Original post by Dr. Hassan Ansari¹

---

Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umari (d. 749 AH)² in his valuable book al-Ta‘rif bil-Mustalah al-Sharif includes the texts of various official oaths that were customary during the Mamluk era (see: p. 186 onwards). Among these are the texts of oaths for the People of the Book and followers of various Islamic sects. Naturally, in these official oaths, which were prepared by state scribes and officials, parts of the beliefs of the followers of different sects, schools of thought, and religions were incorporated within the framework of the oaths.

In these oaths, the person who is to swear an oath does so according to their religious beliefs, affirming that what they say is true. Otherwise, they are considered to have denied certain recognized religious beliefs to which they claim adherence. This dynamic provides an opportunity to express the doctrinal positions of each sect within these types of oaths.

To what extent these official versions of the oaths were actually taken seriously by the government requires further investigation. However, from their content, it is clear that while the themes of these oaths were organized based on the beliefs of different sects, they often included selectively chosen points or interpretations. These were not always acceptable or agreeable to the members of these sects themselves, which indicates the intervention of governmental authorities in drafting these texts.

Regardless of whether these oaths were practically implemented, the fact that they were included as official texts in Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umari’s book is noteworthy. Moreover, within these oaths, there are significant details about the doctrinal issues of various sects, offering valuable historical insights. Notably, they reflect the perceptions that Sunnis and the Mamluk state had about different sects, including the Shi‘a.

In addition to quoting these texts, Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umari also provides his own explanations about the various sects, which are of great importance.

In addition to Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umari, al-Qalqashandi also referred to these oaths in Subh al-A‘sha, following Ibn Fadl Allah, citing some portions and providing detailed explanations beyond what was presented (Volume 13, p. 225 onwards). After these two authors, a jurist from the late Mamluk period named Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Minhaji al-Asyuti also quoted these texts in a book addressing various issues of contractual agreements, as well as jurisprudential and administrative matters related to the judiciary. It is clear that he derived this material from Ibn Fadl Allah’s book, although he does not explicitly mention this. However, he provides a rationale for why he addressed this topic in his work.

His explanations indicate that these oaths, at least during his time, were practiced only to a limited extent and not by official state scribes. Instead, they were occasionally employed by qudat al-‘askar (military judges) under specific circumstances as oaths for followers of different sects and religions in certain regions of the Mamluk Sultanate. This suggests that during his era, judicial and administrative offices within the state did not differentiate between sects when administering oaths. In practice, this approach was intended to deny official recognition to these sects outside Sunni orthodoxy.

In this regard, he writes:

Know that the forms of oaths mentioned, related to these heretical sects, Shi‘a, Qadariyya, and Khawarij, and others akin to them, are not intended for judicial purposes, nor do they concern witnesses or the judges of the sacred Shari‘a. Some who encounter these texts might say so or think that including them in this book is frivolous. To such claims, I respond:
The reason for including them in this book is that most of the rulers of the eastern regions and the peripheral areas of the Islamic territories who correspond with the Sultan of Egypt and maintain allegiance to him hold such beliefs. Among the rulers of the noble Hijaz, there are those associated with the school of Zayd ibn ‘Ali, and among the nobles of Medina — may the best of blessings and peace be upon it — there are those whose beliefs are even more deviant than those of the Zaydis.
At times, the Sultan may dispatch an expedition or send an army to one of these regions when a sect among these groups, or a faction of the Khawarij — may God protect us — rebels against the Muslim community, or when an enemy of the Sultanate takes refuge with one of these rulers who espouse such beliefs. In such cases, there is a need to swear an oath, affirming that the enemy of the Sultanate is neither sheltered in their lands nor entered into their territories, that they will not allow entry to the lands of the Islamic kingdoms, nor will they cause corruption therein, and that they will safeguard their border areas and not encroach upon other regions of the Islamic territories.

In such situations, the presence of the qadi al-‘askar is necessary to oversee the administration of the oath. At times, it may be impossible for the katib al-sirr al-sharif (chief scribe) or their deputy to be present due to other obligations or illness, and in such cases, the qadi al-‘askar acts in their place, being knowledgeable about these doctrinal specifics recorded in these texts.
Thus, if someone is known to hold one of these beliefs, they are sworn in accordance with their doctrinal convictions, as it is known that such an oath is more impactful and effective in preserving the sanctity of the noble legal order.

He concludes with an example:

“I encountered this during my time in the lands of Ibn Qaraman while serving my master, who was then the deputy of Aleppo. And God knows best.” (Jawahir al-‘Uqud, 2/279)

Here, we present the text of these oaths based on the work of the aforementioned author, al-Asyuti, from his book Jawahir al-‘Uqud wa Mu‘in al-Qudat wa al-Muwaqqi‘in wa al-Shuhud (Volume 2, starting from p. 271 onwards). In the material quoted by al-Asyuti and what follows, there are fascinating details about various sects, including the Zaydis, Nusayris, Druze, and other Islamic sects. (See also additional information in Ibn Fadl Allah’s book, particularly about the Zaydis and the beliefs of the nobles of Mecca during the author’s time, who adhered to the Zaydi school of thought). There is also a section here regarding the oaths of philosophers. Below is the text of these oaths:

“… As for the oaths of the People of Innovation (ahl al-bid‘a), such as the Rafidis and the various Shi‘a sects, they are numerous factions united by their love for Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him). However, they differ regarding their beliefs about him. While they all agree on their love for him, they hold diverse views about his status. Among them are extremists who engage in excessive veneration and extreme deviation.

Some of their extremism has led them to worship Ali as a god. Among these are the Nusayris. Others claim that he was the divinely-sent prophet, but Gabriel made a mistake. Some say he shared in prophecy and messengership. Still, others claim he was the explicit successor (wasi) to prophethood.

They then differ regarding the imamate after him. They unanimously agree on Hasan and Husayn after him. A faction claimed Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah succeeded them. The majority of these groups currently visible in these lands include the Nusayris, Isma’ilis, Imamis, and Zaydis.

As for the Nusayris, they believe in the divinity of Ali. When they see clouds passing, they say: ‘Peace be upon you, O Abu al-Hasan,’ claiming that the clouds are his abode. They believe thunder is his voice, lightning his laughter, and Salman al-Farisi his messenger. They revere Ibn Muljam and claim that he liberated the divine nature (lahut) from the human nature (nasut).

They have a secretive communication system among themselves, such that whoever they admit into their circle never turns away from them nor discloses their secrets, even under the threat of death. They are a cursed sect with Magian beliefs. They do not forbid marriage to daughters, sisters, or mothers, nor do they prohibit wine, believing it to be a light (nur). They venerate light in ways akin to the Magians or close to their doctrines.

The form of their oath is:

‘By God, and by the right of the Most High, the Exalted (al-Ali al-A‘la), and by what I believe about the Sublime Manifestation (al-Mazhar al-Asna), and by the right of the Light (nur), and by what emanates from it, the clouds and its inhabitant, I swear. Otherwise, I disassociate myself from my master, Ali the Most High, the Greatest (Ali al-A‘zam), my loyalty to him, and the manifestations of truth. I admit to revealing Salman’s veil without permission, disavowing the claim of the proof (hujja), Nusayr, joining those who curse Ibn Muljam, denying the secret speech, disclosing the guarded secret, rejecting the claim of the people of realization, and I uproot the vine tree with my own hands until I uproot its roots and block its path.

And I stand with Cain against Abel, and with Nimrod against Abraham, and likewise with every Pharaoh who rose against his adversary, until I meet the Most High, the Exalted (Ali al-‘Azim), while he is displeased with me. I disavow Qanbar’s statement and claim that purification does not come from fire.'”

As for the Isma’ilis, they are those who claim that the imamate transitioned after Ja‘far al-Sadiq to his eldest son Isma‘il, who is the ancestor of the Fatimid caliphs in Egypt. This group comprises the Shi‘a of that state, adhering to its call and ideology. Although they outwardly profess Islam and align with the Imami creed, they diverge from the Imamiyya regarding Musa al-Kadhim, asserting that the imamate did not pass to him but remained with his brother Isma‘il.

This sect is considered disbelievers (kuffar), as they believe in transmigration (tanasukh) and incarnation (hulul). They are further divided into factions: some are Nizari, those who follow the imamate of Nizar, while others adhere to their original beliefs. Despite these divisions, they are united by a common oath. The point of divergence among them will be discussed, God willing.

The unified oath for them is as follows:

“By God, the One, the Unique, the Eternal Refuge (al-Wahid al-Ahad, al-Fard al-Samad), the Omnipotent, the Supreme, who alone is worthy of worship, and by the truth of God the True (al-Haqq), and by the guides of creation, Ali and his sons, the Imams of manifestation and concealment, I swear. Otherwise, I disavow true loyalty (wala’), affirm the people of falsehood, align myself with the faction of misguidance, and support the Nawasib in upholding absurdities. I reject the transition of the imamate to al-Husayn, then to his sons by explicit designation (nass jalī), continuing to Ja‘far al-Sadiq, then to his son Isma‘il, the founder of the guiding mission (da‘wa hadi‘a) and enduring legacy.

Otherwise, I would become a doubter in faith, accuse the first da‘i of sin, and incite division among people. I would abandon al-Mahdi, betray the people regarding the Qa’im, destroy the state of al-Mu‘izz, deny that the day of Ghadir Khumm is a feast, claim that the Imams have no knowledge of the unseen, oppose those who attribute such knowledge to them, accuse the family of Muhammad of heinous crimes, attribute grave sins to them, ally with their enemies, and oppose their supporters.

At this point, an additional clause is added for the Nizari faction:

“Otherwise, I deny that the imamate transitioned to Nizar, who was carried in the womb of a concubine out of fear while crossing the enemy’s lands. I deny that his name was changed to conceal his identity, reject the leadership of Hasan ibn Sabbah, disavow Mawlana ‘Ala al-Din, the master of wisdom, and Naser al-Din Sinan, known as Rashid al-Din. I become the first of the aggressors, claim that their reports are fabrications, and align myself with the deceivers and misguided of the villages.”

As for the other Isma’ilis who deny the imamate of Nizar, their oath includes the following:

“Otherwise, I claim that the imamate transitioned to Nizar, affirm those who state that he was carried in the womb of a concubine, deny his apparent death in Alexandria, allege that he did not challenge rightful authority or contend for the caliphate with its rightful claimant, align with his followers, support Hasan ibn Sabbah, and join the Nizari faction in its later stages.”

These Isma’ili factions, despite their differences, conclude their oaths with the following statement:

“Otherwise, I claim the heretical words of Ibn al-Sallar, endorse the opinion of Ibn Ayyub, raise the minor banner and replace it with the black flag, and commit such deeds against the people of the palace, fabricating similarly absurd claims.”

As for the Imamis, they are those who believe that the Imams are twelve in number, the first being Ali and the last being the Awaited Imam (al-Muntazar) in the end times. They are opposed to the Isma’ilis, who claimed the imamate of Isma’il ibn Ja‘far, while the Imamis assert the imamate of Musa al-Kadhim, the son of Ja‘far. They are Muslims but are considered to hold significant innovations. They are also known for their cursing of others.

The oath for these individuals is as follows:

“By God, by God the Great, the One, the Unique, the Eternal Refuge (al-Wahid al-Ahad, al-Fard al-Samad), and by my belief in the truth of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his explicit designation of the imamate of his cousin and inheritor of his knowledge, Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God honor his face) on the day of Ghadir Khumm, when he said, ‘Whoever’s master I am, Ali is his master. O God, befriend those who befriend him and oppose those who oppose him. Guide the truth to his tongue wherever it turns.’

Otherwise, I would be among the first to support the decision at the Saqifah, and the last to delay during the incident at the house. I would deny the permissibility of taqiyya out of fear for one’s life, support Ibn al-Khattab, oppress Fatimah al-Zahra, and deny her rightful inheritance. I would assist in the advancement of Taym, Adi, and Umayyah, approve of the judgment of the shura, reject Hassan ibn Thabit’s testimony on the day of Aisha’s confrontation, support her at the Battle of the Camel, unsheath my sword with Muawiyah at Siffin, affirm Ziyad’s claims, submit to Ibn Marjanah’s judgment, and join Umar ibn Sa‘d in the fight against Husayn.

I would deny the imamate transitioned to Husayn after Hasan, assist Shimr ibn Dhi Jawshan against those afflicted at Karbala, enslave the Ahl al-Bayt, drag them with whips to Damascus, approve of Yazid’s rulership, obey al-Mughira ibn Shu‘ba, support Amr ibn al-‘As and later Busr ibn Arta. I would act as ‘Uqbah ibn Abdullah al-Muzani did, affirm the views of the Khawarij, deny the imamate transitioned after Husayn ibn Ali to his descendants until the final Imam, the Awaited Mahdi, support the killing of the Ahl al-Bayt by the Umayyads and Abbasids, nullify the ruling on temporary marriage, increase the prescribed punishment for drinking beyond what was decreed, forbid the sale of slave mothers (umm al-walad), and give rulings in religion based on personal opinion (ray’).

I would disavow the Shi‘a of the believers, follow the whims of the people of Syria, align myself with the rabble under the commander at Nahrawan, follow Abu Musa’s error, introduce into the Qur’an what Ibn Mas‘ud did not confirm, and share in Ibn Muljam’s dowry for Qutam. I would reject the love of Hamdan, deny the condition of infallibility for the Imam, and align myself with the people of enmity in their darkness.”

As for the Zaydis, they are the closest group to moderation among the sects. Their view is that Abu Bakr and Umar (may God be pleased with them) were just Imams, and their leadership was based on necessity. However, they consider Ali (may God be pleased with him) superior to them. They also believe that it is permissible, in certain cases of necessity or to prevent discord, for someone less qualified to assume leadership over someone more qualified. This group has an Imam in Yemen, based in Sana’a, and they only recognize obedience to this Imam. Their rulers consider themselves his deputies. Historically, they had an established state in Tabaristan, which has since declined, leaving only a small remnant today.

The oath for the Zaydis resembles the oath of the Sunnis, with additional clauses:

“Otherwise, I disavow the beliefs of Zayd ibn Ali, claim that saying ‘Hayya ‘ala khayr al-‘amal’ in the call to prayer is an innovation, reject the obligation of obeying the infallible Imam, deny that the Awaited Mahdi is from the descendants of Hasan ibn Ali, and claim the superiority of the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) over the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (may God be pleased with him) and his sons. I would criticize the judgment of his son Hasan based on what necessity dictated and reproach him for it.”

 

Among those who require oaths are the Druze sect, referred to as al-ta’ifa al-amina al-kha’ifa (the secure yet fearful sect). Their practices are similar to those of the Nusayris in permitting incestuous relationships and other forbidden sexual acts. They are considered even more disbelieving and hypocritical than the Nusayris, more deserving of ignorance regarding the limits of what God revealed to His Messenger, further removed from all goodness, and closer to all evil. Their affiliation traces back to Abu Muhammad al-Darzi, a supporter of al-Hakim Abu Ali al-Mansur ibn al-Aziz, the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt.

Initially, they were part of the Isma‘ilis, but they later abandoned all their former beliefs and destroyed their foundational doctrines. They claim the return (raj‘a) of al-Hakim and assert that divinity resided in him, merging with his human nature (nasut). They believe he disappears and reappears in his form, annihilating his enemies completely without resurrection after death. They deny resurrection entirely and adopt a stance similar to naturalists (tabā’i‘iyyah), asserting that nature governs generation, and death results from the extinction of innate heat, like a lamp extinguished when its oil is depleted, except in cases of sudden accidents. They believe in an eternal existence, a perpetual world, continuous reproduction through wombs, and the earth’s eventual absorption of everything.

This sect was responsible for altering the basmala during al-Hakim’s era, writing: Bism al-Hakim Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim. When criticized, they changed it to: Bism Allah al-Hakim al-Rahman al-Rahim, attributing divinity to al-Hakim in the first instance and making him a descriptor of God in the second.

Among their followers were the people of Keserwan. Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) believed that fighting them and the Nusayris was more necessary than fighting the Armenians, as they are internal enemies within the abode of Islam, and the harm of their existence is greater.

The oath for the Druze is as follows:

“By God, and by the truth of al-Haqq al-Hakim, and by my belief in his allegiance, and what Abu Abdullah al-Darzi held as the clear proof and saw as bright as the shining sun, I swear. Otherwise, I would claim that my master, al-Hakim, died, decayed, and his limbs disintegrated. I would believe in the replacement of the earth and the heavens and the resurrection of the decayed bones after they had perished. I would follow every ignorant person, prohibit myself from what is lawful, commit actions with my own hands that lead to the corruption of my body, disbelieve in the pledged allegiance, and discard it behind my back as if it were of no value.”

As for the Khawarij, they are the faction that diverged from both the Sunnis and Shi‘a. They rejected arbitration (tahkim), declaring, “There is no judgment except by God,” and they considered sin to be disbelief. They excommunicated Ali, Mu‘awiya, and anyone who disagreed with their views. They comprise numerous factions, including the Wahbiyya in the western regions.

The oath for the Khawarij is similar to that of the Sunnis but includes additional clauses:

“Otherwise, I would permit arbitration and approve the positions of both parties at Siffin. I would willingly obey the rule of tyrannical authorities, interpret the Book of God falsely, introduce into religion what does not belong to it, claim that the rule of the Umayyads was just and their judgments valid, that Amr ibn al-‘As was correct, and that Abu Musa was not mistaken. I would unlawfully seize wealth and violate chastity, commit both major and minor sins, meet God burdened with sins, claim that the act of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam was disbelief, and that fighting one who exits [the community] is sinful. I would disavow Qutam’s actions, reject allegiance to leaders, deny that the caliphate is restricted to Quraysh, and fail to satisfy my sword and spear with the blood of the erring.”

 

The oath for philosophers (hukama’) is as follows:

“By God, by God, by God the Great, who alone is worthy of worship, the One, the Unique, the Eternal Refuge (al-Wahid al-Ahad, al-Fard al-Samad), the everlasting, timeless, and eternal being, whose knowledge is the cause of all causes, Lord of lords, arranger of all affairs, the Powerful, the Ancient, the First without beginning and the Last without end. He is exalted beyond being created or subject to accidents. He is the Living One, characterized by the attributes of eternity, timelessness, and perfection, adorned with the cloak of majesty and grandeur, the arranger of the heavens, the mover of meteors, the one who bestows forces upon the stars, the giver of souls to forms, the creator of beings, and the nurturer of animals, minerals, and plants.

Otherwise, may my soul not ascend to its proper place, nor my spirit connect with its higher realm, leaving me in the darkness of ignorance, the veils of misguidance, and departing this world without being imbued with knowledge. I would not speak of science, nor utter wisdom, and I would remain in the pitfalls of deficiency, aligned with the ranks of injustice. I would take my share of polytheism, deny the truths, claim the annihilation of souls, and align myself with the beliefs of naturalists (tabā’i‘iyyah). I would remain bound by compounds and temporal concerns, failing to perceive realities as they truly are.

Otherwise, I would claim that hayula (prime matter) is not receptive to the composition of bodies, deny matter and form, violate the laws of nature, and assert that moral goodness and badness are unrelated to reason. I would remain with evil souls, find no path to salvation, and claim that God is not an agent by essence, nor knowledgeable of universals. I would deny that prophethood is divinely granted or that it is attainable through effort, deviate from the path of the wise, overturn the teachings of the ancients, oppose the divine philosophers, and agree to the destruction of forms for no purpose. I would confine God to a specific direction, claim that He is a corporeal being, reduce Him to boundaries and essence, and accept blind imitation in matters of divinity.”

The oath for the Qadariyya is as follows:

“By God, by God, by God the Great, the One with absolute authority, the Creator of actions and will. Otherwise, I would claim that humans act independently (muktasib), that Ja‘d ibn Dirham was correct in his beliefs, and that Hisham ibn ‘Abd al-Malik acted rightly in his treatment of Lamiyya. I would also assert that Marwan ibn Muhammad was misguided in his leadership, deny predestination (qadar), whether its good or evil, and claim that what has befallen me could have missed me and what has missed me could have befallen me.

I would deny the statement: ‘When a matter is decreed, why should I strive or aim?’ I would cast doubt on the narrators of the hadith, “Act, for everyone is facilitated toward what they were created for,” and misinterpret the verse: “Indeed, it is in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted and full of wisdom” [Quran 43:4]. I would abandon my beliefs, meet God, and claim that matters are not decreed anew (amr ghayr anaf).”

1. Source.
2. al-ʿUmarī (born June 12, 1301, Damascus—died March 1, 1349, Damascus) was a scholar and writer whose works on the administration of the Mamlūk dominions of Egypt and Syria became standard sources for Mamlūk history. Read more.