“Manichæanism,” says the first (Sachau's translation, p. 191),
“increased by degrees under Ardashír, his son Shápúr, and
Hurmuzd son of Shápúr, until the time when Bahrám the son of
Hurmuzd ascended the throne. He gave orders to search for Mání,
and when he had found him, he said: ‘This man has come forward
calling people to destroy the world. It will be necessary to begin
by destroying him, before anything of his plans should be realised.’
It is well known that he killed Mání, stripped off his skin, filled it
with grass, and hung it up at the gate of Jundê-Shâpûr, which is still
known as the Gate of Manes. Hurmuzd also killed a number of the
Manichæans… I have heard the Ispahbadh Marzubán the son of
Rustam say that Shápúr banished him out of his empire, faithful to
the Law of Zoroaster which demands the expulsion of pseudo-
What, now, was this “gospel” which so aroused the enmity of the Zoroastrian priesthood, and which (to speak of the East only) was still so active in the latter part of the eighth century, that the 'Abbásid Caliph al-Mahdí appointed a special inquisitor, called Ṣáḥibu (or 'Arífu) z'-Zanádiqa, to detect and punish those who, under the outward garb of Islám, held the doctrines of the Manichæans or Zindíqs? And what was the exact meaning of this term Zindíq, which, originally used to denote the Manichæans, was gradually, and is still, applied to all atheists and heretics in Muhammadan countries?
Let us take the last inquiry first, as that which may be most briefly answered. The ordinary explanation is that the term Meaning of the term Zindíq. Zandík is a Persian adjective meaning “one who follows the Zand,” or traditional explanation (see pp. 78-9 supra) in preference to the Sacred Text, and that the Manichæans were so called because of their disposition to interpret and explain the scriptures of other religions in accordance with their own ideas, by a process akin to the <text in Greek script omitted> of the gnostics and the ta'wíl of the later Isma'ílís.* But Professor Bevan has proposed a much more probable explanation. We know from the Fihrist (Flügel's Mání, p. 64) and al-Bírúní (transl. Sachau, p. 190) that while the term Sammá' (“Listener,” “Auditor”) was applied to the lower grades of Manichæans, who did not wish to take upon them all the obligations concerning poverty, celibacy, and mortification imposed by the religion, the “saints and ascetics” amongst them, who were commanded “to prefer poverty to riches, to suppress cupidity and lust, to abandon the world, to be abstinent in it, continually to fast, and to give alms as much as possible,” were called Ṣiddíq, “the Faithful” (pl. Ṣiddíqún). This word is Arabic, but the original Aramaic form was probably Saddíqai, which in Persian became Zandík, the replacement of the dd by nd finding its parallel in the Persian shanbadh (modern shanba) for Sabbath, and the conversion of the Sanskrit Siddhánta into Sindhind. According to this view, Zandík (Arabicised into Zindíq) is merely the Persianised form of the Aramaic name applied to the fully initiated Manichæans, and, primarily applied to that sect exclusively, was only later used in the sense of “heretic” in general. An interesting parallel, as Professor Bevan points out, is supplied by the derivation of the German Ketzer, “heretic,” from <text in Greek script omitted>, “the pure.”
*The Manichæans, as we have seen, like the followers of Marcion and Bardesanes, were reckoned by Muhammadan Doctrines of the Manichæans. writers amongst the “Dualists.” But since the Zoroastrian religion is also essentially dualistic, whence arose the violent antagonism between it and the Manichæan doctrine? The answer is not far to seek. In the former the Good and the Evil Creation, the realm of Ahura Mazda and that of Aṅra Mainyush (Ahriman), each comprised a spiritual and a material part. Not only the Amshaspands and Angels, but also the material elements and all animals and plants useful to man, and of mankind those who held “the Good Religion,” fought on the side of Ahura Mazda against the dívs and drujes, the khrafstars, or noxious animals, the witches and warlocks, the misbelievers and heretics, who constituted the hosts of Ahriman. In general the Zoroastrian religion, for all its elaborately systematised Spiritual Hierarchies, presents itself as an essentially material religion, in the sense that it encouraged its followers to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,” and to “sow the seed and reap the harvest with enduring toil.”* According to the Manichæan view, on the other hand, the admixture of the Light and the Darkness which gave rise to the material universe was essentially evil, and a result of the activity of the Powers of Evil; it was only good in so far as it afforded a means of escape and return to its proper sphere to that portion of the Light (“Jesus patibilis”: see Spiegel, Erân. Alt., ii, p. 226), which had become entangled in the darkness; and when this deliverance was, so far as possible, effected, the angels who supported the heavens and upheld the earth would relax their hold, the whole material universe would collapse, and the Final Conflagration would mark the Redemption of the Light and its final dissociation from the irredeemable and indestructible Darkness. Meanwhile, by the “Column of Praise” (consisting of the prayers, doxologies and good works of the faithful ascending up to Heaven, and visible as the Milky Way),* the particles of Light, set free from their imprisonment in the Darkness, ascend upwards, and are ferried across by the Sun and Moon to the “Paradise of Light,” which is their proper home. All that tends to the prolongation of this state of admixture of Light and Darkness, such as marriage and the begetting of children, is consequently regarded by Manes and his followers as evil and reprehensible, and thus we see what King Hurmuz meant by the words, “This man has come forward calling people to destroy the world.” Zoroastrianism was national, militant, materialistic, imperialist; Manichæanism, cosmopolitan, quietist, ascetic, unworldly; the two systems stood in essential antagonism, and, for all their external resemblances (fully indicated by Spiegel in his Erânische Alterthumskunde, vol. ii, pp. 195-232), were inevitably hostile and radically opposed. In the case of Judaism, orthodox Christianity and Islám, the antagonism was equally great, and if the Manichæans suffered less at the hands of the Jews than of the other three religions, it was the power rather than the will which these lacked, since, as we have seen, Judaism was held by Manes in particular abhorrence.
Into the details of the Manichæan doctrine—the causes
which led to the admixture of the Darkness and the Light;
their theories concerning the “King of the Paradises of Light,”
the Primal Man, the Devil, and the mechanism of the material
universe as a means for liberating the Light from its captivity;
and their grotesque beliefs concerning Adam and Eve, Cain
and Abel, Ḥakímatu'd-Dahr (“the World-wise”) and Ibnatu'l-
“And for their saying, ‘Verily we slew the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God;’ but they did not slay Him or crucify Him, but the matter was made doubtful to them [or, a similitude was made for them]. And verily those who differ about Him are in doubt concerning Him; they have no knowledge concerning Him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill Him, for sure! but God raised Him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!”
As regards the history of the Manichæans in the East, we
have already mentioned that during the Caliphate of al-Mahdí
Progress of
Manichæanism
in the East.
(A.D. 775-785), the father of Hárúnu 'r-Rashíd,
they were so numerous that a special Inquisitor
was appointed to detect and destroy them. The
author of the Fihrist (A.D. 988) knew 300 professed Mani-