46 CHAPTER TWO
mutazila of Baghdad. Because of reasons that are not entirely clear,
however (the Muslim sources speak of some blow to his pride), he then
turned his back upon his Mutazilite colleagues and began to direct ver-
bal barbs against them. He rapidly became known as the archetype of
the heretic in Islam, despite the fact that there is no agreement (either in the
Muslim sources or, in their wake, in the modem studies) concerning the
exact nature of his heresy.
Notwithstanding the haziness of his historical image and of the uncer-
tainty regarding the true nature of his heresy, one can reconstruct a rather
clear, consistent picture of what one might call “the polemical image of
Ibn al- Rawandi,” that is, the image he assumes in the polemical litera-
ture. He is designated as a zindiq even by those who do not specifi cally
intend to accuse him of Manicheanism. He is connected to the Dahriya
who assert the eternity of the world, and it is related that one of his
books, the Kitab al- Taj, was devoted to a pre sentation of the proofs for
the eternity of the universe.^80 He is described as an educated man, led
by his erudition, which caused him to miscalculate the limitations of
his own wisdom (in this connection, some sources apply to him the
cliché used by orthodox intellectuals to discount heretical intellectuals:
that his erudition outstripped his intelligence [kanailmuhu akthar min
aqlihi]).^81
Ibn al- Rawandi, however, is primarily known for two other character-
istics: one concerning his character, the other concerning his ideas. In
terms of character, he is described as a haughty individual who, with a
sharp tongue and arrogance, enjoyed satirizing and mocking his rivals
and all that was holy to them. In terms of the contents of his words, Ibn
al-Rawandi became a byword for one who denied prophecy.
The features that mark Ibn al- Rawandi as a zindiq—that is, denial of
the prophets and attachment to the Dahriya, who believe in the eternity
of the world— are the same ones we fi nd emphasized in the Maimonid-
ean Elisha, and which are not expressed anywhere in the previous Jewish
tradition. Hence, we may legitimately ask the question whether Maimo-
nides’ portrayal of Elisha ben Abuyah was infl uenced by the fi gure of Ibn
al-Rawandi.
(^80) See Nyberg, “Introduction,” 26 (based on Mahasin Khorasan of Abu al- Qasim al- Balkhi).
TheDahriya and the Aristotelian aspects of the fi gure of Ibn al- Rawandi are discussed at
length by H. S. Nyberg in his article, “Amr ibn Ubayd et Ibn al- Rawandi, deux réprouvés,”
in R. Brunschvig and G. E. Von Grunebaum, eds., Classicisme et déclin culturel dans
l’histoire de l’Islam (Paris, 1977), 125– 39.
(^81) For example, he is described in this fashion by the poet Abul-ala al- Maarri (who was
himself accused of heresy). See Risalat al- Ghufran (Beirut, 1980), 232. On the expression
in general, see F. Rosenthal, Ahmad ibn at-Tayyib al- Sarahsi (New Haven, 1943), 33.