') with the daughter of a spice merchant; others even allowed that the master (ustadh) tailor or bootmaker, who was the patron of the workers and sold the wares without working with his hands himself, could legally marry the daughter of a cloth or spice merchant.
Some legal scholars disqualified those who practised "lowly trades" from being witnesses, This could have even more serious consequences. "Honourable character" ('adāla), which is a condition of being a witness according to Muslim law, comprises various elements about which there is no complete agreement among the authorities. Religious behaviour plays an important part, and this is the basis for excluding some professions [58] that are immoral or suspect from an Islamic point of view, even though they may be respected in society. However, the case is quite clear here, and "base" trades do not fall into this -class. If they are declared to be contrary to the 'adāla, it is because in a weighty interpretation of 'adāla their social degradation is considered to be contrary to the "dignity" (murū'a) required to be a. witness.47
Judging from the texts available to us, this problem does not seem to have captured the attention of the first great legal scholars or their immediate successors. It must also be pointed out that the stance each of the schools has taken in the matter in the course of time is not related to the solution postulated in the case of marriage. The Hanafis, who for a long time were not interested in the question, usually accepted the testimony of these despised craftsmen—the professions mentioned are sewer man, street sweeper, weaver, cupper—as long as they had other needed qualities. In this case the Mālikīs, on the other hand, prove themselves to be stricter, in spite of certain reservations that sweeten their verdict to some extent. According to their view, the tanner, weaver and cupper are not allowed to bear witness unless they practise that trade from necessity48 or as a family tradition, or if they live in a place where the profession has become very respectable, as weaving had in Tunis. Shāfi'ī law proves itself divided and wavers between the two tendencies. The Ḥanbalīs appear to have taken recourse to some distinctions: one of their legal authorities condemns the night-soil man's testimony, names the simple street sweeper's and the cupper's as controversial, but accepts that of the prison warden, the weaver and the tanner!49
[59] Let us now look at the situation within Shī`ī Islam for a moment. Shī'ī tradition, motivated by political sagacity as well as doctrinal care, has always striven to heighten the status of the crafts in the minds of its faithful and to give an honourable rank in society even to very humble trades.50 In the fourth/eleventh century the Ismā'īlī encyclopaedia of the Ikhwān al-Ṣafā emphasises the "nobility" (sharaf) of several crafts. Various explanations of nobility are given: the people's basic need for the product (in particular in the case of weaving), the material used (precious metals, perfumes), the product itself (e.g. astronomical instruments), the service done to society (street sweepers, bathkeepers), or the accomplished performance of an art (e.g. prestidigitators, sculptors, musicians):51 an eloquent list that overturned certain accepted ideas. Al-Nu'mān, the eminent Fāṭimid qāḍī of this era, mentions a scene in which the Imām Ja`far al-Ṣādiq publicly treats with great respect a cupper who was ashamed of his own trade.52 The classical treatise of Imāmī (Twelver) law by al-Hillī (d. 676/1277- 78) states that marriage between people of different, social conditions, such as craftsmen and (the daughters of) rich landowners, is perfectly legal and that one cannot object to a true believer bearing witness just because he may practise a despicable trade (weaver, cupper) or even the basest trade of all (night-soil man).53 This is why, in a little book of Imamī apology recently published in Lebanon, the fact that this sect only takes the person into account and not the profession, "as opposed [60] to certain Islamic schools", is emphasised strongly as being a merit. The weaver and the dyer are eligible to marry the daughter of a prince or a king, and the testimony of even a craftsman is accepted as long as he proves himself to be trustworthy.54
Evidently, even among the: Sunnīs a similar problem is becoming out of date in our modern world of upheaval, despite some tenacious survivals. It is just as true that to the present day it has played its part in Islamic legislation as well as thought and has dominated the mental attitude and also, to a certain degree, the behaviour of numerous believers. Its study, even an imperfect one like the preceding, offers the interest, it seems to me, of putting the emphasis on an aspect in that stage of the evolution that is represented by classical Islamic doctrine. It came after a pre-Islam that, though backward. was not "primitive", and it either had to assimilate the survivals of this age or be shackled by them in its efforts to overcome internal contradictions that its fundamental message stirred up both in people's minds and in their social lives.
'Cairo, 1938; in 90 pages. My motives for doubting the parentage of the work, or at least the date of the definite edition, include not only matters of style and overall character, but also quotations that question the Karāmīya (24, 68), Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Isḥaq ibn Rāhūyeh (59), the Ẓāhirīs (78), and the Ḥanafī fuqahā' (82). There is also the intimation by the great Ḥanafī of the fifth/eleventh century and commentator of this work, al-Sarakhsī, that it might be apocryphal; see his Mabsūṭ (Cairo, AH 1324-31), XXX, 244. S.D. Goitein has used the Iktisāb in the course of an interesting article, "The Rise of the Near Eastern Bourgeoisie in Early Islamic Times", Cahiers d'histoire mondiale 3 (1956), 586-90, but his subject was a different one and he did not raise the question of its authenticity.
2Iktisāb, 20.
3Ibid., 1G-18, 21-22. Other lists of this kind can be found in, e.g., the short text by the Ḥanbalī Abū Bakr al-Khallāl (d. 311/923), Al-Ḥathth 'alā l-tijāra wa-l-ṣinā'a wa-l-'amal (Damascus, AH 1348), 18. In his Kitāb al-ma'ārif, ed. Tharwat 'Ukkāsha (Cairo, 1960), 575-77, Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) gives a list of the trades—craftsmen's or others—that were pursued by "noble persons" (ashrāf) at the beginning of Islam.
4 Iktisāb, 43.
5Ibid., 35-36.
6 Ibid., 37-38.
7 Abū Ṭālib Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb (Cairo, 1932), IV, 181. A ḥadīth attributed to the Prophet claiming that "artisans are the greatest of liars" is declared a forgery by Ibn Abī Ḥātim, 'Ilal al-ḥadīth (Cairo, AH 1344), II, no. 2335.
8 A certain number of ḥadīths on professional activities are listed in al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-'ummāl (Hyderabad, 1953), IV, 17-18.
9 Al-Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb, 187; al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā' 'ulūm al-dīn (Cairo, 1933), II, 76.
10Al-Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb, 186-87.
11Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth (Cairo, AH 1326), criticises it as apocryphal
12Al-Makkī and al-Ghazālī, loc. cit.
13A1-Ghazālī, loc. cit,, incidentally.
14Ibn Qutayba, Ta'wīl mukhtalif al-Ḥadūth, loc. cit., considers the interpretation of the formula as ḥadīth to be apocryphal.
15 See especially al-Bājī, Muntaqā (on Mālik's Muwaṭṭa'), VII, 299; al-Ubbī, Commentary on Muslim, IV, 251.
16 The allusion to shedding blood (see also below), if it refers to an original taboo, has developed an artificial form that is a likely sign of deviated or evolved concepts.
17 Al-Bājī, Muntaqā, VII, 298.
l8 Ibid.
19 Qiddūshīn 82a. The comparison between this list and Muslim ideas has already been drawn by Goldziher in his important article "Die Handwerke bei den Arabern", Globus 66 (1894), 203-205, but he is silent on the subject of the explanations given by the Talmud.
20 A little further on, Qiddūshīn 82b expresses the opposition between inferior crafts (ummānūt pegūmā) and superior crafts (ummānūt me'ulla).
21 As "murder" is paraphrased as "bloodshed" (shefīkhūt damīm), one might think at first that the accusation is of bleeding the patient too much, but the commentary then specifies that not bleeding enough is meant: "he draws less than a quarter". Could this explanation be a secondary one? I do not dare to decide.
22 Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā' (no date or place of publication), I, 286. There is an indication in the pseudo-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-tāj (Cairo, 1914), 24, according to which "the sons of craftsmen of the lower class, such as the weaver or the cupper" (the translation by Charles Pellat, Paris 1954, 52, is identical), were excluded from the third class in Sasanid times, together with other outcasts. I do not wish to make too much of this, as the example may well have been inserted by the Muslim author.
23 Such as khabīth, sharr, suḥt, which some would refuse to take in the most disparaging sense.
24 Concerning the differing interpretations scholars arrived at from the ḥadīths, see especially ibn Rushd (Averroes), Bidāyat al-mujtahid (Cairo, 1952), II, 223: al-Shawkānī, Nayl al-awṭār (Cairo, 1952), V, 300-302.
25 Ibn Qudāma, Mughnī, ed. in nine volumes, V, 492.
26 Al-Shāfi'ī, Ikhtilāf al-ḥadīth, VII, 344 bottom.
27 Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā', I, 285-86: among other acts, it is reported that a ḥajjām called Abū Ṭayba (sic.), after he had attended to the Prophet, had drunk his blood, mixing it in that way with his own, which would allow him afterwards to ally by marriage with the great.
28 Goldziher, "Handwerke", 205. Herodotus II.35, noted with amazement that in Egypt men worked as weavers at home. He also discovered a technical particularity in the way they wove. Pliny the Elder VIII.48 mentions an important technical advance in Alexandria. We know as well, from what occurs before our own eyes, that male weaving can differ from female weaving even because of the loom employed.
29 Alexandre Moret, Le Nil et la civilisation égyptienne (Paris, 1926), 312; Pierre Jaccard, Histoire sociale du travail, de l'antiquité à nos jours (Paris, I960), 32.
30 Gustave Glotz, Le travail dans la Gréce ancienne (Paris, 1920), 424.
31 Concerning levies and delivery at fixed prices to which weavers were bound in Egypt under Aurelius (270-76 AD), see Michael Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. by P.M. Fraser (Oxford, 1957), 486.
32 Adam Mez, Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922), 433-34.
33 Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥaḍarāt al-udabā', I, 284-85. In another of his works, the Kitāb al-dharī`a ilā makārim al-sharī`a (Cairo, AH 1324), a copy of which G. Vajda kindly lent me, the same author shows more personal ideas on human society and social classes than in the Muḥādarāt: he insists that social and economic differences are intended by God as they are. Self-righteousness, as well as disdain of others, of poverty and fear, are the psychological refuge of the moneyed classes. If this were not so, he exclaims, who would be a weaver, cupper, tanner or street sweeper?
34 Concerning the meaning of mezlūṭ see William Marçais, Textes arabes de Takroûna, Glossaire, IV (Paris, 1959), 1686-87.
35 Sometimes weavers are accused of being stupid or weak-minded (e.g., al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā, II, 76). This accusation, however, seems to me to be an attempt at excusing this contempt rather than a real explanation. If it could be shown to be founded in any way, this degradation would be its consequence rather than its cause.
36 A1-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā', I, 284; Goldziher, "Handwerke", 205.
37 Al-Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb, IV, 201; al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā, II, 76; Michel Hayek, Le Christ de I'Islam (Paris, 1959), 181.
38 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad (Būlāq, AH 1313), V, 382.
39 Miguel Asín Palacios, Logia et agrapha Domini Jesu, in Patrologia Ortentalis, 13 (Paris, 1919), and 19 (Paris, 1926).
40 Asín has looked in vain for the source. I have not been any more fortunate in my investigations. My colleague and friend H.-Ch. Puech has kindly informed me in a letter that at the moment the experts on Christian literature do not know any more on the subject either.
41 For example al-Tha'labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā' (Cairo, 1951), 389 and passim.
42 Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā', I, 285. A weaver might be in the list of "noble" Muslims of old times who followed a manual trade; see Ibn Qutayba, Ma'ārif, loc. cit.
43 lbn al-Ḥājj, Madkhal, written in 732/1331 (Cairo, 1929), IV, 3, 10, 13-14, It is stated explicitly that, qazzāz is synonymous with ḥā'ik. The use of qazzāz in this context is not unusual; it is most; certainly euphemistic, its original meaning being "silken".
44 See below. It appears that weavers of luxury fabrics grew richer as early as the beginning of the fourth/tenth century in Tinnis in Egypt; see Aly Bey Bahgat, Les manufactures d'étoffe en Egypte au moyen âge (Cairo, 1904), 5. At the beginning of this century, weavers of silks are mentioned in Tunis as among the most prosperous guilds; see A. Atger, Les corporations tunisiennes (Paris, 1909), 88.
45 Laws of Manu VIII.365-66, offers a useful comparison: "If a young girl loves a man who is of higher rank than she is, the king must not make him pay her any compensation; if, however, she should incline towards a man of lower birth, she must be put under lock and key and watched well. A man of low birth who presses his suit with a more highly born young lady deserves physical punishment." It is obvious that in the kafā'a it is the woman's clan at least as much as the woman herself who is advised to avoid a misalliance.
46 1. Hanafī school: al-Marghīnānī, Al-Hidāya sharḥ al-bidāya, I, 146; al-Sarakhsī, Mabsūṭ, V, 25; al-Kasanī, Badā'i', II, 320; Ibn Nujaym, Al-Baḥr al-rā'iq fī sharḥ kanz al-daqā'iq, III, 143; Shaykhī Zāde, Majma' al-anhur, I, 342; al-Muttaqīl al-Hindī, Al-Fatāwā al-hindīya, I, 292; Ibn 'Ābidīn, Radd al-muḥtar. II, 496-98.
2. Other schools: Qāḍī 'Abd al-Wahhāb (Mālikī), Ishrāf, II, 96; al-Shīrazī (Shafi'ī), Tanbīh, 95 (§ 95 in Bousquet's translation); idem, Muhadhdhab, II, 39; al-Nawawī (Shāfi'ī), Minhāj al-ṭalibīn, ed. van den Bergh, II, 333; Ibn Qudāma (Ḥanbalī), Mughnī (9 vols), VI, 485.
3. Al-Qasṭallānī's commentary on Bukhārī (Būlāq, AH 1305), VIII, 19.
4. A good study, focussing on Ḥariafism: Farhat J. Ziadeh, "Equality (Kafā'a) in the Muslim Law of Marriage", American Journal of Comparative Law 6 (1957), 503-17.
47 In La nouvetle Clio, May-Oct. 1952, 174, Louis Massignon has given a long list of "trades that are likely to contaminate the purity of the faithful" in connection, with the class of recognised witnesses. For some of the examples this idea needs to be revised.
48 In his Italian translation of Khalīl's Mukhtaṣar (Mālikī), II (Milan, 1919), 617 n. 257, Santillana very fortunately recalls the Novella XC.l, pr., according to which someone who practises a trade because he lives on it will not lose esteem.
49 Ibn Farḥūn (Mālikī), Tabṣira, I, 179; Khalīl, and the commentary on his Mukhtaṣar by Khirshī, (Fez, AH 1287), VI, 37, and by Dardīr-Dasūqī (Cairo, AH 1309), IV, 154; al-Zurqānī on Mālik's Muwaṭṭa', VIi, 159. — al-Shīrāzī, Tanbīh, 153 (§331 in Bousquet's translation); idem, Muhadhdhab, II, 325; al-Nawawī, Minhāj al-tālibīn, III, 403. — Ibn Qudāma, Mughnī, IX, 167-70. — Ibn Nujaym, Al-Baḥr al-rā'iq, VII, 100-101; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Al-Fatāwā al-hindīya, III, 469; Ibn 'Ābidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār, IV, 585-86.
50 Ibn Hazm, Fiṣal, IV, 186 (in Asín's translation, V, 67), ridicules a Shī'ī sect that believed that a weaver had the gift of prophecy.
51 Ikhwān al-Safā, Rasā'il (Cairo, 1928), I, 219-21; Yves Marquet, "La place du travail dans la hiérarchie ismā'īlienne d'après L'Encyclopédie des frères de la pureté", Arabica 8 (1961), 232-34.