Ibadism - The Forgotten Branch of Islam

Islam is the second largest religion in the world with almost two billion followers. And with all that many

followers. And with all that many people, there is bound to be a lot of diversity, of course. And this is indeed the case. I'm sure most of you know

the case. I'm sure most of you know about the most major division and the two main branches perhaps of the religion, which is the Sunni and the Shia. But there is in fact a third

Shia. But there is in fact a third branch that is a lot less wellknown but still has been significant historically and today. And when I say that you might

and today. And when I say that you might be thinking of Sufism perhaps but this is actually quite inaccurate. Sufism is

not a branch of Islam in the same way as Sunni and Shia instead being more of a kind of um tendency or science within Islam that

can exist both within Sunni and Shia although most Sufis are within the Sunni branch. Instead, the branch that I'm

branch. Instead, the branch that I'm talking about is one known as the Ibaldis whereas Ibaldism or Ibaldya.

This is a group that is a lot smaller in numbers compared with both Sunni and Shia, but they make up a significant amount of the population in places like

Oman and certain parts of North Africa.

This is a really interesting form of Islam that has existed since the very beginning of the religion. Some people

even call it especially bodies themselves consider it the earliest like concrete form or or group within Islam.

So who are the Ibadis? What is their theology? What is their history? Their

theology? What is their history? Their

understanding of fik and Islamic law. I

am here in Oman to answer precisely these questions.

The origins of ibadism date back to the first decades of Islam and right after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

Just like with many of the other splits among the early Muslims or the quote unquote believers movement, this is one that essentially goes back to questions of authority and legitimacy.

After the death of the prophet, there seems to have been certain disputes over leadership. Some, especially according

leadership. Some, especially according to Shi belief, seem to have held the opinion that the prophet's cousin and son-in-law, Ali Abalib, was the rightful successor. But historically leadership

successor. But historically leadership instead fell to the first kaiffs which the other Muslims consider legitimate especially Abu Bakr and Omar Abdal Katab. According to Sunni Islam there

Katab. According to Sunni Islam there are four so-called rightly guided cips or Rashidun Calebs following the prophet as Abu Bakr and Omar were also succeeded

by man Iban Afan and then the afromentioned Ali Abatalib. But the

righteousness or legitimacy of the latter two were by no means agreed upon by everyone. Already during the

by everyone. Already during the caliphate of Aman, concerns started to arise.

Generally, the first half, the first six years of his rule were considered good.

But by the second half, many started to criticize him for the way that he ruled, especially accusing him of nepotism, of favoring members of his family and tribe, the Abanaya, putting them in

positions of power, as well as general injustice and corruption. Tensions rose

and got so bad that in 656, a large group of people seemed to have gathered outside his house demanding that he resign or repent for his actions. And

some of these rebels even managed to enter his house from the roof and assassinated him. This sent shock waves

assassinated him. This sent shock waves through the young Muslim community and is the instigating factor behind the first Fitna or civil war. Some of those

who stood on Ofman's side, including Abdullahbn Al- Zuber and the prophet's wife Aisha, accused Ali, of either protecting the people responsible for the assassination, at least failing to

punish them properly and at most even outright to have had something to do with it, which resulted in an all-out war between the factions led on either side by Ali and Aisha and culminating in

the so-called battle of the camel, where Ali was eventually victorious. But after

this battle, Ali was now facing an even more difficult foe, Muawia Ibn Abi Sufyan, the kinsmen of the assassinated man and the future first caiff of the

Umayad dynasty.

The forces of Ali and those of Muawia met on the battlefield in 657 in what has become known as the Battle of Sephine. Now, this was a bloody and and

Sephine. Now, this was a bloody and and violent uh battle, and there's a lot to say about it. But to make a long story short, eventually the two sides decided to meet in diplomacy and use human

arbitration to end the fighting, which which they did. They put an end to the fighting. Now, not everyone was happy

fighting. Now, not everyone was happy about this decision. Specifically, a

group within Ali's camp, within his army, they thought that they had forfeited his right to lead the Muslim community. And thus they decided to

community. And thus they decided to leave his army entirely uh leave his camp and they went on what they called a hijra a migration referring back to the prophet's migration to another place and

form their own community. Uh and this community or this group has historically become known as the or theites. This

comes from an Arabic root meaning or the Arabic root which means to go out.

Right? So this probably refers to them leaving Ali's army in this way. Some say

that it it was also used later on as as a with the meaning of going out in war and in in battle or struggle against the

the enemies of of their movement. Now

this is somewhat of a sensitive topic because the Ibadis for instance don't really like to be associated with the Khajites. The Khadites historically

Khajites. The Khadites historically especially later on really became known or associated with extremism. So even

people today in the Muslim world will refer to some of these fundamentalist terrorist groups as Kawadage. Uh so the the term Kawadage historically always

had this extremist connotation uh for various reasons. chief among them is

various reasons. chief among them is that they had a very unique position regarding sinning and stat the status of being a Muslim

in that they believed in opposition to most other Muslims that a Muslim who committed a major sin or even a minor sin uh countless like numerous times by

sinning that meant that they had become an apostate right they were no longer Muslim so if you if you sin you are no longer Musl Muslim and thereby you're an apostate and thereby should be killed.

So this quite extreme theological position uh even back then and this meant that they also often would go out and and fight and and uh kill other

Muslims right it's even often claimed that it was a khaji that actually assassinated Ali later on in 661 so for this reason theites

are al always associated with this very extreme theological position and also resulting radical uh actions within the Islamic world. Now, there are a few

Islamic world. Now, there are a few things that maybe can be nuanced about that debate regarding the Ibadi's association with this group. First of

all, to to say that this original group that left Ali's army at the battle of Cphine are all Kawadage can be considered a bit of an anacronism. It is

projecting maybe later ideas and later terms wasn't really used back then as far as as as we know. Uh and project them onto this group. What seems to have

been the case is that this group who left Ali's army, the general wider group, refer to themselves as al- Muhakima. This name derives from the

Muhakima. This name derives from the Arabic word hum meaning judgment as in the slogan that they used nor judgment except gods referring to their rejection of human arbitration at

the battle of Cphine. Historically, it

appears that this group of Mahakima were not really unified on doctrine or approach in any sense of that word except their agreement that Ali had made

a mistake. In the immediate aftermath of

a mistake. In the immediate aftermath of Cifine, they did make a hij accepted as their leader a man called Abdullah Ibasi

who is still important to the Ibadis as well. Indeed, Ibadis have sometimes

well. Indeed, Ibadis have sometimes referred to the orthodox school or teaching of Ibadism as Wahi or Wahya.

There was also another famous battle of Naharawan in 658 when the Mohakima met Ali in battle and were essentially massacred including Ibah. But soon after this, the Mohakima movement was

essentially divided into different camps. Even you know they were already

camps. Even you know they were already kind of diverse and not unified in doctrine really. But after this massacre

doctrine really. But after this massacre at Naharawand they were firmly divided into different camps. Now one of them uh became known as the Azar named after

Nafi Iban Azarak. And this is the group that took a very militant and extremist approach. Let's say they fought often

approach. Let's say they fought often against the Umayads militarily. they had

these uh theological positions that we talked about that anyone any Muslim who sins especially a major sin becomes a non-Muslim they become a kafir an unbeliever an apostate and they should

be killed and so they they acted on these principles as well um so this is the group the aar is is the group that most people think of when we say so

these are the actual from the ibadi point of view um there was another group however that was a lot more moderate in approach. They were based in Basra and

approach. They were based in Basra and they had you know even though they they came from this similar makima background they had a very different and again more moderate approach and this is the group

that we know as the Ibadis.

And so the history is a bit a bit complicated right? So the Ibadis will

complicated right? So the Ibadis will affirm that yes they came from this general Mohakima movement but to to term them would be to project later ideas and

associations particularly associations with the more extreme a sect onto the Ibadis even though they are very different from them on a number of points.

So based on this, the Ibadis have quite unique positions in terms of some basic Islamic um theology and and history right uh compared with the Sunnis and

the Shis. So the bodies will count the

the Shis. So the bodies will count the first two caiffs Abu Bakr and Omar as righteous caiffs uh just like the the

Sunnis do. Um in terms of Oman the third

Sunnis do. Um in terms of Oman the third caiff they think that the first six years of his rule was was legitimate and righteous but then that he lost his way

the second half the second six years and for Ali it's similar that originally he was righteous but then he made this mistake at Safhine and thus uh was not

no longer a legitimate ruler. So this is quite different from the Sunnis. to see

all the first four Abu Bakr, Omar, Oman and Ali as righteous rulers and the Shi on the other hand who really only consider Ali to have been the rightful successor to Muhammad and the first

imam. So these basic aspects they shared

imam. So these basic aspects they shared with the wider Mahakima movement even with the Azad but the Ibadis had a much more again a much more moderate and

sometimes even consiliatory approach to other Muslims and we'll get to the details of what that actually means a bit later on in in this episode. So

these are the origins of the Ibadi movement and they seem to have developed into a distinct group or community quite early on in history. Indeed, some

especially Ibadis themselves will say that ibadism is essentially the earliest distinct formed form of Islam like first

group uh within Islam because Shiism and Sunniism as we know it today indeed would develop as into the form that we know it much later in history whereas ibadism the very basics of this movement

seems to have developed very early in the first century or two of of the Islamic uh time period so to say. So

this is very interesting.

There's another really interesting figure by the name Abdullah Ibad.

And as you might guess, this is the man from whom the Ibadis get their name. So

he seems to be significant in some way.

The problem with Abdullahbn Abbad is that we don't really know anything about him at all historically. We don't know who he was, what he did, where he was from. There are two letters claimed to

from. There are two letters claimed to be from him sent to a person called Abdul Malik, which some claim is the the famous Umayad Kiff Abd Malik, but that's debated.

But again, Abdullahbin Abbad, he's not mentioned in the earliest Ibaldi sources. He is not really mentioned in

sources. He is not really mentioned in any outside sources about uh ibalism in the earliest period. So scholars are very unsure of of how significant he

was. The scholarly opinion seems to be

was. The scholarly opinion seems to be or at least many scholars believe that Abdullahbin Ibadal might have been more of a kind of tribal leader associated

with the Ibadis like leader a more secular tribal leader for the group of Ibadis that became associated with them because he was this more political leader rather than a religious leader.

So that eventually some outsiders started to refer to them as Ibadis because they were associated with with this tribal leader. The Ibadis

themselves prefer to call themselves the so the people of straightness which refers to um the surah fat for example

the straight path.

Now aside from Abdullah Iban Ibad in terms of more religious figures that are of importance in the early period there are three figures that are usually considered to be the first imams or

religious authorities and and foundational figures of the Ibali movement. The first is a man called Jab

movement. The first is a man called Jab Ibn Zed and he's claimed to be associated with uh the prophet Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas. And so Ib

Abbas is also seen as a kind of foundational figure in a sense but especially Jabad Iban Zade. It's claimed

that he was from here in Oman originally but lived in around Basra just like most of these early bodies. He was then succeeded by a man called Abua Muslim

Ibarim at Tamimi. And then lastly the third of the main three foundational figures is Rabia Ibn Khabib who is a famous scholar and jurist and collector

of hadits. In fact, um the main

of hadits. In fact, um the main collection of hadiths that the Ibalis use uh is attributed to Rabi Habib. So

he's very significant. It's also claimed that by the end of his life, he moved from Baser here to Oman and sort of by doing so set a kind of precedence for

what would happen to the community at large very soon thereafter.

Heat.

Heat.

Now the earliest history of Ebaldism is quite murky and we don't know that much.

We don't know like what is actually accurate and what might be later projections. And there are a few reasons

projections. And there are a few reasons for this. One thing is that obviously

for this. One thing is that obviously the the Mohakima Kawaraj movement broadly defined uh even though they were diverse they

were generally uh opposed to and critical of the Umayad regime for obvious reasons and because of this and the resulting persecution from this they

developed this idea of kitman which is that they would conceal their identity their religious beliefs and sometimes political stances as in order to avoid persecution. Quite

similar to the the principle of taka that was developed in primarily in Shiism around the same period.

So that's one reason, right? They didn't

really write anything down because they practiced kitman. They were hiding and

practiced kitman. They were hiding and concealing themselves. Secondly, the

concealing themselves. Secondly, the early ibadi movement was mostly an oral tradition, right? So they didn't really

tradition, right? So they didn't really write anything down whether there was, you know, rulings or beliefs, theology, even hadiths as we saw. And so for these

reasons, we we don't really have many early sources that we can draw on to be to be sure.

But this is essentially what happened in terms of of of of uh the historical unfolding because of the critique that the Ibadis had. Even though they had not

as an extreme um position as the Kawar, they were still critical of the Omiads. And

because of that, they were persecuted and oppressed. So that most of the

and oppressed. So that most of the Ibadis were forced to relocate to the outskirts or the further reaches of the

Islamic world. Some of them moved here

Islamic world. Some of them moved here to Oman at the southeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. But many others also

Arabian Peninsula. But many others also moved to North Africa to what is today Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. And these

two locations, so Oman and these places in North Africa are still the two main places that we find Ibadis even to this very day.

So as you can tell just based on this early history, the Ibadis are a group that from the very beginning were quite distinct from both the groups that would

become known as Sunni and Shia. They had

a fundamentally different idea about leadership and certain basic theological principles that were connected with it.

The sheis believed that spiritual and political leadership of the Muslim community should rest in the prophet's bloodline starting with Ali and Fatima and then being handed down in a

patrilineal succession of divinelyappointed imams with the biggest group the Ashari or 12vers accepting 12 such imams. The Sunnis are a bit more

complicated. There's no denying the fact

complicated. There's no denying the fact that the earliest proto Sunnis believed that leadership should rest with members of Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh, even

if the ideal later on became that anyone can be elected caiff through consensus basically. Nonetheless, the early

basically. Nonetheless, the early caliphates, the Rashidun, Omayud, and Abbasid were all headed by Arabs and legitimized themselves at least partly

on their kinship with the prophet. But

obviously in a much broader way than the sheis did. The Ibadis had a different

sheis did. The Ibadis had a different approach. To them, anyone who was most

approach. To them, anyone who was most righteous and elected by the community could become the imam, the leader of the community as long as they ruled according to Islamic law and didn't

commit any major sins. And that's also precisely the point, right? If an imam failed to rule according to Quranic principles or is sinful, then they should be deposed and lose their right

to rule. This is different from the

to rule. This is different from the proto Sunnis who generally held the ideal of respecting the person in authority even if they were sinful to avoid public strife. Basically it's also

very different from the sheis who held that the imams were infallible due to divine appointment.

Now on this basis a number of different IIMates or states were established across history. The earliest such date

across history. The earliest such date was established by a man called Abdullah Ibn Yaha al- Kindi also known as Talib.

And this was a state that had its center primarily in the Hadram region which is mostly in today's Yemen.

And they were initially quite successful. They even conquered Mecca

successful. They even conquered Mecca and Medina but only survived for about 2 to four years before they were crushed by the Abbassids eventually.

A much more long-lived imamator or state was instead established around this time in North Africa in the year 777. The

so-called Rustamemed dynasty named after Ibrahimman Ibn Rustam which was very successful both politically and intellectually. This was

a flourishing uh empire in North Africa in terms of science and intellectual development and so on. It is here that we see some of the first proper ibadi writings in terms of the first Quran

tapsiers within ibotism and writings about Jewish prudence and so on. They

survived for almost two centuries in fact until the rise of the Fotimids who conquered them in the year 909 which put an end to that dynasty.

Heat.

Heat.

The bodies would never again establish themselves politically in North Africa even if this remained a intellectual hub for the movement. Instead, it was here in Oman that the political history of

the Ibadis really uh continued for for the rest of history. But before we continue that story, let's actually look at ibadism and its teachings. What is

the theology of ibadism? Their beliefs

and their perspectives on fik or Islamic law.

There are many aspects of theology that could be brought up, but we can begin with that central aspect that we already touched on before and which is so central to the very origins of the

movement, the role of sin and what it does to the status of Muslims. As we saw the whole general makima/hawarage broadly defined movement believed that

faith and actions were intimately and directly connected in the sense that actions affected a person's faith.

The operative term here is fisk which generally is considered a major sin that one does not repent for or even smaller sins that are recurring can also be considered fisk.

We saw that the muhakima and thus the ibalis believe that when a Muslim commits such a major sin they become a kafir often translated as an unbeliever.

The extremist kawadage went so far as to say that any Muslim that commits such a sin becomes a mushri a polytheist or unbeliever an apostate even deserving of

death. This is very different from how

death. This is very different from how mainstream Islam saw it especially Sunnism. To the Sunnis, as long as a

Sunnism. To the Sunnis, as long as a person affirms the shahada, the proclamation of faith, they are to be considered Muslim, even if they are sinful Muslims. Outward actions don't

necessarily indicate inner faith. In

this early period of Islam, there emerged a group known as the Mura, who were kind of the opposite to the Kharajites, believing that works have no direct effect on one's faith and thus

that any judgment of people should be postponed to judgment day by God. This

movement was generally rejected by Sunnis later on. But essentially the same position is also found in the mainstream Moridu school and the Ashari formulation is also quite similar to

this. This is also why many Muslims

this. This is also why many Muslims today deem extremist groups within the Salafi movement as Kawar because of their tendency to do of proclaiming that

other Muslims who don't live up to expectations are kafir, something that thus goes against classic Sunni doctrine. Anyway, the Mohakima did

doctrine. Anyway, the Mohakima did believe that actions affect faith and that committing major sins meant you were a kafir. But the Ibadis being the

moderate version of this movement have a more lenient position when it comes to this. The word kufur which is often

this. The word kufur which is often translated as unbelief actually literally means something like to cover over. And what the Ibadis did to avoid

over. And what the Ibadis did to avoid the extreme position of the khajites was to make a distinction between different types of kufur. There is the worst kind

of kufur that which is true unbelief and which they call kufurik kufur of polytheism which is when a person is truly an unbeliever. But then there is

another category into which sinning Muslims fall and which they call kufur kufur of hypocrisy or ingratitude for God's blessings. A

person in this category which is basically all non-Ibodies cannot truly be considered Muslims in the full sense of that word even if they are still monotheists. They are caffers but not to

monotheists. They are caffers but not to the point that they are to be killed or considered apostates. Right? I can and

considered apostates. Right? I can and should be friendly with them. They can

intermar with them and so on. Even if on a theological level they are seen as transgressors.

So only bodies are true Muslims and other Muslims are generally referred to as the people of literally those who turn towards Mecca in prayer. And this is a

generally recurring theme with the Ibodies even if they are moderate compared to the Khadites. They can be quite strict or exclusivist on a theological and sotological level while

outwardly and socially being quite open and tolerant at the same time.

Another place where this is apparent is in the doctrine about association and dissociation wlaya and barah.

It has been very important in ibali doctrine to associate with those who are true Muslims in other words ibis and to disassociate from those who are not. But

again we see that pattern from before that on a theological level this is obviously quite strict. But that does not mean that this dissociation is necessarily a social one. The scholar

Valerie Hoffman writes, quote, Baraha need not need a severance of all contact or cordiality with such people. He

appears to interpret bara as an inner awareness of separation that does not imply social avoidance or discourtesy and not even preclude genuine affection.

Dissociation therefore may be more cognitive than actual.

And the scholar that she's referring to here, the prominent Ibadi scholar of the 19th and early 20th century, Arai, also known more famously as Abu Mus Albahani,

he himself writes that, quote, "Natural love does not harm you unless it becomes religious affiliation.

There is nothing wrong with being polite to someone while inwardly maintaining religious dissociation from him. The

messenger of God was pleasant, gentle, and perfectly courageous to everyone.

But that did not impong his complete dissociation from God's enemies. There

is no harm in good etiquette, gentleness, kind words, living courteously with other people, and observing proper speech as long as it does not extend to affiliation with the

person for whom God requires emnity.

Likewise, there is no harm in giving gifts and financial assistance or helping God's enemy escape from injustice and helping him in a just and pious cause as long as such assistance

does not strengthen his ability to disobey God or perpetrate injustice against the person or his wealth or lead to any injustice against the Muslim or the private property of the Muslims or

anything of that sort. So again,

theologically strict but socially and pragmatically tolerant. And we'll return

pragmatically tolerant. And we'll return to this tolerance of Ebaldism later on.

For the rest of this discussion, we might do well to structure it in the way of comparison. Since most people might

of comparison. Since most people might be aware of the Sunni and Shi mainstream positions on theology and law, we will point out the ways in which the Ibadis

differ on a number of points. Aside from

the point already mentioned, one of the most heated theological discussions during this early period of Islam, especially in and around Basra, was that of free will and predestination.

Do humans actually have power over their actions? Do they have free will? Or is

actions? Do they have free will? Or is

everything controlled by God in a deterministic way? This was quite a

deterministic way? This was quite a conundrum. If we deny humans free will,

conundrum. If we deny humans free will, then what's the point of the commands that God gives in the Quran for us to act justly and to be good people? What's

the point of trying to do good if we aren't actually in control of our actions?

But at the same time, if we say that humans do have free will, that seems to compromise God's omnipotence. If God

always knows everything and has power over everything, then no power actually belongs to us and we are not actually free to choose. One group known as the Kadaria argued for free will and this

position was also later picked up by the earliest organized school of theology or calam the rationalist Muazilla.

But many other Muslims including the Umayad regime that was in power as well as many of the hadith scholars disagreed and instead emphasized God's ultimate power over everything. The didn't call

themselves the most of the time but rather the so the people of God's oneness and uniqueness and justice. And so they

argued based on on this emphasis on God's justice that we must have free will because it wouldn't be just for God to punish us for something that we actually didn't control but that he was

in control of. Right? So this was one of their main arguments. According to

Malong, the earliest Ibali scholars seem to have sided with the people arguing for predestination, but later on the discussions became more nuanced. In

Sunni Islam, the mainstream position eventually became a kind of compromise between the two extremes as formulated by the Ashari school of Kalam.

This school was founded in the 10th century by Abul Hassan al- Ashari. And

in fact, the Abadis came to adopt essentially the same position as the Asharis. The Asharis held that human

Asharis. The Asharis held that human beings have no power to create or originate an action as all power comes from God. Thus, humans have no power to

from God. Thus, humans have no power to act. But God creates the particular

act. But God creates the particular action at the moment of choosing and the person only acquires it. So there is a level of responsibility as humans do

make choices but the actual power to act is only given by God. And the Ibadis essentially hold the same view. Here's a

quote from an Ibadi scholar named Abdas Aim Musabi. Quote, the most high is the

Aim Musabi. Quote, the most high is the one who brings human acts into existence without any effect from human power on them. Rather, human power comes into

them. Rather, human power comes into existence only at the moment of the act for which it is created. This is in opposition to the moatzilla in their claim that human power is what produces

the acts according to their choice and that the eternal power has no effect at all on those voluntary acts and neither does it flow according to the will of

God most high. But aside from this discussion on free will, the Ibadis tend to have quite different positions on theological questions compared to

mainstream Sunniism. Indeed, even though

mainstream Sunniism. Indeed, even though they were often essentially their intellectual enemies in the early period, the Ibadis adopted positions that are often much closer to the muazilla.

This can be seen, for example, in the fact that the Ibadis generally put an emphasis on the role of reason when approaching theology and law. Whereas

some Sunnis, especially the hamali/ Aafaris, will read the Quran quite literally, including descriptions about God in anthropomorphic ways or to at least appeal to the principle of bil

without how, right? That the ways that God describes himself should be accepted without asking about the true modality of what is said. The Ibadis read all such verses as being metaphorical. When

the Quran speaks of God's face, this can be interpreted as referring to his existence. when it refers to his hand,

existence. when it refers to his hand, this can refer to his power and so on.

Thus, instead heavily emphasizing the important Quranic/Islamic notion that God is not like any created object and thus cannot be described as occupying

any place or time to be described or understood using human words in any such way. So this is clearly closer to the

way. So this is clearly closer to the moatzilla than classic Sunniism. Just

like the Muay Tesla, the Ebalis argue that knowledge of God is innate in human intelligence and the prophets are only really sent to remind us of what we already know. So with the classic

already know. So with the classic ethical question, for example, are things good or bad simply because God says they are? Or is good and bad already ontologically good and bad in a

way that can be rationally concluded and God simply always affirms the truth of the good and bad that is innate in creation? This is an age-old question

creation? This is an age-old question that we find even in the writings of Plato, right? And the Ebaldi say that

Plato, right? And the Ebaldi say that reason can get us to the truth or at least to help us correctly interpret God's word. In this way, they also put

God's word. In this way, they also put an emphasis on the concept of it of independently reinterpreting scripture and religion using reason to fit new

circumstances without losing the core meaning of course. and they thus reject the opposite, what's known as tak or blind imitation of previous rulings.

Related to this, they also take a similar position when it comes to the question of God's attributes and how they relate to his essence. The Quran

indeed speaks of God using a bunch of names and these names correspond to certain attributes. So the merciful

certain attributes. So the merciful alman obviously seems to indicate that God possesses the attribute of being merciful or al-wad the loving

corresponds to the attribute which is named. But given the importance of or

named. But given the importance of or monotheism the idea that there is one God and importantly that God is one.

This seems to possibly contradict that if we go by reason to use philosophical language the doctrine of indicates that God must be simple. that is that he is

not composite or made up of parts because if God had parts he wouldn't be simple anymore and thus this would compromise his utter oneness. Thus the

muesla and the bodies instead argue that these attributes are not existing entities in themselves that are distinct from God's essence. There isn't the essence of God as one thing and that

essence having a bunch of attributes as part of himself as distinct features of that essence. Instead, the attributes

that essence. Instead, the attributes are identical to the essence. God

doesn't have knowledge. God is knowledge and so on with a knowledge that is identical to his essence and thus to every other essential attribute. This is

the position that the bodies took. But

they also nuanced it by distinguishing between attributes of essence that which are attributes that God always has eternally and attributes of action

which do not function the same way. The

scholar Wilfred Malong explains it a lot better than I could when he speaks about an early Ibali theologian called Abdullah Ibn Yazid al- Fazari. Quote

like the al fazari defines divine attributes of essence as eternally applying to God. God is knowing from eternity whatever will be before it is.

His being knowing does not affirm anything besides himself.

Divine attributes of act affirm something besides himself. His being a creator affirms the existence of something created. Attributes of act

something created. Attributes of act cannot be eternal as this would imply the eternity of creation.

Attributes of act moreover may apply and not apply at the same time. God may

create something at a time while not creating another or forgive someone while not forgiving another. Attributes

of essence apply always and exclude their opposite. God is forever omnisient

their opposite. God is forever omnisient and cannot be ignorant of anything at any time. Man can implore God to

any time. Man can implore God to activate his attribute of act and pray.

Have mercy on me or provide sustenance for me. He cannot ask for anything in

for me. He cannot ask for anything in relation to God's attribute of essence praying know or be powerful. Attributes

of essence in contrast to attributes of act are not subject to the divine attribute of omnipotence.

It is not proper to state he has power to know or he has power to see. All

attributes of act are subject to god's omnipotence. It is proper to say he has

omnipotence. It is proper to say he has power to create and he has power to give sustenance. Alphazari notes that there

sustenance. Alphazari notes that there are also combined attributes mushtaka applying to both god's essence and acts in different respects. The

attribute wise in respect to his essence implies that he knows affairs. In

respect to his act, it implies their perfection and accuracy. Some of god's attributes of essence may also be predicated of humans and other creatures. In all creatures, however,

creatures. In all creatures, however, such attributes entail an entitive existent, mana, while in God, they entail only the negation of the opposite. The attribute of being alive

opposite. The attribute of being alive thus implies the existence of an entity of life in man. While in God, it implies the negation of death. These are

theological questions that most people, including most themselves, don't really think about on a regular basis. But it

was important on an intellectual level and does show you another instance where the Ibadis are quite distinct and unique.

And lastly, another one of the most famous points in which the Ibadis disagree with mainstream Sunniism but do agree with the Mazela and many Shi is the question of the creation of the

Quran.

So this was essentially the most heated debate in all of early Islamic theology.

Of course, essentially all Muslims agreed that the Quran was the word or speech of God. Although the is smiley she make a nuanced distinction between speech and word. But what did this

actually mean? If the Quran is God's

actually mean? If the Quran is God's speech and God is eternal, does that mean that the Quran itself is eternal?

Or is the Quran created speech of God just like other created things?

Now, importantly, we are not dealing here with a question of whether the Quran is the word of God in a literal sense. Essentially, all Muslims already

sense. Essentially, all Muslims already agreed on this. Instead, it's about the nature of that speech and how it relates to the attributes of God. To some, it might be a bit helpful to compare this

to the debates in early Christianity about the divinity of Christ at the Council of Nika.

Everyone agreed here, including Aras and the quote unquote Aryans, that Jesus was divine. But was he substantially the

divine. But was he substantially the same as the father or a created lower aspect of divinity?

In the Islamic debates, the rationalist Mueszilla held that the Quran was created. To say anything else would be

created. To say anything else would be polytheism because you would introduce multiplicity in the divine.

In other words, this debate is strongly connected to the already discussed positions on God's attributes and essence. God's speech is not an

essence. God's speech is not an attribute apart from his essence.

Rather, God speaks by creating speech.

So, the Quran is God's word, but it is something created in time.

The opponents of this position, mostly consisting of the so-called traditionalist or the Hadith, the people of Hadith, instead held that the Quran

was the eternal unccreated word of God.

Because if the Quran is the speech of God, something which God knows and God has the attribute of speech and knowledge eternally, then the contents of that speech and knowledge must also

be eternal. The muesi position of the

be eternal. The muesi position of the created Quran was quite popular and was even supported by some of the abbassid caiffs like al- matm who actually instigated what's known as the mehna or

the inquisition, right? where

traditionalist scholars were essentially forced on threat of imprisonment and torture to accept this position.

Many did while others most famously Ahmed Hal didn't and the whole inquisition really only eventually strengthened the traditionalist position and made them out to be heroes and

martyrs. So it kind of backfired on the

martyrs. So it kind of backfired on the ambassador completely. The mainstream

ambassador completely. The mainstream Sunni position eventually adopted a nuanced version of the uncreatedness of the Quran. Often making a kind of

the Quran. Often making a kind of difference between the actual words on the page which are recited. And this is the created aspect of the Quran and the

Quran itself which is uncreated. The

bodies essentially adopt the position that the Quran is created similar to the mazilla. This makes sense given the fact

mazilla. This makes sense given the fact that they also adopt a similar view of God's essence and attributes which in a way necessitates the position that the

Quran must be a divine creation in time.

Hoffman says quote is distinguished between God's essential speech nefi which is an attribute of God's eternal essence and the Quran and other revealed

scriptures which are created indicators of his knowledge and consists of letters and words. God's knowledge of the

and words. God's knowledge of the revealed scriptures as letters, sounds, and words is eternal as all his knowledge is eternal and unchanging, including his knowledge of all his

creatures. But that does not mean that

creatures. But that does not mean that the objects of his knowledge are eternal or unchanging. So the bodies also make a

or unchanging. So the bodies also make a kind of distinction between the eternal attribute of essential speech and the Quran as words and sounds but with a heavier emphasis on the createdness of

the Quran as such and making a clear distinction between it and this essential speech. The current grand muti

essential speech. The current grand muti of Oman Shehikh Ahmed bin Mhammed al- Khalili says about this topic that quote when we speak of the creation of the

Quran we are only speaking of this Quran that is recited by tongues and written on pages. We are not speaking of God's

on pages. We are not speaking of God's essential speech because there is no proof from the book or from the sunnah that the essential speech should be called the Quran although the Asharites

have called it such.

Next, we might turn to the question of ibali fik or Jewish prudence. How do the Ibadis understand Islamic law or Sharia?

And what is their methodology to deriving the particularities of that law?

Basing ourselves only on language resources. This is one of the harder

resources. This is one of the harder topics to get a firm grasp of when it comes to yodism and the emic and edict inside and outside sources can sometimes differ in very important ways. One thing

that I've heard and seen written repeatedly is that I juristp prudence looks quite similar to the Shafi school in Sunni Islam. This might be true, but it also doesn't say all that much since

most schools were so influenced by Imam Shafi and his methodology anyway. From a

general perspective, their method might look pretty similar to other schools.

The most important source is, of course, the Quran, the holy book and God's word.

Secondly, the Sunnah, first understood more widely and then more exclusively that of the prophet Muhammad. There's

also the principle of or consensus of the community of scholars and strongly related to this, the afar or reports about the Ibadi imams and their positions and rulings. Ibali Jewish

prudence is often said to be more open to or emphasize more the principle of it or interpretation reinterpretation rather than takid to follow the already

set precedence of earlier scholars which is more associated with classic Sunniism and this indeed seems to be the case with the bodies valuing reason and often flexible interpretations based on

already mentioned sources. One possible

reason for this flexibility is the relationship that the bodies have had with hadiths. The stories about and

with hadiths. The stories about and sayings of the prophet Muhammad that were gathered, memorized and written down by scholars in Sunni Islam and really most schools at least later on in

later centuries. The idea of the sunnah

later centuries. The idea of the sunnah or the example to be followed was identified with the hadiths. It was

partly Imam Shafi that established this idea that the Sunnah could be derived primarily through these hadits. An idea

that then caught on across the Islamic world. But earlier in the religion's

world. But earlier in the religion's history, this wasn't necessarily the case and methodologies were more complex. Sunna, while of course strongly

complex. Sunna, while of course strongly associated with the prophet, could also be used more broadly for the example of his companions or later caiffs and scholars who inherited that sunna

through set community practices that they embodied, including in their new interpretations, rather than strictly through specific reports about the prophet as such. We see this with the

early Hannfi school for example, but also a similar approach among the early Ibadis which is perhaps not surprising given that they were both based in Iraq originally. Now hadiths existed for sure

originally. Now hadiths existed for sure and they were used to derive law but they didn't play the role that they would come to play later on.

The scholar John Wilkinson outlines the development of Ibodi fick in his book about ibalism where he points out that the early school was quite flexible in this way.

The sunnah was taken not necessarily through hadiths but through the teachings of the imams their aar which in itself was the best preserved source for the prophet's sunnah.

It was the scholars and the community practice of the bodies that maintained that sunnah rather than it being sought in isolated hadiths.

So while the Sunnis would come to accept hadiths and authenticate them primarily on isnad chains of transmission, the Ibadi methodology was instead based on those reports being confirmed by a much

narrower group of scholars within the Ibadi tradition, the imams and their teachings or their aar. Wilkinson points

out though that a few centuries later went through what he calls a mudhabization as they became increasingly more influenced by the Sunni ideas of people like Ashafe.

Eventually with Ibodi figures like Muhammad Ibaka and Salana Muslim Alabi this Madhabisation was complete and the fully developed Ibadi Jewish prudence

looked a lot like the standard Sunni and Shia methodologies.

This included a much more prominent role played by hadiths and their use in deriving law. And indeed, the Ibadis

deriving law. And indeed, the Ibadis have a canonical collection of hadiths themselves. It is attributed to one of

themselves. It is attributed to one of those earliest imams and leaders of the community, the affforementioned Rabi Ibn Habib from the 8th century. And this

collection contains over 700 hadith reports, often with the characteristic feature of having very short chains of transmission, usually only through three

or four persons. Ibnhabib himself from Abueda or Jabb Zed, Jabad Zed from Ibn Abbas and Ib Abbass from the prophet, for instance.

Now if we accept that this collection is indeed from the time of Rab then that would make it possibly the earliest proper collection of hadiths in history and this is something that many bodies

certainly claim. It's also argued that

certainly claim. It's also argued that the short chains of transmission for essentially all the hadiths are another indication of its authenticity.

This is very different from the standard Sunni collections like al Bkari or Muslim which appeared much later on and thus have much longer chains of transmission tracing them to the prophet. Now things might be a little

prophet. Now things might be a little more complicated and this is another place where non-Ibaladi scholars and Ibadi scholars will often disagree.

Western scholars like Wilkinson have argued and tried to show that this collection of hadiths wasn't really a thing until much later on. and he

attributes its collection to the period of this quote unquote madhabisation when hadiths became more important through influence from Sunnism and the Shafi school. And it is indeed true that this

school. And it is indeed true that this main collection of hadiths which is known as the Tertibel Musnad was compiled in the form that we know it today in the 12th century by the Ibadi

scholar Abu Yakub Ysef Iban Ibrahim Alwillani.

He also added a few other collections to the claimed original by Ra Ibhabib to form the Tib as it stands today. The

question under debate I guess is whether the collection by Ibh Habib is also essentially a creation by Adwellani at this time or if such an original mustad had existed since the actual 8th

century. Of course, Ibadis themselves

century. Of course, Ibadis themselves and Ibadi scholars will affirm that this was a real collection that goes back to Habib or at least to his time and thus this makes it one of the earliest hadith

collections. So there is some um

collections. So there is some um disagreement among scholars of different origins here. Whatever the case, this

origins here. Whatever the case, this collection of hadiths is the only accepted canonical one used by Ibadis to this very day. Although Wilkinson also argues that in practice hadiths continue

to play a relatively minor role in Jewish credential methods until modern times. Now because it is only one

times. Now because it is only one collection and that it is relatively short, the Ibadis thus have or use a much smaller number of hadits compared

to both Sunnis and she's who often have enormous collections. Now with that

enormous collections. Now with that said, Ibadis especially today will often accept many hadiths from the Sunni collections as well, but they have a bit of a different role. They can use such

hadiths if they already affirm something that is taught in ibadism or which doesn't contradict an equivalent ruling within that tradition, but they aren't necessarily used as a driving source for

deriving law and rulings in the way that the internal collection is. Some have

argued that this smaller collection of hadiths, this smaller cannon that the Ivalis have is one reason why the Ivalis often come off as tolerant or more open

since there are less direct sources to draw on and thus a bigger openness to new interpretation and some flexibility.

Whether or not that's true is hard to say obviously. But regardless, this

say obviously. But regardless, this methodology and historical law tradition of the bodies has led them to some unique and interesting rulings and distinctions compared with other Muslims

in terms of their practice and their uh laws. So just a few ones mentioned by

laws. So just a few ones mentioned by Hoffman in her book, Ibodies do not consider it permissible to wipe the shoes or slippers instead of washing the feet when you do woo or ablution before

the prayer. There are also discussions

the prayer. There are also discussions about whether certain prayers are to be shortened during journeys and you know different schools have different opinions and the Ibadis uh seem to have

the opinion that the traveler must shorten his prayers even if he stays permanently uh in the place that he has journeyied to uh unless they particularly adopted as a homeland. As

long as you are traveling, regardless of how long you're staying essentially, you you shorten certain prayers because you are you are seen to be traveling.

During Ramadan, before each day of fasting, so before uh sunrise essentially, the ibadis are required to

wash fully. So do the major ritual

wash fully. So do the major ritual purity, theul, which is not the case for uh other Muslims. Also related to the fasting. So sometimes uh you will miss

fasting. So sometimes uh you will miss days of fasting during Ramadan. Maybe

you're sick, maybe you need to um take some medicine, maybe you're pregnant or whatever. So you can make up those days

whatever. So you can make up those days of fasting later on. Usually in in many other schools, those days don't have to be successive. Whereas in the Ibali

be successive. Whereas in the Ibali school, the the the days that you make up after Ramadan have to be consecutive days. The Ibadis agree with the sheis

days. The Ibadis agree with the sheis that if any unlawful intercourse uh happens between two uh people before marriage then uh they are not allowed to

marry each other or they shouldn't they're sort of against it whereas Sunnis have the opposite position that it's it's rather preferred that they do

get married because of this and just like the Sunnis but unlike the Shia the Ibadis do not accept temporary marriage uh but consider it to be unlawful.

But many of the most prominent differences come down to smaller details about uh ritual practice and how the prayer is performed.

Here in Aman there are of course a lot of beautiful mosques and right now I am in old Musket in the capital city and you can see here behind me this is the Alur mosque which is interesting for the

fact that it has a bit more of a traditional Ibali style of mosque. This

is the mosque that is very close to the Sultan's palace. It's just a few um

Sultan's palace. It's just a few um minutes walk that way. And it's known for being also the mosque that the royal I don't know if the royal family is the right word, but that the the Sultans use and the family of the Sultan used this

mosque because it's close to the palace.

It's a quite old mosque and you can see just like what the old Ibadi style was was that it's a very simple style mosque. usually didn't have the big dome

mosque. usually didn't have the big dome that many of the modern mosques do. If

anything, it has these four uh domes on each side and then usually there was a flat roof and then no minouret. So,

traditionally there were very very um very rarely did they use minourets. Now,

this one obviously does and I think most mosques here do today, but that was the traditional way. And so, the the Moin

traditional way. And so, the the Moin would call the do the call to prayer from the roof basically. So, this is a very beautiful mosque. It's obviously

been renovated since the 1980s, but it is a quite old mosque. I think it's quite a few centuries old even. Now,

speaking of prayer, there are some interesting teachings or aspects of ibalism in terms of prayer, the salah, where they differ from from other uh forms of Islam. For one thing, traditionally there was a teaching and

this is still the case that no Juma prayer, so the the communal Friday prayer was to be held unless there was a just imam in power. So for many periods of history, the Ibadis didn't perform

the Juma prayer when there wasn't an imamate in place. I think today they do do the fighter prayers in in Oman generally uh because they argue that uh

the the Juma can be performed in a major city where justice prevails. So it's a bit broader of a definition and so as far as I know they they they seem to perform the fighter prayers here today

in in in the modern world. The prayer

itself is mostly the same as you know Sunnis and cheese to some degree. There

are some uh differences. The Ibadis they hold their hands on the side of their body like this just like she is and most

malikis do. They don't raise their hands

malikis do. They don't raise their hands for the takir at all. Um they also don't say amin after the fata is recited and

for the two midday prayers. So and they don't recite a second surah after the fata at all. Right? So those are some interesting differences with other Muslims. But other than that the prayer

Oh and by the way also for the last salams after the the prayers rather than doing first right and then left the ibadis will do they will sort of divide it up.

So they do alaykum to the right and then to the left. So some minor differences like that but generally the ibali prayer looks uh basically like any other Sunni

or or Shia prayer.

Oh, love.

Now, another thing that the Ibadis are particularly known for, especially today, is their tolerance and openness to other uh branches of Islam. and even

to other religions. And this is a a official policy basically in the country of Oman here that there is supposed to be tolerance and and sort of an anti-sectarianism. This is something

anti-sectarianism. This is something that both the Sultan the secular leader as well as the the Grand MUI has emphasized again and again. And so

because of this, one might ask the question whether this has something to do with these ibadi doctrines historically either theologically or in terms of Jewish prudence. I mean

theologically we know that they're quite strict in terms of their their sotiology and and and who they count as Muslim and so on. Whereas socially they've been

so on. Whereas socially they've been quite tolerant and one can speculate about the reasons behind this in terms of Jewish prudence. Perhaps this goes back to that thing that Wilkinson talked

about in terms of especially the earlier bodies that there is this kind of uh flexibility within their law tradition uh that of course they use the the

hadith they had the but but there is always this um flexibility to adapt to certain circumstances if that's the case and that could be one of the reasons.

Um, I have also seen people argue that it could be because of the more limited amount of hadits in the musnet of uh

Habib that because the the the the collection of official hadith, even though they consider some of the Sunni hadiths, they're not as official as the much shorter ibadi collection, perhaps

that could be a reason why there is more flexibility, more openness to uh, you know, new opinions by scholars and jihad and so on. Um it's hard to say and and

there's there's little scholarship done on particularly on this question. Uh

another reason I've spoken to some Omanis here and what they've been saying is that this might have something to do not necessarily with the specific

doctrines of of the Madhab but rather with the character of of the Omani people in general. that there's just something about Oman and its culture that is very open, very tolerant, and

that this is not exclusive to to Ebalis, which seems to be the case. And of

course, that's the case in general as well. It's not just the case in Oman

well. It's not just the case in Oman that, you know, non-Eali Muslims are often very tolerant, of course, but um particularly something about Oman that

even before Islam arrived that they have this tolerance, this this culture of tolerance and openness to different peoples. this is, you know, this is just

peoples. this is, you know, this is just hearsay and what Omanis themselves say.

So, it's not based on like scholarship necessarily, but it's still something that might be worth taking into into consideration. But what is certainly

consideration. But what is certainly clear is that in Oman and thus in the teachings of Ebadism as it exists in Oman there is this huge emphasis on

anti-sectarianism on non-violence on on acceptance and tolerance of religious difference which I think is very admirable and and very um beautiful in a way

because this is this channel another topic that might be worth at least bringing up is the question of mysticism or Sufism within ibadism.

Is there such a thing as Ialdi mysticism or even Ibaldi Sufism?

As we saw in the beginning, most Sufis historically have been Sunni, although there do exist some Shi Sufi orders and figures as well. In terms of ibadism, there is definitely a tradition of what

we could refer to as mysticism. That's a

part of it. But just like for many of the sheis, the Ibadis have preferred to use other words for it rather than Sufism or Tabwolf. The most common or

popular term is likely iluk or the science of wayfairing referring to the wayfaring of the mystical/spiritual path. This has certainly been a part of

path. This has certainly been a part of ibalism and many great ebaldi figures and scholars even in the modern period have also been great mystics. This is a

bigger and yet murky topic and we might do best to maybe dedicate a separate episode to it. But what we can say is that this mysticism definitely seemed to be more of the sober variety so to say

following perhaps more in the tradition of someone like an Razali and the general focus on struggling against the lower naps or ego. As far as I've been able to tell there isn't really much

here in terms of the more metaphysical, philosophical or ecstatic mysticism of someone like Iban Arabi and his monistic tendencies. The much more rationalist

tendencies. The much more rationalist theology of the Ibodies perhaps are less allowing of such ideas, but there could of course be more there to discover.

Again, let's leave that for a dedicated effort in the future. In short, that aspect of religious experience and expression that we often refer to not unproatically as mysticism definitely

has a place in the wider history and practice of the ibadia. as well.

>> As we saw, ibadism is a quite small branch of Islam in terms of numbers compared with Sunni and Shia. But they

have been politically powerful throughout history. There have appeared

throughout history. There have appeared Imamites, so Ibali states here and there across history. There was no IIM after

across history. There was no IIM after the Rustame dynasty in North Africa after that dynasty fell in the 10th century. But here in Oman, there

century. But here in Oman, there appeared imams here and there. most of

them quite short-lived over the over the centuries. And this region here, which

centuries. And this region here, which is close to Niswah, and what you see behind me is the city of Baha, have both been very important. Sometimes this was

even the the capital of those empires.

And it was in the 17th century that a very relatively long-asting imam was established here, the so-called Yarubi dynasty, and they unified most of what

is today Oman and even extended their empire to East Africa. So this is the period when we see Oman's um power extend to places like Zanzibar where

both the Omani state but also Ibadism would spread. We can see remnants of

would spread. We can see remnants of this even today in Zanzibar in East Africa. There are many bodies there and

Africa. There are many bodies there and many Omani cultural uh remnants.

And the Yobi dynasty ruled for about a century until the mid 18th century when they were replaced by the Busedi dynasty. And this is the dynasty that

dynasty. And this is the dynasty that still rules Oman today. Now,

interestingly, the first Busedi imam, Ahmed bin Sed was actually the last ruler to be referred to as Imam. after

him instead they started to be referred to as say um and then eventually also as Sultan which are both much more secular titles

so to say they don't carry the same religious connotations at all and that is still the the title that the ruler of Oman has today he is he is the sultan of

Oman despite this the 19th and early 20th centuries saw what some scholars have called a kind of ibali renaissance when some of the greatest scholars and

texts in ibali history were uh produced and many of these scholars were also politically um active politically

engaged and some of them tried to overthrow the busi dynasty. The most

successful of these was probably Sedb Khalan al Khalili, a great scholar and mystic from here in Oman. And he was actually able to depose the ruling uh

Sultan and replace him with essentially another member of the same family but one who ruled a new kind of imamate.

And so this was a kind of revolt that lasted for a few years but the buses had help from the British and soon this revolt was put down.

It was here in the Jebel Aktar region which is the green mountains of interior Oman that the last imam of of ibadism was established in the 20th century.

This area which is close to the city of Niswa and along the beautiful Hajar mountain range has always been basically the kind of heartland of Ibadi activity.

And it was in 1913 that a great Ibadi scholar called Norudin Asalimi was able to establish the well it was kind of a continuation of the imam that was

established in the late 19th century that had kind of fallen apart but a new imam was established here which became quite powerful not because

the the sultan in Moscat was supported by the British at least partly for this reason. this imamit in in the green

reason. this imamit in in the green mountain region wasn't fully able to ever conquer the coast and this essentially divided the country into two

parts. The im the imamit in in this

parts. The im the imamit in in this interior region and the coastal regions ruled by the sultan in muscat. This

division of the country was also officially it was made official in 1920 with the so-called treaties of sib uh where the British also took part in in

these in this treaty which established uh essentially two states in in what is today Oman. This situation lasted until

today Oman. This situation lasted until the 1950s when a war broke out between the two sides again. They fought for for many years but eventually the Sultan in

Musket say Ib Taimur was victorious and he then united the country again as Musket and Oman. So the country was known as Musket and Oman until after

1970 when the new Sultan his son Kabus bin Sed um replaced his father and renamed the country the Sultanate of

Oman. The last Imam of the Imamit of

Oman. The last Imam of the Imamit of Oman, Ra bin Ali bin Hilal al-Hi escaped at the end of the war in 1959 to Saudi Arabia where he lived until his death in

2009.

He continued to be respected by many Omanis until his death and received visitors from from his home country.

The last century or so has thus been very eventful for the Ibadis.

As we saw the 19th and early 20th centuries saw some of the greatest scholars of the tradition emerge such as Alhali Nurid Nalami and the famous theologian and poet Abu Muslim Bahlani

who we quoted before.

Great events like the modernizing Nafta movement in Egypt also affected Ibadi scholarship as did the increased interactions between Ibadis and other religious groups both within and outside

Islam. And today, Ibadis have the

Islam. And today, Ibadis have the reputation of being very tolerant Muslims, which is not to say that non-Ibodi Muslims aren't tolerant, but this is a characteristic that they are

often described by today. Now, we have explored some theological or Jewish credential reasons why this may be, but there's no denying that if you visit a place like Oman, you are met with an

abundance of hospitality, kindness, and a sense of open-mindedness and tolerance. And this is not just

tolerance. And this is not just something that is felt but is an active and conscious approach that the Ibadis and Omanis in general take. They value

tolerance and see it as a natural part of their understanding of Islam. It

should be kept in mind that even though traditional ibalism and its theology is quite strict as we saw, most Ebaldis today don't really think like that. They

might not even be aware of the differences between ibism and other branches of Islam since these differences often boil down to complex intellectual and theological questions that only scholars and historians are

interested in. And as we have said,

interested in. And as we have said, ibalism has been and especially today is emphasizing a tolerant approach in a way that's really interesting. Theologically

and sotologically exclusivist and kind of unforgiving, but socially and outwardly very open and tolerant. Now

this might seem contradictory but is a key characteristic to understanding embodism today. Ahmed bin Had Khalili

embodism today. Ahmed bin Had Khalili the current grand muti of Oman is famous for promoting tolerance, compassion and understanding and for working against

factionalism and violence. Furthermore,

the former minister of religious affairs in Oman, Abdullahbin Muhammad bin Abdullah Salami, actually a descendant of the affforementioned scholar Nuradin Salami, has heavily emphasized religious

tolerance, even writing a publication called religious tolerance, a vision for a new world dedicated to understanding and peace between all peoples.

And indeed, Oman is a diverse place.

Aside from the majority Muslim population, there are Christians here, both expats and otherwise many churches.

There even a significant Hindu population and active Hindu temples. I

visited a yeshiva temple the other day here in the capital Muskrat. And of

course, various denominations of Muslims. Estimates show that there are around 3 million Ibalis in the world, which you know, in a religion with almost two

billion, that might not sound like that much. Uh I think there are around 0.1 to

much. Uh I think there are around 0.1 to 0.5% of Muslims that are Ebadis and 250,000

of them roughly live in North Africa or in other places of the world like diaspora communities but the vast majority live here in Oman where they make up a significant maybe even

majority of the population. I think last time I checked the numbers on the the the Muslim population here showed that the Sunnis and the Abadis almost are

tied precisely in terms of numbers numbering at around 45 to 48% of the Muslim population with another maybe 5%

she so ibadism is a really fascinating and interesting form of Islam that has a long and complex history. Some call it the earliest form of Islam. And whether

or not that is true, it's certainly the case that it has been around for a very long time and since the very beginning of the religion of Islam. And today, it

still makes up a very important part of the tapestry of Islam worldwide.

I'll see you next time.

Heat.

Heat.