A Polemical Treatise by Abd al-an al-Nbulus against a Turkish Scholar on the Religious Status of the imms Author(s): Michael

Winter Reviewed work(s): Source: Arabica, T. 35, Fasc. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 92-103 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057034 . Accessed: 06/12/2011 13:38
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 support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arabica.

http://www.jstor.org

A POLEMICAL TREATISE BY cABD AL-GANI AL-NABULUSI AGAINST A TURKISH SCHOLAR ON THE RELIGIOUS STATUS OF THE DIMMIS
BY

MICHAEL WINTER T is commonly known that during the Ottoman period Islamic

thought in the Arab lands was in a state of stagnation. Little original writing was done, though numerous commentaries, compendia and manuals were produced1. One of the names that stands out in the period is that of cAbd al-Ganli ibn Ismacil al-Nabulusi (1050/1641-1143/1731), the mystic, theologian, poet, traveler, and prolific writer2. The subject of the present article is a short treatise by al-Nabulusi, available in a manuscript form only. This risdla is worthy of review because it is representative of the thought of this important writer. Although al-Nabulusi relies on earlier works, which he readily acknowledges, the synthesis, presentation, and style are definitely his own. His work can also be regarded as an expression of the scholarly movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which, in the words of H. A. R. Gibb, ((strove to restore the bases of Islamic theology in a manner which broke away from the formalism of the orthodox manuals and laid new stress upon the psychological and ethical elements in religion))3. Moreover, the treatise is an attack against an anonymous Turk, a Ruimz(in the early Ottoman period the Turks were often called Rum or Arwdm by the Arabs). The polemical character of the work adds a shrill and angry tone to the writing and reveals the antiTurkish feelings and pro-Arab sentiments prevalent in the Arab countries even before the emergence of nationalism.
I H. A. R. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Societyand the West (London, 1957) I/2, pp. 163-164. Gibb counts al-Nabulusi as one of those who ((displayeda certain measure of originality.)) 2 See <<'Abd al-GhanIibn Isma'il al-Ndbulus!,,, W. A. S. KhaIidli,El', I, p. 60. 3 H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism (Second edition, London, 1962), p. 163. Beside al-Nabulusi, Gibb names also the Indians Ahmad Sarhindi (d. 1624) and Shah Walli-Allah (d. 1762) from Delhi as the outstanding figures of this movement.

Arabica, Tome xxxv, 1988

DIMMIS

93

The manuscript is located in the Special Collections Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, and is catalogued as Collection 898, Box 99, no. 576. It consists of 38 folios with an average of 22 lines on each page written in a clear Neskhi hand. The rough draft of the work was completed on Dii 'l-Higga 26, 1103 (September 8, 1692)4, and the final copy was finished on Rabic II 8, 1104 (December 17, 1692)5. The UCLA manuscript, which I have studied, has been copied from the author's autograph6. The title of the present treatise does not appear in Brockelmann's Geschichteder arabischenLitteratur and must be the only manuscript copy that has been preserved, although it may be similar to or identical with another work by al-NTbulusi al-Radd ala-l-tacinft 1-cArabwa fifadl al-cArab7 . cAbd al-Ganl al-Nabulusi's treatise is a polemical reply to a tractate written in Arabic by an unnamed Turkish writer, who criticized al-NTbulusi's commentary on a passage from al-Futihit al-Makkiyya by the famous mystical writer Muhyli 1-Din ibn alcArabi (d. 638/1240)8. Like many Sufi writers before him9, alNabulusi was an exponent and defender of the ideas of this difficult and controversial mystic, whose theory of wahdat al-wgviid (the Unity of Being, or monism) was repeatedly attacked by orthodox Muslim theologians 10. The main dispute was about one sentence in Ibn al-cArabl's passage, upon which al-NTbulusi elaborated. Ibn al-cArabi and al-NTbulus1, who follows him with understanding, stated that the People of the Books, i.e., the Jews and Christians, by paying the prescribed gizya (poll-tax) gain happiness (sacdda). The Turkish writer believes that this opinion contradicts the theological notion of wacid (God's threats that the infidels be cast in Hell fire, to be distinguished from wacd, God's promise of Paradise to the just), and accuses both Ibn al-cArabi and his commentator of
4

I Qawl, fol. la.

The manuscript will be cited as Qawl. Qawl, fol. 38b.

6 Qawl, fol. la and see the end of the bound manuscript, which consists of our treatise and another one entitled 4dah al-maqsud min maCdniwahdatal-wugiid. 7 See GAL, SII, p. 475, no. 96. 8 Muhyl '1-Din ibn al-cArabi, al-Futzihdt al-Makkiyya (Cairo, n.d.) III, p. 145 (chapter 337). 9 See, for example, M. Winter, Society andReligionin EarlyOttoman Egypt;Studies in the Writings of CAbd al- Wahhdb al-Shacrant (New Brunswick, N. J., 1982), .<Ibn alcArabl,)by the index. 10 Ibn al-cArabi's best know critic was Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328).

94

M. WINTER

infidelity. Al-Nabulusi's reply bears the ringing title: Kitdb al-qawl al-sadfd ft gawaz hulf al-waczd wal-radd cala l-Rtimi l-gdhil al-canid, ((The pertinent discourse concerning the possibility that God will not carry out his threats (to punish the infidels with Hell fire) against the ignorant and stubborn Turk.)) The opening in rhymed prose is already aggressive: <(In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate. We seek help in Him against the evil-doers. Praise be to Allah, who bestowed success and knowledge upon those whom He chose and made those whom he chose miserable by making them fabricate slanders and lies against the believers. Prayer and peace be upon our master Muhammad, who brought the manifest truth and the firm religion and gave a mortal blow to the people of denial, repudiation, shame, and abandonment>>)1. Then the author says sarcastically: ((There has appeared in the land of the Turks (bildd al-Rum) a man of the boors of the deserts and the unlucky ones of the steppe, who is keen on charging the Arab and the son of the Arab with unbelief 12. He does that despite the fact that he is a foreigner (cAgamf, a non-Arab), son of a foreigner, although the Arabs are the masters of the non-Arabs (here: Persians) and the Turks, as all the culama' have established13. The Arabs are those who brought the Turks into Islam by the force of their dark spearheads and white swords. Probably one of those infidels forced by the Arabs into Islam resembled this boor, who denies the truth out of ignorance. He may have been a Christian, a recent convert to Islam. He put on a white turban and wore Islamic clothes, but only God can know what really is there in his heart. The boor has not yet forgotten how he was fighting against the Muslims, deifying Christ, eating pork, and worshipping idols. If he spat, wine would come out of his mouth)) 14 Al-Nabulus1 sets out to prove the superiority of the Arabs over other peoples. He cites a book by the well known Syrian historian
I" Qawl, fol. la.
12 Al-Nabulusi clearly alludes to the name of the mystical writer Ibn al-cArabl, literally ((theArab's son.> 13 In the official language of the time the Ottoman sultan was often called (<master of the Arabs, Turks and Persians.,, We see here again the flexible application of the term CAgAamZ, which is used in the same sentence for two different meanings-one referring to non-Arabs and another to Persians. 14 Qawl, fols. lb-2a.

DIMMIS

95

and writer Nagm al-Din al-Gazzi l-cAmIrli (d. 1061/1651), entitled Husn al-tanabbuhlimn waradaft 1-tasabbuhI5. Al-Gazzi maintains that the Arabs' superiority can be proven by reason and tradition. He bases his argument on language. Man's superiority in the world is founded on reason and speech. He says: ((There is no doubt that the Arabs' logic is better, their expression clearer, and their language the most perfect in eloquence and the ability to differentiate (between nuances)... The Arab mind is the most perfect, since language is the expression of one's understanding. Therefore, the Arab mind has no need of training by the formal apparatus called the science of logic in order to understand ideas and sciences and to protect it from error, unlike the minds of the non-Arabs (that need it)>> 16. The author further states: ((Arab nature is more inclined than others to gentleness (4ilm), forgiveness (cafw), tolerance (samdha), generosity (sahawa), courage (sagaca), loyalty (wafda), and other noble qualities>).17 Inevitably, the famous hadith, "(anArab has no superiority over a non-Arab (or Persian, cAgami) except in piety>>is cited, but the author adds: "Yes, but if they are equal in piety, then the Arab should be given precedence over others.>> This assertion is supported by a few well known hadiths about the elevated position of the Arabs in Islam and the notion that those who hate the Arabs hate also the Prophet.8. The reader is reminded that when cUmar, the second caliph, prepared the lists of those entitled to stipends from the state treasury, he started with the Prophet's wives and relatives and then proceeded with the Arab tribes according to their genealogies. Only after all the Arabs came the Persians' turn. The author says: ((In this way the diwdn (the central state bureau) was arranged during the reign of the Rightly-guided Caliphs (al-Hulafd' al-Rasidiin) and their followers of the Umayyad and cAbbasid dynasties, until things changed.>> Al-Gazzl's meaning is of course that the Turks' (i.e., the Selguqs, Mamluks, and Ottomans) ascendancy in Islam put an end to the precedence of the Arabs. His silence is more telling than if he had made his charge explicit19.
15
16

See GAL II, 376; SII, 402. Qawl, fols. 2a-2b.

Qawl, fol. 3a. Qawl, fols. 3b-5b. 19 Qawl, fol. 6a.

17 18

96

M. WINTER

Undeniably, many foreigners distinguished themselves in Islam, but they were able to do this only through the Arabs, since there is no excellence except in knowledge, faith, and piety, and these can be attained only by means of the Prophet's message. The distinction which the Persian Salman, the Abyssinian Bilal, and the Greek $uhayb acquired in early Islam was not because of their foreign race, but in spite of it20. The author states: ((Know that the closer a foreigner is to the Arabs in his mental qualities, the wiser he will be and his merit will be more evident.>> He explains what is meant by closeness: ((The knowledge of Arabic, since language is the dividing line between Arabs and non-Arabs))21. Then follows a discourse supported by 4adithsabout the merits of the Arabic language. According to one of the prophetic traditions, the language of Adam in Paradise was Arabic. When he sinned, God deprived him of it and he spoke Syriac. Only when he repented God gave him back the knowledge of Arabic22. Al-Nabulusi avers that the definition of an Arab in the past, present, and future is a person who can speak Arabic in a natural manner, without constraint or difficulty. The mistakes caused by colloquial dialects do not diminish one's right to be an Arab. Even the purest Arabs (al-'Arab al-'uraba-')had among them lispers who pronounced various consonants incorrectly, and by the consensus of the scholars were regarded as Arabs. Nowadays, as in all times, Arab commoners make mistakes in their speech and do not adhere to all the rules of Arabic grammar. Their language has been corrupted by the Arabs' association with the foreigners through intermarriage and common business23. Al-Nabulusi emphasizes again that natural speech is the criterion for Arabness. Many learned men of Persian, Turkish, or other stock are familiar with all the grammatical rules of Arabic, but have great difficulty in applying them in speech. Therefore, the Hanafi jurists ruled that a non-Arab (CAgamz)is not considered
20 It has been added in the margin of Qawi,fol. 6a that Suhayb was not a Greek (Rumi)but an Arab whom the Greek had taken as a prisoner when he was a boy. His claim to an Arab descent was not founded on fact, however, and Suhayb was reproachedby 'Umar for making it up. See I. Goldziher, MuslimStudies (Chicago, 1966), I, p. 128. 21 Qawl, fol. 6b. 22 Qawl, fols. 7a-7b. 23 Qawl, fols. 7b-8a.

DIMMIS

97

worthy (or equal, has no kafa'a) of marrying an Arab woman, even if he is an 'clim and she is uneducated24. Al-NMbulusi concludes: ((Even an cAgamj cdlim is still an cAgama; how much more so an cAgama ignorant in the Arabic language and its gramrmatical constructions, who cannot tell right from wrong in the Arabic language, as he has demonstrated in his treatise which he has written in Arabic. Far from being an Arab, or even a Turk, wicked, boorish, and resembling one, he is an CAgamT, conceited, who hates the Arab, the Arab's son, and all Arabs. He charges some of them with infidelity; he hates them and therefore he hates the Prophet, as has been shown above. The proof that he hates the Arabs is that he is looking for their slips, and attacks what he imagines as their mistakes. He justifies his (aggressive) behavior in his effort to support religion, yet the true way to support religion is to interpret (by ta:'wd) the words of the ancient ulama' in such a way that even the uneducated Muslims would not possibly find any fault with them out of ignorance.>>CAbd al-Ganli says that his father in his collection offatwds ruled that if a case has many aspects which could lead to a judgement of infidelity (takJfr)and one aspect which prevents it, the mufti ought to make that aspect prevail25. At this point, al-Nabulusi returns to the gravamen of his dispute with the Turkish writer. The latter had attacked the idea expressed by Ibn al-cArab! and al-Nabulusi who followed him, that the People of the Two Books (ahl al-kitdbayni,i.e., the Jews and the Christians) by paying the gizya will gain happiness (sac'da). Although we do not have the text of the Turkish writer, it is not difficult to reconstruct his arguments which al-Nabulusi tries to refute in his treatise. Al-Nabulus1 charges that the Turk has interpreted the word ((happiness>)only in one way-living after death in Heaven and obtaining eternal bliss through God's favor. Al-NTbulusi says that his adversary has not proven that this is the only meaning of that word, linguistically or legally. The ignorant adversary does not know that the word sacddahas a broad meaning and can stand for both earthly and heavenly happiness. It can also indicate a relative happiness. It can be said, for example, that the Jews are in a happier state than the Magians26.
24 25 26

Qawl, fols. 8b-9a. Qawl, fols. 9a-lOa. Qawl, fols. 1Oa-I 1a.

98

M. WINTER

Then al-Nabulusi embarks upon a theological discussion concerning the Jews and the Christians. Following earlier sources, he concludes that the two monotheistic religions are regarded by Islam as being equal to one another27. The Turk had tried to prove that sa'dda signifies eternal happiness in Heaven by quoting the Qur)'anic verse: ((But as for the fortunate, they shall be in Heaven, abiding there in as long as the heavens and earth endure>>(Qur'an, IX, 109). Al-Nabulus1 says that this reasoning is wrong, because the happiness in that Qur'anic verse is a specific one, and is contrasted with the suffering mentioned in a previous verse: <(Then some of them will be unfortunate and others fortunate>> (Qur'an, IX, 106). Al-NabulusI argues convincingly that the Qur'an does not mean to say that anyone to whom happiness is attributed, even if that happiness is earthly, will live in Heaven to eternity. The adversary's only motive is to find fault with others. He is ignorant of the above mentioned duty to interpret Muslims' words positively28. Al-NTbulusi asks: ((What fault could the ignorant and wicked man find in the assertion that the Jews and the Christians gain happiness if they pay the gizya? They are legally (sar'an) assured of happiness by agreeing to pay the gizya and then giving it to the Muslims, because by this they save their lives and protect their property and honor. With this they become like the Muslims: It is forbidden to fight against them, to interfere with their property and children, to slander, curse or defame them, or generally to harm them. A Muslim who kills a dimmi is to be put to death, and it is reported that the Prophet executed a Muslim for unjustly killing a dimm>29. Al-Nabulusi's extremely liberal attitude toward the religious minorities is also evident from his interpretation of the famous Qur'anic verse concerning the gizya: <<...until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection>>(Qur'an, IX, 29). He says: <(That is, until they agree to pay the gvzya. But when they do, know that they have the same rights and duties as the Muslims>>30.

27 28 29 30

Qawl, fol. llb-12a. Qawl, fols. 12a-12b. Qawl, fols. 12b-13b. Qawl, fol. 13a.

DIMMIS

99

Then the author enters into a legal discussion concerning the eventuality that a dimmi who had agreed to pay the gizya does not actually give the money. cAbd al-Gani again cites his father's opinion that even in that case the covenant of protection (dimma) is still valid, although the dimmi may be forced to pay the tax. cAbd alGani notes that the imams, the founders of the Islamic legal schools (madhabs) is with the exception of Abui Hanifa, ruled that if the dimmzrefuses to pay, his covenant will be declared void. Be it as it may, al-Nabulusi concludes that the safety and protection granted to the Jews and the Christians for paying the gvizya tax is an immense favor (nicma) for them and brings them happiness, contrary to what <that malicious and ignorant man, who does not know the Sari-a and its laws, says)31. Al-Nabulusi goes one step further, however. Following the spirit of Ibn al-cArab!, he says: ((The dimmfs in our time and in other times acquired happiness by giving the gizya and helping the Muslims thereby, since some of the dimmts were led by God to inner faith (al-tman batinan). As the culamad) taught, faith is believing in the heart only. Showing the faith by means of speech is a condition for applying the laws of this world to them, but it is not a part of faith, as it has been established in another place. In this case (i.e., if they believe in their heart) theirhappinessbecomes specifichappinessand thus theyenterParadisealong with theMuslims. They become Muslims according to the laws of the hereafter, but not of this world. The laws of the unbelievers apply to them in this world and the laws of the Muslims in the hereafter, since what was in their hearts (i.e., faith) was not made manifest.)) He concludes: ((Faith (Fman) is believing in the heart only, according to the Ascaris and the Hanafis, whose schools are the true ones. He who believes in his heart but does not express it in his tongue is an infidel in this world and a believer in the hereafter, by God the exalted. There is nothing to prevent the possibility that among the dimmzsof today there are some in this category, who outwardly give the gizya to aid their Muslim brethren (!) (icanatan li-l-Muslimzn min ihwanihi). These dimmfs would be those about whom it is said that they gained the happiness which is free from all misery, just by giving the gizya, since externally they did not obey the rules of the Muhammadan
v3

31

Qawl, fols. 13a-14b.

100

M. WINTER

law (al-s'aricaal-Muhammadiyya)in anything except by giving the

32 gzzya>,

The author repeats his conviction that one should interpret what the culama) said in such a manner as to ward off the possibility of finding a fault with them. Such a well-meaning apologetic interpretation ought to be undertaken even if it relies on a weak saying or on a tradition which has only a limited acceptance in one of the schools of law. A far-fetched interpretation that protects the worthy ancestors (al-salaf al-sdlih) from accusations of error, seems near to the just and the fair minded and seems far only to the stubborn, the wicked and the ignorant ones33. Proceeding to the next topic, al-Nabulusi argues that the texts about the torture of the polytheists and unbelievers are all threats (wacTd)from God, and His refraining from carrying them out is generosity on His part, and is one of the qualities of perfection. AlNabulusi claims that this was the opinion of the SunnI culama), and since the adversary's criticism implicitly labels them as infidels, his own words amount to infidelity. Again, al-Nabulusi goes into theological arguments based on hadzthsto demonstrate that God is merciful and tends to pardon. In addition, the Sunni theologians believe that God can choose not to fulfill His threats against the infidels and the polytheists, whereas the sects of the Muctazila and the Hawarig made it incumbent upon Him to reward the obedient ones in Paradise and punish the disobedient ones and the unbelievers in Hell34. Then the author poses the question whether God by not carrying out his threats against the infidels can be guilty of lying, saying something contrary to reality. Al-NTbulusi says that human criteria do not apply to God. He may kill people and destroy cultivated fields and cattle and this would not be called injustice. Moreover, a lie is untrue information about the past, whereas abstaining from doing something in the future, God's non-fulfillment of His threats, concerns the future and cannot be considered a lie. The wacfd stands for reprimanding and frightening the sinners, but not for providing information about the future35.

32

Qawl, fols. 14b-15b. The emphasis in the passage is mine. Qawl, fols. 15b-18b. Qawl, fol. 2lb-23a.

M.W.

34 35

DIMMiS

101

From these formalistic considerations al-Nabulusi proceeds to the ethical questions. He contends that the Arabs believe that a man of honor is obliged to keep his word if he promises to do some good. On the other hand, failure to carry out a threat is considered an act of generosity (karam). Here the author quotes a few verses of poetry to prove his point. He attacks ((the innovative Muctazilites and the Hawarig who err and lead into error,0 who maintain that God is obliged to torture the unbelievers and the sinful ones and that He is unable to forgive them. The author hints that he can charge the Turkish writer of being a Muctazilite, and this would be the worst accusation of all36! Repeating himself, al-NabulusI summarizes his arguments: a. In the Qur'an it says: ((It is God's unfailing promise>>(Qur'an, IV, 123), but nothing similar is said about the threats (wacid). b. Pardoning and refraining from carrying out the threats are laudable in Arab custom, while failure to fulfill a promise is blameworthy. c. God's nature inclines more to mercy than to punishment. The Qur'an shows that the promises to the just are more predominant than threats to the evildoers37. Says the author: How could this ignorant Turk attack Ibn al'Arabi, the teacher of the great gnostics? It is clear that the People of the Book are less infidels than other unbelievers, who do not give the gizya and God may pardon even them if He so wishes. Ibn alcArabi in his revelations referred only to some unbelievers, not to all of them. According to al-Nabulusi, Ibn al-'Arabli did not deny the legal (svarcz) wacid concerning all the infidels and the hypocrites. The ignorant writer simply did not understand Ibn al-cArabi's meaning and added his own interpretation. It would have been better perhaps to ignore the adversary's treatise, since it is full of mistakes that are not becoming in the youngest student. Yet alNabulusi felt he had to refute his accusations, proving that nothing Ibn al-cArabl or himself had said contradicted the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the consensus in any way38. The writer concludes: One may argue that if the threat is not serious, this would encourage the sinner to stay in his course. To this one should reply that the possibility that God may choose not

36
37

Qawl, fols. 25b-29b.

38

Qawl, fols. 29b-30a. Qawl, fols. 3lb-34b.

102

M. WINTER

to punish the sinner does not guarantee of course that indeed He would do so. The purpose of the threats is to threaten and frighten the sinners. As about God's promise, wa'd, to the believers, it cannot be broken, since this would not be generosity on the part of God, but rather stinginess from Him, and this is impossible39. What al-Nabulusi does not seem to realize, of course, is that he exactly adheres to the Mu'tazilites' attitudes and logic, with the only difference that while he, unlike that extinct theological sect, assumes that God has the ability to forgive and refrain from carrying out His own threats, he believes that it is incumbent upon Him to keep His promises to the believers and the just. Al-Nabulusli's God is evidently very ((liberal>) and compassionate, but contrary to the author's repeated insistence on the Sunni doctrine that believes in a totally arbitrary divine will, his God is unable to shake off His generosity (karam) and not reward the good believers, as He promised in the revelation.

CONCLUSION

It has been shown that CAbd al-Ganl's polemical treatise is not just another theological work. It provides an insight into both the writer's ideology and the mood of his times. The intensity of alNTbulusi's (and before him of Nagm al-Din al-Gazzli's) Arab pride and sense of identity against the background of the Ottoman situation is striking. It should be noted that the belief in Arab superiority is not based on race or origin, but on language, although such a modern differentiation would have been strange to the seventeenth century Arab writer. This short treatise is also another link in the controversy surrounding Ibn al-CArabl. It is interesting to witness once more the strong feelings which his writings could raise centuries after his death. It should be noted that Ibn al-CArabi was always popular among the Turks, at least as much as he was among the Arabs. Yet al-NTbulusi's opponent, who attacked Ibn al-CArab1, happened to be a Turk. In this connection it is interesting to see al-NTbulusi's view of the function and purpose of ta'wdl, interpretation. Exactly like the Egyptian CAbd al-Wahhab al-SaCrani, another prolific Sufi writer, who lived two centuries before al-Nabulus1, the Syrian Sufi
39 Qawl, fol. 37b.

DIMMIS

103

does not regard the primary duty of the commentator to clarify objectively the sayings of old writers, but rather to defend them against possible attacks and charges of unbelief. This kind of interpretation is typical of a central stream in orthodox Sufism, keen on compromising the tenets of even extreme mystics, such as Ibn al-'Arabl, against the onslaught of the orthodox non-Sufi theologians40. There is a clear apologetic streak in this approach. The treatise reveals an extremely liberal attitude toward the dimm s. According to al-NTbulusi, the Jews and the Christians who pay their gwizya are accepted by the Muslims as brethren who have the same rights and duties as themselves. Moreover, the door of salvation in the hereafter is open to them, even if they do not convert to Islam, by having fmain, faith, in their hearts (to be distinguished from Islam which, of course, requires the profession of faith). Since CAbd al-Gani's God is very merciful and forgiving, ready to forgo the fulfillment of his threats to the sinful and the unbelievers, yet virtually compelled to keep his promises to the deserving, the chances of the dimmfts in the hereafter are, according to al-Nabulusi's vision, very bright indeed. Finally, the writer makes it clear that he regards all his views not as theoretical or speculative, but as addressed to the social reality of his day. It is obvious from allusions scattered in his writing41 that he may be speaking of early Islam (as it was usual to do), but was thinking of his own contemporaries. Whether he spoke of the newly (and in his opinion, incompletely) converted Turks, or the negative linguistic impact on Arabic due to associating with foreigners, or the strict prohibition of harming the dimmfs, al-Nabulusi was addressing his own society and his own time.
40 41

See note 9 above. See, for example, Qawl, fols. 2a, 7b, 15b.