Comparative Religion in
Medieval Muslim Literature

Hilman Latief
Abstract

This article investigates medieval Muslim literature on the study
of non-Islamic religions through the writings of al-Biruni and
al-Shahrastani in their dealing with Hind (India) and the nomen-
clature of world religions. I focus on their perceptions of mono-
theism and polytheism. My findings show that they used different
approaches, categories, and classification models of world reli-
gious traditions in general, and of Hind’s religious traditions in
particular. Al-Biruni classifies Indian religions according to the
religious outlooks found in Hindu texts or sayings of Hindu
philosophers/theologians and in the attitudes of ordinary people in
a popular context. Al-Shahrastani categorizes the divisions and
subdivisions of Hindu beliefs and practices according to types of
“idol worshippers.” This article points out that they dealt with
some conceptual issues in their presentations, such as “religious
representation,” “intermediaries,” and “anthropomorphism.” 

Introduction 
This article examines medieval Muslim literature on the study of religions,
with specific reference to the works of Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (d. 1048) and
Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani (d. 1153). These scholars are comparable, since

Hilman Latief is a lecturer in the School of Islamic Studies at the Muhammadiyah University
of Yogyakarta-Indonesia. He graduated from the State Institute of Islamic Studies Sunan
Kalijaga-Yogyakarta (1999) and earned his M.A. (comparative religion) from the Center for
Religion and Cross-Cultural Studies, Gadjah Mada University (2003) and the Department of
Comparative Religion, Western Michigan University (2005). He would like to thank David
Ede, Stephen G. Covell, Brian C. Wilson, Nancy Aur Falk (all of Western Michigan Univer-
sity), Adam A. Sabra (University of Georgia), Bruce C. Lawrence (Duke University), Ahmad
Syafii Maarif (State University of Yogyakarta), Muhammad Amin Abdullah (Islamic State
University-Sunan Kalijaga), and Mahmoud Ayoub (Temple University) for their valuable
encouragement and inspiration. 



Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 29

they discuss “major” and “minor” world religious traditions in general, and
deal with the nomenclature of the religious traditions of Hind [India] in par-
ticular. Long known as important and admirable medieval Muslim scholars
of comparative religion,1 they wrote distinctive works that became primary
references for modern Muslim religious historians and heresiographers. Yet,
medieval Islam was likely the key developing period of religious and cross-
cultural studies in Islamic intellectual history. As Franz Rosenthal points out,
“the comparative study of religions has been rightly acclaimed as one of the
great contributions of Muslim civilization to mankind’s [sic] intellectual
progress.”2 From the eight to tenth centuries, for example, Muslim historians,
geographers, and travelers focused on seven great ancient civilizations: the
Persians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Egyptians, Turks, Indians, and Chinese.3

Modern scholars have recognized the two men’s scholarly contribu-
tions. For example, Arthur Jeffery states that al-Biruni’s contribution to the
study of religion by establishing such scrupulous scientific principles as
completeness, accuracy, and unbiased treatment is rare in his era and
“unique in the history of his own faith.”4 And Eric J. Sharpe writes: “The
honor of writing the first history of religion in world literature seems in fact
to belong to the Muslim Shahrastani, whose Religious Parties and Schools
of Philosophy describes and systematizes all religions of the then known
world, as far as the boundaries of China.”5

Although many scholars have studied al-Biruni’s and al-Shahrastani’s
treatises, among them Edward Sachau, Arthur Jeffery, Kamar Oniah Kamar-
uzzaman, Franz Rosenthal, Bruce Lawrence, and Jaques Waardenburg, a
specific comparison of their works remains rare. Therefore, to contribute to
the above larger framework of the Muslims’ erudition of Hind, a compara-
tive study should focus on a special theme. I have chosen the models of clas-
sifying Hind’s religious divisions and their theological thought in al-Biruni’s
and al-Shahrastani’s works. How do these scholars portray the divisions of
Hind’s religious communities, what approach do they use, and how do they
perceive the doctrines of Hind’s religious traditions? 

To derive a more elaborate assessment, this article analyzes the foremost
writings of both scholars. For al-Biruni, I use his Tahqiq Ma li al-Hind min
Maq´lah Maqb´lah fi al-`Aql al-Mardh´lah6 and Kitab al-Athar al-Baqiyah
‘an al-Qur´n al-Khaliyah.7 The former discusses India’s religious belief sys-
tems, metaphysical views, cosmological doctrines, literary traditions, myth-
ical heritages, and artistic inheritances; the latter elucidates the history and
tradition of former nations and generations (akhbar al-umam al-salifah wa
anba’ al-qur´n al-madiyah) in dealing with the eras with which cultural and
religious events were associated. For al-Shahrastani, I choose his Kitab al-



Milal wa al-Nihal,8 which establishes him as an outstanding Muslim histo-
rian of religions. This book primarily elaborates the range of religious sects,
cults, and philosophical schools in Islam and other religious traditions. To
complement his normative insight, philosophical exploration, and, perhaps,
theological discourse toward other religious traditions, I also discuss his
Kitab Nihayat al-Iqdam fi `Ilm Kalam,9 in which he assesses foundations
(qawa’id) of theological science.

Several ideological, political, and intellectual factors might have caused
medieval Muslim scholars to analyze religions and religious sects. As to the
ideological or doctrinal factor, some Qur’anic verses highlighting other reli-
gious communities, especially the Sabians (al-Sabi`un), Zoroastrians (al-
Majusiyah), and People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), have led Muslim the-
ologians and exegetes to elaborate on the existence, status, and position of
religions according to Islamic perspectives.10 Meanwhile, politically speak-
ing, when Muslim power began to expand throughout South and Central
Asia, North Africa, and Europe, the need to recognize other religions, either
in terms of political conflict or polemical discourse, increased rapidly. 

In line with the nature of political motivation and under imperial protec-
tion, certain scholars undertook “regional studies” that covered the materials
of religious communities in the given regions. Moreover, after the “wave of
Hellenism,”11interfaith discourse and the investigation of other religions
became a main concern of medieval Muslim scholars. Translating Greek
works on philosophy and logic into Arabic and Persian during the `Abbasid
period contributed tremendously to the development of theological and philo-
sophical thought. Above all, this activity significantly enhanced the variety of
scholarly works in the fields of mysticism, literature, intercultural studies, and
religious studies. This period was also characterized by the emergence of pro-
lific writers influenced by Greek thought, Arabic culture, and Persian intel-
lectual environments, respectively.12

Indeed, scholars prior to al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani had penned more
than a few works related to religious and inter-cultural studies. However,
while the majority of scholars focused on the “biblical religions” or
“Muslim heresies,”13 al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani elaborated on Hind’s reli-
gious traditions. The first group’s works were mostly polemical and apolo-
getic. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, for instance, some prominent
scholars elaborated on tahrif (falsification of scripture)14 to criticize Jewish
and Christian scriptures as well as to define Islam’s superiority over other
religions.15

30 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Medieval Muslims’ Recognition of Hind
As a result of the close and intensive interaction between Islamic civilization
and Hind in medieval times, a number of Arab-Muslim scholars wrote on
aspects of Indian civilization. According to al-Baladhuri’s reports, `Uthman
ibn `Affan asked `Abd Allah ibn `Amir ibn Kurayz to send a knowledgeable
person to Hind’s harbor and report on what he saw. Other reports mention that
the idea of reaching Hind existed during `Umar ibn al-Khattab’s reign.16

Al-Hind was the Arabic term for India. Medieval Muslim writers might
have used this word to mean “India” in proportion to the Arab-Persian
conception. André Wink points out that this term was taken from “a pre-
existing Persian term, not a Sanskrit term.”17 In the Umayyad and Abbasid
times, it referred to some areas in South Asia.18 The geographical term al-
Sind was also used.

In his Historical Encyclopedia, al-Mas`udi (d. 957) says: “The Hindu
nations extend from the mountains of Kurasan and of es-Sind as far as et-
Tubbet.”19 Maqbul Ahmad notes that while al-Hind encompasses certain
areas from the Indus river up to border of Burma/Myanmar, al-Sind includes
some areas from Makran up to the lower course of the Indus.20 The Arabs
later modified its scope by including the Bay of Bengal archipelagos as well
as the areas of mainland Southeast Asia and the nearby islands of South-
east Asia that had been culturally Indianized since the seventh century.
Some Buddhist areas, such as Central Asia, China, Japan, and Korea, were
included in the term al-Sin (China), while Tibet and Mongolia were, for the
most part, classified as al-Hind.21

Even though Arab-Indian interactions were probably deep rooted before
Islamic civilization, especially through commercial contacts (al-`alaqat al-
tijariyah),22 the Muslims’ knowledge of Indian culture developed rapidly
around the ninth and tenth centuries due to their military expeditions and
considerable influence on the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean trade
routes. Their recognition of Indian culture was engendered not merely by the
resulting interaction between Arabian and Indian traders, but, more impor-
tantly, grew after the Arab-Muslims conquered the Persian regions where
Persians were intermingled (imtizaj) with Indian culture (al-thaqafah al-
hindiyah).23

In addition to trade contacts, medieval Muslim scholars obtained infor-
mation through largely regional and cross-cultural studies that occasionally
covered discussions of religious ideas or religious communities. In line with
Muslim political and cultural expansion, the observations of Muslim travel-
ers and writers were not restricted to the societies, religions, and cultures of

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 31



the Arab peninsula and Persia, but extended to Hind24 and even China.25 As
for Hind’s religious traditions, at least three categories of information can be
seen in their works:  cultural studies, eyewitness accounts of a certain region
and its geographical information, and encyclopedic works and digests.26

For instance, in his Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa al-Mul´k (The History of
Prophets and Kings), al-Tabari (d. 923) incorporates material on Hind’s
regions and religious traditions in connection with early human history. He
presents various reports indicating that Adam was cast down from Heaven
to the land of Hind, especially at a mountain called Budh. Adam left Hind
after God told him to perform a pilgrimage to Makkah.27 Accordingly, idol-
atry began when his descendants, the sons of Seth and Cain, worshiped their
ancestors’ bodies. During Noah’s time, the flood carried the objects of wor-
ship from Hind to Arab territory. 

By citing al-Tabari’s account, I point out that the narrative of Hind was
included in early Muslim literature. Yet this narrative also shows the long-
standing interaction between Arabia and India, for Adam went to Makkah
for pilgrimage and to find Eve, who, according to some accounts in al-
Tabari, settled in Muzdalifah. The idea of idol worship in Arabia, based on
al-Tabari’s description, actually originated in Hind.28

Other medieval Muslim travelers and geographers, in part, discuss
Hind’s religious traditions. The geographer Ibn Khurdadhbih (d. 912) briefly
reports the types of Indian castes (ajnas al-hind) and their forty-two reli-
gious sects (milal ahl al-hind). Without presenting his supportive informa-
tion, in his Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik (The Book of Roads and Kingdoms)
he classifies those sects into three main groups: Those who believe in the
Creator, the Glorious and Powerful (man yuthbitu al-khaliq `azza wa jalla);
those who reject the Prophet (man yanfa al-rus´l); and those who do not
believe in all the above (wa minhum al-nafi li kulli dhalik).29

In his commentary on Ibn Khurdadhbih’s book, S. Maqbul Ahmad
explains that Ibn Khurdadhbih’s perception of these sects probably refers to
Gardizi’s Akhbar al-Sin wa al-Hind (Accounts of China and India). Gardizi
classifies the Indian religious philosophies and beliefs into ninety-nine divi-
sions that can be simplified into forty-two sects. Based on this work, what
Ibn Khurdadhbih means by the first type of sects can possibly be associated
with the Brahmans, the second sects with Sramanas, and the last sects can
be connected to the Hinayana Buddhists.30

Another account of Hind appears in the traveler Sulayman al-Tajir’s
Akhbar al-Sin wa al-Hind, which presents a broad comparison between the
geography, culture, and society of Hind and China. However, his attention
to Hind’s religion is not quite as deep as Gardizi’s.31 He highlights the two

32 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



lands’ cultural and religious connection by asserting that China’s religious
traditions, especially Buddhism, originated in Hind (wa innama aslu daya-
natihim min al-hind). Then, the Indians moved their idols to China. Further-
more, he notes that both the Chinese (ahl al-sin) and the Indians (ahl al-
hind) have similar belief systems, since they affirm that they communicate
with their idols (yaz’am´na anna al-bidadah takallamahum). He also draws
attention to the mystical dimensions of their religious systems. Although
they practice their beliefs in their own ways, both peoples believe in metem-
psychosis or the transmigration of souls (tanasukh).32

A brief presentation of Muslim works on Hind may reveal some pro-
found descriptions and frameworks that will enrich our investigation of al-
Biruni’s and al-Shahrastani’s opinions of its religious traditions. Their
insights may have been influenced by their contemporaries’ intellectual incli-
nations: either ideological–polemical discourse or historical–cross-cultural
trends. Both scholars’ investigations of this subject have contributed greatly
to the Islamic intellectual traditions’ theoretical framework of the study of
religions.

The Intellectual Biographies of 
al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani
Al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani lived when medieval Islamic civilization had
just passed its “golden age.”33 This period was delineated intellectually by
the appearance of abundant scientific literature and characterized sociopolit-
ically by intensive encounters with other civilizations. Al-Biruni’s and al-
Shahrastani’s investigation of Hind’s religious traditions have variations and
resemblances, depending upon their intellectual and sociocultural back-
grounds, as well as, perhaps, the political situation in the regions of their era.
This section provides intellectual sketches of these two scholars, explain
why they decided to study this particular fields and the significance of their
intellectual contribution to their fellow Muslims and political patrons.

Al-Biruni: A Scholar and Religious Historian
Al-Biruni34 is the popular name of Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-
Khwarizm, who was born in 362/973 in Khwarizm, located in present-day
Uzbekistan. According to a Persian lexicographer, the root b-r-n means “the
outside” (noun) and “outside” (preposition), indicating that al-Biruni came
from a suburb of Khawarizm. Muslim genealogists offer no further informa-
tion about his ancestors,35 religious life, or childhood. His first teacher was
an anonymous Greek scholar. Afterward, he studied with ̀ Abd al-Samad ibn

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 33



`Abd al-Samad, who introduced him to scientific knowledge. At the age of
twenty, he traveled to Jurjan (Hyrcania) and met Abu Sahl ‘Isa al-Masih, an
astronomer and physician. In addition, he was trained by Abu al-Wafa’
(a.k.a. Nasr ibn `Ali ibn `Iraq al-Jabali),36 an astronomer and mathematician.
Al-Biruni lived in Jurjan for many years and enjoyed the protection of
Kabus ibn Washmgir Shams al-Ma’ali, a prince who ruled this city from
366-71 AH and 388-403 AH and to whom he dedicated his Al-Athar al-
Baqiyah `an al-Qur´n al-Khaliyah.37

Al-Biruni later returned to Khawarizm and stayed there until Mahmud of
Ghazna conquered it and established his political authority throughout South
and Central Asia in 1022. Mahmud carried off scholars and respected people
from Khawarizm, including al-Biruni, to India/Afghanistan. Among the
savants were the physician Abu al-Khayr ibn Khammar and Abu Nasr ibn
`Iraq. Mahmud also attempted to bring Abu Sahl `Isa al-Masih and Abu `Ali
ibn Sina; however, they had already fled Jurjan and Khwarizm.38

Although al-Biruni’s knowledge of Hind’s civilization grew rapidly
while he served Mahmud in northern India, he had already acquired some
knowledge of it by the time he learned astrology and astronomy in Khawar-
izm or Jurjan. For instance, his concise scrutiny in his Kitab al-Athar regard-
ing the Indians’ lunar system (sami`tu anna al-hind, yasta’mil´na ru’yat al-
ahillah fi shuh´rihim) indicates that he was acquainted with aspects of
Indian civilization.39 His duties at that time were to explore Hind’s sciences
and geography, observe the people’s customs and religious traditions, and
discover their literature and philosophical thought.40

As a versatile scientist, prolific writer, and enthusiastic traveler, al-
Biruni made extensive contributions to various branches of knowledge41 and
enlightened his intellectual contemporaries as regards inter-cultural studies.
Most of his scholarly works were written in Arabic; a few were in Persian.42
For him, Arabic was superior because it was the scriptural language, the lin-
gua franca of the Muslim world, and the language of science (lughat al-`ilm
wa al-fikr wa al-hadarah).43 During the tenth and eleventh centuries, Persian
was also commonly used as “a vehicle of literary expression and satisfied
Persian national aspirations,”44 given that the `Abbasid cultural and intellec-
tual movements employed and recruited countless Persian intellectuals.
Nevertheless, the scientific and Islamic literature constantly developed in
Arabic. In addition, the ongoing inter-cultural dialogues and intellectual
encounters helped Muslim scholars master various languages. Therefore, al-
Biruni, as his scholarly works show, was well versed in several languages,
primarily Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, and probably Greek.45

34 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Al-Biruni wrote numerous natural and social science books. He wrote
Kitab al-Athar (390/999) mainly to satisfy his curiosity as to why different
people used different calendrical systems and to clarify why certain nations
preferred certain times and events for their festivals and commemoration
days.46 In addition, this book pays great attention to various civilizations’ fes-
tivals. On the other hand, Kitab al-Hind (1030) is based on his journey to
Hind while Mahmud (998-1030) was setting up his political institutions in
northern India.47

Although al-Biruni was a part of Mahmud’s mission, as a scientist he
had his own view of Hind. For Mahmud, as Sachau notes, “the Hindus were
infidels, to be dispatched to hell as soon as they refused to be plundered,”
while for al-Biruni, “the Hindus were excellent philosophers, good mathe-
maticians and astronomers.”48 His interest in studying their religious tradi-
tions apparently could not be separated from his role as a geographer,
astronomer, astrologer, and historian who sought to grasp Hind’s natural/
physical geography and cultural and historical dimensions.49 Thus, Kitab al-
Hind presents extensive descriptions of Indian culture, including its schol-
ars’ scientific knowledge of cosmology and astronomy. 

Both Kitab al-Hind and Kitab al-Athar have different emphases: the for-
mer offers a precise analysis of Hind’s religious traditions, and the latter
includes material on other religious communities, primarily the Jews, Chris-
tians, and Zoroastrians. In addition, although both books deal with different
subjects, they are, in light of the methodology used, complementary. During
his journey in Hind, al-Biruni wrote Kitab al-Tafhim li Awa’il Sina`at al-
Tanjim (The Principle of the Art of Astrology). Astrology (`ilm al-tanjim,
`ilm a´kam al-nuj´m) was among the basic works of eleventh-century sci-
ence, in addition to geometry (`ilm al-handasah) and astronomy (`ilm al-
falak).50 This material also can be found in his Kitab al-Qan´n al-Mas`´di,
an encyclopedic treatise of astronomical sciences.51 Several of his other
books focus on the natural sciences.52

Al-Shahrastani: A Theologian and Heresiographer
Al-Shahrastani (b. 479/1086) was born in Shahristan, located in northern
Khurasan,53 and lived in Persia about a century after al-Biruni’s death. He was
also known as al-Imam, al-`Allamah (the Knowledgeable), al-Afdal, (the
Best), and Taj al-Millah wa al-Din (the Crown of the Islamic Community and
the Religion), reflecting his expertise in religious knowledge. Unlike al-
Biruni, whose educational background was largely in the natural and pure sci-
ences, his was influenced by honored religious scholars. The formative peri-

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 35



od of his intellectual development began when his parents taught him
Qur’anic recitation and exegesis (tafsir). After memorizing the Qur’an before
his tenth birthday, his father sent him to study with some shaykhs in Khurasan
who had a better collection of religious books for studying Qur’anic exege-
sis. His enthusiastic quest for knowledge led him to travel to Naisapur,
Khawarizm, and Makkah. In Naisapur, al-Shahrastani studied hadith and
`ul´m al-hadith with `Ali ibn Ahmad al-Madani (d. 494/1100); Islamic
jurisprudence (fiqh) with Ahmad al-Khuwafi (d. 500/1106); and theology
(`ilm al-kalam), exegesis, and the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence (us´l
al-fiqh) with Imam Abu Nasr al-Qusayri (d. 514/1120). He also met Abu al-
Qasim Sulayman ibn Nasr al-Ansari, who taught him theology, Islamic mys-
ticism (tasawwuf), and all about the history of the House of the Prophet’s
(Ahl al-Bayt) nobility and graciousness.54

Al-Shahrastani continued his intellectual wandering, moving from Nai-
sapur to Khawarizm, where he studied with As’ad ibn Abi Nasr al-Mayhani
(d. 527/1129) and Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khawarizm (d. 568/1172). At
this time, his intellectual maturity encouraged him to study and criticize phi-
losophy and philosophical schools. (Philosophy was to become one of the
main concerns.) He stayed there for ten years and then made hajj in 510/1116.
After that, he went to Baghdad, where he stayed for three years,55 and where
Ash`arite theology was predominant. Ibn Khallikan (d. 681/1282), as cited by
Diane Steigerwald, ranks al-Shahrastani as an Ash`arite theologian (al-
mutakallim ‘ala madhhab al-Ash`ari).56 Finally, he returned to his hometown
in Persia around 514/1117 and stayed there until his death in 548/1153. 

Al-Shahrastani’s intellectual adventure indicates that he learned the reli-
gious science from teachers whose religious backgrounds were quite varied.
As for his religious affiliation, Wilfred Madelung writes: 

Born and educated as a Shafi’ite Sunnite, he continued to identify with
the Sunnite community and followed the Shafi’ite ritual and legal prac-
tice to the end of his life. Yet his concept of Sunnism evidently moved far
away from the contemporaneous orthodox understanding of it and
expanded to allow Shi’ite veneration of the Family of the Prophet and
recognition of the religious authority of the Shi’ite Imams.57

He was appointed a chancellor of the chancellery (diwan al-rasa’il)
when Sanjar, the Saljuq sovereign, ruled Khurasan in 511/1118. The Kitab al-
Milal, considered al-Shahrastani’s most influential work on Muslim here-
siography, was dedicated to his two patrons: Nasr al-Din Mahmud ibn Abi
Tawba al-Marwazi and, upon his imprisonment in 529/1132, to Sayyid Majd
al-Din Abu al-Qasim `Ali ibn Ja`far al-Musawi (his new patron).58

36 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



According to Bruce Lawrence, Kitab al-Milal “surpasses its predeces-
sor in objectivity and insight as well as detail and scope.”59 Similarly, George
C. Anawati explains: “In contrast to Ibn Hazm, the author (Shahrastani) does
not aim at refuting errors, but merely strives to state the doctrines as objec-
tively as possible.”60 Even though the book describes Islamic theology’s
divisions and subdivisions, the discussion is more concerned with each divi-
sion’s uniqueness. He presented several Islamic theological divisions, based
upon his system of categorization, but failed to elaborate upon the main theo-
logical and philosophical theme in a comprehensive manner. 

Specific themes with which Muslim theologians and philosophers prima-
rily dealt, such as the assertion of divine unity (tawhid), the problem of divine
predestination, free will, the issues of prophecy and the concept of imamate,
were elaborated upon in his Kitab Nihayat al-Iqdam fi `Ilm Kalam. As Guil-
laume states, it “was clearly designated by al-Shahrastani as a complemen-
tary sequel to his Kitab al-Milal.”61 Although his Kitab Nihayat al-Iqdam
covers a vast scope of Islamic theological and philosophical discourse, al-
Shahrastani expanded his concern with “theological philosophy” by present-
ing a special analysis of Ibn Sina’s (Avicenna) works and thought in his Kitab
al-Musara’ah, which he dedicated to Majd al-Din al-Musawi. 

While al-Biruni spotlighted and criticized Ibn Sina’s concept of the
nature of the universe, al-Shahrastani tried to refute Ibn Sina’s concept of
metaphysics.62 In this refutation, however, he did not include al-Ghazali, even
though al-Ghazali was among the foremost medieval Muslim scholars to crit-
icize philosophers and his Al-Tahafut al-Falasifah, as Wilfred Madelung and
Toby Mayer have noted, “provided the most persuasive answer to Ibn Sina’s
philosophy from the Sunni point of view.”63 The impact of Isma’ili teachings
on al-Shahrastani can be observed in Al-Majlis, in which he discusses the the-
ory of creation (khalq) in the context of God’s divine order (al-amr). 

Al-Shahrastani wrote most of his works in Arabic; however, Al-Majlis,
compiled by Muhammad Rida Jalali Na’ini and based on al-Shahrastani’s
speech delivered in Khwarizm, is in Persian.64 Al-Shahrastani also wrote a
commentary on the Qur’an, Mafatih al-Asrar wa Masabih al-Abrar,65 and
other works mentioned by al-Bayhaqi, which are apparently lost, such as Al-
Manahij wa al-Ayat and Qissat M´sa wa al-Khaydir.

Approaches to Hind’s Religious Traditions
Some information on Hind had circulated among Muslim scholars during and
prior to al-Biruni’s time. However, in his Kitab al-Hind, al-Biruni does not
mention the works of al-Mas`udi, al-Tabari, Ibn Khurdadhbih, and Sulayman

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 37



al-Tajir as his sources, perhaps because he was able to conduct actual field
research. We do not have much information about why he did not refer to
these earlier works. He probably, borrowing Ainslie T. Embree, “mistrusted
them” and preferred “to work from the Sanskrit original.”66 Yet, this does not
seem to be a sufficient answer. Perhaps his decision was also a geographical
matter. Overall, it is worth noting that in his Kitab al-Hind, al-Biruni men-
tions Abu Sahl `Abd al-Mun`im ibn `Ali ibn Nuh al-Tiflisi, Zurqan, and Abu
al-`Abbas al-Iranshahri.67 It seems that he could access and interact with the
works of earlier Muslim writers, given that he does offer some comments,
appreciations, and critiques of them.68

Al-Biruni analyzed Hind’s religious traditions closely, conducted field
observation in certain Indian regions, and referred to Zurqan and Iranshahri,
both of whom provided a lot of data about Buddhist cosmology. However,
he dealt mainly with Hinduism. This is quite strange, considering that he did
not give enough space to Buddhism in both Kitab al-Hind and Kitab al-
Athar and yet discussed at least twelve religions and religious communities.
The majority of scholars, among them Sachau, Jeffery, Lawrence,
Kamaruzzaman, and Waardenburg, speculate that he did this because Bud-
dhism probably had largely disappeared from northern India by that time
(the end of the eleventh century).69

This speculation is quite acceptable, especially if we consider that al-
Biruni sought to be consistent with his methodology by conducting field
research and that he did not find enough Buddhist informants.70 Yet this
leaves a room for a further question: Did al-Biruni, as a historian or histori-
ographer, only focus on existing religions in composing his Kitab al-Athar?
Unlike such earlier Muslim scholars as Zurqan and Iranshahri or such later
ones as Rashid al-Din, was al-Biruni not interested in Buddhism, given that
he discusses other major and minor religious traditions? 

Similarly, in his Kitab al-Milal al-Shahrastani did not explicitly mention
his sources. This occurrence is slightly unusual, because he said in this book:
“These are what I can achieve from the sayings of the experts, and I have
quoted [such information] as they are” (Hadha ma wajadtu min maqalat ahl
al-`alim, wa nuqiltuhu ̀ ala ma wajadt´hu.).71 This signifies that he used other
sources, although he did not present them explicitly in his work. For the same
reason, Lawrence notes: 

Whatever Shahrastani’s sources may have contained about India was
derivative, and Shahrastani himself did not supplement its data through
conversation with Hindus or Buddhists nor did he consult with Muslim

38 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



travelers who had gone to India and been exposed to the beliefs and prac-
tices of Indians. Though he wrote in the first half of the twelfth century
A.D., Shahrastani obtained the bulk of his information on Indian sects
from a report compiled at the beginning of the ninth century.72

In regards to this case, Lawrence shares two themes that illustrate al-
Shahrastani’s connection to his predecessors based on the similar types of
works that they wrote. Minorski, as cited by Lawrence, writes that al-
Shahrastani, similar to al-Biruni, might refer to Zurqan, who paid attention
specifically to Hind’s religious tradition, rather than to other such Muslim
geographers as Ibn Khurradadhbih, Jayhani, Gardizi, or Marvazi. However,
according to Lawrence, the connection between Zurqan and al-Shahrastani
is difficult to establish. 

But in a certain manuscript version of the Kitab al-Milal (ed. Muham-
mad Badran), al-Shahrastani refers to Jayhani while discussing Zoroastrian-
ism. Thus, he could have been in touch with Jayhani, even though he does
not explicitly mention this scholar when exploring Hind’s religious tradi-
tion.73 However, the resemblances between al-Shahrastani’s “Ara al-Hind”
and other sources do not automatically signify that he really referred to
them, since the Kitab al-Milal’s chapter on Indian religious divisions covers
various aspects that are not discussed in his predecessors’ works. Thus, it is
probable that al-Shahrastani selected some material from several available
sources of information on Hind. 

In contrast, al-Biruni offers a more detailed explanation about his
methodological approach. He suggests five crucial elements of Indian cul-
ture that must be considered by observers in general, and Muslim readers in
particular, to understand its people’s religious life: the characteristics of the
main Indian language (Sanskrit) and the land’s major religious treatises, the
Indian religious attitudes, their customs, the religious types, and the Hindus’
attitudes toward others.74 Moreover, in Kitab al-Hind al-Biruni reveals him-
self as a dispassionate scholar who seeks to study other religions as they are.
In his introductory remarks, he says: “This book is not a polemical one (laysa
al-kitab, kitab hujjaj wa jidal) … My book is nothing but a simple historic
record of fact (wa innama huwa kitab hikayat).”75 This dispassionate
demeanor is a major reason why he is considered a distinguished scholar and
religious historian of his time. Regarding his intention as a Muslim to study
the Hindu belief system, he justly remarks: 

I have done and written this book on the doctrines of the Hindus, never
making any unfounded imputations against those, our religious antago-

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 39



nists, and at the same time not considering it inconsistent with my duties
as a Muslim to quote their own word at full length when I thought they
would contribute to elucidate a subject. If the contents of these quota-
tions happen to be utterly heathenish, and the followers of the truth, i.e.
the Muslims, find them objectionable, we can only say that such is the
belief of the Hindus, and that they themselves are the best qualified to
defend it.76

Compared to al-Biruni’s model of investigation, which tends to be
anthropological, al-Shahrastani’s description of Hind is more theological.
Al-Shahrastani consistently employs his heresiographical approach in cate-
gorizing and classifying that land’s religious belief systems. Accordingly,
there are at least two modes of categorization:  a division of regions or a divi-
sion of people. The former principle divides regions into four main classes:
the East, West, South, and North, and includes the characteristic of each
one’s natures (al-taba`i) and laws (al-shara`i); the latter principle divides the
world into four major nations (kibar al-umam): “the Arabs, `Ajam (Per-
sians), Romans, and Indians.”77

Therefore, al-Shahrastani analyzes and categorizes Hind’s religious tra-
dition in a slightly different way than al-Biruni does, although they might
have a similar theological outlook as regards its religious tradition. While al-
Shahrastani tries to show his neutrality as a scholar, his bias is evident when
he discusses the various Islamic sects: 

I impose upon myself the obligation of giving the views of each sect as I
find them in their works without favour or prejudice, without declaring
which are correct and which are incorrect, which are true and which are
false; although, indeed, the glimpses of the truth and the odour of lies will
not remain undetected by minds versed in intellectual matters. And God
will be our help. 

We cannot generalize this view as being entirely applicable to non-
Islamic religious traditions, since al-Shahrastani uses certain terms and
methods to classify other religions and philosophies. Nevertheless, he says:
“The Indian people constitute a large nation (ummah kabirah) and a great
religious community (millah al-`adimah), and they vary in their views (wa
arawhum mukhtalifah).”78 Similar to al-Biruni, whose views are considered
relatively moderate, al-Shahrastani approaches the Indian religions “sympa-
thetically” and, as Lawrence points out, “employs a unique analytical model
(Sabianism) to portray Indian idol worship.”79

40 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Defining Traditions and Religions:
Some Methodological Issues
In his Kitab al-Athar, al-Biruni collects information on various civilizations’
calendrical systems, which are related to religious events, and arranges them
into certain themes. Some of the topics correspond solely to his curiosity and
competency as an astronomer and astrologer. Other topics elaborate upon the
religious events and festivals in various religious traditions. Since this book
seeks to observe the chronology of ancient nations, as opposed to inspect
world religious traditions, he provides no precise method of classification as
al-Shahrastani does. For the most part, the topics of discussion are derived
from festivals or religious events. Even so, he presents a wide-ranging discus-
sion of the divisions of religious festivals by describing the similarities and
differences of traditions, religious institutions, and opinions found within var-
ious groups or nations. 

The festivals and feast days, the main topics in addition to the calendri-
cal systems that so interest al-Biruni, are fine instances of how he effectively
portrays the differences and resemblances among the religious traditions of
the Jews, Persians, Christians, pre-Islamic Arabs, Sabians, and Muslims. His
method of selection implies that he formulated a classification based on how
people deal with religious festivals, dates, and calendars. 

Furthermore, if we take the modern-day study of religion into account,
we may say that his mode of presentation in Kitab al-Athar tends to be more
“functionalist,” for he begins with a discussion based on “religious events” as
the main issue, rather then “substantivist,”80 meaning one who is concerned
mainly with religious doctrines. In the functionalist point of view, religious
practices may reflect what people believe. For al-Biruni, in this case perhaps,
a portion of religious doctrine is presented as the supportive information, not
as the main argument, needed to give a religious event’s theological back-
ground. We may also say that this book is written from his perspective as an
astronomer, astrologer, and geographer, and not especially as a religionist.
Therefore, his failure to elaborate further upon the significant types of each
religious tradition’s theological doctrines mentioned in Kitab al-Athar is not
so strange. 

Another comparative method used by al-Biruni can be traced back to his
Kitab al-Hind, in which he conducts a profound investigation of Hind’s reli-
gious tradition and compares its theological and philosophical thought with
those of the classical Greek religions, Christianity and Judaism, and also
confronts their opinions so that he can reach a certain conclusion. To be sure,
one who applies a comparative method must have critical insight, a careful

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 41



outlook, and an accurate stance in looking at one or more religious traditions
so that one can reach a reasonable conclusion. Regarding al-Biruni’s com-
parative method when studying Hind, Jeffery notes, 

[H]e will place before the reader the theories of the Hindus exactly as they
are, and where there are similar theories among the Greeks, or in the teach-
ing of the Christian sects, or the Sufis, as for example in the matter of trans-
migration of souls, or pantheistic doctrines of the unity of God with his
creatures, he will accurately report their theories also for comparison.81

Though al-Biruni makes no attempt to locate Hind’s religious traditions
within the world’s religious traditions, we can deduce his perspective of the
general classification of religion. In Kitab al-Hind, he argues that the idola-
try found in Hind and classical Greece can be measured as a kind of tradi-
tion that deviates from the truth (al-haqq). On this subject, Kamaruzzaman
concludes that al-Biruni implicitly offers two typologies of religions: (1) al-
haqq (the Truth) or Islam, and (2) kufr (rejection of, or deviation from, the
Truth) or inhiraf (deviation from the Truth). Here, Kamaruzzaman interprets
al-haqq as “Islam,” since Muslims often employ this term to identify their
own religion.82 However, since al-Biruni’s statements refer to the people of
Hind and pre-Christian Greece who held idolatrous views, it is more accu-
rate, in my opinion, to interpret al-haqq as “the pure truth” or “monotheism”
as employed by Sachau, rather then as “Islam” as used by Kamaruzzaman
and based upon Naquib al-Attas’ translation.83 My argument is that in this
passage al-Biruni simply talks about the idolatry of Hind and classical
Greece vis-à-vis the monotheistic tradition. 

Al-Biruni uses inhiraf in the context of deviating from monotheism, as
opposed to deviating from Islam. As we shall see below, he distinguishes
between the khawass (elites) and the `ammah (ordinary) of Hindu believers,
which also deals with the monotheistic view and the deviation from it.
Moreover, Kamaruzzaman’s above argument is beyond the scope of this dis-
cussion, because al-Biruni also talks about Socrates, “who died faithful to
the truth (al-haqq)” for not partaking in his people’s idolatry. In sum, al-
Biruni employs al-haqq not only to distinguish monotheism from idolatry,
but also for the “truth” (al-haqq) that Socrates defended. Thus, the “truth” in
this case is not simply Islam as an “organized religion,” but rather Islam as
a monotheistic tradition. 

Nevertheless, in another place he discusses the divisions of Hind’s soci-
ety from a theological point of view and its cultural castes or social classes
(al-tabaqat). In addition to his two types of Hindus, mentioned above, he also
recognizes that castes or colors (Sans. varna; Ar. alwan) are an important cul-

42 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



tural aspect and that Muslims will perhaps find this feature difficult to under-
stand, since these sociocultural classes determine the Hindus’ spiritual types
and rights. “We Muslims,” al-Biruni states, “stand entirely on the other side
of the question, considering all men as equal, except in piety (taqwa).”84

Such social classes or castes are not unique to Hind. Before describing
its castes, for instance, he mentions a sort of caste system found in ancient
Persia that bears certain similarities to that of Hind. For example, along with
his effort to restore the Persian empire, Ardhasir ben Babak resurrected the
following social hierarchy: the knights (al-usawirah) and princes (abna’ al-
mul´k); the monks or pious men (al-nussak), fire-priests (sadanat al-nayyi-
ran), and lawyers (arbab al-din); the physicians (al-atibba’), astronomers
(al-munajjimin), and scientists (ashab al-`ul´m); and, finally, the farmers or
peasants (al-zarra’i) and artisans (al-sunna’i).85 The Hindus, as al-Biruni
explains, have four major castes, each of which is determined by their texts
and associated with Brahman’s primordial existence: brahmana (brahmins
[priests and teachers]), kshatria (warriors and rulers), vaisya (farmers, mer-
chants, artisans), and sudra (laborers) and other low-caste people. 

In contrast to al-Biruni, who offers no precise taxonomy of world reli-
gious traditions, al-Shahrastani arranges them through a precise model of
classification. In addition, as a heresiographer, he offers various technical
and theological terms associated with Islamic and other religious sects. First,
he proposes a general classification of world religions by presenting what
“scholars” have posited, such as a classification based on the great ancient
regions and great nations,86 of which Hind is one. His classification is not
restricted to regions or nations, because he also classifies world religious tra-
ditions according to their belief systems, especially when elaborating upon
various sects within each religion. 

Indeed, his Kitab al-Milal mainly seeks to arrange world religious tradi-
tions based on their opinion (al-ara’) and doctrines (al-madhdhahib).87 To
display his taxonomy sharply and systematically, he proposes such technical
terms as “people of religions and sects” (ahl al-dayanat wa al-milal) and
“people of opinion” (ahl al-ahwa wa al-nihal). While the former comprises
the Magians, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the latter comprises the philoso-
phers, materialists, Sabians, star and idol worshippers, and Brahmans.88

While al-Biruni’s discussion of each religion’s theological or philosoph-
ical view is not profound, al-Shahrastani, as a theologian or a heresiograph-
er, makes a clearer distinction between their doctrines. In defining and cate-
gorizing religions or philosophical thought, he formulates such concepts as
rationality, regulation or law, body of laws (shari`ah), and prophecies that
each tradition may have rejected or accepted.89 In addition, he mentions

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 43



another one of religion’s important and necessary aspect: scripture. In this
case, he distinguishes world religious traditions based on their scriptures and
divides them into categories: those that have books (Ahl al-Kitab), those who
have “pseudo-books” (man lah´ shubhat kitab), and those who have laws and
regulations “without books.” Hind’s religious traditions, especially those of
the Brahmans and the star worshippers, appear to belong to the third catego-
ry. Apparently, al-Shahrastani had limited direct access to Hindus, so some
Hindu scriptures are missing from his Kitab al-Milal. This is in contrast to
al-Biruni, who elaborates to a great extent upon several Hindu scriptures to
which he refers in his Kitab al-Hind. 

One more issue I would like to highlight here concerns both scholars’
insights on the relationship between philosophy and theology. This issue, in
my opinion, is relevant because both of their investigations embrace several
philosophers when discussing religions. Al-Shahrastani describes several
philosophical systems in his Kitab al-Milal and incorporates an extensive
discussion of Greek, Arab, and Hindu thought in his Kitab Nihayat al-Itqan.
On the other hand, Greek thought becomes the object of al-Biruni’s compar-
ative analysis of Hind’s religious and philosophical thought. 

In the Islamic scientific tradition, philosophy and theology are consid-
ered rational sciences (`ul´m al-`aqliyah) instead of transmitted sciences (al-
`ul´m al-naqliyah). Even so, they have different concerns or objects of
study: “While theological discourse (kalam) is concerned with God’s exis-
tence and attributes and with human’s destiny, philosophy is concerned with
rational truth, being and non-being, and the nature of things, of God, and of
the cosmos.”90 Yet al-Biruni is better recognized as a scientist, astrologer, and
religionist than as a philosopher or theologian, while it is just the opposite
with al-Shahrastani. However, their works imply that philosophy can some-
how be a kind of theological thought. Therefore, studying religion and the-
ology must involve a discussion of philosophy. 

In regards to the terminological ambiguity of philosophy and theology
in Islamic intellectual history, Seyyed Hossein Nasr notes: 

In the context of classical Islamic civilization the name “philosophy” (al-
falsafah or al-hikmah) is reserved for a particular set of disciplines associ-
ate with the well-known schools of “Islamic philosophy” such as the
Peripatetic (mashsha’i), Illuminationists (ishraqi) and the like, and not
other schools, like theology (kalam), which often deal with philosophic
ideas but are not officially recognized as philosophy. Therefore, the title of
“philosopher” (al-faylasuf) is usually reserved for those who are masters
of the doctrines of one these “philosophical” schools with all the different
ramifications and nuances that various branches of these schools contain.91

44 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Whether al-Biruni and al-Sharastani should more appropriately be
regarded as philosophers or theologians is beyond the scope of this paper. My
point here is how they distinguish philosophy from religion, since philosoph-
ical thought is intimately embodied within and attached to religious judg-
ments. According to al-Shahrastani, the philosophers (al-falasifah al-´la),
along with the Brahmans and the star worshippers, are those who may have
laws and regulations without a scripture (min man lah´ hud´d wa ahkam
d´na kitab).92 By including philosophers in his discussion of religion, he
shows that he considers philosophy as a sort of religion. 

Muhammad Kamal Ja’far mentions that al-Shahrastani connects philos-
ophy to religion in the context of their objective (fi nitaq al-ghayah) and com-
pares the positions of prophets (al-anbiya’) and philosophers (al-hukama’).93
Accordingly, prophets confirm the spiritual support for establishing the mat-
ter of practical purposes and also take a stand as regards the logical dimen-
sion (al-anbiya’ ayyad´ bi imdadat r´haniyat li taqrir al-qism al-`amali, wa
bi turafi ma min al-qism al-`ilm), while philosophers provide sensible sup-
ports for establishing the logical or scientific dimensions and also take a stand
on the matter of practices (ta’rudh´ li imdadat `aqliyah, taqiiran li qism al-
`ilm, wa bi turafi ma min al-qism al-`amali).94

This means that both religion and philosophy have an equivalent goal:
the quest for the truth. Therefore, the fundamental correspondence in terms
of purpose between religion (prophets) and philosophy (philosophers), as
described by al-Shahrastani, is coherent with his method of classification,
which includes spiritual and philosophical traditions that have no book or
prophets. In this regard, Ahmad Khalifah assumes that “according to the
arrangement of this classification, religion seems to be rooted in philoso-
phy.” Al-Shahrastani even points out that Sabianism’s essence lies some-
where between religion and philosophy.95

As a result, the way al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani categorize religions
and define religious elements influence how they examine Hind’s religious
tradition. Even though al-Shahrastani is more systematic and “comprehen-
sive” then al-Biruni in arranging and examining world religious traditions
and each of their sects, some important aspects of religion (e.g., religious
practices and religious festivals) are missing from his work. The idea of
comprehensibility in examining religion, however, is not entirely plausible,
especially when we observe how al-Biruni deals with Hind’s religious tradi-
tion, since he conducted actual field research in Hind. Al-Biruni’s work cov-
ers various aspects of the Hindu traditions, such as society, theology, scrip-
ture, and festivals.

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 45



The Hindus: Between Monotheism and Polytheism
One issue that can be discussed about Hinduism’s divisions and theologi-
cal doctrines in both scholars’ writings is their opinion on the monotheism-
polytheism discourse. Since Islamic theology stresses the Higher Being’s
unity (tawhid) and purity, it is probable that they might attach dissimilar
theological evaluations to Hind’s religious traditions. As Rosenthal notes,
“monotheism in al-Biruni’s time,” and perhaps in al-Shahrastani’s, “did not
allow of reconciliation with any form of pagan idol worship or theology.”96

Tawhid is a core Islamic belief, as seen in the shahadah (the testimony
of faith): “There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of
God.” Even though Muslims agree on God’s oneness, their understanding of
His attributes, manifestation, and authority differ. The resulting heated theo-
logical debates are long-standing and were especially vigorous during the
eighth to the tenth centuries.97 Given that both scholars recognize that Hind’s
religious traditions are among the oldest living traditions, the Islamic creed
can apply only “partially,” namely, the concept of God’s oneness, and not the
concept of Muhammad’s prophethood. Even so, the concept of prophecy is
one to which al-Shahrastani devotes a great deal of major attention. 

Both men raise different opinions concerning the Hindus’ monotheistic
or polytheistic tendencies. Although al-Biruni does not connect the Hindus
directly with the Sabians, a religious community that allegedly had a mono-
theistic inclination, he sees that Hinduism is monotheistic in nature. As a
matter of course, some Hindu texts contain opinions indicating that God is
the One, the highest reality, eternal, unique, and beyond all likeness and
unlikeness. Therefore, he sees polytheism as a common accidental deviation
from the monotheistic outlook, one that is caused mainly by the people’s
inability to understand “non-symbolic” philosophical and theological mat-
ters. Thus, in this case polytheism is simply a matter of the “symbolic
shapes” of religiosity that typically exist when people need a concrete man-
ifestation or representation of the Higher Beings. 

Moreover, al-Biruni identifies two hypotheses of idolatry’s origin: it
existed before God sent His Messenger, and it might be a deviation from the
“true religion.” His opinion of the types of idolatry appears to be quite sim-
ilar to al-Shahrastani’s idea that idolatry does not come in just one form. The
pagan Arabs, Greeks, Romans, and Indians all have the same tradition of
worshipping idols; however, some of them think that the idol becomes a
mediator, an intercessor with God, His manifestation, as well as His repre-
sentation,98 whereas others see it only as a memorial.99 “The classical Greeks
also considered idols as mediators between themselves and the first cause,”

46 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



states al-Biruni, “and worshipped them under the names of the stars and the
highest substances.”100 Furthermore, he explicates: “The Hindus honor their
idols on account of those who erected them, not account of the material of
which they are made.”101

In connection with the above case, al-Shahrastani observes the variety
of Hindu perceptions as regards the Higher Beings’ symbolic representation
by presenting his types of idol worshippers. According to him, their percep-
tion of idols is not monolithic. Some perceive them as God’s representation
or manifestation through divine messengers in the form of human beings
and, at the same time, use them as intermediaries; others regard idols or such
things as water, fire, and tree as “angels” or “the higher beings.” Even
though al-Shahrastani does not claim that the Hindus are monotheists, he
implies that some of them need symbolical representation while worshiping
the higher beings, such as when he describes the followers of spiritual beings
(i.e., the Basawiya, Bahuwadiya, Kabaliya, and Bahaduniya) and the star
worshippers (i.e., the Dinakitiya and Jandrikaniya). His opinion on their
idolatry is, in short, based on the types of idol worshippers and their basic
understanding of the relevant idols.

The variety of Hind’s religious traditions shows that Hindus differ both
culturally and spiritually. The structure of Hindu theological doctrines, as
articulated by Hindu theologians and philosophers through their holy books
and respected scriptures, still leaves room for the ordinary people to modify
and contextualize such doctrines in accordance with popular points of view.
The gap between philosophical-theological formulations and [popular] reli-
gious practices exists in almost all religious traditions. 

From al-Biruni’s and al-Shahrastani’s investigations, we may also see
that each religion, including Hinduism, has a philosophical dimension and a
popular manifestation. For the elites, the religious tradition, like that of other
religious communities, is monotheistic, especially with regard to defining
the concept of the Highest Being. At the popular level, namely, that of reli-
gious symbols, the iconographic representation and figurative symbols (e.g.,
idols or statues) is also expressed in other religious traditions. In both schol-
ars’ opinion, the particularity of religious traditions can be observed in how
the religious communities connect the Highest Reality to the figurative sym-
bols they have created to represent the highest (monotheistic) Reality. 

Conclusion 
The relevance and contribution of medieval Muslim scholars and theolo-
gians to the study of religion cannot be disregarded in forming the modes of

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 47



comparative religion (muqaranat al-adyan), especially in modern Muslim
literature and, perhaps, in contemporary western scholarship. In our case, the
classifications or categorizations of religions made by these two scholars can
be regarded as their contribution to the modern study of religion. 

Before exploring Hind’s religious tradition, they discussed other reli-
gions. Al-Biruni wrote Kitab al-Hind after Kitab al-Athar; al-Shahrastani’s
chapter “Ara al-Hind” is the last chapter of his Kitab al-Milal. Differences are
also apparent in how they investigate each religious tradition. Whereas al-
Biruni focuses on the history of religion and religious rituals/festivals, al-
Shahrastani is more interested in the divisions of theological doctrines and
religious sects. Thus they present different insights in classifying world reli-
gions. It is hard to find a systematic and detailed explanation of each reli-
gion’s doctrinal teachings in al-Biruni’s writings, excluding his exploration of
Hind, because his interest is the ancient nations’ religious festivals and calen-
drical systems. In contrast, while we can easily read a detailed narrative of the
doctrines of world religions in al-Shahrastani, it is hard to find any attention
given to religious festivals or practices in his work. Therefore, I would say
that their approaches to world religious traditions are complementary. 

This also can be seen in their discussion of Sabianism. Al-Biruni pre-
sents data about several ancient religious communities that Muslim scholars
have considered to be Sabian. In the context of our discussion, it is correct,
as modern scholars say, that al-Shahrastani was the first Muslim scholar to
connect the Sabians with Hind’s religious communities, since he discovered
that their teachings are similar to those of the Brahmans. On the other hand,
there is no clear clue that al-Biruni ever brought up such an issue when dis-
cussing Hind’s religious tradition. However, in regards to the discourse of
Sabianism, al-Biruni, al-Shahrastani, and other Muslim scholars opined that
the Sabians might have had monotheistic tendencies or at least had “devi-
ated” from or “modified” their monotheistic views. 

In presenting the types of Hindu believers, al-Biruni differentiates
between philosophers and ordinary people. This workable categorization is
still used by modern scholars of religion and, perhaps, some anthropologists
who study religious systems. Al-Biruni’s journey in Hind and his chance to
examine some Hindu scriptures and investigate Hindu religious practices
allow him to make such a distinction by presenting a categorization of Hind’s
religions at both the philosophical and the popular levels. More importantly,
he introduces the distinction between khawass and `ammah, as a general
theory, to show how the theologians and the philosophers or “the elites”
(khawass) apprehend religious ideas and how “the vulgar” (`ammah) might
perceive and actualize such religious doctrines in the popular context.102

48 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Moreover, from this categorization we may draw some theoretical notes
as to why and how, according to al-Biruni, a monotheistic view can diverge
within a given society. First, people may “deviate” due to their limited abil-
ity. Different people with different educational backgrounds might produce
different views about philosophical and abstract concepts.103 His conclusion
that the Hindus’ theological concept is monotheistic is unusual and sur-
prising, but his assertion of an intellectual gap between the educated and the
uneducated believers is a common phenomenon and can be used to analyze
other religious communities. Second, a “natural process” may also generate
the “deviation.” Human beings have a propensity to decode such abstract
concepts as “supernatural,” “God,” “angel,” and “demon” by presenting them
as figurative objects. Therefore, anthropomorphism is very common and can
be found in almost all religious traditions. Even the elites have a tendency to
be anthropomorphist. 

Third, it still relates to the previous point: People venerate religious sym-
bols, statues, or temples long after they forget the original motive of the given
symbol’s creation. An earlier community builds a sculpture to honor and
commemorate a specific person (e.g., the Buddha) and give him respect, and
a later community transforms that tradition into a “religious ritual.”104 Finally,
anthropomorphism as a “deviation” from monotheism can occur due to lin-
guistic limitations within societies. Al-Biruni’s comparative explanation
about this, as in the case of Greek, Arab-Islam, Hebrew, and among Chris-
tians, reveals different probabilities in producing anthropomorphism. Inter-
estingly, as modern scholars point out, theology (i.e., doctrinal systems) is
also constructed by the structure of a given society’s language.105

As al-Biruni explains, idolatry is a major tradition within Hind’s reli-
gious traditions, especially among those Hindus who need symbolic and
iconographic representations of the Highest Being, various deities, and
angels. This tradition absolutely contravenes Islam, which is totally against
idolatry and all other iconographic symbols. Even so, al-Biruni highlights
another viewpoint of Hinduism: At its philosophical core, Hinduism
exhibits a monotheistic tendency. Monotheism is not the only theological
inclination among Hindu philosophers, since there is also a pantheistic
mystical view. When al-Biruni writes that idolatry is a “deviation” from the
truth, it echoes his Islamic perspective (the idea of monotheism) as a cen-
tral theological tool in his investigation of other religions. Nevertheless, this
field observation, which led him to encounter Hindu religious ideas and
practices objectively, is not very popular among Muslim scholars and here-
siographers, who traditionally have considered religions from a doctrinal
point of view. 

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 49



In contrast, al-Shahrastani’s classification represents how Muslim here-
siographers classify sects and Islamic theological schools of thought. He
presents the founder of each religious sect and then examines its subsets’
characteristics. Such heresiographers as Ibn Hazm, Tahir ibn Muhammad al-
Baghdadi, and Muhammad ibn Isfara’ini use a similar style. He also formu-
lates some criteria of religions and religious communities in their dealings
with scriptures, prophets, and a deity/deities. 

Al-Shahrastani’s distinction reveals that his model of classification
determines his view. We may summarize his view as follows: First, almost
all of these divisions and subdivisions deal closely with the concept of
“idol.” As depicted by al-Shahrastani, the Hindus have different ways of per-
ceiving their idols; some consider them to be the actual deity/deities, while
others just see them as the “representation” of the Higher Being. Therefore,
the existence of an idol does not necessarily indicate that all Hindus worship
it; instead, some of them use it as a symbol of a higher being and so may
worship what the symbol represents.106 Second, he distinguishes between
idol worshippers (i.e., the tree-water-fire worshippers) and star worshippers
(i.e., the Sun and Moon worshippers). But it is hard to discover this differ-
ence, as perhaps the only difference between them is the way they associate
their “respect” or “admiration” with the Moon, the Sun, water, fire, or a tree.
However, as regards their creating and honoring the idol and performing rit-
uals, there is no fundamental disparity.107

In this case, we may say that he discusses idol worshippers as a special
case. However, worshipping stars is not unique to Hindus: ancient religions
or the Sabians in Mesopotamia, Iraq, or Syria also had such a tradition.108
Therefore, this categorization is probably his way of emphasizing his con-
cern with differentiating this group from the tradition that purely worships
idols. Third, there is a connection between the Brahman (al-barahimah) and
Indian philosophers (hukama’ al-hind) in the matter of thought and tradition:
Both deal primarily with reason and wisdom.109 The highest potentiality of
human beings is found in their endeavors by using reason to distinguish
between right and wrong, as well as between true and false. 

In al-Sharastani’s depiction, the concepts of “intermediaries” and “repre-
sentation” in the context of the human–divine relationship within Hind’s reli-
gious sects and subsects is discussed frequently. Through this point, he offers
a basic supposition of how Hindus conceptualize their theological ideas and
attaches the concept of intermediaries to the notion of iconographical repre-
sentation of the higher beings (e.g., gods, goddesses, and angels). Therefore,
idolatry is one of his main concerns. Al-Shahrastani presents five main sects
or religions, some of which, especially among the star worshippers and idol

50 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



worshippers, deal with idolatry, while other main “sects,” especially the
Brahmans and Indian philosophers, mainly deal with either “reason” or mys-
ticism and therefore do not really involve themselves with idols.110

Even though both scholars employ different approaches, the intersect-
ing notion between them of Hind’s idolatry is seen in some conceptual keys:
religious representation, intermediaries, anthropomorphism, and “deviation”
from monotheism. It is understandable that their investigations would reveal
a common phenomenon within a religious discourse: the distinction between
philosophical thinking and religious practice. Idolatry, as far as they are con-
cerned, is a natural human tendency, especially among religious communi-
ties that are faced with describing abstract ideas.

Their works may also represent a typical study of religion conducted by
medieval Muslim scholars who used their own frameworks. Al-Biruni’s
concept of “deviation” from monotheism and al-Shahrastani’s refutation of
the Brahmans concerning prophecy show that Islam’s basic teachings are
still in play in their analyses. It may say that their arguments and judgments
regarding other religions are polemical and apologetic. However, this is not
really the case, for their description, evaluation, and analysis of other reli-
gious beliefs and practices reveal a genuine interest in understanding non-
Islamic religions through comparison.

Furthermore, critical notes can be addressed to both scholars and their
perceptions or judgments of how the Hindus perceive monotheism and poly-
theism. I mentioned above that al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani issued some
conceptual terms in their divisions, such as “deviation,” the “elites” and the
“vulgar,” “representation,” and “intermediaries.” Such an approach, borrow-
ing Peter Brown’s term, is called the “two-tiered model” and is still used
today. Without neglecting the two scholars’ efforts to study non-Islamic reli-
gions as they are, both still used their own religious and theological views to
judge other religions. 

Moreover, we can raise some questions regarding their classifications: Is
it true that polytheism is a “deviation” from monotheism? Do polytheistic
views and monotheistic doctrines exist independently? Can we say that
monotheism is a perfect form and a result of the “evolution” of religious
belief systems? Why do al-Biruni and al-Shahrastani say that paganism or
polytheism is a “deviation” from monotheism? Is it true that the “vulgar” or
“ordinary people” are commonly ignorant? Who has the right to say that
“popular religion” is worse than “formalized religion”? What is the standard?
Do religious beliefs and practices require philosophical thinking? 

Other Muslim theologians have used this two-tiered model of analysis.
As Brown rightly observes, Christian scholars working in Late Antiquity

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 51



were already using this perspective. This standpoint even appeared in mod-
ern western scholarship in the 1970s when David Hume, in his essay “The
Natural History of Religion,” discussed the “intellectual limitation of human
mind.”111 For Hume, the history of religions is characterized “by the tension
between theistic and polytheistic ways of thinking.” Hume assumes that there
are “intellectual and cultural limitations among the masses” concerning the
original monotheism and, therefore, “the vulgar” (borrowing from al-Biruni)
have fallen into anthropomorphism and (borrowing from al-Shahrastani)
needed “representation.” 

In the case of Christianity’s Late Antiquity era, this “intellectual limita-
tion” engendred the cult of saints. But if we employ Brown’s findings to ana-
lyze al-Biruni’s and al-Shahrastani’s viewpoints, we may say that this cult
does not simply represent “the vulgar” or comes from “the masses” who, due
to their intellectual limitations, need “representation.” Instead, the cult of
saints, burial practices, and the veneration of idols, temples and shrines are
elitist in nature, for the clergy formulates them to bridge the gap between the
elites and the masses. Although the majority of modern scholars have
accepted Brown’s critical remarks, the two-tiered model remains popular and
continues to be used by many contemporary Muslim scholars.

Endnotes 

1. The term comparative religion was first used as an academic term by Joachim
Wach in 1952, when he taught courses on the religions of India. He saw that
the term science of religions or history of religions could distort his students’
understanding, since he would discuss many religions. Therefore, he used a
more descriptive and non-technical term: the comparative study of religion.
See M Joseph Kitagawa, “Introduction: The Life and Thought of Joachim
Wach,” in Joachim Wach, The Comparative Study of Religion (New York &
London: Columbia University Press, 1958), hlm. xiii.

2. Franz Rosenthal, “Preface,” in Bruce B. Lawrence, Shahrastani on the Indian
Religions (Moulton: Moulton & Co., 1976), 5. 

3. Tarif Khalidi, Classical Arab Islam: The Culture and Heritage of the Golden
Age (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1985), 62.

4. A. Jeffery, “Al-Biruni’s Contribution to Comparative Religion,” in Al-Biruni:
Commemoration Volume (Calcutta: Iran Society, 1951), 125.

5. Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History, 2d ed. (LaSalle, IL: Open
Court, 1991), 11.

6. Al-Biruni, Tahqiq ma li al-Hind min Maq´lah Maqb´lah fi al-`Aql al-
Mardh´lah, ed. Edward C. Sachau (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1925). In this
paper, I use Alberuni’s India: An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Litera-
ture, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology of

52 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



India about AD 1030, 2 vols., tr. Edward Sachau (Delhi: Low Price Pub.,
2003).

7. Al-Biruni, Al-Athar al-Baqiyah `an al-Qur´n al-Khaliyah, ed. P. Azkaei
(Tehran: Miras al-Maktub, 2001). In this article, I use The Chronology of
Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athar al-Baqiya
of Al-Biruni or Vestiges of the Past, tr. Edward C. Sachau (London: W. H.
Allen & Co., 1879).

8. For the Arabic version, I use al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2 vols., ed.
Abd. Latif Muhammad al-`Abd (Cairo: Maktabah al-Anjlu al-Misriyyah,
1977). Bruce Lawrence’s Shahrastani on the Indian Religions, which focuses
mainly on the Milal wa al-Nihal’s chapter on Hind’s religions, is a valuable
case study in how modern scholarship acquires and evaluates medieval Mus-
lim sources in the study of religion. Lawrence has done work with the obser-
vation of Muslim literature on Hinduism prior to al-Shahrastani. He translates
part II, book III, and section B of al-Shahrastani’s “Ara al-Hind.” More impor-
tantly, in the last part of his book, Lawrence offers detailed commentaries and
comparisons of various aspects of Indian religion reflected in al-Shahrastani’s
book with other Muslim literature, such as Ibn al-Nadim’s Al-Fihrist, Gardizi’s
Zayn al-Akhbar, Marvazi’s ÿaba’i` al-Hayawan, and Maqdisi’s Kitab wa al-
Bad’ wa al-Tarikh. For the translation of Al-Milal’s section on Islam, see al-
Shahrastani, “Muslim Sects and Divisions,” in Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, tr.
A. K. Kazi and J. G. Flynn (London and Boston: Kegan Paul Intl., 1984).

9. Alfred Guillaume, tr. and ed., Kitab Nihayat al-Iqdam fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam and
The Summa Philosophiae of al-Shahrastani (bilingual) (London: Humprey
Milford, 1934). 

10. There are some basic categories in the Islamic medieval era regarding non-
Muslims. By referring to the Qur’an’s general notions, Jacques Waardenburg
divides these categories into three: (1) the Qur’an distinguishes between believ-
ers and unbelievers as well as Muslims and non-Muslims. The latter have three
specific characteristics: they do not confess God’s oneness, they deny Muham-
mad’s prophetic attribute, and they do not accept the Qur’an as a definitive
word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad; (2) The Qur’an also divides non-
Muslims into two categories: such religious communities as Jews, Christians,
Zoroastrians, and Sabians are included in the first one, whereas the polytheists
(al-mushrik´n) are in the second category; and (3) The dissimilarities between
those who believe in God’s oneness and those who believe in and worship
something or somebody in addition to God. Jaques Waardenburg, Muslim Per-
ception of Other Religions: A Historical Survey (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999). For Muslim works, see, for example, Mahmoud ibn Sharif, Al-
Adyan fi al-Qur’an (Cairo: Dar al-Ma`arif, 1970); `Abbas ibn Mansur al-
Saksaki, Al-Burhan fi Ma`rifah `Aqa’id Ahl al-Adyan, ed. Khalil Ahmad
Ibrahim al-Haj (City: Dar al-Turath al-`Arabi li al-Taba’i wa li al-Nashr, 1980);
Sulayman ibn Abd al-Qawi al-Tufi, Al-Intisarat al-Islamiyah fi ‘Ilm Muqara-
nah al-Adyan (Cairo: Matba`ah Dar al-Bayan, 1983).

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 53



11. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Theology and Philosophy (Edinburg: Edinburg
University Press, 1987); Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, vol. 1,
The Classical Age of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 437.

12. Baghdad’s Bayt al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) is an appropriate example of
how a fine research library existed during the `Abbasid period where Greek
thought, Arabic cultures, and Persian intellectual environments intermingled.
See Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Islamic Intellectual Tradition in Persia, ed. by
Mehdi Amin Razavi (Surrey, UK: Curzon Press, 1996), esp. chapter 1,
“Islamic Thought and Persian Culture,” 3-58.  

13. See, for example, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq wa Bayan
al-Firqah al-Najiyah minhum: `Aqa’id al-Firq al-Islamiyah wa Ara Kibar
A`lamaha (Cairo: Maktabah Ibn Sina li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi` wa al-Tasdir,
n.d.); also Muslim Schisms and Sects, tr. Kate Chambers Seeley (New York:
AMS Press, 1966); Abu al-Muzaffar Tahir ibn Muhammad al-Isfarayni, Tabsir
fi al-Din wa Tamyiz al-Firqah al-Najiyah `an al-Firq al-Halikin (Cairo: Mat-
ba`ah al-Anwar, 1940); ‘Ali ibn Ahmad Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisl fi al-Milal wa Ahwa
wa al-Nihal, eds. Muhammad Ibrahim Nasr and `Abd al-Rahman Umayrah
(Jeddah: Shairkah Maktabah Ukad, 1982).

14. Muslim theologians have accused Jews and Christians of tahrif, namely, “hav-
ing modified, falsified” and misinterpreted their scriptures “to suppress predic-
tions of the prophet.” See Encyclopedia of Islam, “Tahrif,” 445. 

15. For the variety of Muslims interpretations of tahrif and their perceptions of
Hebrew Bible, see Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and The
Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden, New York, and Koln:
E. J. Brill, 1996). 

16. Abu al-Futuh Muhammad al-Tawanisi, Ab´ Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad
al-Bir´ni: Al-`Alim al-Falaki, al-Jiyal´ji, wa al-Riyadi al-Mu’arrikh
Mutarajim Thaqafah al-Hind (Mu’assasah Dar al-Tahrir li Tab`i wa al-Nashr,
1968), 15. 

17. André Wink, Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 1, Early
Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries (Leiden, New
York, Köln: Brill, 1997), 190.

18. K. A. Mubarakpuri, Al-`Arab wa al-Hind fi `Ahd al-Risalah, tr. Abd al-`Aziz
`Izzat `Abd al-Jalil (Cairo: al-Hay’ah al-Mishriyyah al-`Ammah li al-Kitab,
1973), 13. Elsewhere, he briefly describes the `Abbasids’ political, cultural,
and intellectual policies in regards to Hind from Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah (750-
754) until al-Mu’tadid (892-902). See his Al-Hind fi `Ahd al-`Abbasiyin
(Cairo: Dar al-Ansar, 1980).

19. Al-Mas`udi, Mur´j al-Dhahab wa Ma’adin al-Jawhar (Beirut: Makshurat al-
Jami`ah al-Libaniyah, 1966), 1:91. See also Meadows of Gold and Mines of
Gems, tr. Aloys Springer (London: The Oriental Translation Fund of Great Bri-
tain and Ireland, 1841), 1:177.

20. For a further discussion of the early Muslim geographical accounts of Hind, see
Maqbul Ahmad, Indo-Arab Relations: An Account of India’s Relations with the

54 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



Arab World from Ancient up to Modern Times (New Delhi: Indian Council for
Cultural Relations; Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1969), 95-106. 

21. Wink, Al-Hind, 1:191-92; Karl Jahn, Rashid al-Din’s History of India: Col-
lected Essays with Facsimiles and Indice (London and Paris: The Hague,
Mouton and Co., 1965). In his Jami` a-Tavarikh, Rashid al-Din is more con-
cerned with Buddhism than Hinduism.

22. Mubarakpuri, Al-`Arab wa al-Hind, 10. 
23. Al-Tawanisi, Ab´ Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Bir´ni, 19-20; Wink, Al-

Hind, 1:7-9.
24. Even before the “wave of Hellenism” in the eight and ninth centuries, Arab-

Persian Muslim scholars had interacted with the Indian scientific materials in
the fields of astronomy, astrology, mathematics, and medicine, for some of
these texts had been translated from Sanskrit into Arabic or Persian. See Dimitri
Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Move-
ment in Baghdad and Early `Abbasid Society [2nd-4th/8th-10th Centuries]
(London: Routledge, 1998), 24.

25. Sulayman al-Tajir and Abi Zayd Hasan al-Sirafi, Akhbar al-Sin wa al-Hind,
ed. Yusuf al-Sharuni (Cairo: al-Dar al-Misriyyah al-Bananiyah, 1999).  

26. Bruce B. Lawrence presents some important works written by Muslim travel-
ers, geographers, and writers on Indian civilization. Among them were such
ninth-tenth century scholars as Suhrab (Kitab `Aja’ib al-Aqalim as-Sab’a),
Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah (Mukhtasar al-`Aja’ib), Buzurg ibn Shahriyar (Kitab
al-`Aja’ib al-Hind), Abu Zayd Hasan al-Sirafi (Silsilah al-Tawarikh), al-
Mas`udi (Mur´j al-Dhahab wa Ma’adin al-Jawahir), and Ibn al-Nadim (Fih-
rist). In addition, al-Maqdisi’s (d. 985) Kitab al-Bad’ wa al-Tarikh contains a
discussion about Brahmans. He also mentions some Indian religious sects.
According to Lawrence, most of the materials on Indian religion in Maqdisi’s
book are similar to al-Nadim’s report in his Fihrist, even though it also provides
some new information. For further discussion, see Lawrence, Shahrastani on
the Indian Religions, 18-25 and Waardenburg, Muslim Perception of Other
Religions, esp. chapter 2, “The Medieval Period (650-1500).” 

27. Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al-Rusul wa al-Mul´k, tr. and
annotated by Franz Rosenthal) (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1989), 1:291-92, 308.  

28. See Yohanan Freidmann, “Medieval Muslim Views of Indian Religions,”
Journal of the American Oriental Society, no. 95 (1975): 214.

29. See Ibn Khurdadhbih, Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik (Damascus: Manshurat wa
Zarat al-Thaqafah, 1999), 105. See also S. Maqbul Ahmad, Arabic Classical
Accounts of India and China (Calcutta: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies,
1989), book 1, 7.

30. Maqbul Ahmad, Arabic Classical Accounts, 29 
31. Sulayman al-Tajir and Hasan al-Sirafi used the same title for their treatises.

The book version I use, edited by Yusuf al-Sharuni, is divided into two parts.
The first part belongs to Sulayman al-Tajir, while the second one belongs to

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 55



Abi Zayd Hasan al-Sirafi. See Akhbar al-Sin wa al-Hind, ed. Yusuf al-Sharuni
(Cairo: al-Dar al-Misriyyah al-Bananiyah, 1999). 

32. Al-Tajir, Akhbar al-Sin wa al-Hind, 56; Maqbul Ahmad, Arabic Classical
Accounts, 55-56 and 79. See also al-Mas`udi, Mur´j al-Dhahab, 91.

33. See Maurice Lombard, The Golden Age of Islam, tr. Joan Spenser (Amster-
dam: North-Holland Pub. Co. and New York: Oxford American Elsevier Pub.
Co., 1975).

34. While the majority of historians and biographers agree with this date, some
sources mention that al-Biruni was born in 364 AH. In addition, some pro-
nounce his name as al-Birawni or al-Bayruni instead of al-Biruni.

35. Amin Sulayman Sidu, Ab´ Rayhan al-Bir´ni: Dirasah `an Hayatihi wa Nitajih
al-Fikri (Riyadh: Markaz al-Malik Fa’al li al-Bu’, 1999) al-tab’ah 1, 15.  

36. Ibid., 1:16-19; Ahmad Said Dimirdash, Ab´ Rayhan Ahmad ibn Ahmad al-
Bir´ni (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1980), 18.

37. Al-Biruni, Al-Athar al-Baqiyah, 3; Sachau, The Chronology, 2-3.
38. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is one of the leading philosophers of the Islamic tradi-

tion’s golden age. The young Ibn Sina corresponded with al-Biruni. See Ram-
say Right, “Preface,” in al-Biruni, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of
the Art of Astrology, tr. R. Ramsay Right (London: Luzac & Co., 1934), iv-v.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr briefly discusses the debate between Ibn Sina and al-
Biruni on cosmology in his The Islamic Intellectual Tradition, esp. subchapter
2, “Biruni versus Ibn Sina on the Nature of the Universe.”

39. Al-Biruni, Al-Athar al-Baqiyah, 16; Shacau, The Chronology, 15. 
40. Badr `Abd al-Rahman Muhammad, Al-Mujtama` al-Hindi fi al-Qarnayn al-

Rabi` wa al-Khamis al-Hijriyayn: Ka ma Sawwarahu al-Bir´ni fi Kitabihi
“Tahqiq Ma li al-Hind min Maq´lah Maqb´lah fi al-`Aql aw Mardh´lah” al-
Ma`r´f fi “Tarikh [a]l-Hind” (Cairo: Maktabat al-Anjlu al-Misriyyah, 1990),
8-9.

41. For a further elaboration about the scope of al-Biruni’s works, see Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, Al-Biruni: An Annotated Bibliography (Tehran: High Council of
Culture and Art, 1973).

42. Historians differ over al-Biruni’s religious affiliation, since he does not say
whether he was a Sunni or Shi`i. His identity as a Muslim can be traced to his
claims of Islam’s superiority over Brahmanic India. His ancestors were con-
sidered Persian, and al-Biruni is critical of the Arabs. Even so, this does not
automatically mean he was a Shi`i. Concerning al-Biruni’s examination in
Kitab al-Athar, Sachau notes in his introduction to al-Biruni’s works that “he
reproaches the ancient Muslims with having destroyed the civilization of Eran,
and gives us to understand that the ancient Arabs were certainly nothing better
than the Zoroastrian Eranian.” Sachau, Alberuni’s India, xix. See also M. A.
Saleem Khan, Al-Biruni’s Discovery of India: An Interpretative Study (Denver:
Jamia Hamdard and iAcademicBooks, 2001), 12. Abdus Salam Nadvi, with-
out providing any adequate evidence or supporting argument, claims that al-
Biruni was inclined to be a Shi`i, while E. S. Kennedy, in line with Sachau’s

56 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



investigation, asserts that nothing indicates that al-Biruni was affiliated to any
particular Islamic sect. Khan, Al-Biruni’s Discovery, 12-13. The latter argu-
ment has been supported by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who underlines the difficul-
ties in determining al-Biruni’s religious sincerity. Nasr reasonably notes that
“the writings of Abu Rayhan do not specify in a clear manner whether he was
a Sunni or a Shi’i. He writes of both parties with much knowledge and insight
but rarely gives any indication that of his own preference.” Seyyed Hossein
Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines: Conceptions of
Nature and Methods Used for Its Study by the Ikhwan al-Safa, al-Biruni, and
Ibn Sina (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 114.

43. Since his mother tongue was neither Arabic nor Persian, al-Biruni said, “writ-
ing in Arabic is more preferable for me, even though I found a better way in
Persian” (wa al-hajwu bi al-`arabiyah ahabba ilayya min al-madh bi al-fari-
siyah). See Muhammad Yusuf Zaid, “Ba’dha Jawanib min al-Thaqafat al-
Biruni,” in Al-Biruni: Commemorative Volume, ed. Said, 791-92; see also
Shalahuddin al-Munjid, “Al-Bir´ni wa al-Lughah al-`Arabiyyah,” Al-Biruni:
Commemorative Volume, 784-86; Dimirdash, Abu Rayhan, 18-19.

44. Fazlur Rahman, Islam (New York, Chicago, and San Fransisco: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston, 1966), 4; Nasr, Introduction to Islamic Cosmological
Doctrines, esp. chapter 5, “The Life, Works, and Significance of al-Biruni.”  

45. Arvind Sharma elaborates on al-Biruni’s technique and method in working on
Hindu texts, especially the Bhagavad Gita. In his analysis about the correspon-
dences between the Bhagavad Gita quoted by al-Biruni in the eleventh century
and the Bhagavad Gita’s present text, Sharma discovers four types of corre-
spondences: (1) cases of both literal and ideological correspondence; (2) cases
of ideological rather than literal correspondence; (3) cases of literal rather than
ideological correspondence; and (4) cases of neither literal nor ideological cor-
respondence. Arvind Sharma, Studies in Alberuni’s India, (Wiesbaden,
Germany: Harrassowitz, 1983), 9:4-74. Although Sharma gives a detailed anal-
ysis of how al-Biruni employed and quoted the Bhagavad Gita and has raised
some critiques for al-Biruni’s accuracy in doing so, Kamar Kamaruzzaman
does not fully accept Sharmas’ critiques. He argues that Sharma’s critiques are
not based on al-Biruni’s original works, thus lacking an explanation about what
he means by “the Bhagavad Gita as we know today,” and out of context in read-
ing al-Biruni’s comment on Hindu sociocultural aspects during the eleventh
century. Kamar Oniah Kamaruzzaman, Early Muslim Scholarship in Religions-
wissenschaft: Work and Contribution of Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad
al-Biruni (Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC IIUM, 2003), 72. In addition, Gonda, in his
article “Remarks on al-Biruni Quotation from Sanskrit Text,” discovers that al-
Biruni’s quotation from the Puranas is more accurate than al-Biruni’s quotation
on Sanskrit astronomical texts. See also David Pingree, “Brahmagupta, Bala-
bhadra, Prthudaka, and al-Biruni,” Journal of American Oriental Society 103,
no. 2 (April-June, 1983): 353. 

46. Sachau, The Chronology, 2; Adang, Muslim Writers, 58-59.

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 57



47. Sultan Mahmud, under the superiority and hegemony of the Turko-Persian
empire, invaded many strategic places in northern India. See Khalid Ahmad
Nizami, Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth
Century (London and New York: Asia Publishing House, 1961), 75-76; see
also André Wink, Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 2, The
Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest 11th-13th Centuries (Leiden, New York,
Köln: Brill, 1997), esp. chapter 2: “The Coming of the Turks,” 43-78; Aziz
Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1964), 5-7; Muhammad, Al-Mujtama` al-Hindi, 8.

48. Sachau, “Preface,” Alberuni’s India, xvii.
49. In describing the sources and characteristics of Hind’s rivers and mountains,

for instance, al-Biruni gives information of each place’s mythological back-
ground and explains how they become sacred places for the local people. See,
for example, Nafis Ahmad, “Some Glimpses of al-Biruni as a Geographer,” in
Al-Biruni: Commemorative Volume, 143; Ahmad Hasan Dani, Alberuni’s
Indica: A Record of the Cultural History of South Asia about 1030 (Islamabad:
University of Islamabad Press, 1973), chapters 2 and 3.

50. Al-Biruni, The Book of Instruction, vii. Concerning astrology’s important posi-
tion in medieval Islam, see George Saliba, “The Role of the Astrologer in
Medieval Islamic Society,” in Emilie Savage-Smith, Magic and Divination in
Early Islam (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, Variorum, 2004), 341-363.

51. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Qan´n al-Mas`´di (Haydarabad al-Dakkan: Matba`at Maj-
lis Da’irat al-Ma`arif al-`Uthmaniyah, 1954-56).

52. Al-Biruni on transits; a study of an Arabic treatise entitled Tamhid al-Musta-
qarr li Tahqiq Ma`na al-Mamar, trs. Muhammad Saffouri and Adnan Ifram,
with a commentary by E. S. Kennedy (Beirut: American University of Beirut,
1959); Al-Biruni, Saydanah fi al-ÿibb (Al-Biruni’s Book on Pharmacy and
Materia Medica), ed. Hakim Mohammed Said (Karachi, Hamdard Academy:
1973); Al-Biruni, Al-Jamahir fi al-Jawahir, ed. Yusuf al-Hadi (Iran: Sharikat
al-Nashr al-`Ilmi wa-al-Thaqafi, 1995) al-Thab’ah 1; etc.  

53. Guy Monnot, “Sa Vie, Ses Euvres, Son Secret,” in Shahrastani: Livre Des
Religions et Des Sectes, tr., intro., and notes by Daniel Gimaret et Guy Monnot
(Paris: Peeters/UNESCO, 1984), 3

54. Muhammad Husayni Abu Sa’dah, Al-Shahrastani wa Manhajuhu al-Naqd:
Dirasah Muqaranah ma’a Ara al-Falasifah wa al-Mutakallimin (Beirut: al-
Mu’assasah al-Jam`iyyah li al-Dirasat wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi`, 2002) al-
Tab’ah al-Ula. 21-22.  

55. Ibid., 23.  
56. Diane Steigerwald, La Pensée Philosophique et Théologique de Shahrastani

(Canada: Le Presses de l ‘Université Laval: 1997), 53.  
57. Al-Shahrasthani, Struggling with the Philosopher: A Refutation of Avicenna’s

Metaphysics (a new Arabic edition and English translation of Muhammad ibn
Abd al-Karim ibn Ahmad al-Shahrastani’s Kitab al-Musara’ah), trs. Wilferd
Madelung and Toby Mayer (London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Insti-

58 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



tute of Ismaili Studies, 2001), 3-4. See esp. the translators’ “Introduction: Al-
Shahrastani, Ismailism, and Philosophy.”  

58. Al-Shahrasthani, Struggling with the Philosopher, 7; Guy Monnot, “Sa Vie,
Ses  Euvres, Son Secret,” 4.

59. Bruce C. Lawrence, “Al-Shahrastani (1086-1153),” in The Encyclopedia of
Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1987), 13:199-
200; Lawrence, Shahrastani on the Indian Religion, 15. See also Steigerwald,
La Pensée Philosophique, 59-60; Alfred Guillaume, “Introduction,” in al-
Shahrastani, The Summa Philosophiae, xi.

60. Georges C. Anawati, “Philosophy, Theology and Mysticism,” in The Legacy
of Islam, ed. Joseph Schacht with C. E. Bosworth (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1974), 362; Muhammad Khalifah Ahmad Khalifah, “Medieval Jewish-
Muslim Contribution to the Academic Study of Religion: A Study in the Meth-
odology of Saadia al-Fayyumi and Muhammad al-Shahrastani” (Ph.D. diss.,
Temple University, 1976), 278.

61. Based on this book, Guillaume opines that al-Shahrastani was a deeply reli-
gious man. Any one who reads this work, which in itself is a sufficient refu-
tation of the calumnies of his detractors, cannot doubt the intensity of his
devotion to Islam: “It would not be germane to this presentation of the author’s
book to discuss the gulf between the learned and uneducated Muslim which
may well account for the suspicion which gathered round his memory.” Guil-
laume, The Summa Philosophiae, xi.  

62. Madelung and Mayer, “Introduction: Al-Shahrastani, Ismailism, and Philo-
sophy,” 8; Steigerwald, La Pensée Philosophique, 66-67; Nasr, The Islamic
Intellectual Tradition in Persia, 100-02.

63. Madelung and Mayer, “Introduction: Al-Shahrastani, Isma’ilism, and Philo-
sophy,”14

64. See al-Shahrastani, Majlis: Discours sur l’Ordre et la Création, tr. with intro.
and notes of the last edition of Jalali Na’ini by Diane Steigerwald] (Canada:
Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1998); Steigerwald, La Pensée Philo-
sophique, 68-69.

65. Al-Shahrastani, Mafatih al-Asrar wa Masabih al-Abrar (Tehran: Center for
the Publication of Manuscripts, 1989). This article uses the facsimile edition
of the unique manuscript at the Library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly,
which was edited by Parviz Adhkaki and contains an introduction by ‘Abd al-
Husayn Ha’iri.

66. Ainslei T. Embree, “Introduction,” in Sachau, Alberuni’s India, x-xi.
67. Jeffery, “Al-Biruni’s Contribution,” 126.  
68. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 3-4; Sachau, Alberuni’s India, 1:5-7. 
69. Waardenburg, Muslim Perception, 33.
70. See Bruce B. Lawrence, “Shahrastani on Indian Idol Worship,” Studia Islamica,

no. 3, (1973): 63-64.  
71. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:613. Al-Shaybani also state: “We men-

tion these writings as we have achieved from their famous works (wa nahnu

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 59



nadhkuru maqalati hawlai kama qad wajadna fi kutubihim al-mash´rah).
Muhammad ibn Nasr ibn Shalih al-Suhaibani, Manhaj al-Shahrastani fi Kitab-
ihi al-Milal wa al-Nihal (Riyadh: Dar al-Wathan, 1417 AH), 647. 

72. Lawrence, “Shahrastani on Indian Idol Worship,” 29.  
73. For further investigation see Lawrence, Shahrastani on the Indian Religions,

29. See also al-Suhaybani, Manhaj al-Shahrastani, 647-48.  
74. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 9; Sachau, trans., Alberuni’s India, 1:17-19.  
75. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 4; Sachau, trans., Alberuni’s India, 1:7. 
76. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 4; Sachau, trans., Alberuni’s India, 1:7.  
77. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 1:12;  Khalifah, “Medieval Jewish-

Muslim Contribution,” 278. Also A. K. Kazi and J. G. Flynn, trs., Muslim Sects
and Divisions, 9.  

78. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:593.  
79. Lawrence, “Shahrastani on Indian Idol Worship,” 65. 
80. For the distinction between functionalist and substantivist in the study of reli-

gion, see Malcolm Hamilton, The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and
Comparative Persective, 2d ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2001),
12-24.

81. Jeffery, “Al-Biruni’s Contribution to Comparative Religions,” 128.  
82. Kamaruzzaman, Early Muslim Scholarship, 81. See also al-Biruni, Kitab al-

Hind, 24; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:12.
83. Kamaruzzaman, Early Muslim Scholarship, 81, footnote 20.
84. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 48; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:100. 
85. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 48; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:100.
86. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 1:12.
87. Ibid.
88. Ibid.
89. Khalifah, “Medieval Jewish-Muslim Contribution,” 285-86. 
90. Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History (Oxford: One World, 2004),

168. 
91. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Al-Biruni as Philosopher,” The Islamic Intellectual

Tradition in Persia, 92. This article, which also appeared in Al-Biruni: Com-
memorative Volume, also deals with the thought of al-Biruni that causes his to
be viewed as a “philosopher.” 

92. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, I, 12. 40. In another context, Khalifah’s
findings of al-Shahrastani’s categorization of religion show that the third cate-
gory (laws and regulations without a scripture), applies to the Sabians, while
the philosophers, Brahmans, materialists, and star worshippers are classified in
the forth category (those who do not have book, laws, or legal principles). This
categorization appears because Khalifah highlights this topic in light of “shar-
i’ah,” which can be defined as “divine law,” in which the philosophers do not
believe. See Khalifah, “Medieval Jewish-Muslim Contribution,” 288.

93. Muhammad Kamal Ja’far, Al-Insan wa al-Adyan: Dirasah Muqaranah (Qatar:
Dar al-Thaqafah, 1985), 142.

60 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4



94. Ibid. 
95. Ahmad Khalifah, “Medieval Jewish-Muslim Contribution,” 287.  
96. Franz Rosenthal, “Al-Biruni between Greece and India,” in Biruni Sympo-

sium, Ehsan Yarshater, ed., 5. 
97. Some Muslim heresiograhers have recorded the variety of Islamic theological

views, such as al-Baghdadi’s Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, al-Shahrastani’s Al-Milal
wa al-Nihal, Ibn Hazm’s Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal, and al-
Isfara’ini’s Al-Tabsir fi al-Din. Unlike Christian theology, which developed
systematically and was mainly the product of theoretical reflection, Islamic
theology (kalam), for the most part, appeared as the result of political and
social tensions among Muslims or between Muslims and non-Muslims. Fazlur
Rahman, Islam, esp. chapters 5 and 10; Madjid Fakhry, “Philosophy and
Theology,” in Oxford History of Islam, ed. John L. Esposito (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), chapter 6.

98. Jeffery, “Al-Biruni’s Contribution, 137.  
99. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 60; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:124.
100. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 59; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:123.
101. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 58; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:121.
102. In this case, “the educated believers” or the elites (al-khawass) al-Biruni

means those Hindu scholars or theologians who can “conceive abstract ideas
and define general principles (yunazi’u al-ma’q´l wa yuqsadu al-tahqiq fi al-
us´l),” while “the uneducated believers” are the common and ordinary people
(al-`ammah). Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 13; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:27;
Muhammad Murad, Al-Bir´ni Faylas´fa, 48.  

103. To support his conclusion as to the educated believers’ theological conception,
al-Biruni, quotes some verses from Hindu texts, primarily the Yôgasutra, the
Bhagvata Gita, and the Samkhya. Some scholars have discovered al-Biruni’s
intellectual contribution, such as in his direct citation of original Hindu texts.
First, he introduced the Hindu belief system as directly reflected by Hindu
texts to his fellow Muslim. This contribution of interfaith discourse and com-
parative religion can be traced to when he translated the Yôgasutra and the
Samkhya into Arabic. The former consists of “the emancipation of the soul
from the fetters of the body (wa takhlis al-nafs min ribath al-badan)”; the lat-
ter describes “the origins and a description of all created beings (fi al-mabadi
wa sifat al-mawj´dat).” According to al-Biruni, these two books might repre-
sent the elements of the Hindus’ worldviews. See al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 4;
Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 8. See also Pines Shlomo and Tuvia Gelblum,
“Al-Biruni’s Arabic Version of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra: A Translation of the
Fourth Chapter and a Comparison with Related Text,” Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies (University of London) 52, no. 2 (1989). 

104. Interestingly, al-Biruni goes further by theoretically explaining idolatry’s ori-
gin as a deviation from “the right path.” The veneration of idols or temples
continues because people find it difficult to comprehend abstract matters. In
addition, they forget the history of why such idols or temples were built. Above

Latief: Comparative Religion in Medieval Muslim Literature 61



all, such a phenomena is the result of a natural human tendency to commem-
orate one’s ancestors. Al-Biruni clarifies: “This is the cause which leads to the
manufacture of idols, monuments in honour of certain much venerated per-
sons, prophets, sages, angels, destined to keep a live their memory when they
are absent or dead, to create for them a lasting place of grateful veneration in
the heart of men when they die. But when much time passes by after the set-
ting up of the monument, generations and centuries, its origin is forgotten; it
becomes a matter of custom, and its veneration a rule for general practice.” Al-
Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 53-54; Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, 1:111-12.  

105. To support his insight on the variety of theological doctrines, al-Biruni makes
a theological and a philosophical comparison between religious traditions by
highlighting the term God semantically and conceptually in Greek, Arabic,
Hebrew/Syriac, and Sanskrit, as well as applying each concept in the discourse
of idol worship and anthropomorphic notions. His account implies that the
variety of the concept of God in every tradition, at least within major religious
traditions, have been generated by the differences in the scope of linguistic
concepts applying to God. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Hind, 16-19; Sachau, tr.,
Alberuni’s India, 1:31-37. 

106. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:601-02; Lawrence, Al-Shahrastani on
the Indian Religions, 48-50. 

107. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:604-11; Lawrence, Al-Shahrastani on
the Indian Religions, 50-59. 

108. See also their discussion on Sabianism; al-Biruni, Al-Athar al-Baqiyah, 244;
Sachau, tr., Chronology, 188; al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:281-
345. For a comparison, see also Jane Dammen McAulife, “Exegetical
Identification of the Sabiun,” The Muslim World 72, no. 2 (April 1982): 95-
99; Christopher Buck, “The Identity of the Sabiun,” The Muslim World, 76,
nos. 3-4 (July-October 1986): 173-74; see also J. Waardenburg, “World Reli-
gions as Seen in the Light of Islam,” in Islam: Past Influence and Present
Challenge, ed. A. Welch and P. Cachia (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1979), 248; Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), 109.  

109. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:611; Lawrence, Al-Shahrastani on the
Indian Religions, 58-59. See also al-Suhaybani, Manhaj al-Shahrastani, 636.

110. Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 2:594; Lawrence, Al-Shahrastani on the
Indian Religions, 40-41; also his Kitab al-Nihayat al-Iqdam, 428; Guillaume,
The Summa Philosophiae, 137.   

111. See Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin
Christianity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 13.

62 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:4