Wa-lam yakun bi-dhāka: A Response to Wilferd Madelung’s Review of L’imamat et l’occultation selon l’imamisme

In the opening sentence of his review of my monograph L’imamat et l’occultation selon l’imamisme: Étude bibliographique et histoire des textes (Leiden/ Boston: Brill 2017) Professor Madelung writes, “The present book offers a substantial contribution to the study of the literary tradition asserting the Twelver Shiʿi doctrine of the legitimacy of twelve Imams and the minor and major occultation of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdī and eschatological Qāʾim of the Prophet Muḥammad’s Family.”1 Whether or not this is a correct assessment is a different matter; but nowhere in the review does he allude to what substantial contribution the book would offer to its potential readers. Indeed, reading the review provides more information about Madelung’s own views than about anything that has been mentioned in the book. For instance, Madelung begins his review by enunciating his own hypothesis concerning the legitimate succession to the Prophet and how his daughter Fāṭima rather than ʿAli ̄ibn Abi ̄Ṭālib should have been designated his successor. This is because in his view, “succession meant inheritance” (p. 377) and “[t]he heir and successor of Muḥammad was his only surviving daughter Fāṭima, who under the Qurʾanic law of succession was entitled to seven eighth [sic!, H.A.] of Muḥammad’s property rights and debts” (p. 377). He also claims that “Fāṭima should have been recognised as a queen” (p. 377). He does not deem it necessary to provide any supporting evidence for his claim. I do not agree with this thesis concerning Fāṭima as the successor to the Prophet and have provided my arguments elsewhere.2