the hanbali school of law and ibn taymiyyah: conflict or

Administrator
File Attachment
2000ef97coverv05bjpg

THE AringANBALI SCHOOL OF LAW AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

The Aringanbal j School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah offers a valuable account of thedevelopment of Aringanbalite jurisprudence placing the theoretical and conceptualparameters of this tradition within the grasp of the interested reader

This book studies the vibrant yet controversial interaction between IbnTaymiyyah and the Aringanbalj School of law to assess the extent to which thisrelationship was a conflict or reconciliation and provides a detailed exploration ofthe following issues

The strength of contributions made to this School by earlier paragonsassociated with Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal

The contextual constructs which shaped the traditionrsquos development The methodology and literature synonyms within the classical School The manner in which Ibn Taymiyyah engaged with the Aringanbalj tradition The impact of his thought upon the later expression of the Schoolrsquos legal

doctrines and its theoretical principles The contribution made by this School in general to the synthesis of Islamic law

The Aringanbal j School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah is a vital reference work for thosewith interests in Islamic law the history of the Aringanbalite tradition and itsprincipal luminaries

Abdul Hakim I Al-Matroudi is a visiting senior lecturer in ArabicDepartment of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East SOASHis research interests include Islamic law Aringanbalj law and Ibn Taymiyyah

CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Series Editor Ian R NettonUniversity of Leeds

This series studies the Middle East through the twin foci of its diverse cultures andcivilisations Comprising original monographs as well as scholarly surveys itcovers topics in the fields of Middle Eastern literature archaeology law historyphilosophy science folklore art architecture and language Although there is aplurality of views the series presents serious scholarship in a lucid and stimulatingfashion

ARAB REPRESENTATIONS OF THE OCCIDENTEastndashWest encounters in Arabic fiction

Rasheed El-Enany

THE AringANBALI-

SCHOOL OF LAW AND IBN TAYMIYYAHConflict or conciliation

Abdul Hakim I Al-Matroudi

ARABIC RHETORICA pragmatic analysis

Hussein Abdul-Raof

THE AringANBALI SCHOOL OF LAW AND

IBN TAYMIYYAH

Conflict or conciliation


First published 2006by Routledge

2 Park Square Milton Park Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

270 Madison Ave New York NY 10016

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor amp Francis Group

copy 2006 Abdul Hakim I Al-Matroudi

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronicmechanical or other means now known or hereafter

invented including photocopying and recording or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system without permission in

writing from the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataA catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 0ndash415ndash34156ndash6 (Print Edition)

This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2006

ldquoTo purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor amp Francis or Routledgersquoscollection of thousands of eBooks please go to wwweBookstoretandfcoukrdquo

CONTENTS

List of tables ixPreface xiAcknowledgements xiiiNote on transliteration xv

Introduction 1

The purpose of the study 1

The scope and method of the study 2

1 Ibn Aringanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah 4

Introduction 4

Aaringmadrsquos teachers 4

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos miaringnah (inquisition) 7

Scholarsrsquo commendations of Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal 8

Was Aaringmad a traditionist (muaringaddith) or a jurist 8

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos treatises 10

The spread of this School 13

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos era 13

The emergence of Ibn Taymiyyah 16

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos detention 18

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position among his contemporaries 20

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly legacy in the sciences of

fiqh and uszligul 23

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos death 30

v

2 A comparison of the basic principles of Islamic Lawaccording to Ibn Aringanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah 31

Introduction 31

Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbalrsquos basic principles of jurisprudence 32

The general principles of Aaringmadrsquos jurisprudence in the

writings of Aringanbal j scholars 33

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos attitudes towards the Aringanbal j School and other

Islamic schools of law 40

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos general principles of jurisprudence 45

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos basic principles of jurisprudence compared with

those of Ibn Aringanbal 48

The nature of education in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time 50

The classification of scholars in Islamic law 50

The rank of Ibn Taymiyyah among his contemporaries 51

3 Re-laying the foundations Ibn Taymiyyah and Aringanbalj uszligul 56

Introduction 56

Ibn Aringanbal and consensus (ijmalsquo) as a source of law 57

The use of partalsquo jf and mursal aringadjth by Ibn Aringanbal 59

The existence of metaphor within the Arabic language 61

Interpretations of correctness and error on the part of

the mujtahid 67Is the sharjlsquoah divided into two parts uszligul and furulsquo 69

The comprehension of texts and its contradiction of

correct analogy 72

Are there any rulings in Islamic law that are only for Arabs 76

Maszliglaaringah as a source of law 78

What is meant by rarsquoy in Islamic law 80

Postponing the clarification of the rulings of Islamic law 82

Who is permitted to imitate others in sharlsquoj rulings 84

Corrections of misunderstandings of other schools of

Islamic law by Aringanbal j scholars case study of the

consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah 89

4 Reconstruction Ibn Taymiyyah and Aringanbalj jurisprudence 92

Introduction 92

Innovation in Aringanbal j fiqh 92

CONTENTS

vi

Aringiyal in Aringanbal j fiqh 98

The use of precaution ( iaringtiyhƒ) and piety ( waralsquo) in Aringanbal jjurisprudence 103

Incorrect (ghalaƒ) rulings in Aringanbal j fiqh 107

Jurisprudential terminology of the Aringanbal j School 115

Rules in Aringanbal j jurisprudence 119

Narrations in Aringanbal j jurisprudence 125

5 The legacy the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Aringanbalj jurists 129

Introduction 129

A study of the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on selected Aringanbal jjurists 131

Conclusion 169

6 A case of conflict The intended triple divorce revisited 171

Introduction 171

Types of divorce in Islamic law 171

The position of the Aringanbal j School of law concerning the lsquotriple divorcersquo 172

Is Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on triple divorce in opposition to an existing

consensus amongst the scholars 181

Conclusions 186

Notes 192Bibliography 262Index 275

CONTENTS

vii

TABLES

1 The extent to which Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Zhd al-Malsquohdcites the jurisprudential opinions and preferences ofIbn Taymiyyah 136

2 Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential opinions and preferences in his book Ilsquolhm al-Muaqqilsquo jn 136

3 References to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences made by Ibn Mufliaring in his book al-Furulsquo 140

4 Narrations preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those opinions labelled by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab

as lsquoala al-Ashhar) 1435 A wajh preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those

opinions labelled by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab

as fi al-Ashhar) 1446 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preferences only (the opposite of those


as fi al-Ashhar) 1447 Miscellaneous opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah

attributed to him by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab usingthe name lsquoAbk rsquol-lsquoAbbhsrsquo or lsquosheikh al-islamrsquo 144

8 The extent of al-Mardhwirsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in his book al-Inszlighf 148

9 The extent to which al-Aringajjhwj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and legal preferences in his book al-Iqnhlsquo 153

10 Opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah cited by Ibn al-Najjhr in his book Malsquounat ul j al-Nuhh 154

11 The extent to which al-Karmj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in his book Ghhyat al-Muntahh 156

12 The extent to which al-Buhutj cited Ibn Taymiyyah in his book al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo 157

13 The extent of al-Buhutjrsquos citation of the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah in his book Kashshhf al-Qinhlsquo 157

ix

TABLES

x

14 The extent to which al-Buhutj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and legal preferences in his book Shararing al-Muntahh 157

15 The extent of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in his book al-Iumlahhrah 161

16 The references made by Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in his book Mukhtaszligar al-Inszlighf 161

17 The extent of al-Salsquodjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in al-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah 165

18 The agreement of al-Salsquodjrsquos legal preferences with those ofIbn Taymiyyah in al-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah 165

19 The extent of al-Salsquodjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences in al-Fathwh al-Salsquodiyyah 165

20 Various issues in al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo where Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrefers to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and is in agreement with him 168

xi

PREFACE

The study of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos life and knowledge has attracted the attention ofresearchers Yet the role of this scholar in the Aringanbalj School of law has notbeen adequately researched and examined Accordingly this work seeks to studyin depth some aspects of this role After the Introduction the work is divided intosix chapters and a conclusion Chapter 1 is divided into two sections the first sec-tion studies and discusses several points related to Ibn Aringanbal after whom theAringanbalj School was named and especially the question of whether he can beconsidered a jurist or just a traditionist (muaringaddith) The second section is devotedto the study of certain aspects of Ibn Taymiyyah focusing on the most importantof his works in the field of jurisprudence and its general principles Chapter 2 isa comparison between the basic sources of law of both Aaringmad and IbnTaymiyyah which helps in deciding the rank of the latterrsquos status in knowledgeChapters 3 and 4 deal with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role in clarifying and correcting cer-tain issues in the principles of the Aringanbalj School of law and Aringanbalj jurispru-dence respectively The role of this scholar in influencing Aringanbalj jurists is thesubject of Chapter 5 where a detailed study and analysis of books of ƒabaqht andtarhjum as well as treatises compiled by the scholars under study is carried outChapter 6 discusses and studies Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position towards the tripledivorce as a case study of the problematical fathwh of Ibn Taymiyyah which havebeen met with great opposition by Aringanbalj scholars and surprisingly have left aninfluence on the Schoolrsquos position regarding this legal issue

Although the subject of this work is the influence of a scholar who lived in theseventhndasheighththirteenthndashfourteenth centuries on the Aringanbalj School of lawthis is a subject of interest to todayrsquos scholars and the Muslim public because IbnTaymiyyah is one of the scholars who has greatly influenced the Aringanbalj Schoolof law which still exists as a school of law in various parts of the Islamic worldIn addition the various corrections and clarifications made by Ibn Taymiyyah tothe Aringanbalj School of law in both its jurisprudence and general principles maybe applied to other schools of law within which similar problems can be found

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I must express my appreciation to Professor Ian R Netton who has providedessential motivational force insights thought-provoking comments and valuablesuggestions which have been vital to the completion of this work

Sympathetic thanks are extended to my family especially my parents wife andchildren for their general understanding sympathy encouragement and supportthroughout the years

xv

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

abtthjaringkhddhrzsshszligpart

ƒcopylsquoghfqklmnhwyah (in construct state -at)

VowelsShort

a

u

i

Longj

h

u

iyy final form j

uww final form u

Diphoongsaw

ay

INTRODUCTION

There has been a growing academic interest within both the Islamic and theWestern worlds in Sheikh al-Islam Aaringmad b lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm Ibn Taymiyyah(661ndash7281263ndash1328) which covers a variety of subjects This academic interestcomes as a result of the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah is acknowledged to remain todayto be one of the scholars who have had the greatest influence on contemporaryIslam particularly in Sunni circles1

As far as Ibn Taymiyyah as a jurist is concerned broadly speaking there havebeen two points of view with regard to his status in knowledge Some indicate thathe was a Aringanbalj scholar who at a later stage became an absolutely independentscholar others assert that he can be considered as a Aringanbalj scholar right up tothe end of his life2 Insufficient consideration however has been paid to thenature of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos relationship with the Aringanbalj School and his contri-bution to it This work therefore is intended to concentrate on the role of IbnTaymiyyah in the Aringanbalj School of law

The main role played by Ibn Taymiyyah in the Aringanbalj School of law is hisclarification and correction of various issues in jurisprudence and the generalprinciples of jurisprudence of this School Therefore various issues which wereclarified or corrected by Ibn Taymiyyah in jurisprudence and its general princi-ples will be discussed and studied in this work To illustrate this jurisprudentialexamples will be provided and expounded when appropriate

This research also seeks to study whether Ibn Taymiyyah has played a role ininfluencing Aringanbalj jurists This will be achieved through studying and tracingthe opinions of this scholar and some aspects of his influence on representativescholars

The purpose of the study

This work has been prepared and written with the following objectives

This work studies Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role in the Aringanbalj School of law Hencean introductory chapter has been included in order to study and clarify the

1

following two main points

1 Some important issues concerning Ibn Aringanbal after whom the AringanbaljSchool of law is named

2 Certain issues concerning Ibn Taymiyyah in addition to a study of someof his written contributions to the sciences of jurisprudence and itsgeneral principles

To have a clear picture of the limitation of the role played by Ibn Taymiyyahin the Aringanbalj School of law a comparison will be made between the gen-eral principles of Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah Furthermorefounded upon this comparison an analytical study will be made of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos level of knowledge that is whether he was an imitator (muqallid)a restricted mujtahid or an absolute mujtahid

The role of Ibn Taymiyyah in clarifying and correcting certain issues in theprinciples of the Aringanbalj School of law will be studied

The role of Ibn Taymiyyah in clarifying and correcting certain issues inAringanbalj jurisprudence will be considered

Whether or not Ibn Taymiyyah played an influential role in the jurisprudentialthought of Aringanbalj jurists during his time and whether or not his influencehas continued up to the present period will be examined and illustrated bymeans of consulting the works of tarhjim and selected Aringanbalj scholars ofvarious centuries

The issue of the validity of an intended triple divorce pronounced in oneword or based upon three separate pronouncements before the revocationtakes place will be examined as a case study of the problematical fathwh ofIbn Taymiyyah which are claimed to be contrary to the position subscribedto by the Aringanbalj School In addition a study will be conducted in order todetermine whether Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position in relation to this issue has leftan effect on the School

Within these limitations an attempt is made to formulate an understanding ofIbn Taymiyyahrsquos role in the Aringanbalj School of law

The scope and method of the study

This investigation is restricted to the study and analysis of certain aspects of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos role in the Aringanbalj School of law in the field of jurisprudence andits principles

By reason of the fact that jurisprudence is founded upon the science of theprinciples of jurisprudence I have opted to include several important issues inwhich Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role is evident within the Aringanbalj principles of lawBy contrast only certain aspects of this scholarrsquos role in Aringanbalj jurisprudencewill be examined in detail Furthermore amongst these selected areas onlyparticular representative examples will be discussed This is due to the presence

INTRODUCTION

2

of a large number of issues included in this science which were corrected andclarified by Ibn Taymiyyah Therefore there is little benefit in making referenceto a large number of these issues Rather an examination and analysis of aselected number will take place

The chapter pertaining to Ibn Aringanbal is based upon a vast number ofreferences particularly the sources of ƒabaqht and biographical accounts of IbnAringanbal

The investigation of the issues related to the personal educational and politicallife of Ibn Taymiyyah is founded upon a number of historical and contemporarysources the majority of which are solely devoted to this scholar or containinformation in reference to him in addition to the books of ƒabaqht

In order to study and examine the general principles of these two scholars andthe role played by Ibn Taymiyyah in the general principles and jurisprudence ofthe Aringanbalj school a number of Aringanbalj sources have been consulted IbnTaymiyyahrsquos own works relating to these two sciences have been consulted inaddition to a selection of his other treatises Furthermore I have referred tovarious other recognised and authoritative sources belonging to other schoolswhere required in addition to source references in the science of aringadjth

In order to study Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influential role upon the Aringanbalj juristsbooks of ƒabaqht and tarhjim have been consulted More important selectedjurisprudential treatises of leading scholars have been subjected to a careful studyand examination It ought to be noted that the study of this influence uponAringanbalj jurists will primarily be based upon examining Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionsand preferences which are cited by these scholars

The investigation and discussion concerning the case study of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosproblematical fathwh which include his fatwh regarding triple divorce is basedupon a wide variety of Aringanbalj sources in addition to works from other schoolsrsquotreatises where deemed appropriate Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises in reference to thisissue have also been consulted

Despite the fact that numerous accounts have been written about IbnTaymiyyah the subject of this work has never received a thorough investigationby either former or contemporary scholars Therefore the primary objective ofthis work is to fill this gap by shedding light upon certain aspects of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos role in the Aringanbalj School in reference to the science of jurisprudenceand its principles

INTRODUCTION

3

1

IBN AringANBAL AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

AAringMAD IBN AringANBAL

Introduction

The Aringanbalj School of law is acknowledged to be amongst the four canonicalSunni madhhhib1 It is named after Abu lsquoAbd Allah Aaringmad b Muaringammad IbnAringanbal (d 241855) a scholar who was born in Baghdad in the year 164780His father died when he was a child so his mother assumed responsibility for hisupbringing from an early age He was to become one of the most distinguishedpersonalities of Islam by virtue of his extensive studies of various Arabic andIslamic sciences in different parts of the Islamic world and his famed uncompro-mising stand against the inquisition instituted by the Abbasid al-Marsquomun Hetravelled to numerous places including Kufah Baszligrah Makkah Madjnah Yemenand Syria2 Even after he had become a famous scholar he did not cease to under-take these expeditions in pursuit of knowledge When some of his contemporariesexpressed their amazement at his frequent journeys despite his considerableaccomplishments and elevated station he remarked lsquoWith the ink-pot to thegrave-yardrsquo that is until the end of life3 Aaringmad realised that knowledge was abottomless sea devoid of boundaries and he was therefore obligated to pursue itto the end of his life He knew also that he would be deemed ignorant if he wasto rest on his laurels claiming mastery of everything The era in which Aaringmadlived has become known amongst the scholars of the evolution of jurisprudenceas the era of mujtahids4 owing to the great number of leading scholars whoflourished at the time

Aaringmadrsquos teachers

There is scant reference to Ibn Aringanbal and his teachers during his early stepsupon the path of knowledge It is known however that he started his educationat a very early age in the institute called the kutthb Aaringmad mentioned lsquoWhenI was a little boy I used to attend the kutthb and when I turned 14 I went to

4

the diwhnrsquo5 It is known that students at the kutthb in that period learned the basicelements of Arabic and Islamic studies in addition to other subjects6 Some ofhis teachers in the science of the Qurrsquoan for example Ibn Abj Kathjr areknown us7

A characteristic of Aaringmad at that stage which is abundantly clear from thesources is his ardent devotion and commitment to learning In one narrationAaringmadrsquos mother is reported to have hidden his clothes in order to prevent himfrom going so early to study circles scheduled to take place after dawn She wouldargue with her son and attempt to persuade him to wait until the call to the dawnprayer was announced8

We are not aware of the exact time at which Aaringmad commenced his advancedstudy In one report he said that he began his study and search for aringad jth when hewas 16 years old9 This would mean that he started in the year 179795 Thisnarration does not however necessarily mean that he did not study any of thesciences at an advanced level until he had attained 16 years of age We can saythis because of the following points

It is clear in this narration that Aaringmad was referring to the science of aringadjthin particular and not to any other subject

Certain narrations in existence indicate that Ibn Aringanbal studied under theguidance of some scholars before this date10

It is clear from Aaringmadrsquos commitment to the acquisition of knowledge that hewould not abandon an opportunity to attend the circles of the scholarsparticularly as Baghdad was the centre of learning at that time11

There are some sources which indicate that Ibn Aringanbal attended the study circlesof the leading Aringanafj scholar Abu Yusuf (d 182798)12 This could have beenpossible for various reasons

Abu Yusuf and Aaringmad were both residents in Baghdad13

Abu Yusuf occupied a prominent station amongst his contemporariesFurthermore he was a scholar of jurisprudence who also had the knowledgeof aringad jth14 a science for which Aaringmad entertained a particular enthusiasm

Does this however conflict with what is reported by the Aringanbalj scholaral-Khallhl (d 311923) that Ibn Aringanbal memorised the books of Ahl al-Rarsquoyand then abandoned them15 Does it also mean that he was referring to Aaringmadrsquosstudies with Abu Yusuf It appears that there is no contradiction between whathas been mentioned previously and this narration for Aaringmadrsquos studies wereconducted within the framework of Ahl al-Aringadjth and Abu Yusuf in later yearscombined the methods of Ahl al-Rarsquoy and Ahl al-Aringadjth as Ibn Taymiyyahindicated16


5

This suggests that Aaringmad did not leave Abu Yusuf because of his affiliation toAhl al-Rarsquoy This argument is founded upon various premises namely

As mentioned previously Abu Yusuf combined the methods of Ahl al-Rarsquoyand Ahl al-Aringadjth Therefore his jurisprudence particularly in its laterstages was an amalgamation of the two different methods

It seems that Ibn Aringanbal only left the study circles of Abu Yusuf on thedeath of the latter who passed away in the year 18279817 This means thatAaringmad studied for a period of three years under the supervision of AbuYusuf (179ndash182795ndash798)

The claim that he studied under Abu Yusuf before affiliating himself withAhl al-Aringadjth appears unjustified This is because Ibn Aringanbal himselfdeclared that he started studying aringadjth when he was 16 years old thesame year in which he met Abu Yusuf He continued his studies under hissupervision until the year 182798

It appears that Ibn Aringanbal studied and committed to memory some of Ahlal-Rarsquoyrsquos treatises because the Ahl al-Rarsquoy method of studying Islamic law waswidespread in Iraq He thereafter abandoned these treatises by reason of his pref-erence for the method of Ahl al-Aringadjth Ibn Taymiyyah says lsquoAlthough Ibn Aringanbalwas from al-Baszligrah he did not follow the method of this region in studying lawrather he studied according to the method of Ahl al-Aringadjthrsquo18

It appears that Aaringmad studied two subjects under Abu Yusuf The first wasaringadjth This is confirmed by Ibn al-Jawzj in his book al-Manhqib where he relatedIbn Aringanbalrsquos statement that Abu Yusuf was the first scholar under whose authorityhe wrote down aringadjth19 The second was jurisprudence this is because Abu Yusufwas one of the eminent jurists of his time and his fame as a jurist was greater thanhis status as a muaringaddjth20

His first well-known teacher in the science of aringadjth was Hushaym(d 183799)21 His studies with this scholar had a profound impact upon himbecause Hushaym was one of the well-known scholars of Ahl al-Aringadjth22 In onenarration Aaringmad is quoted by al-Aszligfahhnj in Aringilyat al-rsquoAwlyhrsquo as saying thathe studied aringad jth under Hushaym for the first time in 17979523 Prior to 183799he concentrated his efforts on acquiring knowledge within Baghdad It appearsthat an important factor in this was the presence of a large number of scholars inBaghdad coupled with those who visited Baghdad from different parts of theIslamic world24 His engagement in the study of aringad jth with Hushaym also seemsto have kept him in Baghdad This view is supported by the fact that Aaringmadrsquos firstjourney to Kufah in 18379925 was after the death of his teacher

After this period Aaringmad started travelling in order to further his knowledgeDuring the course of his travels he encountered several eminent scholars such asSufyhn b lsquoUyaynah (d 198814)26 He also employed his aringajj journeys to gainknowledge in hijhz It was on aringajj that he first met his Sheikh al-Shhfilsquoj in the year


6

187803 He received a second opportunity to learn from Shhfilsquoj when the latterjourneyed in 198814 to Baghdad where he spent two years27

Aaringmadrsquos studies under Shhfilsquoj in addition to Abu Yusuf assisted him indeveloping his method of studying Islamic law by combining Prophetic traditionand jurisprudence28

It seems that these two scholars enjoyed an excellent relationship Aaringmad isreported to have said that he had not seen a scholar more excellent than his Sheikhand al-Shhfilsquoj commented in a similar manner concerning Aaringmad29 Al-Shhfilsquoj alsomentioned that Aaringmad was greater in the knowledge of aringadjth than himself30 Inother narrations it is related that al-Shhfilsquoj asked Aaringmad to inform him of anyauthentic traditions of which he was aware in order that he might establish hisrulings based on them31 Moreover Shhfilsquoj advised the caliphs on two occasions toappoint Aaringmad as a judge an offer Aaringmad is reported to have refused32

Another scholar who taught Ibn Aringanbal was lsquoAbd al-Razzhq al-Iacuteanlsquohnj(d 211826) who was one of the most knowledgeable scholars of aringad jth33 Theexcellent reputation of this scholar had spread throughout the Islamic worldAaringmad and his friend and fellow student Yaaringyh b Malsquojn (d 233848) agreed totravel all the way to Iacuteanlsquohrsquo in Yemen to study under this reputed scholar On theirway they went to Makkah to perform Aringajj There they happened to meet lsquoAbdal-Razzhq and attended his study circles in Makkah After completing the Aringajj

they continued on their journey to Sanlsquohrsquo where they spent two years studyingunder the guidance of this Sheikh34

It is worth mentioning that although Aaringmad did not meet imhm Malik he wascertainly influenced by him This can be observed through Aaringmadrsquos reference toMalikrsquos treatises particularly his book al-Muwaƒƒa35 Aaringmad was also indirectlyinfluenced by him through al-Shhfilsquoj who had been influenced by the MhlikjSchool to such an extent that he was known as a follower of that School duringthe first stage of the development of his jurisprudential thought (al-lsquoahd al-qad jm)and it was during this time that Aaringmad met al-Shhfilsquoj36

Aaringmad passed away in Baghdad on Friday the twelfth of Rabjlsquo al-Awwal241855 at the age of 7737

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos miaringnah (inquisition)

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos suffered the miaringnah as a result of his outspoken rejection of theMulsquotazilitersquo concept of the created Qurrsquoan In the year 212827 Caliph al-Marsquomundecreed that this was the orthodox Muslim belief At this point however the peoplewere not forced to subscribe to this belief In the year 218833 al-Marsquomun imposedhis will on the Muslim community to accept the belief in the following manner

Positions in government were given only to those who declared that theybelieved in this doctrine

Testimony in courts was only accepted from those witnesses who believed inthis Mulsquotazilj doctrine


7

An inquisition was established whereby scholars were interrogated abouttheir opinions concerning this issue Those who rejected the Mulsquotaziljdoctrine were punished Ahmad attained widespread respect and fame byrefusing to accept the doctrine despite receiving physical punishment

This inquisition lasted from the time of al-Marsquomun until the time of Caliphal-Whthiq When al-Mutawakil became caliph (232846) he ended the inquisitionand officially rejected this Mulsquotazilj concept38

Scholarsrsquo commendations of Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal

Praise for Aaringmad was widespread among his colleagues For example

lsquoAbd al-Razzhq al-Iacuteanlsquohnj (d 211826) said lsquoI have never seen a more eruditeand god fearing person than Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbalrsquo He also said

Four men came to Yemen from Iraq who were amongst the leading aringadjthscholars Al-Shshhdhakunj (d 234849) who was the best in the mem-orisation of aringadjth Ibn al-Madjnj (d 234849) who was the most versedin aringadjth differences Yaaringyh Ibn Malsquojn who was the most conversantabout rijhl (narrators of aringad jth) and Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal who was thebest of them in all the aforesaid qualities39

Wakjlsquo (d 197813) the great aringadjth scholar said lsquoNobody has come to Kufahwho was equal to this young manrsquo (ie Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal)40

Al-Shhfilsquoj said lsquoWhen I left Baghdad I left there no one more righteous Godfearing or more knowledgeable than Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbalrsquo41

The aforementioned quotations depict Aaringmadrsquos rank amongst the most seniorscholars particularly scholars of aringadjth and jurisprudence Nevertheless acontroversial issue debated amongst some scholars was whether Aaringmad was botha scholar of aringadjth (ie muaringaddith) and of jurisprudence ( faqjh) or merely amuaringaddith

Was Aaringmad a traditionist (muaringaddith) or a jurist

Some scholars stated that Aaringmad was only a traditionist not a jurist By this theymeant that although he was a jurist he could not be considered an imhm in thatfield Ibn Jarjr al-Tabarj (310923) was amongst those who subscribed to thisviewpoint hence he did not mention Aaringmad in his book Ikhtilhf al-Fuqahhrsquo(Disagreements between Jurists) but rather affirmed that Aaringmad was only a manof aringadjth The leading Mhlikj scholar Qhpartj lsquoIyhpart (d 5441149) also consideredAaringmad to be below the rank of imhmah (leadership) in jurisprudence42 It seems


8

that this claim is grounded on several facts some of which are as follows

Aaringmad was preoccupied with the studies of aringadjth and made numerousscholarly journeys in pursuit of it

He did not author an independent treatise concerning the field of jurispru-dence whereas he wrote about aringad jth

Aaringmad criticised lsquorarsquoyrsquo in several places43

A brief response to this claim

There are various points that can be made in rebuttal of this claim

As various leading scholars assert familiarity with legal texts is one of themost important prerequisites for a scholar to assume before he is considereda mujtahid44 It ought not to be considered that mastery of the legal texts ofthe Qurrsquoan and the sunnah and understanding of their meanings are easy toacquire On the contrary such a degree of excellence requires an effectivesystem of learning and a long quest in search of knowledge As we haveobserved from the accounts of the life of Aaringmad he exhausted most of histime moving from one town or country to another in search of knowledgeHe would meet narrators listen to them and distinguish between authenticand non-authentic traditions accepting the former traditions and leavingthe latter according to his criteria Furthermore Aaringmad did not underesti-mate the importance of jurisprudence and understanding the purport of aringadjthHe was not merely a transmitter Instead Ibn Taymiyyah narrates thatAaringmad said he preferred one to understand these sciences as opposed tomemorising them alone45 This is supported by the statement of Abu lsquoHszligimthat after Aaringmad there was no individual who had acquired a better under-standing of jurisprudence than he46 Also al-Nashrsquoj (d 302914) mentionsthat Aaringmad combined knowledge pertaining to aringad jth and jurisprudence47

It can be determined whether or not Aaringmad is deserving of occupying a posi-tion of leadership in the field of jurisprudence by studying his jurisprudentialwritings and opinions contained in the source works of the Aringanbalj SchoolThe juristic methodology of Aaringmad can be ascertained and evaluated byexamining his juristic legacy as transmitted via his disciples The leading Aringanbalj scholar and one of the notable companions of Ibn TaymiyyahIbn al-Qayyim (d 7511350) affirmed this point when he remarked

those who adhere to different opinions from his School whether byexercising independent reasoning or by imitating other imhms respect andappreciate his texts and legal opinions for their accuracy and conformitywith the Qurrsquoanic texts Prophetic traditions and verdicts of the Com-panions of the Prophet Whoever compares and contrasts his verdicts with


9

those of the Apostlersquos Companions will recognise the inherent agreementand harmony between them as though they emanated from one and thesame source Even where the companions held two different opinions aboutone issue you will observe that Aaringmad has two opinions attributed to him48

The fact that Aaringmad authored no works on jurisprudence is probably due tothe fact that he sought to imitate his contemporaries whose practice was toneglect writing books on the science of jurisprudence49 This reticence mayalso derive from his belief that students and scholars should refer to thefounding sources of legislation and not merely to the imhmsrsquo texts as they arethe products of personal reasoning50 Aaringmadrsquos insistence that his jurispru-dential opinions should not be recorded was based upon his belief that schol-ars and students of Islamic law ought to research legal issues by means oflegal criteria This in turn would enable them to practise freedom ofthought based upon legal texts and render redundant the concept that theyare obligated to follow a particular imhm despite possessing their own abilityto reason and investigate

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos treatises

Several works have been attributed to Aaringmad Some of these treatises are in thescience of aringad jth such as his book al-Musnad51 This book of narrations consti-tutes a very important historical source for studying the origin and developmentof Islam its institutions and the life and teachings of the Prophet and his com-panions52 The collection contains a separate section for each companion whonarrated traditions from the Prophet53

In addition Ibn Aringanbal compiled a work entitled Faparthrsquoil al-Iacuteaaringhbah whichcontains narrations concerning the features and merits of various companions ofthe Prophet54 Other treatises of aringad jth concern lsquoilm al-rijhl (the science of narrators)for instance al-lsquoilal wa malsquorifat al-Rijhl55

He authored two types of work in the science of creed and tenets of faith(1) treatises which contain Aaringmadrsquos creed such as lsquoAqidat Aaringmad which has beentransmitted by his student lsquoAbdus56 (2) treatises which comprise Aaringmadrsquos rebuttalof certain sects particularly those which had emerged in his time for exampleal-Radd lsquoAla al-Jahmiyyah Some of his writings concern the science of Qurrsquoan anexample of this is Jawhbht al-Qurrsquoan57

With reference to the sciences of fiqh and uszligul al-fiqh Ibn Aringanbal did not writea complete treatise on this subject Some treatises have however been attributedto him including Aaringkhm al-Nishrsquo and Kithb al-Iacutealhh in fiqh and al-Nhsikh wa

rsquol-Mansukh and Iumlhlsquoat al-Rasul in the science of uszligul al-fiqh58 These books howeverconcern specific subjects and do not discuss the various issues which are usuallydiscussed by the jurists in their works in these fields

It was mentioned earlier that Aaringmad did not grant permission for his disciplesto record his opinions This was because he believed that scholars and seekers of


10

knowledge should derive their rulings from the sources directly and not by theimitation of other scholars59 Nevertheless large numbers of his students didcommunicate his jurisprudential thought It has been mentioned in varioussources that more than 130 of his disciples narrated some issues of his jurispru-dence60 Their works are known as Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad Several of these workshave unfortunately been lost For instance al-Athram (d 260874) was one of IbnAringanbalrsquos most intelligent students who in later years became a notable imhm andAringhficopy He was known for his extensive knowledge of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos Mashrsquoil whichhe used to narrate on his authority61 Sadly however Al-Athramrsquos Mashrsquoil can nolonger be found but some of these lost narrations can be found scattered in otherAringanbalj sources

In addition to this al-Kawsaj (d 251865) who was a learned theologianrelated a number of issues from Aaringmad According to al-Khallhl al-Kawsajrsquosjurisprudential Mashrsquoil are substantial Nevertheless al-Khallhl mentioned thepresence of oddity and strangeness in some of al-Kawsajrsquos Mashrsquoil in comparisonwith those of other narrators The reason for that as al-Khallhl explained wasthe significant number of Mashrsquoil narrated by him62 It appears that by thisal-Khallhl meant that al-Kawsaj included in his large number of Mashrsquoil somethat cannot be found in the transmissions of other narrators

There is another important point concerning these Mashrsquoil It was suggestedamongst certain Aringanbalis that these Mashrsquoil had been recanted by Aaringmad Thisopinion can be deduced from a narration of Ibn Aringanbal wherein he mentioned hisdisapproval of al-Kawsajrsquos transmission of his knowledge63 This claim howeverappears to be incorrect because well-known scholars such as Ibn Aringhmid rejectedthis view and stated that this opinion was not known from any Aringanbalj scholar64 Itcan also be said that Aaringmadrsquos disapproval of al-Kawsajrsquos Mashrsquoil was based on hiswell-known position of forbidding the writing down of his jurisprudence by his dis-ciples This is corroborated by the text of the same report We find that al-Kawsajexplained to his Sheikh that he chose to transmit these Mashrsquoil because of the peo-ple of Khurashnrsquos need for knowledge After Aaringmad had heard this explanation heread al-Kawsajrsquos Mashrsquoil and thereafter granted his permission to narrate them65

It should be mentioned that al-Kawsaj mixed and contrasted Aaringmadrsquos viewswith those of others such as Ibn Rhhawiyh (d 238853) and al-Thawrj(d 161778) In some Mashrsquoil Aaringmad was asked to give his view on the opinionsof other scholarsAringanbal (d 273886) was another student of Aaringmad who narrated some

Mashrsquoil from him He was a cousin of Aaringmad and this appears to have given himthe opportunity to narrate several Mashrsquoil from him and to study al-Musnad underhis guidance Aringanbal was known as reliable and authoritative66 According toal-Khallhl Aringanbalrsquos narrations from Aaringmad were of a similar level of excellenceand thoroughness to al-Athramrsquos narrations Al-Khallhl does however commentupon the presence of some unfamiliar Mashrsquoil within his narrations67

Some of Aaringmadrsquos Mashrsquoil were narrated by his two sons Abu rsquol-Fapartl Iacutehliaring andlsquoAbd Allah Abu rsquol-Fapartl was Ibn Aringanbalrsquos eldest son and received traditions from


11

his father narrated some of his Mashrsquoil and became a judge during the lifetime ofhis father68

Iacutehliaring was charged with another task which was to work as a secretary to hisfather According to al-Khallhl when Iacutehliaring received letters containing questionshe would present them to his father whose response he would thereafter writedown and send back69

Abu rsquol-Fapartlrsquos Mashrsquoil are not systematically organised according to the regulationsof Abawhb al-Fiqh neither are they arranged according to different subjects suchas creed interpretation of the Qurrsquoan and aringadjth The reason for this according tosome scholars was that Iacutehliaring used to attend his fatherrsquos study circles and wasaccustomed to record whatever was discussed within those study circles regardlessof the subjects expounded upon

Other Mashrsquoil are narrated by al-Maymunj (d 276889) who also heardtraditions (aringad jths) from Aaringmad His Mashrsquoil were divided into sixteen sections70

According to the Aringanbalj scholar Abu Yalsquola al-Maymunj stated that no otherindividual was present during the exposition of these Mashrsquoil from Aaringmad71

Some of al-Maymunjrsquos Mashrsquoil are mentioned in various places within Aringanbaljsources The content suggests that if the remainder could be located it is likelythat they would contain some useful and important Mashrsquoil

Muhannh b Yaaringyh al-Shhmj was another narrator of Aaringmadrsquos jurisprudenceThis eminent scholar accompanied Aaringmad until his death72 Although he wasconsidered amongst the well-known narrators of Aaringmadrsquos knowledge no treatisecontaining his narrations has been found Some of his Mashrsquoil have howeverbeen mentioned in various Aringanbalj sources The same can be said about AbuIumlhlib (d 244858) who was described by Abu Yalsquola as an individual whodisplayed ardent enthusiasm in attending Aaringmadrsquos classes and a person whomAaringmad used to honour73

Some Mashrsquoil were written according to the systematic method of the juristssuch as Mashrsquoil lsquoAbd Allah while others were not such as Mashrsquoil Iacutehliaring

The eminent Aringanbalj scholar al-Khallhl performed an excellent task of editingAaringmadrsquos Mashrsquoil from various narrations According to al-Dhahabj al-Khallhlobtained narrations from nearly 100 companions of Aaringmad74 He used thesenarrations to compile several books such as Al-lsquoIlm al-lsquoIlal and al-Sunnah Hisgreatest work is that of al-Jhmilsquo which contains a vast number of AaringmadrsquosMashrsquoil as narrated by the imhmrsquos students or their students75 This bookcomprised numerous volumes According to al-Dhahabj it consisted of approx-imately twenty or more volumes Ibn al-Qayyim states that the number was bipartlsquoat

lsquoashar (the word bipartlsquoatrsquo can refer to a number between 3 and 9 therefore here thenumber denotes between 13 and 19) or more76 Some of these volumes have notreached us This work of al-Khallhl was extremely important to the AringanbaljSchool According to al-Dhahabj there existed no independent school oflaw attributed to Aaringmad before the work of al-Khallhl77 Although al-Jhmilsquo wasa large treatise Ibn Taymiyyah states in his Fathwh that al-Khallhl was notthoroughly conversant with all of Aaringmadrsquos jurisprudential Mashrsquoil78


12

Narrators of Aaringmadrsquos Mashrsquoil agreed on a number of issues and differed aboutothers Their differences either stemmed from the principle that Aaringmadoccasionally had more than one opinion concerning an individual issue and asa consequence delivered different judgements or from a misunderstanding ora mistake in the transmission of the Mashrsquoil on the part of the narrator79

The spread of this School

The Aringanbalj School started in Baghdad the birthplace of Aaringmad His studentsand their students in turn succeeded in strengthening and promulgating thisSchool until it became a leading School competing with other sunni schools inBaghdad in the fourth century80 As mentioned earlier the appointment to the judi-ciary of Abu Yalsquola together with some other Aringanbalj scholars was of great helpin the expansion of this School In the fourth century the Aringanbalj School estab-lished itself in al-Shhm81 Then in the sixth century the School spread to Egypt82

This delay occurred because as al-Suyutj explains Egypt was under the control ofUbaydis who were Shjlsquoah and suppressed the three Sunni Schools of law existingat the time in the country83 The presence of this School in Egypt was small andit only started to spread after the appointment of the Aringanbalj scholar al-Hajjhwjas a judge during the latter stage of the Ayyubis (567ndash6481171ndash1250)84

This School is now located in some of the above-mentioned areas but is neitherso widespread nor so influential as it once was Its failure to become as widespreadas other schools of Islamic law is due to various factors among them the fact thatthe Aringanbalj School was never selected by the Caliphate as the State School andthe fact that the three other schools of Islamic law (Aringanafj Mhlikj Shhfilsquoj) hadalready become widespread85

Some scholars however attribute the limited spread of the Aringanbalj School tothe fact that it does not encourage the use of independent reasoning86 Othersclaim that the reason for its limited influence is the strictness of this School87

Nevertheless the Aringanbalj School has acquired a prominent position in theArabian Peninsula as a result of the successful vocation of Muaringammad b lsquoAbdal-Wahhhb and the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia This School is theofficial School of law in Saudi and Qatar today88

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND HIS LEGACY IN THE SCIENCES OF JURISPRUDENCE AND

ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos era

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos life extended over a period of 68 years (661ndash7281263ndash1328)during the era of the first Mamluks (648ndash784H1250ndash1382) or as it is commonlyknown lsquoThe Era of the Baaringrite Mamluksrsquo89 The history of this group originatesfrom the time of King Najm al-Djn Ayyub (d 6481249) who brought them and


13

settled them in Egypt in order to protect his throne90 After the death of KingNajm al-Djn in the year 6481250 the group assassinated his son Turhnshhhwho had succeeded him Thereafter one of the Mamluks Aybeg (d 6551257)occupied the position of sultan himself This marked the beginning of the era ofthe BaaringrjMamluks91

One of the most important events which occurred during that time was theunification of al-Shhm and Egypt92 after the defeat of the Mongols by SultanQuƒuz in the famous battle of lsquoAyn Jalut (6581260)93 Thereafter the Mamlukgovernment attempted to gain the support of the Muslims throughout the Islamicworld by appointing an Abbasid as caliph in 6591261 The caliph was grantedthe title of lsquoal-Mustanszligir bi Allahrsquo94 This caliph and those who succeeded himhowever were merely figureheads They attended religious and political eventsled their armies into battle against the Mongols and the one of them was referredto as lsquoAmjr al-Mursquominjnrsquo95 It is even recorded that on one occasion a caliph wassent to prison for being at variance with the throne96

The Mamluk government headquarters were located in the city of Cairowhich became a political cultural and educational centre97 The source of lawduring this era was neither contained in a clearly defined legal system nor boundby a written constitution98 Jurisprudence and justice were founded upon theShhfilsquoj School of law alone until Sultan al-˝hhir assumed control of the govern-ment and appointed a judge affiliated to each of the four main schools of law atthe end of 663126599

During this period the political system was not based upon the shurh100 thereforethe public did not play a direct role in the political affairs of the state Furthermoreheavy taxes were levied upon citizens These were primarily used to fund the wareffort against the Mongols who had embarked on a wave of attacks in 6171220under their king Ghengis Khan (d 6241227)101 During their attacks they com-mitted massacres of both the armies and civilians The atrocities were of such mag-nitude that it is recorded that the famous historian Ibn al-Athjr agreed to documentthe events only after considerable hesitation and insistence on the part of hiscontemporaries In his account of the fate of Muslims he referred to these tragicevents as the worst disaster in the history of the Islamic world in which men womenand children and even pregnant women faced the same fate102 Another defeat of theMuslim army followed in 6561258 at the hands of Hulegu who led his forces intoIraq and al-Shhm and abolished the caliphate103 Two years later Quƒuz was finallyable to defeat them in the famous battle of lsquoAyn Jalut 6581260104

The era of Ibn Taymiyyah also witnessed the struggle between the Mamluksand crusaders whose presence in this area was finally ended following al-AshrafKhaljlrsquos military campaign which began with the conquest of lsquoAkkh after whichother cities surrendered peacefully in the year 6901291105

Structurally the society was divided into three strata

1 The first category included the ruling class that is those people in positionsof power such as the sultans princes and high government officials This


14

group assumed almost absolute power and control over government affairsand the citizens including the caliphs themselves On certain occasions how-ever the ruling class was confronted by leading scholars on political andsocial issues106 This category was led by the most powerful amongst them107

The most famous of the Mamluk sultans were al-˝hhir and al-Nhszligir It is saidthat no truly influential sultans assumed power after the demise of al-˝hhirexcept al-Nhszligir108

2 The second category included the educated classes namely the scholars andintellectuals Both the rulers and the ordinary people looked up to them forguidance and support and held them in high regard109

3 The third category included the common people or lay public consisting ofthe remainder of the population All large towns in this period were occupiedby many labourers craftsmen small shopkeepers fallaaringun (farmerslandtillers) and poor people This portion of the population was the largestof all in number but they were devoid of any form of direct participation inthe political life of the country In addition the financial circumstances ofthis sector particularly the fallaaringun was the most grievous as they weresubjected to heavy taxation110

It appears that such rigid divisions of power in conjunction with other factorsprincipally those outlined in the following points contributed to creating socialdisharmony and disorder

The sudden demographic changes in society This involved the immigrationof people of different origins with diverse customs and traditions to becomepart of the Mamluk society For instance after the Mongolsrsquo invasion of Iraqmany people emigrated from there and settled in Egypt and al-Shhm111

The enduring political instability and power struggles resulting in a successionof sultans seizing power usually by means of force112

A period of heavy taxation primarily due to a state of perpetual war113

Social and political unrest was undoubtedly accentuated by a prevailingideological crisis too Indeed intolerance and conflict were common amongst thedominant religious schools of thought Confusion and discord were also attrib-uted to the widespread use of Greek philosophy which had been translated intoArabic in the early period of Islam114 Netton however believes that the historyof Islamic philosophy is not purely a history of lsquoinfluencesrsquo of a total legacy fromGreece to the East and its intellectual milieu undiluted by any home-grownthought at all115

This period falls within the era of imitation (taqlid ) wherein the majority ofscholars were either making additions explaining matters already known or gath-ering information connected with them rather than developing novel theories andprinciples The legal doctrines that they transmitted and propagated were mainlyrestricted to the four dominant schools of law116 Nevertheless there were some


15

eminent scholars who were recognised for their independent thought and theirunique treatises Ibn Taymiyyah was one such scholar117

To say that Ibn Taymiyyah lived during both the best of times and the worst oftimes may not be too much of an exaggeration Ibn Taymiyyah lived in a periodof extremes On the one hand it developed a tradition of knowledge whoselegacy is still regarded as a treasure by millions not only in the Middle East butall around the world On the other hand it suffered the devastation and terror ofthe Mongol invasions and occupation118 Furthermore for sixty years commenc-ing in 6571260 after the initial invasion and occupation the Mamluks of Egyptand Syria were involved in a constant struggle with the Mongols119

The emergence of Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah was born in the year 6611263 in Aringarrhn120 from where his familymigrated to Damascus after the Mongol conquest of Iraq They abandoned alltheir property except their books which constituted the most valuable possessionsof this learned family a family which provided the Aringanbalj School with severaleminent scholars particularly Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos grandfather al-Majd and hisfather lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm121

Ibn Taymiyyah was renowned for his intelligence which undoubtedly assistedhim in his quest for knowledge at a very early age122 He was a particularly dili-gent and committed student who memorised the Qurrsquoan when he was just asmall child He then continued to study and memorise knowledge connected tojurisprudence the Arabic language and some of the important sources of aringadjthuntil he attained proficiency in them123

As a youth Ibn Taymiyyah would frequent some of the most famous intellectualcircles He was educated by a large number of sheikhs Certain sources claim thathis teachers exceeded 200 in number124 They were well-known scholars through-out the Islamic world and specialists in various fields of the Arabic language andIslamic studies Thus he studied jurisprudence and its fundamentals under sev-eral leading scholars for example his father lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm125 and Sharaf al-Djnal-Maqdisj (d 6941295) the sheikh of the Shhfilsquoj School and Mufti ofDamascus126 He was instructed in the skills of al-qirhrsquoht by famous specialists suchas al-Salsquodj (d 6761277) and Abu Isaringhq al-Ghusulj (d 6841285)127 In additionhe was taught history under the guidance of scholars such as Ibn al-Mujhwir(d 6901291)128 Ibn Taymiyyah received instruction in the science of aringadjth byleading scholars in the field including Taqj al-Djn al-Tunukhj (d 5891193)129

Bearing in mind the large number of scholars from whom Ibn Taymiyyahreceived his education and the diversity of their backgrounds it is not surprisingthat his ideology was influenced by several doctrines of jurisprudence other thanthe Aringanbalj such as the Aringanafj Mhlikj Shhfilsquoj and al-˝hhirj130 The reason forhis comparative approach to study can therefore be appreciated

In addition to his exemplary teachers Ibn Taymiyyah had access to and isreputed to have absorbed a prodigious amount of knowledge from books and


16


17

other sources131 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj mentions that some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos oldcontemporaries described him as lsquoraised in the best way in the rooms of the schol-ars drinking from the cups of understanding cavorting in the field of learning andin the trees of booksrsquo132

His father who taught in al-Sukariyyah School died in the year 6821283when his son was 22 years old It was at this time that Ibn Taymiyyah was calledto succeed his father as a lecturer A group of eminent scholars from differentSchools attended Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos first lecture and were very impressed by hisintellectual calibre and wit133 Thereafter Ibn Taymiyyah established two types oflectures the first comprised private lectures for his students and the secondconsisted of public lectures in the form of sermons at the mosques on Fridays134

It has been mentioned previously that the political situation of this time wascharacterised by chaos and disorder It was during these difficult times that IbnTaymiyyah found himself assuming the role of a political reformer working inseveral spheres He studied and exposed the reason for the inherent weakness andchaos of the political system He called the Muslim community towards unityencouraging political leaders to govern with justice and fairness He urged themto seek advice from sincere consultants in the different aspects of leadership andlaw135 Ibn Taymiyyah also called upon the leaders during that time to help cre-ate a strong and enlightened nation beginning with the reform of the prevailingcultural and intellectual situation that tended to stifle the spirit of innovation andcreativity According to Ibn Taymiyyah it was this deficiency that was largelyresponsible for the weakness of the Muslim world at that time136

He campaigned tirelessly to put his theories into practice He did not hesitateto involve himself in fighting against the Mongols and exhorted his people to doso137 It is said he travelled to Egypt in difficult circumstances in order to persuadethe reigning sultan to come to the rescue of al-Shhm with his army and protect itfrom being attacked by the Mongols138

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos relationship with contemporary rulers was initiallyparticularly good He forged strong links with al-Nhszligir (d 7411341) whoremained in power for a total of forty-four years139 As there were few formal ornatural criteria for social classification at the time of Ibn Taymiyyah one must beaware of status in the protocol of spatial arrangement in the rulerrsquos court140

When Ibn Taymiyyah who enjoyed Qalawunrsquos esteem entered al-Nhszligirrsquos courtthe sultan broke with established practice and walked across the room tookIbn Taymiyyah by the hand and walked with him before praising him to thegroup141 In addition Ibn Taymiyyah was consulted in religious matters and otheraffairs and was able to exercise considerable influence over the government142

Decisions concerning appointments were influenced by him for example al-Nhszligirconsulted him when he wanted to appoint a headmaster to Dhr al-Aringadjthal-Khmiliyyah after the death of Ibn Daqjq al-lsquoI

ndashd143

This excellent relationship proved however to be short lived and wasundermined by fierce opponents who apparently out of envy of him and hisspecial status sought to discredit the man and his religion They succeeded in

persuading the government to arrest him on several occasions144 Occasionallycontroversies concerning Ibn Taymiyyah resulted in divisions within thegovernment itself and even between the sultan and his deputy145

Some sources argue that there was a political motive behind Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosstruggles and that he was emulating Ibn Tumart (d 5241130)146 but a compre-hensive study of this scholarrsquos life lends little credence to such a claim My ownresearch has found no evidence to suggest that this intellectual giant had at anytime during his life aspired to occupy a position of political power It is recordedthat he had even refused the post of chief of justice mashyakhat al-shuyukh (theleader of scholars)147 and the post of Amjr Aringarrhn148 We find he was oncebrought before the sultan and questioned about his political ambitions Al-Bazzhrone of his disciples recorded the following dialogue between Sultan al-Nhszligir andIbn Taymiyyah

lsquoI was told that people obey you and that you intend to take over mypositionrsquo To which Ibn Taymiyyah replied lsquoWould I do such a deed ByAllah your realm and the Mongolrsquos are not worth two fils to mersquo Thenthe sultan smiled with relief and concluded lsquoBy Allah you are telling thetruth and whoever informed on you uttered a falsehoodrsquo149

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos detention

Ibn Taymiyyah was subjected to numerous bouts of persecution He was repeatedlyinterrogated prevented from issuing fathwh informed against to the sultans exiledfrom his hometown and imprisoned It all started in the year 6931294 whenIbn Taymiyyah made a complaint against a Christian man who had censured theProphet Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned for a short time and then released150 Inthe year 6981299 Ibn Taymiyyah was cross-examined about his creed after heauthored a treatise entitled al-Aringamawiyyah151 In essence he declared that theopinions of al-salaf (the pious ancestors the earliest generations) were the correctauthority in matters of aqjdah (creed) and criticised the interpretations of latergenerations (al-khalaf )152 Ibn Taymiyyah was ordered to appear before the Aringanafjjudge b Aringushm al-Djn in court Ibn Taymiyyah refused to do so arguing thatthe function of a judge is to deal with worldly affairs and that he does not possessthe authority to judge an individualrsquos religious beliefs The judge was angered bysuch a response and subsequently issued an open letter to be read in publicdenouncing Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos creed as falsehood This was however swiftly stoppedby the sultanrsquos deputy as soon as he was informed about it153

Ibn Taymiyyah resumed his lectures briefly154 until he was again brought tocourt before the Shhfilsquoj judge al-Gazujnj the Sultanrsquos deputy and a group ofscholars After reading his treatise al-Aringamawiyyah he was questioned aboutthe allegedly contentious issues it raised and was deemed innocent The judgepronounced that whoever accused Ibn Taymiyyah of blasphemy was to bepunished155


18

Ibn Taymiyyah endured a similar ordeal again in the year 7051305 at thehands of the deputy of the Sultan in al-Shhm in the presence of a committee ofjudges and scholars156 On this occasion when he was asked about his creed hedeclared that creed should not be sought from him or from whoever was moreknowledgeable than he was Rather it should be sought from Allah and HisMessenger the Qurrsquoan and sunnah and the consensus of all eminent scholarsthroughout the Islamic world157 Ibn Taymiyyah meant by this that he had notinvented a creed of his own In other words he wanted to clarify that his creedwas based upon the Islamic sources of belief Once his treatise al-Whsiƒiyyah158 waspresented Ibn Taymiyyah was found not guilty of the accusations levelled againsthim and his beliefs were recognised to be based upon those of the predecessors159

Despite his acquittal he was soon asked to appear before a committee in EgyptOn the day after his arrival a meeting was held involving judges and governorswho questioned him concerning theological issues Ibn Taymiyyah declined toanswer the questions presented as he refused to acknowledge the authority of thejudge Ibn Makhluf (7181318) as he was one of the instigators of the disputeHe objected demanding lsquoHow can my opponent be the judge in our disputersquo160

This outburst infuriated the judge who thereupon sent him to prison and issueda letter to be read all over the country branding Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos creed asmisleading and erroneous161

One year later he was offered a conditional release subject to agreeing to presenthimself before a committee of scholars in front of whom he would be asked tochange some of his opinions Ibn Taymiyyah rejected the offer and as a consequenceremained in prison162 Eighteen months later he was released by an oath from Amir

al-Arab Muhannh b lsquoIndashsh163 Ibn Taymiyyah chose to remain in Egypt where he

delivered lectures that attracted large numbers of students164 Some of these lecturestouched on the very issues for which he had been tried and numerous complaintswere made against him to the sultan165 as a result of which he was offered threealternatives by the government return to Damascus exile to Alexandria or impris-onment The first two choices were dependent upon the fulfilment of certain condi-tions Ibn Taymiyyah elected to go to prison but was eventually persuaded by hisstudents to accept the first choice While he was en route to Damascus however thegovernment altered its decision and recommended that he should be tried and sentto jail The court judges were apprehensive about passing a judgement on IbnTaymiyyah so he chose to go to prison of his own accord During the period of hisdetention he was allowed free visits which included those by his own students166

His opponents were not content with his being in jail and therefore pressed theSultan for his exile to Alexandria167 When Ibn Taymiyyah arrived in Alexandriahe concentrated his efforts on discussions with high-ranking jurists and noblepeople who were granted easy access to him168 His opinions quickly gatheredsupport and popularity169 Meanwhile some of his adherents had decided tofollow him there170

In 7091309 al-Nhszligir assumed control of the government again ordered therelease of Ibn Taymiyyah and requested his return to Cairo He remained there


19

until 7121312171 Thereafter he returned to Damascus where he spent two anda half years conducting research and delivering lectures and fathwh without inter-ference172 However in 7181318 there was a new inquisition awaiting IbnTaymiyyah regarding his fatwh concerning the contentious issue of oaths invokingdivorce For example a person might say lsquoIf I do such and such thing my wifeis divorcedrsquo The question was whether such an oath should have the effect of adirect divorce or not173 Ibn Taymiyyah subscribed to the opinion that it shouldnot He was subsequently advised by a Aringanbalj judge not to issue this fatwh to thepublic174 Initially he heeded the judgersquos advice Despite a decree issued by theSultan forbidding Ibn Taymiyyah from doing so it was not long before he startedpronouncing this fatwh again As a consequence a committee was established inorder to question him The trial concluded with his imprisonment He was incar-cerated for nearly six months until he was released as a result of another decreeissued by the Sultan175

The final and most serious inquisition to which Ibn Taymiyyah was subjectedinvolved the question of performing a journey in order to visit graves which heconsidered a profanity in Islam As a result Ibn Taymiyyah was sent to prisonagain where he stayed for over two years until his death in 7281328176

At this stage it would be prudent to consider the reasons behind IbnTaymiyyahrsquos persecution and detention It is evident that certain aspects of hiscreed and jurisprudence and the issuing of controversial fathwh had resulted in adirect conflict with the establishment Equally serious however was his ideologi-cal clash with particular scholars groups or sects and their leaders and follow-ers177 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos intellectual stature which was acknowledged by hisfollowers and opponents alike undoubtedly aroused a degree of envy and antag-onism on the part of some of his contemporaries178 Al-Bukhhrj al-Aringanafj(d 8411437) for example not only accused him of heresy but went so far as toproclaim that whoever called him by the title sheikh al-islam should be consideredas an unbeliever too179

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position among his contemporaries

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos contemporary scholars can be divided into three parties accordingto their attitude towards him

1 those who supported and praised him2 those who opposed him and instigated his arrest and detention3 those who once constituted his admirers and then turned against him

The overwhelming majority of his contemporaries fell within the first category180

This group included his disciples those who were from different parts of theIslamic world and those who were affiliated to the various schools of law181 Thefirst example of this group is Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students


20

The status of this scholar amongst his contemporaries with regard to hisknowledge of Ibn Taymiyyah appears to be particularly admirable Ibn lsquoAbdal-Hhdj was thoroughly conversant with his sheikhrsquos treatises and knowledge Thismay be evidenced through his discussion of several of his sheikhrsquos opinions in hisbooks In addition in his book al-lsquoUqud he mentioned a great number of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos treatises and promised that he would collect and classify the namesof his sheikhrsquos treatises according to the places where they were written and spec-ify those books which were compiled in prison182 According to my knowledgehowever this promise does not appear to have been fulfilled by Ibn lsquoAbd al-HhdjIt seems that his familiarity with the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah was the reasonfor the repeated requests made by Ibn Aringhmid a leading Shhfilsquoj scholar to IbnlsquoAbd al-Hhdj to write down an index of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises183

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj demonstrated his admiration of his sheikh when he describedhim as lsquothe leader of the Imhmsrsquo lsquothe Mufti of the Ummahrsquo lsquothe sea of sciencesrsquoand lsquothe unique scholar of the timersquo184 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdjrsquos admiration of IbnTaymiyyah may be observed through his book al-lsquoUqud wherein he gatheredscholarsrsquo praises of his sheikh185 When he mentioned the treatises of his sheikhhe asserted that he was not aware of an individual amongst the earlier or laterscholars who wrote as much as this scholar This matter is of particular impor-tance as he authored a large number of them in prison basing them upon theinformation in his memory186

The second example is Ibn Daqjq al-lsquoId a great Shhfilsquoj scholar who was onceasked for his opinion concerning Ibn Taymiyyah He responded by describinghim as lsquoa man with a multitude of subjects of knowledge at his fingertipsrsquo187

It ought to be noted that numerous scholars who can be categorised under thisgroup were not merely muqallids of Ibn Taymiyyah rather they exercised theirown independent reasoning on various issues They admired his stature and intel-lect but did not agree with him on certain issues For example al-Dhahabj whowas one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disciples differs from his sheikh on certain issues inboth al-furulsquo and al-uszligul Despite these differences he readily conceded that IbnTaymiyyah was indeed a mujtahid and that a mujtahidrsquos mistakes are excused188

In addition al-Dhahabj appears to have distanced himself from the more vocif-erous opponents of Ibn Taymiyyah He pointed out that although Ibn Taymiyyahwas mistaken in certain views in a number of his treatises this should not affecthis position as a great scholar and a free thinker For he stated that the duty of amujtahid in Islamic law is to practise independent reasoning which in certaininstances may deviate from the correct judgement Nevertheless in the Hereaftergreat thinkers are to be commended for their endeavours and forgiven for theirmistakes189 Al-Dhahabj went on to declare that there was no individual at thetime of Ibn Taymiyyah who was his equal or even similar to him Furthermoreal-Dhahabj affirmed the exemplary status of Ibn Taymiyyah in various sciencessuch as Aringadjth and rijhl interpretation of the Qurrsquoan philosophy and jurispru-dence and its principles Moreover he stated that his sheikh had reached the rankof an absolute mujtahid in Islamic law190


21

Such was al-Dhahabjrsquos evident respect for the man that it is not possible toconceive that he wrote the letter attributed to him entitled lsquoal-Naszligiaringah

al-Dhahabjyyah ilh Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo (Golden Advice to Ibn Taymiyyah or An Advicefrom al-Dhahabj to Ibn Taymiyyah)191 In addition a careful study of this letterleads one to suggest that such a piece of work could not have been authored byal-Dhahabj himself This premise is founded upon a number of factors three ofwhich are the following

1 Al-Dhahabjrsquos admiration and praise of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos work is undisguisedin his treatises He repeatedly referred to him as a mujtahid and favoured anapproach of tolerance towards his mistakes192

2 A number of scholars who attribute this letter to al-Dhahabj claim that it waswritten during the latter part of his acquaintance with Ibn Taymiyyah193 Itappears that they do this to avoid the obvious contradiction between hispraise of Ibn Taymiyyah in his other treatises and his criticism of him in thissolitary letter This claim seems however to be erroneous because in his sev-eral biographical entries for Ibn Taymiyyah al-Dhahabj mentioned the dateof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos death194 which refutes the belief that there were twostages in his acquaintance with Ibn Taymiyyah

3 The oldest sources for al-Dhahabjrsquos biography do not mention this treatise amongst his legacy of knowledge195 Even al-Subkj who wasknown for his opposition to Ibn Taymiyyah did not mention it196 On thecontrary he was prepared to acknowledge Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos extensive knowl-edge as he did when he was reproached by al-Dhahabj for his attitudetowards him197

The second group was primarily composed of members of the political systemof the time and those who had an influence upon it For instance Baibars(d 7091309) who was a Deputy Sultan of the Mamluks was amongst IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opponents The same can be said of his adviser Naszligr al-Manbijj(d 7191319) who had a strong influence on his decisions198 Other opponentsof Ibn Taymiyyah occupied prominent positions of power in the judicialsystem199 or some religious organisations200 It was the efforts of this groupagainst Ibn Taymiyyah that were primarily responsible for his persecution andtribulations This point has been illustrated in the previous section concerningIbn Taymiyyahrsquos detentions

The third group differed in their opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah In the beginningthey supported him and approved of his work and thereafter they turned againsthim An example of this type of person was Abu Aringayyhn (d 7451344)201 whowas one of his erstwhile admirers This individual used to write poetry in whichhe would praise Ibn Taymiyyah Later however his poems became full of satireand vindictive abuse towards him This dramatic shift appears to have been adirect retaliation against Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos unflattering comments about Sjbawayhand his book al-Kithb (The Book) on the science of Arabic grammar202 Another


22

example is al-Zamlikhnj203 who was initially one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos supportersand even lost his job due to his affiliation with him204 Later on al-Zamlikhnjopposed Ibn Taymiyyah on a number of issues which ultimately resulted in hisdetention205

Al-Dhahabj believed that it was Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos harsh approach in dealingwith his contemporaries rather than fundamental ideological differences thatwas the true cause of the reversal of attitudes towards him among his formersympathisers He asserted that if Ibn Taymiyyah had coaxed his opponents hewould not have met with such a degree of opposition for everyone knew andacknowledged his genius and the rarity of his faults206 He clarifies that he doesnot mean those scholars who plainly hated him or accused him of being an unbe-liever their judgements upon him were not based upon the content of his wordsnor were they men of deep knowledge207

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos alleged harshness in dealing with his opponents is an issuefrequently mentioned by historians I have traced the main source of this claimback to al-Dhahabj who first made reference to it208 It appears likely that al-Dhahabjrsquos very words were repeated in various sources such as by Ibn Aringajarin al-Durar al-Khminah209 al-Iacuteafadj in al-Whf j210 al-Bazzhr in al-Alsquolhm211 IbnRajab in al-Dhayl 212 and al-Shawkhnj in al-Badr al-Iumlhlilsquo213

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own reaction to this accusation was as follows lsquoWhat youhave stated about the use of soft words is nothing but alien to me as I am one ofthe people who use them most where they are deemed appropriatersquo214

In other places Ibn Taymiyyah explained his method in dealing with his oppo-nents He affirmed that even if his opponents were unjust towards him he wouldnot be unjust towards them215 for the only judge between them is the Book ofAllah and the sunnah of His Messenger216

Assuming this accusation was correct was there any genetic influence on IbnTaymiyyahrsquos character from his family Ibn Taymiyyah was quoted by al-Dawkdjas having admitted that harshness was one of his grandfatherrsquos characteristics217

Commenting upon this al-Dhahabj stated lsquoOur sheikh (ie Ibn Taymiyyah) hadit toorsquo218 Others such as al-Iacuteafadj in al-Whf j took the view that Ibn Taymiyyahwas influenced by Ibn Aringazmrsquos harshness219

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly legacy in the sciences of fiqh and uszligul

Introduction

Ibn Taymiyyah bequeathed a vast number of treatises dealing with varioussubjects in considerable detail During the early stage of his scholarly life he con-centrated on matters of creed and the refutation of religious practices that heconsidered to be in conflict with the Qurrsquoan and sunnah (innovations)220 Later onthe attention he directed to other subjects (for example jurisprudence and itsfundamentals aringadjth and the interpretation of the Qurrsquoan) was so profound that


23

he became widely known as lsquoSheikh al-Islamrsquo and lsquothe interpreter of al-Qurrsquoanrsquoas an acknowledgement of his authority in these various disciplines221

His disciples differed concerning the number of his treatises Al-Dhahabjestimated them to be 4000 kurhsah (booklets) or 500 mujallad (volumes)222 Somescholars such as Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj and al-Bazzhr disputed these figures under-lining the difficulty of specifying their number as some of them were never copiedfrom the original manuscripts223 Others were written in prison and were takenaway from him by the governors224

A considerable amount of this heritage is devoted to the sciences of jurisprudenceand its principles It is evident nevertheless that he devoted considerable attentionto the area of creed

When Ibn Taymiyyah was asked by his student al-Bazzhr to write a completeand comprehensive treatise in the science of jurisprudence which would con-tain all of his jurisprudential opinions and preferences and which would beused as a basis for fathwh Ibn Taymiyyah refused He explained that the rul-ing in a jurisprudential issue is based upon independent reasoning thusthere is no harm in a layman imitating one scholar or another In mattersconcerning creed however conflicting opinions were usually based uponinnovation (bidalsquo ) and invalid evidences According to Ibn Taymiyyah thisled to a great deal of confusion amongst the public and he therefore devotedmuch of his time to attempting to address this problem225

Ibn Taymiyyah was sometimes forced to discuss issues of creed This wasbecause the majority of the accusations his opponents made against himwere related to creed

Despite Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos emphasis on the science of creed his competence asa jurist was recognised when he was only 18 years old226 After Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosarrival in Damascus from Egypt in the year 7121312 he concentrated on thescience of jurisprudence227 In later years and after his release from prison inthe year 7211321 he worked with some of his students on the correction ofsome of his earlier treatises228

Muslims from all corners of the world sent him questions requesting fathwh229

His published fathwh which comprised thirty-five volumes plus two indices aresufficient proof for this There is no doubt that his scholarly legacy concerningthe science of jurisprudence and its principles has influenced the Aringanbalj Schoolof law to a significant extent

It is beyond the scope of this work to embark upon a critique of all IbnTaymiyyahrsquos treatises by reason of their large number Nevertheless a brief out-line of some of his most important treatises follows and a whole section is devotedspecifically to his treatises concerning jurisprudence and general principles ofjurisprudence

One of his most important treatises on creed is Minhhj al-Sunnah al-NabawiyyahIn this work he used his knowledge of the sharjlsquoah logic philosophy and the


24

Arabic language to criticise the Shjlsquoj author Ibn Maƒahir The book has now beenpublished by al-Imhm University and was edited by Muhammad RashhdSaljm230 Another book is Kithb al-Istiqhmah which concerns the obligation of theMuslim to adhere to the Qurrsquoan and sunnah in matters of creed and practice231

In the first two chapters of this treatise Ibn Taymiyyah discussed theMutakallimunrsquos point of view that the pillars of faith (uszligul al-djn) can be deter-mined through logical analogy and logical evidence and not necessarily throughthe Qurrsquoan and sunnah He also refuted the claim made by some jurists that thesharjlsquoah required the use of analogy for its widespread application due to the lackof specific solutions to particular problems232

Ibn al-Qayyim mentions only twenty of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treaties on the subjectof creed233 The actual figure is considerably higher when his shorter treatises arealso taken into account It appears that Ibn al-Qayyim chose to omit the smallertreatises in this field because if he had counted them the number would havebeen very large

Ibn Taymiyyah devoted a considerable part of his time to the interpretation ofthe Qurrsquoan234 He is reported to have said that he would occasionally read up to100 commentaries of the Qurrsquoan before attempting to interpret a single verse ofit235 Every Friday in the Grand Mosque of Damascus Ibn Taymiyyah would chairstudy circles devoted to the interpretation of the Qurrsquoan236 His legacy in this areais remarkable237 Consider for example al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr238 and a set of volumes ofMajmulsquo al-Fathwh dealing entirely with this specialism239 Ibn al-Qayyim madereference to ninety-three of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises in this field240

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises in fiqh and uszligul

Here now follows a brief study of some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises in thescience of jurisprudence and its principles

Treatises in the sciences of Fiqh

Talsquoljq lsquoAlh al-Muaringarrar In this work Ibn Taymiyyah commented on the treatiseof his grandfather al-Majd entitled al-Muaringarrar in Aringanbalj jurisprudence241

Shararing al-lsquoUmdah This is a commentary on the well-known book al-lsquoUmdahauthored by the eminent Aringanbalj scholar Ibn Qudhmah Ibn Taymiyyah men-tions in his introduction to this book that he was asked to compile it by a group offellow Aringanbalj scholars242

Ibn Taymiyyah did not complete this work for he only got as far as the bookof Aringajj He analysed issues related to the subjects of purification prayer alms-taxfasting and Aringajj Unfortunately some parts of this book are yet to be discovered243

In this work Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrates an extensive knowledge of the textsand statements of the companions The book of fasting alone contains approxi-mately 900 aringad jth and athar It provides considerable evidence of his knowledge ofAringadjth combined with a comprehensive knowledge of the science of Rijhl


25

Ibn Taymiyyah also demonstrates a great competence in the jurisprudence ofthe Aringanbalj School of law He possessed the ability to quote Ibn Aringanbal and theopinions of the Aringanbalj scholars at will This work contains a study of conflict-ing opinions and narrations in the Aringanbalj School with Ibn Taymiyyah thenmentioning his preferred opinion In this book Ibn Taymiyyah primarilyrestricted himself to the opinions of the School in stating his preference He wasto abandon some of these opinions at a later stage244

The importance of this work stems from the fact that it is the only book writtenby Ibn Taymiyyah according to the method of jurists245 In addition in certaininstances Ibn Taymiyyah even mentions some opinions of the Aringanbalj scholarswhich cannot be found in any other source246 This treatise is also significantbecause it is the most comprehensive explanation available of the bookal-lsquoUmdah247 which is a recognised source in the Aringanbalj School written by oneof its most eminent scholars Other commentaries on al-lsquoUmdah contain variousdeficiencies248

The fathwh of Ibn Taymiyyah These fathwh have been collected in variouscompilations such as Majmulsquo al-Fathwh al-Fathwh al-Kubra al-Fathwh al-lsquoIraqiyyah

and Majmulsquoat al-RashrsquoilThese collections contain a large number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fathwh in addition

to smaller sections249 and essays250 on various subjects Some of his other workssuch as al-Aringisbah al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquoiyyah al-Jawhb al-Bhhir al-Radd lsquoala al-Akhnhrsquo jand his Mansak in al-Aringajj are also incorporated within them

By means of his fathwh Ibn Taymiyyah contributed to the expansion of theAringanbalj School of law in various ways First he helped the spread of the Schoolby frequently mentioning in his answers the opinions of the Aringanbalj School onthe issues discussed Second he studied the opinions of the School and distin-guished the correct from the incorrect founding his judgement upon whether theopinion was based on authentic evidence or not Third Ibn Taymiyyah helped inthe creation of a greater degree of tolerance amongst the Islamic schools of lawby presenting in his fathwh in most instances the opinions of other scholars Hewould thereafter clarify their evidence

Occasionally we find that the same question has been repeatedly mentioned inthe collections of fathwh This is probably because different questioners raisedsimilar problems These similar questions were all rehashed in these collectionsbecause each answer Ibn Taymiyyah gave usually contained some important andnovel information

One of the characteristic features of these collections is the smoothness andfluency of their style This appears to be because the fathwh contained in thecollections were primarily related to questions raised by the lay public and hisanswers were consequently tailored to this audience

Al-Qawhlsquoid al-Nurhniyyah In this book Ibn Taymiyyah studies jurispruden-tial disputes in the Islamic Schools of law regarding issues related to the prayeralms-tax fasting aringajj various issues concerning transactions and contracts andfinally vows and oaths


26

Ibn Taymiyyah sought to demonstrate in this book the greater accuracy of theSchool of Ahl al-Aringadjth in particular the School of Aaringmad in comparison to theother schools of Islamic law in the great majority of the disputed issues

Al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquoiyyah Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies the topic of this book whenhe mentions that it is lsquoa short epistle on the principles of Divine law and Propheticcounsel which neither the ruler nor the ruled can go withoutrsquo251 This book isdivided into two parts each part in turn is divided into several chapters andsections The first part deals with public function and state revenues whereas thesecond is devoted to the clarification of penalties concerning the violation ofrights due to Allah and penalties and rights pertaining to individuals

Al-Aringisbah In this book Ibn Taymiyyah discusses various issues related to theinstitution of al-aringisbah This is a moral as well as a socio-economic institution inIslam through which public life is regulated in such a manner that a high degreeof public morality is attained As a consequence the community is protected frombad workmanship fraud extortion and exploitation

This book can be divided into two parts The first is devoted to the study anddiscussion of the concept principles and mechanisms for the management of anIslamic economy It highlights how different Islamic institutions play their respec-tive roles in order to achieve the objectives of justice and freedom in society It dis-cusses several issues including the basic principles of the aringisbah ethical guidelinesfor the regulation of business and economic life collective good and state respon-sibility price control and crime and punishment252

In the second section Ibn Taymiyyah not only clarified the philosophical foun-dations of the Islamic society but also presented a powerful exposition of theprincipal corrective mechanism at the heart of the Islamic scheme of life that isthe act of commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil (al-amr bi rsquol-malsquorufwa rsquol-nahi lsquoan al-munkar)253

Treatises in the principles of jurisprudence

Naqd Marhtib al-Ijmhlsquo Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this tract as a criticism and refutationof certain points made by Ibn Aringazm in his book entitled Marhtib al-Ijmhlsquo Ibn Aringazmclaimed that he had gathered together the issues from diverse areas of the law onwhich a consensus existed amongst the scholars as to their rulings254 Ibn Taymiyyahstudied these alleged consensuses and found that a significant number of them werein part topics of known disputes amongst scholars Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyahobserved that in some of the alleged instances of consensus Ibn Aringazm himself hadpreferred an opposing opinion and thus denied the existence of a consensus255

The importance of this book stems from the fact that certain other scholarsincluding some affiliated to the Aringanbalj School had attested to the existence ofconsensus on some of these issues Therefore Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism is appli-cable to those scholars too This book demonstrates that declarations of consen-sus should not be accepted at face value without a careful analysis of the scholarsrsquoopinions


27

Al-Musawwadah fj Uszligul al-Fiqh This book was compiled by three scholarsfrom the house of hl-Taymiyyah al-Majd the grandfather the father lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm and Ibn Taymiyyah These eminent scholars left their contributions tothis book in draft form until the Aringanbalj scholar Ibn lsquoAbd al-Ghanj (d 7451344)collected rewrote and arranged them256 From that point this book has been animportant source of Aringanbalj uszligul cited by scholars affiliated to various schools Incertain instances Ibn Taymiyyah criticised his grandfatherrsquos views added to themand in various places introduced chapters and sections that had been leftuntreated by his father and grandfather In relation to particular issues IbnTaymiyyah added important rules and maxims because he felt that there was agreat need for them

This book studies comparatively and critically issues arising from the generalprinciples of Aringanbalj jurisprudence and occasionally those of other schools andindividual scholars It illustrates the extensive knowledge of these three scholarsconcerning disagreement amongst the scholars of jurisprudence and its sourcesin addition to other sciences such as the Arabic language257

Rishlah fj lsquol-Qiyhs This treatise was written by Ibn Taymiyyah in response toa question put to him concerning the correctness of the claim made by somescholars that certain rulings in Islamic law contradict analogy even though theserulings are based upon either texts of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah analogy or the viewsof the companions

Ibn Taymiyyah begins by explaining that analogy is divided into two kindsvalid and invalid analogy He then goes on to define both terms258 According toIbn Taymiyyah this discussion is necessary because it is possible that legal rulescan oppose an invalid analogy but not a valid one This is followed by a compre-hensive study of rulings which allegedly oppose analogy Ibn Taymiyyah thenshows that the rulings in those issues agree with valid analogy and the onlycontradictions are with reference to invalid analogy259

Ibn Taymiyyah also studies several cases where a companionrsquos ruling wasalleged to be in contradiction to analogy He revealed that when the companionswere in agreement on a ruling this ruling would invariably be consistentwith valid analogy It was possible however for a solitary companionrsquos view to beinconsistent with such analogy

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the real problem is not the apparent conflictbetween the rulings and analogy rather it is a misunderstanding of the distinc-tion between valid and invalid analogies This distinction can only be determinedthrough an extensive study of the sharjlsquoah and its values This treatise provides astrong rebuttal against Aringanbalj scholars among others who claim the existenceof a contradiction between text and analogy and use this as an excuse for departingfrom the implications of a text260

Raflsquo al-Malhm lsquoan al-Arsquoimmah al-Alsquolhm The objective of this book is toexplain the reasons for the existence of contradictions between certain scholarsrsquoopinions and authentic aringadjth Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that none of the leadingscholars intended deliberately to oppose the sunnah of the Prophet in any manner


28

He provides three main reasons for these contradictions First the scholar did notbelieve that the Prophet uttered that particular aringad jth Second the scholarbelieved that the aringad jth in question was not of relevance to the issue at handThird the scholar considered that particular aringad jth to be abrogated IbnTaymiyyah elucidated upon these three main reasons and analysed the otherissues which are associated with them261

This treatise should be read in the context of the time in which Ibn Taymiyyahlived this was an era of taqlid in which fanaticism was also particularly wide-spread not only amongst the lay public but also within the circles of the learned

Malsquohrij al-Wuszligul The primary objective of this book is to affirm that theLawgiver clearly elucidated the sum total of the uszligul and furulsquo of Islam in the Qurrsquoanand sunnah For the same purpose Ibn Taymiyyah discussed several opposing opin-ions that were mainly presented by philosophers and Mutakallimun and concludedthat they were incorrect This category of individuals included Avicenna (Ibn Sjnhrsquo)and Abu Aringhmid al-Ghazhlj Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the problem is not that thesources of law do not contain sufficient evidence for various furulsquo Rather he is ofthe opinion that the real problem is that this evidence may be either unknown tosome scholars or that its indicators are not manifest to them Also in certaininstances Ibn Taymiyyah observes that even when the evidence was known and theindicators were manifest the evidence was not implemented due to their assump-tion that they were contradicted by other evidence262

The contribution of this treatise to Islamic law in general and the AringanbaljSchool in particular is a significant one This is because the issue concerning thesufficiency of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah as sources of law has been hotly disputedamong scholars over the centuries It should be noted that when Ibn Taymiyyahasserts that these two sources are sufficient it does not mean that he does notrecognise the other sources of law such as consensus and analogy For he statesthat they are recognised sources whose authority is obtained only through the twomain sources of law the Qurrsquoan and sunnah

Ipartharing al-Dilhlah fj lsquoUmum al-Rishlah li lsquol-Thaqalayn This treatise deals withthe universality of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad and the fact that hewas sent as a messenger to mankind and the spiritual world Most of this book isdevoted to the discussion of topics related to the mission of the Prophet to thespiritual world and other related issues such as spiritual possession visions andexorcism

This book occupies a special position as it concerns the laws governing therelationship between mankind and the world of spirits In addition it deals withthe question of whether or not these spirits are subject to the laws of the sharjlsquoahIbn Taymiyyah declares that spirits are indeed subject to these laws and states thatthe verses revealed to the Prophet address all created beings both human andspiritual as his message was directed to both worlds Ibn Taymiyyah asserts thatthis remains the cardinal principle in relation to the Qurrsquoan even though the rea-son for the revelation of some of its verses may be related to certain incidentswhich occurred amongst the Arabs at that time According to the consensus of


29

Muslim scholars this is because none of the verses is restricted in its application tothe specific reasons for its revelation263

Qhlsquoidah fj Tawaaringaringud al-Millah wa Talsquoaddud al-Sharhrsquoilsquo This treatise studiesthe concept of the unity of creed amongst all Prophets and their diversity in rela-tion to the laws Ibn Taymiyyah affirms this concept by citing various pieces oftextual evidence from the Qurrsquoan and sunnah He asserts that what has beenapproved by the Qurrsquoan sunnah or consensus in the field of Islamic creed is thesame as that believed by all of the Prophets and it is binding upon every MuslimWhereas laws are miscellaneous no particular law can be considered as bindingon every Muslim thus various laws were brought by the different Prophets

The significance of this work stems from the fact that it intended to combatintolerance and appeal for a greater degree of tolerance amongst the variousschools of law In the event of a dispute concerning jurisprudential issues thedifferent opinions of the scholars will be tolerated Ibn Taymiyyah explainshowever that this tolerance does not mean that all the various opinions are correctand cannot therefore be criticised unlike the situation with the various laws of theProphets This is simply because the Prophets are infallible If they committed mis-takes they would have been corrected by another revelation No such divine cor-rection exists for scholarsrsquo mistakes Hence criticism of scholarsrsquo opinions basedupon their own independent reasoning is permitted and no scholar has the rightto impose his own opinion on other scholars as a binding principle of law264

In addition to those mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah authored other smaller treatiseson this subject265

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos death

After a lengthy journey in pursuit of knowledge and reform and after beingsubjected to a series of detentions Ibn Taymiyyah died on the eve of Monday thetwentieth of Dhi al-Qilsquodah 7281328266 Amongst Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos final wordswere his forgiveness to all those individuals who caused his detentions and perse-cutions if they based their actions upon independent reasoning and wereunaware that he was speaking the truth267 Ibn Rajab mentions that funeralprayers were performed for sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in most of the Islamiclands far and near and it was even reported that as far away as China the prayerwas performed for him and was described as a prayer for the interpreter of theQurrsquoan268


30

2

A COMPARISON OF THE BASICPRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC LAWACCORDING TO IBN AringANBAL

AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

Introduction

The sources of law which constitute part of the science of the principles ofjurisprudence termed lsquouszligul al-fiqhrsquo are discussed in this chapter It is thereforeappropriate to begin by defining this science Several attempts to advance a suit-able definition have been made most of which have been criticised for beingeither too long incomplete or containing unnecessary information Neverthelesssome quite sufficient definitions have been advanced including that suggested byFakhr al-Djn al-Rhzj He states that

Uszligul al-fiqh is the aggregate considered per se of legal proofs andevidences that when studied correctly will lead either to certain knowledgeof a sharjlsquoah ruling or to at least a reasonable assumption concerning thesource the manner by which such proofs are adduced and the status ofthe adducer1

This definition establishes that the subject of uszligul al-fiqh is concerned with theproofs within the sharjlsquoah source texts considering them from the perspective oflsquohowrsquo legal judgements are derived by means of independent reasoning from par-ticular proofs and preference is given to one text over another where texts appearcontradictory2

This work studies the role of Ibn Taymiyyah in the jurisprudence andprinciples of the Aringanbalj School of law The objective of this chapter is todiscover whether his role encompasses the general bases and principles of thisSchool or is merely restricted to jurisprudential rulings This is achieved throughcomparing the general principles of Aaringmad and Ibn Taymiyyah and highlightingthe similarities and differences between them If their principles were apparentlyidentical it would be assumed that Ibn Taymiyyah did not seek to influence theguiding principles of Aringanbalj jurisprudence

31

Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbalrsquos basic principles ofjurisprudence

Ibn Aringanbal was amongst those scholars who did not record their sources of lawThis resulted in uncertainty and ambiguity concerning these sources to the extentthat some Aringanbalj scholars were confused themselves Some of his sources werenevertheless transmitted orally and others could be inferred from his fathwh Thissection is devoted to tracing these sources as found within his recorded statementsand located in Aringanbalj treatises

Aaringmadrsquos indications of the basic principles of jurisprudence

Certain indicators suggestive of his general principles of jurisprudence can befound in the words of Ibn Aringanbal

Al-Athram narrates that Aaringmad says lsquoIt (the basis of jurisprudence) is thesunnah and ittibhlsquo (following)rsquo3

An explanation of what Aaringmad meant by ittibhlsquo can be found in another nar-ration of Abu Dawud Aaringmad says lsquoit is to follow what is reported from theProphet and his companions then one has the choice whether to follow theopinions of the followers (thbilsquojn)rsquo4

Also in a narration of Ibn Hhnirsquo Aaringmad was asked what a scholar shoulddo when he was asked about the legal ruling on an issue in which there is adisagreement among scholars He clarifies that a scholar should give fathwhwhich agree with the Book and sunnah and whatever disagrees with themmust be left aside5

Aaringmadrsquos position in relation to the validity of analogy is somewhat ambiguousIt is not at first sight certain whether or not Ibn Aringanbal implemented thissource This confusion is exacerbated by certain narrations of Aaringmad him-self in which he appears to refute the legitimacy of analogy After studyingthe Aringanbalj sources we find that Aaringmadrsquos position regarding this issue canbe better understood through the following

ndash Ibn al-Jawzj mentions that in the narration of al-Athram he quotesAaringmad as saying lsquoand (the correct) analogy is what is based on anoriginal casersquo6

ndash This is further explained in another narration Aaringmad clarifies what hemeant by the correct analogy when he explains that the acceptable formof analogy is one wherein complete similarity is found between the lsquorootrsquoand lsquobranchrsquo If these two cases accord with each other in some respectsbut differ in others then the use of analogy is incorrect7

ndash Aaringmad therefore rejects analogy which does not agree with the conditionsmentioned earlier for correct analogy He states that if a ruling is basedon an original case and later on the original case becomes redundant

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC LAW

32

the existence of analogy (in the branch case) can no longer be claimed8

According to this statement by Aaringmad it will be unacceptable to considerit as correct analogy the basis upon which this analogy was founded isno longer applicable

ndash In order to eliminate the existence of incorrect analogy Aaringmad in a narration asserts that the one who practises analogy must be anexperienced scholar9

These are some of the indications for Aaringmadrsquos general principles of jurisprudencefounded in his own statements It is clear from them that Aaringmad was a scholarwho had a tendency towards Ahl al-Aringadjth as we find him insisting on the sunnah

and ittibalsquo as the basis of jurisprudence Ittibalsquo in this context denotes adherenceto the texts This tendency can also be discerned from his cautious positiontowards analogy These statements alone are however insufficient to depict aclear picture of the principles of jurisprudence used by this scholar It is impor-tant also to study Aringanbalj texts to see what they concluded to be his principles

The general principles of Aaringmadrsquos jurisprudence in the writings of Aringanbalj scholars

The Aringanbalj scholars who studied and made reference to Aaringmadrsquos generalprinciples can be classified into two categories

1 Those individuals who were well-known scholars in the School but did notcompile treatises devoted to the study of the general principles of the School

2 Scholars who devoted some of their treatises to the study of the generalprinciples of the School

The first Aringanbalj scholar whom we find to have tried to infer the general prin-ciples used by Aaringmad is al-Athram (d 260874) a well-known student of Aaringmadand narrator of his Mashrsquoil He states that through his experience in narratingAaringmadrsquos Mashrsquoil he found that the methodology employed by Ibn Aringanbal in hislegal rulings is

That if there is a aringadjth from the Prophet on the issue under discussionAaringmad will disregard the opinion of any of the companions and those whofollowed them

Where there are conflicting opinions of the companions on an issue Aaringmadwill choose some of them and will not consider the opinions of those whofollowed them

If these types of evidence (ie aringadjth opinions of companions) are not foundthen he will select from the opinions of the followers (tabilsquojn)

Finally Aaringmad would use a aringadjth whose chain has a defect as evidenceprovided that there is no other evidence conflicting with it Similarly he uses


33

a aringadjth which a successor has directly attributed to the Prophet withoutmentioning the last narrator namely the companion (mursal aringadjth) if there isno other contradicting evidence on the same issue10

The leading Aringanbalj judge and scholar Abu rsquol-Aringusayn Muaringammadb Muaringammad Ibn al-Farrhrsquo known as Ibn Abu Yalsquola (5261132) mentions in hisbook Iumlabaqht al-Aringanhbilah that the four general principles of jurisprudence usedby Aaringmad were the following

1 The Qurrsquoan2 The sunnah

3 Opinions of companions4 Analogy11

Ibn Tamjm (d 6751276)12 in his introduction to the book lsquoAqidat al-ImhmAaringmad mentions that Aaringmadrsquos general principles of law are five


3 The consensus of the scholars of the time4 The opinion of a companion when it was widespread at his time without any

sign of disapproval from the other companions If jurisprudential disputeamongst the companions occurred then Aaringmad would select one of theseopinions

5 Analogy in the case of necessity only13

The famous scholar Ibn Qayyim offers more clarifications and explanation onthis point He states that Ibn Aringanbal based his method of deriving fathwh on thefollowing five sources

1 Texts of the Qurrsquoan and the sunnah Therefore if he found a text in theQurrsquoan or the sunnah concerning a particular issue he would base his fatwhupon it and would under no circumstances whatsoever consider othersources which might conflict with them Ibn Qayyim states that Ibn Aringanbalgranted precedence to sound aringadjth over practice (lsquoamal ) rarsquoy analogy (qiyhs)the opinion of the companions and silent consensus (ijmhlsquo sukutj)

2 The fathwh issued by the companions in the absence of any contradictoryopinion held by some of them Whenever Ibn Aringanbal found this type ofevidence he would use it in preference to practice rarsquoy and analogy

3 When the companions held different opinions concerning an issue Aaringmadwould select from those opinions the one which was closest to the texts of theQurrsquoan and sunnah Wherever it was not clear which opinion was closest hewould transmit the different opinions of the companions without demon-strating a preference It ought to be mentioned that Aaringmad did not issue anew judgement at this stage


34

4 For a ruling on an issue where none of the four sources of law mentionedearlier offered an immediate solution Aaringmad would base his judgementupon a weak or mursal aringadjth (a report of a saying of the Prophet which lacksa link in the chain going back to the Prophet)

5 Analogy This source of law was used as a last resort by Aaringmad and was usedonly in the case of necessity14

Other Aringanbalj scholars who authored treatises on the general principles ofAringanbalj law have presented these sources differently They have added to thosementioned and classified them systematically We shall now consider in moredetail two selected Aringanbalj references in the field of uszligul al-fiqh which will beexamined with reference to this point that is sources of jurisprudence in theAringanbalj School of law

The first reference is Kithb al-Tamhjd authored by the eminent Aringanbalj scholarAbu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb The importance of this book is founded upon the fact that it isthe second complete Aringanbalj treatise after his sheikh Abu Yalsquolarsquos book al-lsquoUddahin which we can find a comprehensive analysis of the principles of fiqh

This scholar elected to divide the sources into the following three groups15

1 Text (naszligszlig)

According to Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb the category lsquotextrsquo is inclusive of the Qurrsquoan thesunnah consensus and the views of the companions

It might seem strange that Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb included consensus and the views ofthe companions in the division of naszligszlig It is probable that the reason for this inclu-sion is that consensus as understood by most jurists must be based upon the textsof the Qurrsquoan and sunnah Therefore if consensus is founded upon a text it canbe considered as naszligszlig itself The opinion of the companions also is not consid-ered text in itself but it seems that Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb referred to the opinions of thecompanions as text for one of two reasons

1 The opinion of one companion about which there is no known disagreementamong the rest of the companions is considered to be a type of consensusand consensus must be based upon a text of Qurrsquoan or sunnah as cited previ-ously Therefore it can be inferred that when Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb referred to theopinion of the companions as text he was taking into account the fact thatthe consensus of the companions is based upon a text

2 It appears that Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb follows the opinion of those scholars who gavegreat weight to the views of the companions He said that the companionswould not utter anything in matters pertaining to the sharjlsquoah except whatthey had heard from the Prophet himself16 These scholars also subscribed tothe opinion that even if it was the companionsrsquo own view then it ought to begranted precedence over rational evidence This was founded upon two mainarguments First the companions were present at the time of the revelation


35

and they would therefore understand the meaning of the text and thecircumstances surrounding its revelation Second by reason of their pureArabic origin they would possess the ability to understand the texts in amanner more complete and perfect than later generations for the texts wererevealed in the highest and purest form of the Arabic language

2 The Implication of Texts (malsquoqul al-naszligszlig)

Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb divided this source into the following three categories

1 Divergent meaning mafhum al-mukhhlafah or daljl al-khiƒhb Mafhum al-mukhhlafah

may be defined as a meaning derived from the words of the text in such away that it diverges from the explicit meaning thereof17

2 Implicit meaning mafhum al-Khiƒhb or laaringn al-khiƒhb Mafhum al-Khiƒhb is arationally concomitant meaning that is obtained through further investiga-tion of the signs that might be detectable therein18

3 The meaning of the texts malsquonh al-khiƒhb Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb included analogyin this category

3 Presumption of Continuity (istiszligaringhb)

Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb divided this source into two categories

1 Istiszligaringhb of reason2 Istiszligaringhb of consensus

In al-Rawpartah Ibn Qudhmah divides the sources of jurisprudence into twocategories19 namely

1 Agreed-upon sources

Qurrsquoan Sunnah Consensus Istiszligaringhb

2 Disputed sources which include

Laws of previously revealed religions The opinions of the companions Istiaringshn Istiszligaringhb

By means of a careful examination of the earlier contributions by Aringanbaljscholars it is clear that there are differences concerning Ibn Aringanbalrsquos sources of


36

law amongst the scholars of his School One such group includes al-Athram IbnAbu Yalsquola Ibn Tamjm Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn al-Jawzj and the other comprisesthe rest of the Aringanbalj scholars It can be concluded however that the mainsources of Aaringmadrsquos principles are the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensus and analogy20

This can be deduced from the following points

In the instances when mention is made of the opinion of a companion whichwas not known to be disapproved of by other companions they are in factreferring to tacit consensus

In the instances when mention is made of the companionsrsquo disagreementregarding jurisprudential rulings Aaringmad would choose the nearest of theseopinions to the texts this is in fact the act of Aaringmad returning to the sourcesof Qurrsquoan and sunnah

The fact that some of these scholars do not refer directly to explicit consensusas one of Aaringmadrsquos general principles of law does not necessarily mean thatthey believe that Aaringmad did not employ this principle By accepting as oneof the general principles of Aaringmad the undisputed opinion of a companiona fortiori they accept the consensus of the companions as a general principleIt may be also true that these scholars did not mention this principle becauseAaringmad believed that explicit consensus after the time of the companions isvery difficult to achieve (mutalsquoadhdhir)

Weak and mursal aringadjth can be included under the source sunnah but theywould not be used by Aaringmad if he could find a stronger proof namely aclearly authenticated text explicit or implicit consensus or an opinion of acompanion which is closer to the Book and sunnah

Most of the additional sources mentioned by Aringanbalj scholars can beincluded under the term lsquoanalogyrsquo for the term itself incorporates a widermeaning it can also refer to lsquoindependent reasoningrsquo that is ijtihhd The useof the term lsquoanalogyrsquo to denote ijtihhd can be found in al-Shhfilsquojrsquos bookal-Rishlah When questioned whether analogy was the same as ijtihhd Shhfirsquojreplied lsquoThese are two terms which have the same meaningrsquo21

It can be argued that those scholars who did not mention some of the sourcesmentioned by other Aringanbalj scholars failed to do so because most of themwere either preferences (ikhtihrht) between sources for example istiaringshn ormaxims for jurisprudence such as al-lsquourf (custom)

In relation to the differences amongst the Aringanbalj scholars in their act of identifyingthe Aringanbalj sources of law it appears that they occurred as a result of thefollowing main factors

The mujtahidrsquos own independent reasoning has influenced the classification ofthe sources of law within the Aringanbalj School An example to illustrate thispoint is istiszligaringhb as some scholars maintain that it is a source while others


37

disagree22 Note also that Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb in lsquoal-Tamhjd discussed the issue ofwhether or not the laws of previously revealed religions were to be regardedas having authority in Islam23 He did not however include it in the categoryof lsquotextrsquo in his classification It appears that the reason for its exclusion washis conclusion that previously revealed laws (sharlsquo man qablanh) were not to beconsidered as a source of law in Islam24 Thus the apparent differences arepartly the product of the differing methods of classification employed bythe various scholars rather than actual differences in the sources of lawthemselves

Some sources are inclusive of various sub-divisions Hence when ascholar declares his acceptance of a particular source he may be referringto a specific branch of that source Similarly those who declare theirrejection of a source may refer to the rejection of a particular branch ofthat source This is clearly evident in istiszligaringhb for those who accept it as asource refer to the acceptance of istiszligaringhb al-lsquoAdam (presumption oforiginal absence) whereas those who reject it refer to the rejection of istiszligaringhbal-aringhl (continuity of attributes) though they do accept istiszligaringhb al-lsquoAdam asa source

Some scholars were influenced by other scholars who preceded them inwriting in the field of uszligul al-fiqh This resulted in the development ofdifferent approaches to the classification of the sources of law withinthe Aringanbalj School An example of this may be observed in the Aringanbaljsources previously cited namely al-Tamhjd and al-Rawpartah Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhbin his al-Tamhjd is influenced by his sheikh Abu Yalsquola This can be discernedby means of a comparison between al-Tamhjd and Abu Yalsquolarsquos al-lsquoUddahIn contrast Ibn Qudhmah in his book al-Rawpartah was influenced by the emi-nent scholar al-Ghazhlj and his book al-Mustaszlig fh For example IbnQudhmah did not mention lsquoanalogyrsquo within his classification He didhowever devote a lengthy chapter to the discussion of the issues relating tothis source of jurisprudence at the end of his treatise and it wouldappear that he did consider analogy to be a source of law Al-Iumlufj a Aringanbaljscholar wrote a commentary on Kithb al-Rawpartah in which he states thatIbn Qudhmah should have mentioned analogy with the agreed-upon sourcesat the beginning of his treatise because analogy is one of these sources25

It is likely that the reason for Ibn Qudhmahrsquos exclusion was founded uponhis adherence to the structure of al-Ghazhlirsquos book al-Mustaszlig fh whichdoes not mention analogy with the agreed-upon sources at the beginning ofhis treatise26

Although Aaringmadrsquos principal sources of law were the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensusand analogy this does not mean that he did not adopt the other means andsources mentioned by Aringanbalj scholars He used them as a means of discern-ing preferences (ikhtiyhrht) between sources or employed them as maxims forjurisprudence but not as independent sources


38

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos basic principles of jurisprudence

The researcher who studies Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudence and its principlesencounters difficulty in identifying his sources of law As a consequence ascertainingwhether he was a mujtahid or muqallid in this matter is problematic This difficulty isfurther compounded by the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah did not author a complete trea-tise concerning uszligul al-fiqh through which these sources could be readily identified

Some contemporary writers have argued either that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sourcesare the same as those of Ibn Aringanbal27 or that he was a Aringanbalj scholar28 Theyhave nevertheless disagreed in their identification of these sources Abu Zahrahstates that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources of law were the following29

Naszligszlig (text) according to him this includes the Qurrsquoan and sunnah Consensus Analogy lsquoThe remainder of the sourcesrsquo Abu Zahrah clarifies that this category

includes the following sources of law

ndash Opinions of the companionsndash Istiszligaringhbndash Maszliglaaringah mursalah Abu Zahrah suggests that this source would include

istiaringshnndash Sadd al-dharhrsquoilsquo (blocking the means that is preventing the use of lawful

means to achieve unlawful ends)

These sources were also mentioned by al-lsquoUƒayshhn30 who also expressed hes-itation concerning whether or not to treat lsquocustomrsquo as one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquossources31

This is different from al-Manszligur who states that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources oflaw were the following32

Qurrsquoan Sunnah Consensus Opinions of the companions Analogy Istiszligaringhb Maszliglaaringah mursalah Sadd al-Dharhrsquoilsquo Custom

Finally it is noted that Sulaymhn considers the following to be Ibn Taymiyyahrsquossources of law33

Qurrsquoan Sunnah


39

Consensus Opinions of the companions Analogy Sadd al-Dharhrsquoilsquo

By means of a careful analysis of the aforementioned studies the following fourconclusions can be drawn

1 It would appear that most of those scholars who claim that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquossources of law were identical to those of Ibn Aringanbal did not base their claimon a comprehensive study of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises Rather this opinionappears to be founded on the premise that it was known that he was aAringanbalj scholar Furthermore it appears that some of them merely adoptedthe opinion of other scholars

2 Despite the affirmation made by several scholars that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquossources were identical to those of Ibn Aringanbal they differed in their identifi-cation of those sources

3 Some scholars who identified Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources of law admit thatcertain sources were included in their list because the writers themselves feltthat Ibn Taymiyyah had attached importance to them and not because IbnTaymiyyah had himself declared that they were his sources of law34

4 The main reason accounting for the differing opinions amongst contemporarywriters concerning Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources of law is the absence of acomplete treatise written by Ibn Taymiyyah on the subject

We can therefore conclude that it is essential to trace Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources byreference to his own treatises and jurisprudence As a consequence the remainderof this section is devoted to identifying these sources via two methods

1 Identifying Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos attitude towards the Aringanbalj School of law inaddition to the other schools This will provide us with some indication as tohis preferred principles

2 Tracing the sources of Ibn Taymiyyah in his own treatises

A section will thereafter follow in which a comparison will be made between thegeneral basic principles of Ibn Taymiyyah and those of Ibn Aringanbal

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos attitudes towards the AringanbaljSchool and other Islamic schools of law

Before embarking upon this sectionrsquos discussion it should be pointed out thatcertainly my aim is not to reach a conclusion as to which Islamic school of law isthe most accurate of the four well-known schools Rather my aim is solely to tryto identify which school Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrated a tendency towards (andindeed whether or not he considered himself to be a follower of any particular


40

school) It is not possible in this survey to compare the merits and demerits of eachof the schools

Ibn Taymiyyah praises Ibn Aringanbal and his School on several occasions Hestates that Ibn Aringanbalrsquos knowledge and that of his followers was commonlyrecognised by scholars35 In certain instances he mentions that the reason for hispraise of the Aringanbalj School was its strict adherence to the Qurrsquoan and sunnahand to the opinions of the companions and their followers36 Ibn Taymiyyahbelieves that this strict adherence to the texts results in Ibn Aringanbalrsquos views beingdevoid of any opinions which conflicted with the Qurrsquoan and sunnah37

As for weak opinions Ibn Taymiyyah states that despite the existence of certainweak opinions within Aringanbalj jurisprudence there also usually exist otheropinions which conform to the correct ruling on the same issues38

Ibn Taymiyyah considers Ibn Aringanbal to be a just scholar who judged everyother scholar according to his merits39 He also praises the Aringanbaljs for their unityand he describes their scholars as having fewer disagreements amongst themselvesthan those of any other school of law40

Ibn Taymiyyah defends the existence of some mufradht in the Aringanbalj SchoolHe says that the greater portion of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos mufradht on which there is nodisagreement within the Aringanbalj School are the correct opinions He goes on tosay that what are termed mufradht by some people because Ibn Aringanbal disagreedon these issues with Abu Aringanifah and al-Shhfilsquoj are in fact not mufradht at all Thisis because Mhlik either agrees with Ibn Aringanbal concerning these issues or sub-scribes to an opinion which is very similar to his Hence it is not accurate to termthem mufradht Ibn Taymiyyah also says that the opinion of Ibn Aringanbal and Mhlikconcerning these issues is often the most correct one41

This is Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos attitude towards the Aringanbalj School but what is hisopinion about the other schools of law

It can be concluded from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises that he was full of praisefor those scholars who based their opinions on their independent reasoning suchas Abu Aringanifah Mhlik Shhfilsquoj and al-Awazhlsquoj and he refers to them as mujtahidsHe believes that Mhlikrsquos uszligul was the most accurate while claiming that it was per-fected by Aaringmad In yet another statement he praises Shhfilsquoj for his disagreementand correction of the Ahl al-Madjnah School42

It would appear that these statements uttered by Ibn Taymiyyah contradictone another and do not clearly convey and demonstrate his jurisprudential incli-nation Fortunately we are able to consult his work Iacuteiaringaringat Uszligul Madhhab Ahl

al-Mad jnah (The Correctness of the Principles of the Madjnah School of Law) inseeking to reconcile these statements He begins this treatise by declaring that theSchool of Madjnah was the most correct School in relation to both its uszligul andits furulsquo This superiority was confined however to the time of the companionstheir followers and the generation after them43

Ibn Taymiyyah cited both textual and rational evidence to support thisstatement He quotes the tradition of the Prophet in which he states lsquothe peopleof my generation are the best then those who follow them and then those who


41

follow the latterrsquo44 The rational evidence which is quoted concerns the fact thatthese generations lived either with the Prophet or close to his time One wouldexpect them to have adhered closely to the sunnah of the Prophet and their knowl-edge of the sunnah to have been more comprehensive than that of people whoresided in other parts of the Islamic world and in later times45 This adherence tothe sunnah was augmented by the fact that various forms of innovations hadappeared in various parts of the Islamic world but not in Madjnah46

Ibn Taymiyyah analyses the historical roots of the School of Madjnah andstates that this School of law founded its rulings upon the sunnah of the Prophetwhenever a tradition could be found They would adhere to the ruling of lsquoUmarin the event that no tradition of the Prophet was available lsquoUmar was a com-panion who was known to have followed the Prophet in both the uszligul and the furulsquoand who was also known for consulting Ahl al-Shurh It was even mentioned thatMhlik narrated the greater portion of his Muwaƒƒarsquo from Rabjlsquoah who narrated itfrom Salsquojd Ibn al-Musayyib who transmitted it from lsquoUmar47

After analysing the geographical location of the various schools of law at thetime of Mhlik Ibn Taymiyyah states that the knowledge of Ahl al-Madjnah waspraised and acknowledged by all parts of the Islamic world with the exception ofKufah As a consequence this School spread to Egypt al-Shhm and Iraq IbnTaymiyyah goes on to say that even the people of Kufah did not claim to bein possession of greater knowledge than the people of Madjnah before theassassination of lsquoUthmhn48

It may appear therefore that Ibn Taymiyyah gave Mhlikrsquos School preferenceout of the various schools of law It seems more likely however that in most casesIbn Taymiyyahrsquos comparison is actually between Ahl al-Madjnah and Ahl al-Rarsquoywhere he considers Ahl al-Madjnah to be more representative of Ahl al-AringadjthTherefore when Ibn Taymiyyah expresses a preference for the School of Ahl al-Madjnah over the School of Ahl al-Rarsquoy he is in fact expressing his preference forthe method of Ahl al-Aringadjth over Ahl al-Rarsquoy as opposed to the School of Mhlikover the other schools of law This can be supported by the following six points

1 His praise of the people of Madjnah is restricted for the most part to a periodbefore the existence of the Mhlikj School of law

2 Ibn Taymiyyah enumerated the most praiseworthy characteristics of thisSchool in his treatise

They adhered more strongly to the traditions of the Prophet in theirmethod of deducing rulings

They had an extensive knowledge of sunnah49 which meant that they didnot need to consider rarsquoy in most cases

These are of course also the characteristic features of Ahl al-Aringadjth3 Ibn Taymiyyah commends several scholars such as al-Awzhlsquoj50 although

they were not affiliated to the School of Mhlik Rather they were eminentscholars who introduced independent schools or demonstrated a preference


42

for the method of Ahl al-Aringadjth Again this lends weight to the submissionthat Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preference was for the Ahl al-Aringadjth rather thanMhlikrsquos School per se

4 Ibn Taymiyyah states that Ibn Aringanbal would deliver fathwh founded upon theSchool of Madjnah a school which he preferred to that of Ahl al-Irhq but healso adds that it is common knowledge that Aaringmad based his uszligul on themethod of Ahl al-Aringadjth because he was affiliated with his School51 Thisshows that according to Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn Aringanbal considers the people ofMadjnah as synonymous with Ahl al-Aringadjth This explanation is supportedby Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own words when he states that Ibn Aringanbal used to referthose who had questions to Ahl al-Aringadjth and Ahl al-Madjnah52

5 Ibn Taymiyyah mentions as being affiliated to this school scholars such asIsaringhq Abu lsquoUbayd and Abu Thawr These individuals were not Mhlikjscholars but rather from Ahl al-Aringadjth Ibn Taymiyyah continues by sayinglsquoand other scholars of Ahl al-Aringadjthrsquo53

6 Ibn Taymiyyah states that one of the reasons for his preference for the Schoolof Madjnah was the extensive knowledge of its exponents concerning thescience of aringadjth and the chains of narrators as opposed to the School ofKufah who possessed less knowledge concerning these matters Furthermorethe fabrication of aringadjth was widespread in that part of the world particularlyby the Shjlsquoah54 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of Ahl al-Kufah here is clearly acriticism of the tendencies of Ahl al-Rarsquoy

Ibn Taymiyyah does mention on certain occasions that the School of Mhlik(and not Ahl al-Madjnah as was his habit in this treatise) was the most accuratein the matter of uszligul Nevertheless he himself says that al-Shhfilsquoj studied underMhlik and thereafter praises al-Shhfilsquoj for the views he held that conflicted withthose of Mhlik Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah goes so far as to say that somepeople included al-Shhfilsquoj within the al-Aringijhz School of law He also added thatal-Shhfilsquoj in the opinion of the followers of Mhlik was deemed one of them butthat al-Shhfilsquoj disagreed with Mhlik on certain issues Ibn Taymiyyah attributesthis disagreement to al-Shhfilsquojrsquos status as a mujtahid55 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos categorisa-tion of al-Shhfilsquoj within the School of al-Aringijhz can be considered an attempt byhim to identify a broader school than that of Madjnah alone again expressing hispreference for Ahl al-Aringadjth above all else

Having accepted that Ibn Taymiyyah expressed a preference for the School ofMadjnah but only in the sense of it being representative at its time of Ahlal-Aringadjth it is necessary to delve further to ascertain which School IbnTaymiyyah demonstrated a tendency towards Beyond the fact that later scholarscategorised him within the Aringanbalj School there are other pointers towards hispreference for this School

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos initial instruction was primarily founded upon the AringanbaljSchool and this must have exerted a great influence upon him


43

As mentioned previously Ibn Taymiyyah praises the Aringanbalj School and itssources of law He expresses his admiration for Ibn Aringanbal emphasisingthat he based his sources on the texts of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah and the athhrof the companions

Although Ibn Taymiyyah praises Mhlikrsquos uszligul in his work Iacuteiaringaringat Uszligul Madhhab

Ahl al-Madjnah he goes on to state that it was Ibn Aringanbal who perfected thisuszligul

When Ibn Aringanbal himself was questioned in relation to who out of Mhlik orSufiyhn was the most knowledgeable of the sunnah and the athhr of the compan-ions he replied lsquoMhlikrsquo56 Ibn Taymiyyah however asserts that Aaringmadrsquos prefer-ence for the Mhlikj School over Sufyhnrsquos School was in fact a preference for Ahlal-Madjnah over Ahl al-Irhq (ie Ahl al-Rarsquoy) because Sufyhn was the leader ofthe scholars of Iraq57

It is clear that by his expression of preference for Mhlikrsquos School IbnTaymiyyah is referring to the state of the School at the time of Mhlik himselfThis view can be supported by the following points

Ibn Taymiyyah restricted his praise of the School of Ahl al-Madjnah to thetime of the companions their followers and the generation who succeededthem Mhlik lived during the second Islamic century (93ndash179711ndash795) andhe is counted amongst the third generation Al-Shhfilsquoj (150ndash204767ndash820)and Aaringmad (164ndash241780ndash855) became famous independent scholars afterthe death of Mhlik Therefore when Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that theSchool of Mhlik was the most correct School in the third generation of Islamthis does not include a comparison with the Schools of Al-Shhfilsquoj andAaringmad

Ibn Taymiyyah stated elsewhere that following the death of Mhlik Baghdadbecame the leading centre of knowledge and no other region It is knownthat Ibn Aringanbal and other scholars of Ahl al-Aringadjth were living there duringthat time58

Al-Shhfilsquoj mentioned concerning the Muwaƒƒarsquo lsquoIt is the most authentic bookafter the book of Allahrsquo59 Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed this opinion saying lsquoIt isas he (ie al-Shhfilsquoj) may Allah be pleased with him saidrsquo Despite the factthat it is generally agreed that szligaaringjaring al-Bukhhrj and Muslim are the mostauthentic books after the book of Allah Ibn Taymiyyah explains that lsquoitought to be noted that at the time of Shhfilsquojrsquos statement this was correctbecause the two works of szligaaringjaring aringadjth had yet to be compiledrsquo60

When Ibn Taymiyyah compares the School of Ahl al-Aringadjth with the Schoolof Ahl al-Rarsquoy it is clear that he prefers the School of Ahl al-Aringadjth ThisSchool comprises the Shhfilsquoj and Aringanbalj schools in addition to the Schoolof Ahl al-Madjnah or Aringijhz When Ibn Taymiyyah compares and contraststhese three schools however we notice him commending the School ofAaringmad and stating that the opinions of this School are the most correct on


44

numerous issues This praise is only occasionally extended to the Shhfilsquoj andMhlikj Schools He asserts that the School of Aaringmad and occasionally Shhfilsquojoccupies a moderate position between that of the School of Ahl al-Rarsquoy andthe School of Ahl al-Madjnah or Hijhz61

It is clear therefore that Ibn Taymiyyah admired the Aringanbalj School Didthis admiration cause him to follow Ibn Aringanbalrsquos sources of law rigidly or didhe merely adapt these sources Did he adapt them or did he have his ownsources

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises clearly indicate that he possessed great respect forall the mujtahid scholars In one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fathwh he was askedwhether or not Aaringmad was the greatest scholar Ibn Taymiyyah responded thatpreference between scholars is not usually based upon clear decisive proofsbut rather on speculation and inclination He goes on to state that this set of spec-ulation leads to the fragmentation of the Muslim community which is forbiddenin Islam62

He explains that an individual is required to respect all the mujtahids for inIslam they will all be rewarded for their independent reasoning even if they errin their judgement63

Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say that even if a person adheres to a particularSchool he should not condemn other peoplesrsquo opinions outright

In summary he feels that it is not correct to provide a general answer to thisquestion the followers of each scholar will inevitably claim that their Imam is thebest whereas those who have extensive experience in the field know that everyscholar has certain issues on which his opinions are the most correct It is thereforenot accurate to generalise when answering such questions64

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos general principles ofjurisprudence

Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the sources of law in various works As mentioned earlierin various places Ibn Taymiyyah states that the sources of law are four namelyQurrsquoan sunnah consensus and analogy65 In the work Qawhlsquoid al-Karhmht (Maximsof Miracles) however Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the following ways of deriving asharlsquoj ruling66

Qurrsquoan Sunnah He divides the sunnah into categories

ndash the mutawhtir sunnah that explains and elaborates on a Qurrsquoanic text anddoes not conflict with the apparent meaning of the Qurrsquoan

ndash the mutawhtir sunnah that does not elaborate upon a text of the Qurrsquoanand is even claimed to conflict with the apparent meaning of theQurrsquoan


45

ndash the mutawhtir sunnah that later scholars accepted because it had beengenerally accepted by former scholars or was narrated by trustworthynarrators

Consensus Analogy Istiszligaringhb Maszliglaaringah Mursalah

The apparent contradiction between Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos two citations of sourcesof law can perhaps be understood by recourse to another area in his treatiseswhere he explains that the sources of Islamic law are divided into two broadcategories67

1 What was conveyed by the Messengers and therefore leads to certainty Thisincludes the Qurrsquoan sunnah and consensus Ibn Taymiyyah states that thistype of source is pure correct and not mixed with falsehood

2 What was either not conveyed by the Messengers at all or was conveyedby them but neither allows certainty to be attained (lsquoilm) nor leads todoubt (ie it leads to conjecture) Ibn Taymiyyah says that this kind ofsource is a mixture of truth and falsehood It can be explained throughexamples

An example of a source of law not conveyed by the Messengers is inspiration(ilhhm) This form of deduction can lead to both correct and incorrect conclu-sions In another place in al-Fathwh Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that this methodoccasionally gives the scholar who has an extensive knowledge of the Qurrsquoan andsunnah and other sources of legal rulings the ability to choose correctly betweenconflicting opinions and proofs Despite this it cannot be claimed that inspirationis an infallible independent method of deduction which always leads to a correctconclusion this method cannot be used by scholars who do not have an extensiveknowledge of the sources of Islamic law68

An example of a source conveyed by Messengers but not leading to certainknowledge is analogy It is clearly referred to in the Qurrsquoan and was practised bythe Prophet It does not however always lead to correct and certain conclusionsbut sometimes leads to conjecture As a consequence the results of analogy willnot always be acceptable69

This last method of classifying the sources of Islamic law sheds some light onwhy Ibn Taymiyyah refers to these sources in different ways Whenever hementions that the sources of law are the Qurrsquoan sunnah and ijmhlsquo he means thesources which contain certain knowledge70 Another explanation for the differ-ences in his classifications of the sources of law is that the three aforementionedsources constitute the main sources from which others are derived For example


46

the use of analogy and istiszligaringhb are based on the fact that they are used by andreferred to in the main sources Therefore when Ibn Taymiyyah refers to thesethree alone as the sources of Islamic law he is referring to the primary sources ofIslamic law and not to all of the sources of Islamic law

It could also be that Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally mentions these three sourcesbecause they are agreed upon as opposed to others which are the subject of dis-agreement amongst scholars

It is evident from the aforementioned statements that Ibn Taymiyyah does notrefer to the opinions of the companions as a source of law Nevertheless it can beinferred from other statements of his that he does give weight to their opinionsBefore citing some examples it should be remembered that Ibn Aringanbal dividesthe opinions of the companions into two types The first type is where there is nodisagreement amongst the companions Aaringmad considers this to be a source oflaw When disagreement occurred amongst the companions Aaringmad would selectthe opinion he felt to be closest to the texts

Ibn Taymiyyah appears to support Ibn Aringanbalrsquos approach towards thecompanionsrsquo opinions He states that there is no doubt that when the first fourcaliphs enacted certain laws which provoked no disagreement amongst theremainder of the companions this ought to be considered as a proof71 This typeof opinion emanating from the companions is in fact a type of consensus knownas the istiqrhrsquoj consensus Ibn Taymiyyah also asserts that during the course of hislengthy journey on the path of knowledge he did not come across any opinionagreed upon by the companions which conflicted with the sound analogy72 Thisindicates that Ibn Taymiyyah had come to the conclusion that the companionswere infallible when they were in complete agreement

If there was a disagreement amongst the companions regarding certain issuesIbn Taymiyyah states that the solution is found by taking into consideration thegeneral principles and spirit of the sharjlsquoah on that particular issue73

Similarly the categories of weak and mursal aringadjth were included in Aaringmadrsquossources of law but are not mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah as one of his sources oflaw Once again however this does not mean that he did not implement thesesources he refers to them in other places and clarifies what is acceptable as asource of law from these categories Ibn Taymiyyah admits that Ahmad acceptedweak aringad jth as a source of law but he asserts that what Aaringmad intended by weakaringadjth is not what the later generations understood by this term He claims thatweak aringadjth in Aaringmadrsquos terminology is comparable to the term aringadjth aringasan74 Asfor mursal aringadjth he accepts it as a source of law provided that it is a mursal ema-nating from one of the first three generations of Islam He believes that this wasthe correct position of Ibn Aringanbal on this issue75

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos acceptance of weak aringadjths and the opinions of companionsfurther indicates his Ahl al-Aringadjth tendency He preferred to rely on traditionrather than develop new rulings although always keeping a keen eye on the generalprinciples of the sharjlsquoah


47

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos basic principles of jurisprudence compared with those of Ibn Aringanbal

By means of a careful comparison of the statements of Aaringmad and IbnTaymiyyah it appears that the principles upon which these two scholars basedtheir jurisprudential thought were to a considerable degree identical As we con-cluded earlier Aaringmadrsquos jurisprudential principles can be stripped down to fourmain sources namely the Qurlsquoan sunnah consensus and analogy

We saw earlier that Ibn Taymiyyah relies on several general principles theQurrsquoan the sunnah consensus analogy istiszligaringhb and maszliglaaringah mursalah

It is proposed that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos principles are in fact founded upon thesame four foundations adopted by Aaringmad The following points can be notedabout Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos views on these principles

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the Qurrsquoan is accepted by all Sunni scholars as asource of law

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the three types of mutawhtir mentioned by him areaccepted as proofs in Islamic law without dispute among the scholars withthe exception of al-Khawhrij who denied the authority of the second type ofmutawhtir (ie that which is independent of a Qurrsquoanic text and apparentlyconflicts with one) and some of Ahl al-Kalhm and others who denied allor some of the last type of mutawhtir (ie that which is accepted by laterscholars because it had been generally accepted by former scholars or wasnarrated by trustworthy narrators) It seems that Ibn Taymiyyah merelyintended by this categorisation of the sunnah to point out the existence ofsome dispute regarding their varying levels of authority among the scholarsin Islamic law he would have considered them as a single source

He accepts the authority of consensus as a source of law but feels that it is highlyunlikely that explicit consensus can take place after the era of the companions

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that analogy can be used as a source of law whenthere is no text available76

Although Ibn Taymiyyah apparently accepts sources other than thosementioned by Aaringmad it can be argued that some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos addi-tional lsquosourcesrsquo are not really sources at all for example it is highly improb-able that Ibn Taymiyyah considers istiszligaringhb as an independent source of lawit is in reality merely one of the methods of implementing the sources oflaw77 Ibn Taymiyyah also states that all real maszlighliaring are in fact located withinthe sharlsquoj texts78 In other words although maszliglaaringah mursalah relates to thoseitems of common good for which there are no explicit texts the principle ofmaszlighliaring is derived from the Qurrsquoan and sunnah

The assertion that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos principles are identical to those of IbnAringanbal can also be supported by the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah does not criti-cise any of Aaringmadrsquos general principles On the contrary he commends thesegeneral principles on various occasions79 Indeed Ibn Taymiyyah expresses


48

his appreciation for the distinguished methodology which he regards asbeing based upon the amalgamation of an extensive knowledge of aringadjth andjurisprudence At the same time Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that Aaringmad com-manded a very good relationship with the scholars of these two sciences80

When a disagreement concerning certain issues within the general principles ofjurisprudence does occur we find that their disagreement is usually inconse-quential For instance both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Aringanbal refer to the Qurrsquoanand sunnah as the prime sources of law According to Ibn Qayyim however IbnAringanbal treats these two sources as essentially one source This combined sourceoccupies the first place in Ibn Aringanbalrsquos ranking of sources In contrast IbnTaymiyyah treats these two sources separately Nevertheless these two opinionsdo not really conflict with one another When Ibn Aringanbal refers to the Qurrsquoanand sunnah as a single source he is taking into consideration the fact that on thewhole the sunnah is an explanation of Qurrsquoan and both are considered to be rev-elation Hence he believes they should be considered as one source Ibn Aringan-balrsquos teacher al-Shhfilsquoj influenced him on this point Ibn Taymiyyah on theother hand considers that the sunnah is recognised as an independent source oflaw by the Qurrsquoan itself and should therefore occupy a different rank81

The similarity between the general principles of these two scholars can befurther evidenced through the considerable concordance in their jurispru-dential rulings Disagreement over general principles is one of the primarycauses for disagreements in rulings among the scholars In the instanceswhere Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulings differ from those of Ibn Aringanbal we find thatthis cannot usually be attributed to differences in their general principlesRather it was because Ibn Taymiyyah thought that there was a contradictionbetween the fatwh of Ibn Aringanbal and his own general principles On severaloccasions Ibn Taymiyyah censures Aringanbalj scholars for the existence ofopinions within the School which contradict the general principles of Aaringmadand are yet attributed to him He asserts that the scholars either narratedAaringmadrsquos opinion incorrectly or misunderstood his words82

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos eagerness to measure the opinions in the School againstAaringmadrsquos principles of jurisprudence indicates his great respect for these principlesHad he harboured misgivings about these principles he would not have sought tolsquopurifyrsquo the School of opinions deviating from them Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos acceptanceof Ibn Aringanbalrsquos principles would suggest that he was happy to consider himself afollower of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos School There may yet however be scope to argue that hecan be classified as an absolute mujtahid independent of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos School

To examine this point the next section looks at

the nature of education in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time the classification of scholars in Islamic law the opinions of some leading scholars regarding Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly

rank


49

The nature of education in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos life is considered to fall within the stage of history known as theera of taqlid according to writers who specialise in the evolution of jurisprudenceThe majority of scholars were either adding to or explaining an area alreadyknown or gathering information connected to it rather than developing newprinciples and disciplines The legal doctrines that they transmitted and propa-gated were primarily restricted to the four dominant schools of law83

Nevertheless most of these scholars and writers accept that during this era therewere some eminent scholars who were recognised for their independent thoughtand their unique treatises84 A large number cite Ibn Taymiyyah as an example ofthe mujtaihd scholars who were found during the era of taqlid85

Despite the restricted nature of scholarly activity it appears that educationflourished during the time of Ibn Taymiyyah particularly in Egypt and al-Shhmfor the following reasons86

the shift in the focal point for education from Baghdad to Egypt andal-Shhm following the fall of the Abbasid caliphate at the hands of theMongols in 6561258

the appearance of several distinguished scholars in various disciplines the particular attention granted by the sultans of the time to knowledge

and the learned the existence and establishment of a large number of schools and institutes

of learning for instance al-Jhmilsquo al-Azhar Jhmilsquo al-lsquoAƒhrin al-IacutehliaringiyyahSchool (6411243) al-Manszliguriyyah (6841285) and al-Nhszligiriyyah(7031304) in Egypt87 and Jhmilsquo Damascus and al-Iacutehliaringiyyah88 in al-ShhmThere were at least 200 schools teaching Arabic and Islamic sciences inDamascus alone89 Some of these were affiliated to one or more schools oflaw while others taught all four schools90

Other than these centres of learning there were several libraries thatcontained a large number of references covering many different branches ofknowledge91

The classification of scholars in Islamic law92

There are several classifications for scholars mentioned in treatises on ifthrsquoprinciples of jurisprudence and some of the books of fiqh The classificationsare often given in the context of who is entitled to give a legal opinion ( fatwh)and what types of cases such a mufti can give opinions on Ibn al-Qayyimfor example in his treatise entitled Ilsquolhm al-Muwaqqilsquojn classifies Muftis into fourcategories

The absolute independent mujtahid Those who possess a wide knowledge of thesources of law such as the sciences of the Qurrsquoan sunnah and the opinions of the


50

companions These scholars adhere to the evidence and not to other scholarsrsquoopinions Ibn al-Qayyim recognises however that even these scholars mayimitate others in certain issues without negating their claim to be mujtahids heargues that all the Imams imitated some scholars who were more knowledgeablethan them on certain issues

According to Ibn al-Qayyim this category of scholars has the right to issuefathwh and it is permissible to consult them concerning any legal rulings in Islamiclaw Furthermore these scholars are the ones to whom weight is given in novelissues of independent reasoning

Affiliated mujtahid This type of mujtahid is well versed in both the fathwh of anImam and his general principles These scholars are able to formulate an analogyand derive rulings for particular issues founding their analogy and derivations onthe previous fathwh of that Imam They support the School as well as the generalprinciples of the Imams with whose opinions they are well acquaintedFurthermore they organise the opinions of the Imam and support them withadditional proofs

Ibn al-Qayyim states that this category of mujtahids are not muqallids in relationto the ruling or the evidence of the Imam to whom they are affiliated They willdiscard individual rulings of their Imam where they deem it appropriate This isbecause as Ibn al-Qayyim asserts these scholars only followed these Imams intheir methodology of independent reasoning and fatwh

Restricted mujtahid Similar to the previous rank this mujtahid is well versed inthe fathwh and opinions of an Imam and their legal evidence Such scholars donot however question or disagree with these proofs They believe that they do notneed to obtain knowledge in the general principles of Islamic jurisprudence asthe texts of their Imam are sufficient for them This is founded upon the premisethat the Imam arrived at this evidence after a deep study of the legal texts of thesharjlsquoah and his conclusions should be sufficient for his followers

This category includes a large number of scholars affiliated to the schools oflaw over the ages most of whom have left scholarly works in the fiqh of theirschool According to Ibn al-Qayyim these scholars neither claimed to reach thestatus of independent reasoning nor acknowledged being muqallids

Muqallids This category of scholars committed the fathwh of their Imam tomemory without taking into consideration his legal evidence Hence when theydiscover correct legal proofs that are apparently contrary to their Imamrsquos positionthey follow their Imamrsquos opinions and ignore the contrary evidence According toIbn al-Qayyim this group of scholars admits the fact that they are muqallids oftheir Imams in every respect93

The rank of Ibn Taymiyyah among his contemporaries

According to al-Dhahabj Ibn Taymiyyah started issuing fathwh as early as whenhe was only 19 or even 17 years old94 his fathwh at this stage and for a considerable


51

period afterwards were based upon the Aringanbalj School95 In later years and afteracquiring a vast amount of knowledge he developed his own method of deliver-ing legal verdicts These edicts were founded directly on the original sources oflaw Al-Dhahabj compares him with other scholars and Imams at the height oftheir knowledge when he describes him as lsquoa scholar who ladles his knowledgefrom a sea whereas other scholars ladle from streamletsrsquo96 Al-Birzhlj a studentof Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that his Sheikh had attained the status of ijtihhd andthat all of the conditions of the mujtahid were fulfilled by him97

It is not clear however from al-Birzhljrsquos statement what type of conditionsstipulated by the rank of a mujtihid were fulfilled in Ibn Taymiyyah Did he refer tothe restricted mujtahid or the absolute mujtahid This is all the more unclearbecause we do not have details of al-Birzhljrsquos conditions for ijtihhd Scholarsthrough the ages have differed on details of the ranks and requirements ofijtihhd Al-Dhahabj is more emphatic claiming that Ibn Taymiyyah had attainedthe level of absolute ijtihhd98 In his view Ibn Taymiyyah superseded all othersin the science of jurisprudence disagreement within the schools of law andthe fathwh issued by the companions and their followers Thus when hedelivered a fatwh he would not confine himself to a specific school of lawrather he based his opinions exclusively on what he understood from theevidence99

In general terms the conditions required of an absolute mujtihid are that hehas profound knowledge of the Qurrsquoan aringadjth and principles of jurisprudencean acquaintance with the essence and spirit of the sharjlsquoah and a proficiency inthe Arabic language100 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fathwh clearly demonstrate that theseconditions were fulfilled by him101 This is augmented by the testimony ofseveral leading scholars who affirmed that Ibn Taymiyyah had attained anelevated status in several sciences Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj states that Ibn Taymiyyahhad mastered various sciences including the interpretation of the Qurrsquoan andthe principles of jurisprudence102 Al-Mizzj a leading scholar in aringad jth testifiesthat he had not encountered a scholar like Ibn Taymiyyah and that he had notseen anyone more knowledgeable than him in the science of Qurrsquoan and thearingadjth103 Even al-Zamalkhnj one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents concedesthat when an individual asked Ibn Taymiyyah a question concerning a sciencethe comprehensive nature of his answers would lead him to believe that hewas well acquainted with the subject of the question After studying some ofthe fathwh issued by Ibn Taymiyyah al-Zamalkhnj expresses his appreciationfor them and affirms that the conditions of ijtihhd were fulfilled by IbnTaymiyyah104 His deep proficiency in the sciences of the Arabic language isalso evident from a review of his various treatises He was willing to challengeand reject certain accepted precepts in this science Ibn Taymiyyah disaffirmedthe concept of metaphor opposing the later scholars of this science who sub-scribed to the opinion that metaphor exists in the language105 He disagreedwith Sjbawayh concerning seventy issues contained in his book al-Kithb Thisdisagreement prompted Abu Aringayyhn a scholar who honoured Sjbawayh and


52

his magnum opus al-Kithb to turn against Ibn Taymiyyah having initially beenamongst his admirers106

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyah considered himself to be a mujtihid as well Thisis illustrated by an incident which is mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ilsquolhmal-Muwaqqilsquojn He mentions that some Aringanbaljs criticised Ibn Taymiyyah becausehe was teaching in a Aringanbalj institute and receiving payment for it whereas hecould not be described as a Aringanbalj scholar by reason of his status as an absolutemujtahid He responded to this criticism by arguing that the payment he receivedwas a payment for his teaching and that he was deserving of it for his knowledgeof the Aringanbalj law and not because of his imitation of it107

This discussion serves the purpose of establishing the status of Ibn Taymiyyahas a mujtahid Evidence for his position within the various categories of mujtahid canbe obtained from his jurisprudential writings Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos works in jurispru-dence can be classified generally speaking into three types

1 Works which were compiled at an early stage of his career Ibn Taymiyyahindicates in his fathwh that he imitated some scholars in the writing of atreatise dealing with aringajj He even admits that this book included incorrectopinions which he became aware of later on108

2 Works written during an intermediate stage Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos work Shararingal-lsquoUmdah109 can be included under this category Also some opinions foundin the collected fathwh of Ibn Taymiyyah issued from this period110

3 Works emanating from the third and final stage of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarlylife There are several works which were written during this final stage themost important of which is the greater portion of the collected fathwh of IbnTaymiyyah These works display more circumspection in choosing betweenthe opinions of other scholars These works reflect an independent mindwilling to criticise popular opinions and to develop entirely new opinionswhile also critically selecting from the opinions of all the schools

This classification suggests that by the final phase of his scholarly developmenthe had ceased to be a muqallid and could not even be said to have been a restrictedmujtahid Therefore he must have been either an independent absolute mujtahid or anabsolute mujtahid who chose to adopt another scholarrsquos general principles of law andmethod of independent reasoning having concluded that this scholarrsquos method wascorrect

Some Aringanbalj scholars and others claimed that he was an independentabsolute mujtahid111 whereas others considered him an absolute mujtahid whoadopted Aaringmadrsquos general principles of law and method of independent reason-ing112 In order to arrive at a safe conclusion on this issue the following importantpoints ought to be considered

The independent absolute mujtahid and dependent absolute mujtahid occupythe same rank in knowledge The only difference between them is that the


53

independent absolute mujtahid uses his own sources of law as opposed to thedependent absolute mujtahid who employs another scholarrsquos general princi-ples of law113 Therefore the criterion used in order to differentiate betweenthese two scholars is a question of whether or not they choose to employ theirown sources of law Both classes are equally capable of using their ownsources should they wish to do so

It has been concluded in this chapter that Ibn Taymiyyah used the samesources of law as Aaringmad His additions to them were primarily clarificationsof unclear points and corrections directed at Aringanbalj scholars rather thanIbn Aringanbal himself

These two points taken together indicate that Ibn Taymiyyah was a dependentabsolute mujtahid This conclusion is supported by the statements of Ibn al-Qayyim in which he clarifies the status of his teacherrsquos knowledge in Aringanbaljlaw He claims that his teacherrsquos opinions enjoy a position not less and may beeven higher than the opinions of leading scholars in the Aringanbalj School such asIbn lsquoAqjl Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and even their teacher Abu Yalsquola Therefore IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions can be used as the basis for fathwh and rulings within theSchool114 In another statement Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that the status of IbnTaymiyyah was higher than that of leading Aringanbalj scholars such as Abu Yalsquolaand Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb115 It is clear that Ibn al-Qayyim thinks that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosrank of ijtihhd is comparable to that of other leading Aringanbalj scholars To com-plete the analysis it is necessary to become acquainted with the rank which Ibnal-Qayyim attributes to these other scholars He says that scholars have two opin-ions with regard to whether these scholars and others similar to them were inde-pendent or dependent scholars His own view is that whosoever studies andpondered over the opinions and fathwh of these Aringanbalj scholars would reach theconclusion that they were not muqallids of their Imams for they disagreed withthem on various issues Nevertheless he also thinks that they were below the rankof the Imams in terms of independent reasoning116 It can be said that when somescholars describe Ibn Taymiyyah as a mujtahid muƒlaq they mean that he hadobtained the proper requirements for a scholar to be considered as an absolutemujtahid but this did not necessitate that he had developed his own generalprinciples of jurisprudence

The safest conclusion is that Ibn Taymiyyah ought to be considered an absolutemujtahid who at the same time chose to be dependent on Aaringmadrsquos general princi-ples of jurisprudence It also seems that Donald Little was correct when he statedthat Ibn Taymiyyah is probably the most prominent Aringanbalj scholar after AaringmadIbn Aringanbal himself117

In this chapter we have attempted to study and identify the general principlesof jurisprudence adhered to by Ibn Aringanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah We saw that theywere both scholars of Ahl al-Aringadjth preferring narrated texts whenever possibleover novel opinions At the same time they shared a sceptical attitude towardsthe concept of consensus after the time of companions and in their adherence to


54

the Qurrsquoan and sunnah were willing to disregard the opinion of any solitaryauthority It seems Ibn Taymiyyah adopted Ibn Aringanbalrsquos general principles aftercareful consideration and certainly not out of mere allegiance to his School Wesaw also that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos high rank in knowledge was acknowledged by hiscontemporaries supporters and opponents alike

In Chapter 3 an attempt is made to scrutinise his role in more detail and studysome important issues related to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role in the development of thegeneral principles of jurisprudence


55

3

RE-LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS

Ibn Taymiyyah and Aringanbalj uszligul

Introduction

Ibn Taymiyyah implements a critical method in the course of his discussion onAringanbalj jurisprudence and its general principles He scrutinises the variouscontributions of the different Aringanbalj scholars in these two fields and establishesthat there are several opinions held by these scholars which are founded uponweak or incorrect evidence1 This will be elaborated upon in due course

Even the founder of the Aringanbalj School Imam Aaringmad is subjected to thisform of critical study2 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of the Imam is howeverconsiderably less than his criticism of the Aringanbalj scholars who succeeded himIn addition Ibn Taymiyyah tends to find excuses for the Imam vindicatinghim for his incorrect opinions For instance he would argue that Aaringmad wasunaware of certain disagreements that existed among scholars because the rootof the disagreement was not known at the time of the companions and onlybecame known during the Imamrsquos time3 Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah assertsthat if one opinion of Aaringmad regarding a particular issue was weak one wouldusually find another opinion in his jurisprudence which was in conformity withthe correct one4

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of some of the Aringanbalj scholars who succeeded theImam covers various issues of jurisprudence and general principles within theAringanbalj School The first Aringanbalj scholar after the Imam to be criticised by IbnTaymiyyah was the eminent scholar al-Khallhl (d 311923) Ibn Taymiyyahstates that al-Khallhl failed to mention in his book al-Jhmilsquo a considerable numberof Aaringmadrsquos Mashrsquoil5 Al-Khiraqj (d 334945) also received criticism from IbnTaymiyyah on a number of issues6 Ibn Taymiyyah held him responsible forseveral incorrect rulings within the Aringanbalj School of law that according to IbnTaymiyyah were subsequently attributed to Imam Aaringmad7

Abu Yalsquola (d 4581066) who was the leader of the Aringanbalj School in his timeis the individual whose opinions were studied and discussed by Ibn Taymiyyah atthe greatest length On several points Ibn Taymiyyah formed the conclusion thatAbu Yalsquolarsquos opinions were either weak incorrect in need of re-examinationnot comprehensive or simply not good8 In certain instances Ibn Taymiyyah

56

demonstrates how Abu Yalsquola issued contradictory opinions on a single issue9

Occasionally however he would extrapolate from Abu Yalsquolarsquos views10 and onother occasions he even voiced his appreciation of them11

Ibn Taymiyyah is also recorded to have commented upon other Aringanbaljscholars such as Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb12 Ibn lsquoAqjl13 and Ibn Qudhmah14 He evencommented on occasions on some of the opinions of his grandfather al-Majd15

and others16

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos critical study of the Aringanbalj School of law its jurisprudencegeneral principles and scholars exerted a significance influence on the SchoolThis may be demonstrated clearly by considering the clarifications and correc-tions made by Ibn Taymiyyah to various issues covered within the School Insome of these matters Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that the predominant opinion ofthe School is in reality contrary to the words of Aaringmad In others he illustratesthe existence of contradictory opinions in the words of the Aringanbalj scholars Thischapter will demonstrate this point We will explain in detail the role of IbnTaymiyyah in the correction and clarification of various important issues relatedto the principles of the Aringanbalj School of law

It was concluded in Chapter 2 that Ibn Taymiyyah concurs with Aaringmad on thegeneral principles of law Nevertheless it can be shown that Ibn Taymiyyahplayed a strong role in developing the ruling principles of the Aringanbalj School oflaw through various means This was partly achieved through his clarification andcorrection of several important points related to the principles of the SchoolThese corrections and clarifications were aimed at other Aringanbalj scholars and nottargeted at Ibn Aringanbalrsquos own words Indeed Ibn Taymiyyah often asserts that hisopinions and views on these issues better reflected the real position of Aaringmad Inmaking these corrections therefore Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrated his respect forIbn Aringanbalrsquos principles and sought to bring the School back in line with themThe following section illustrates some important corrections Ibn Taymiyyahsought to make to the principles of the Aringanbalj School

Ibn Aringanbal and consensus (ijmalsquo) as a source of law

Jurists have made various attempts to define the term ijmhlsquo Amongst thedefinitions available we shall use the one offered by the leading scholar of uszligulal-fiqh al-Hmidj lsquoThe agreement of all recognised and qualified scholars whobelong to the community of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a certain periodof time on a ruling about a certain incidentrsquo17

It appears that an accurate definition for this source of law ought to containfive important constituents

1 unanimity2 amongst the Muslim scholars

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND AringANBALI- UIacuteUL

57

3 in any particular age4 after the death of the Prophet5 on a matter which can be included under independent reasoning18

Various narrations emanating from Ibn Aringanbal indicate his denial of consensusas a source of law He states in several narrations that whosoever claims there isconsensus amongst the scholars on any issue is lying because some scholars maydiffer without his being aware of that In another narration Ibn Aringanbal isreported to have said that the most that can be said is that there is no knowndisagreement amongst the scholars concerning a particular issue19 NeverthelessIbn Aringanbal himself made reference to consensus on various occasions20 Thisapparent contradiction has caused uncertainty over Ibn Aringanbalrsquos actual positionon consensus

Scholars affiliated to the Aringanbalj School do not deny the validity of consensusSome of these individuals offer no explanation for contradiction present in thenarrations from Aaringmad21 Others however have offered some interpretationsAbu Yalsquola in al-lsquoUddah offers two possible explanations for Ibn Aringanbalrsquos apparentlyanti-consensus statements First when Aaringmad uttered these statements he didso upon the platform of piety This means that he preferred not to deliver ajudgement concerning consensus because of his concern that he might commita mistake Therefore he did not deny the authority of the consensus in realterms Second when Ibn Aringanbal asserted that whosoever claims that there is aconsensus on an issue is lying he referred to those people who do not commandan extensive knowledge of the disagreements and differing opinions amongst thescholars This denotes that Ibn Aringanbal did not reject the claims of consensusoffered by those who command a wide knowledge of the differing opinions ofthe scholars22

These two explanations were also affirmed by the Aringanbalj scholar Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb Abu Yalsquolarsquos disciple23

Ibn Taymiyyah however offers a different explanation He says that consensusis of two types

1 An explicit consensus2 A tacit consensus

The first type of consensus denotes an agreement amongst the scholarstransmitted explicitly via a mutawhtir chain of narrators or by an action Thesecond type of consensus is similar to the first it contains no confirmation ofthe absence of any opponents24 but only a statement of the narrator that nodisagreement has become known to him

According to Ibn Taymiyyah it was Aaringmadrsquos view that the first type ofconsensus was not valid after the period of the companions had elapsed or afterthem and their followers or these two generations and the third generation ofIslam25 This means that Aaringmad restricted the acceptance of this type of


58

consensus to these three generations at most and rejected the possibility of itsexistence thereafter According to Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad formed this opinionbecause it is very unlikely that the non-existence of opponents could beirrefutably proven in a ruling issued after the time of the first three generations ofIslam Ibn Taymiyyah explains that he arrived at this conclusion after he hadthoroughly investigated the use of explicit consensus by Aaringmad26

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Ibn Aringanbal did not employ this type of consensusas a source of law except where such consensus was attributed to the afore-mentioned generations27

Although Ibn Taymiyyah does not clarify Aaringmadrsquos position concerning thesecond type he asserts that it is a proof whose establishment is not restricted to aspecific period of time According to Ibn Taymiyyah this form of consensus doesnot lead to certainty but only to probability which means that it can be set asidein favour of a stronger proof28

The use of partalsquojf and mursal aringad jthby Ibn Aringanbal

The use of weak aringad jth

It has been mentioned by several scholars that Aaringmad employed weak aringadjth asa source of law Amongst these scholars are Abu Yalsquola in his treatise al-lsquoUddahAbu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb in his book al-Tamhjd Ibn al-Jawzj in his book al-Manhqib and IbnQayyim in al-Ilsquolhm29

SomeAringanbalj scholars have attempted to explain the nature of the weak aringad jthwhich were implemented by Aaringmad as a source of law For instance Abu Yalsquolastates that the weak aringad jth used by Aaringmad are deemed weak according to theclassification of aringad jth scholars rather than that of jurists He explains thisstatement by saying that aringad jth scholars considered the mursal aringad jth al-Tadljs andthe transmission of additional information not given by other narrators as examplesof weak aringad jth These types of aringad jth are not however considered weak accordingto the method of classification employed by the jurists30 This assertion iscorroborated by his disciple Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb in his book al-Tamhjd31

Ibn Taymiyyah disagrees with the explanation offered by Abu Yalsquola and Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb concerning what is intended by weak aringad jth as employed by Aaringmad asa source in Islamic law Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos interpretation of Aaringmadrsquos positionconcerning this issue is based upon his thorough knowledge of the methodologyof the science of aringad jth in addition to his investigation of Aaringmadrsquos employmentof weak aringad jth in his jurisprudence

In relation to the methodology of the science of aringad jth Ibn Taymiyyah statesthat the reference in every science should be sought amongst its people that is itsspecialists32 Therefore the reference when determining the authenticity of aaringad jth ought to be to scholars learned in the sciences of aringad jth and rijhl33 He alsoasserts that the chains of narrations are of great importance and whosoever cites


59

a narration must be conversant with its chain before basing a ruling upon it If heis not his citation concerning even an unimportant matter will not be acceptableThis being the case how can the citation of a narration on issues pertaining tomatters as grave as uszligul be accepted without evidence of the status of its chains34

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the term lsquoweak aringad jthrsquo mentioned in Ibn Aringanbalrsquossources of law does not carry the same meaning as that given by later scholarsof aringad jth He bases this assertion on the fact that the division of aringad jth into threecategories namely szligaaringjaring aringasan and partalsquojf only appeared when al-Tirmidhj(d 279892) introduced it Before this period scholars classified aringad jth into onlytwo categories szligaaringjaring and partalsquojf The latter category itself includes two kinds of aringad jth

1 Those aringad jth that contain a weakness but whose weakness is not so serious asto render the rulings contained therein invalid

2 Those aringad jth that contain a serious weakness to the extent that the rulingscontained therein are invalidated and cannot be implemented in Islamic law

This second category of weak aringad jth is sometimes termed al-whhj (feeble)35 IbnTaymiyyah goes on to assert that Aaringmad would not transmit a tradition from anynarrator who was known to lie but narrated only from those whom he consideredto be trustworthy narrators36

One can conclude from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos interpretation that the lsquoweak aringad jthrsquothat constituted one of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos sources was not the aringad jth classified as weak inthe fully developed science of aringad jth from after the time of al-Tirmidhj Rather itwas classified as weak as opposed to being termed szligaaringjaring It includes both aringasan aringad jthand weak aringad jth without fatal defects (al-whhj) Ibn Taymiyyah also provides anexplanation for Ibn Aringanbalrsquos oft-quoted statement that he refers weak aringad jth to theuse of reason He emphasises that Aaringmad was referring here only to those aringad jthclassified as aringasan and not to aringad jth which contained a serious weakness37

The position of Ibn Taymiyyah in relation to the implementation of weakaringad jth by Aaringmad in Islamic law was adopted by several later Aringanbalj scholarssuch as Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn Badrhn and al-Turkj38

Ibn Taymiyyah also deals with the treatment of those weak traditions cited byIbn Aringanbal particularly in what is known as faparthrsquol al-alsquomhl (virtuous actions)39

Ibn Taymiyyah states that no matter can be claimed to be meritorious oracceptable in Islamic law without a sharlsquoj evidence Therefore it is not acceptableto approve of an action founded upon a weak aringad jth Despite this Ibn Taymiyyahdefends Aaringmadrsquos employment of weak aringad jth in the field of lsquovirtuous actionsrsquoclaiming that Aaringmad would cite only those aringad jth when the general ruling itselfwas based upon an acceptable aringad jth The weak aringad jth were cited only by reasonof the additional information they supplied such as the reward for a particularaction This is acceptable according to Ibn Taymiyyah provided that the scholardoes not know that the aringad jth is in fact fabricated40

Having set out Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos investigation for Aaringmadrsquos use of weak aringad jthit should be noted that the word aringasan was in fact used by a group of former


60

scholars in the field of aringad jth such as Ibn al-Madjnj al-Bukhhrj (d 256870) andeven Aaringmad himself Does this then invalidate Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos claim that theterm aringasan was first introduced to the science of aringad jth by al-Tirmidhj This pointhas been studied by al-Madkhalj who after considerable investigation arrived atthe following conclusion the scholars who employed the term aringasan before theera of al-Tirmidhj did not intend by its use what later became the alternativeterminological meaning of this word Rather they intended various meaningswhich differed from one scholar to the next41 Thus the earlier usage of the worddoes not invalidate Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos argument

The use of mursal aringad jth by Ibn Aringanbal

As mentioned previously weak and mursal aringad jth constituted the fourth category ofIbnAringanbalrsquos sources of law42 Ibn Taymiyyah notes that scholars have differed con-cerning whether a mursal aringad jth is acceptable as a proof or not He believes that thecorrect opinion is that such aringad jth can be accepted rejected or set aside dependingon the type of mursal in question The mursal aringad jth that is acceptable as a proof inIslamic law is one reported by a narrator who is known for his narration of mursal

aringad jth from trustworthy narrators The type of mursal aringad jth that is rejected as a proofin Islamic law is the aringad jth reported by a narrator who is known to contradict thenarrations of trustworthy narrators Judgement on the acceptability of a mursal

aringad jth from a narrator who occasionally narrates his mursal aringad jth from trustworthynarrators and at other times from untrustworthy narrators is suspended43 Alsowhen mursal aringad jth are narrated through so many chains that it cannot be supposedthat any forgery has taken place they are to be taken as authentic44

Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies another important point related to the mursal aringad jth Hestates that some Aringanbalj scholars such as Abu Yalsquola Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and IbnlsquoAqjl claim that there is no difference between the mursal of the earlier genera-tions (the companions their followers and their followers in turn) and subsequentgenerations in their validity as a proof Abu Yalsquola states that this is the implicitmeaning of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos words because he does not differentiate between themursal of one generation and another45

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the acceptance of the mursal from all generations is notthe true opinion of Ibn Aringanbal Ibn Taymiyyah supports his assertion by stating thatIbn Aringanbal was known not to accept the mursal of his contemporaries and that hewould always request the isnhd (lsquochainrsquo) from them Ibn Taymiyyah further supportshis view by saying that he had traced the mursal used by Ibn Aringanbal as a source oflaw and found that he did not use any mursal from after the first three generations46

The existence of metaphor within the Arabic language

There exists a strong link between the Arabic language and the science of uszligulal-fiqh for this language is the means by which the texts of the Lawgiver can be


61

understood and comprehended Accordingly agreement on the nature of thelanguage has an important impact upon uszligul al-fiqh and will have implications forjuristsrsquo understanding of the texts of the sharjlsquoah Amongst the linguistic issues thathave the most significant bearing upon uszligul al-fiqh is the question of whethermetaphor exists in Arabic The scholars who have authored works on this subjectclaim that the Arabic language is divided into two parts literal and metaphori-cal47 The greater portion of Aringanbalj scholars were of this view48 which theysupport with certain proofs49 Indeed it is said that the majority of scholars of uszligulare of this opinion Ibn Taymiyyah however insists that this is an inaccurateopinion and asserts that metaphor does not exist in Arabic He studies anddiscusses this issue from two perspectives

1 What is meant by the expression lsquothe majority of scholarsrsquo and who isclaimed to subscribe to the opinion that there is a division in the language

2 What evidence is there that the Arabic language is divided into two partsliteral and metaphorical

Who is included in the expression lsquothe majority of scholarsrsquo

In discussing the identity of lsquothe majority of scholarsrsquo to whom this opinion wasattributed Ibn Taymiyyah considers that the scholars of uszligul may have meant

Those individuals acquainted with the science of uszligul al-fiqh from both thepredecessors (salaf ) and later generations (khalaf ) Ibn Taymiyyah attests thatthis particular science was known in the earliest generations long beforeal-Shhfilsquoj set it down in writing50

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that if this is what is intended by lsquothe majority of thescholarsrsquo it is not correct to claim that the majority believe that metaphorexists in the language but he seeks to show most of them do not subscribe tothis opinion51

Those individuals who are aware of the sources of law in general are able todifferentiate between the sharlsquoj proofs and other types of evidence (egrational evidence) and have the ability to demonstrate a preference betweenthe various proofs According to Ibn Taymiyyah if this is what is intended byan uszligulj then it can be applied to every mujtahid in Islam Ibn Taymiyyahimplies that in this case it cannot be claimed that the majority of mujtahids

accepted the use of metaphor52

The renowned scholars including the four well-known scholars after whomthe four schools are named in addition to al-Thawrj and al-Awzhlsquoj whoseopinions are often quoted in the books of uszligul al-fiqh Ibn Taymiyyah says thatthese scholars are the ones who are most well versed in this science Theyused their knowledge of the subject to arrive at practical rulings They didnot however mention the term lsquometaphorrsquo as being part of the language


62

and anyone who claims they did is displaying his ignorance53 Ibn Taymiyyahcompares this group of scholars with later scholars who wrote about thesubject but did not apply it in practice Therefore he says the views of thelatter group are either incorrect or are of little benefit in this area54

Those individuals who first authored works pertaining to this science forexample al-Shhfilsquoj and Ibn Aringanbal among others

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions al-Shhfilsquoj as a prime example of this early groupbecause Shhfilsquoj was the first scholar to write about this subject in detailInterestingly he did not refer to the division of the language into literal andmetaphorical Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah states that although al-Shhfilsquojwas well known for his extensive use of uszligul al-fiqh in order to arrive at legalrulings he did not make reference to the term lsquometaphorrsquo in any of hisworks55

Those individuals who wrote on the subject of the principles of jurispru-dence amongst Ahl al-Kalhm and Ahl al-Rarsquoy such the Mulsquotazilis Ashlsquoarisand some of the followers of the four schools

If this is what is intended by the term lsquothe majority of the scholarsrsquo thenIbn Taymiyyah considers it would be correct to say that most of these schol-ars divided speech into the literal and the metaphorical56

He explains that this is due to the great influence exerted by the Mulsquotazi-lah scholars upon the scholars in the science of uszligul al-fiqh57

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the final group of scholars to whom the termuszliguliyyun may be applicable are those scholars who were affiliated to theMulsquotazilah Ahl al-Kalhm and those jurists who adhered to their methodology

He emphasises that none of these scholars were Imams in any particular Islamicscience rather they were merely followers of others58

Ibn Taymiyyah argues therefore that the adoption of this division in thelanguage differs depending on what classification of scholars is used He acceptsthat the division between literal and metaphorical speech does exist in varioussources of uszligul al-fiqh within the Aringanbalj School and others but he believesthe proponents of this view were affiliated to the Mulsquotazili School or werewriters influenced by their methods Hence when the greater portion ofAringanbalj scholars in addition to others mentioned that this opinion was heldby lsquothe majority of scholarsrsquo they ought to have clarified the group they werereferring to

In supporting his negation of this view Ibn Taymiyyah returns to his principlethat reference should be sought from the lsquopeople of the sciencersquo The leading schol-ars of the Arabic language such as Khaljl Sjbawayh al-Kishrsquoj and al-Farrhrsquo madeno reference to a division of the language into the literal and the metaphorical59

In a different place Ibn Taymiyyah mentions a rather interesting point Heobserves that occasionally scholars who were educated in and accustomed to usingcertain terminology would arrive at a stage where they assumed that the sameterminology was used by previous scholars without actually investigating this60


63

What evidence is there for the existence ofmetaphor in Arabic

The scholars who subscribed to the opinion that metaphor exists in the Arabiclanguage cited various pieces of evidence61 This section comments on some ofthis evidence from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos point of view It should be noted that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos main concern is whether metaphor is used in the Qurrsquoan Theexistence or absence of metaphor in the Arabic language will necessitate the sameconclusion for the Qurrsquoan

1 Proponents of metaphor say that it is common knowledge that in the Arabiclanguage certain words are used to denote certain alternative meanings For exam-ple the word lsquolionrsquo is used to describe a brave person whereas the term lsquodonkeyrsquois used to describe a dull or dim-witted person This form of usage cannot bedenied and it is left only to decide whether this usage is literal or metaphorical Toargue that the use of the term lsquolionrsquo for a brave person is literal is unacceptable forwhen used in the literal sense it refers to lsquoa large strong animal of the cat familyrsquoFurthermore it cannot be claimed that both meanings are literal in form If thiswas true it would result in equivalence (ishtirhk) between these words and thiswould necessitate that neither meanings would predominate in the mind In real-ity however when the word lsquolionrsquo is mentioned the first meaning understood bythe mind is that of a lsquostrong brave animalrsquo It must therefore be concluded that thelanguage is comprised of both literal and metaphoric aspects62

Ibn Taymiyyah criticised this proof in various ways

The assertion that one word can have two different meanings is acceptableThe claim however that one of these two meanings must be literal and theother metaphorical is incorrect except in the instance that this division iscorrect and that is the point at issue It cannot therefore be proved thatspeech is divided into two categories by the mere claim that there are twokinds Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that this would be a circular argument which isunacceptable as a proof in the science of uszligul al-fiqh63

A group of those scholars who claimed that this kind of division exists inthe Arabic language stated that part of Arabic speech is a combination ofboth literal and metaphorical language at the same time These scholarsdivide speech into three kinds literal metaphorical and a combination ofthe two64

By raising this last point Ibn Taymiyyah meant to show that these scholarscould not agree amongst themselves that speech was divided into literal andmetaphorical language as a group amongst them felt compelled to accept theexistence of a third category

Some of the scholars who assert the existence of metaphor claim that beforewords were used for the first time they were neither literal nor metaphoricalThese scholars also define a metaphor as lsquoa word which is used to meansomething other than the meaning that was originally designated to itrsquo


64

Hence it can be ascertained whether a word is being used literally ormetaphorically by tracing the first meaning of the word If it is later discov-ered that the word is now being used to mean something different this meansthat it is being used metaphorically and not literally65

This is a clear and logical method of classifying words in the Arabiclanguage Ibn Taymiyyah however objects to this approach on the basis thatit is not feasible to determine with certainty the first intended meaning of allthe words in the Arabic language by analysis of the narrations of the nativeArabs who first articulated them66 So for example it could be (for argu-mentrsquos sake) that lsquolionrsquo was originally used for a brave person and than trans-ferred to an animal with similar qualities

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism here is that it is difficult to formulate clear criteriaby which speech can be classified as being either literal or metaphorical

2 It is said that the Arabs use some words alone and in constructions for exam-ple al-copyahr (the back) and also copyahr al-inshn (the personrsquos back) where both thesolitary form and the construction denote same meaning When copyahr is used in adifferent construction for example the expression copyahr al-ƒarjq (the surface of theroad) it is clear that copyahr is metaphorical in nature67

Ibn Taymiyyah rebuts this evidence by explaining that the use of annexationdictates the meaning of the words Therefore the adjunct does not have the samemeaning as a single word Furthermore the meaning of the adjunct is dependentupon the possessive case For example the meaning of copyahr in copyahr al-inshn is clar-ified by the possessive case of al-inshn and the same can be said concerning theexpression copyahr al-ƒarjq68

Ibn Taymiyyah presents another example of an alteration in meaning due toan annexation the use of the word khamsah (five) and khamsat lsquoashar (fifteen) Theuse of khamsah is literal when used for the number five as it also is in khamsat lsquoasharmeaning fifteen Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that no individual can claim that the termkhamsah in khamsat lsquoashar is metaphorical69

He also points out that according to the rules of the Arabic language it is imper-missible to use words such as copyahr (back) without the possessive case because theirmeaning is dependent upon it70 They can also be used with the article al (the) andthen the meaning will depend on what is known to either the speaker or the listener71

3 It is claimed that scholars of succeeding generations have transmitted thenotion that speech is divided into literal and metaphorical from the time of theearliest Arabs72

Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to rebut this claim in the following ways

The claim that the term lsquometaphorrsquo is derived from earliest Arabs is incorrectfor no one at all has transmitted this73 Furthermore the companions whointerpreted the Qurrsquoan did not make reference to this division and did notrefer to a single word of the Qurrsquoan as being metaphorical74 Ibn Taymiyyahalso asserts that the leading scholars including the four Imams did not


65

mention this term He admitted that the term had been mentioned by IbnAringanbal and also by Abu lsquoUbaidah (d 209824) but argued that when theyused this term they intended a different meaning by it75 As mentionedearlier he adds that it is not mentioned by the leading scholars of the Arabiclanguage76

He declares that the original Arabs were unaware of the terms lsquoliteralrsquo andlsquometaphoricalrsquo How therefore can it be claimed that they ever articulatedthem He goes on to note that no one claims that other linguistic terms com-monly used by scholars of language such as maflsquoul (object) fhlsquoil (subject)mutalsquoad j (transitive) and lhzim (intransitive) were ever mentioned by earlyArabs most likely because they were unknown to them As a consequenceit is not feasible to claim that they were ever uttered by them and latertransmitted to us as is the case with lsquoliteralrsquo and lsquometaphorrsquo

He continues that while such terms as maflsquoul and fhlsquoil were unknown to theoriginal Arabs but were rather created by the scholars of the language theirmeaning is nevertheless clear and logically acceptable This cannot be said for theterm lsquometaphorrsquo77 It would appear that Ibn Taymiyyah formulated this particu-lar rebuttal in anticipation of a counter-argument which can be summarisedas follows you (ie Ibn Taymiyyah and others) have declared that terms such asmaflsquoul and fhlsquoil were unknown amongst the Arabs but were created by the schol-ars of the language These terms however have become acceptable to everyindividual the same can be said of the term lsquometaphorrsquo So even if we acceptthat the term was not used amongst the early Arabs this does not invalidate itscurrent use

A group of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents claimed that the issue upon which thisdispute is founded is purely theoretical in nature and no real disagreement existsin practice78 This did not abate Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos determination to refute itRather he argued that this term lsquometaphorrsquo should not be used because it isincorrect according to logic sharjlsquoah and language Ibn Taymiyyah explains thisby stating that according to logic the term lsquometaphorrsquo is invalid because of theabsence of clear correct criteria by which speech can be classified into literal andmetaphorical It is invalid according to language because it is an alteration in thelanguage which procures no benefit In reference to the sharjlsquoah the use of thisterm leads to distortion and corruption Ibn Taymiyyah enumerates two types ofcorruption

1 It allows the greater portion of the Qurrsquoan to be deemed metaphorical Itwould appear that this is the primary reason for Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos strongattack against the concept of metaphor It is common knowledge that he wasinvolved in serious disputes with a number of a group of theologians for theiruse of metaphor in relation to the names and attributes of Allah IbnTaymiyyah confirms this himself when he discusses the issue of metaphor


66

He states that as a result of the use of metaphor his opponents disaffirm thatwhich Allah affirms for Himself concerning His Names and Attributes

2 It allows for alterations to take place in Islamic law79

Interpretations of correctness and error on the part of the mujtahid

Can it be assumed that every mujtahid is correct in his conclusions or can there beonly a single correct solution from amongst the several advanced for a particularproblem to the exclusion of all others Furthermore are there any guidelines fordetermining the correct opinion if we say that only one of several opinions canbe correct Does this also mean that those scholars who arrived at an lsquoincorrectrsquojudgement have committed a form of misdeed

This problem is considered to be one of the most complicated issues in Islamiclaw It is somewhat difficult to differentiate between the many opinions advancedon this problem Thankfully Ibn Taymiyyah sorts through these differentopinions with a notable degree of clarity In doing so he also criticises the opinionsof most of the Aringanbalj scholars and clarifies his own opinion which he believesis in conformity with the opinion of the Imams and the predecessors

Ibn Taymiyyah states that the scholars have subscribed to the following opinionsconcerning this issue80

1 Some scholars have maintained that the Lawgiver has established proofs thatshall direct the mujtahid towards the correct opinion Therefore any mujtahid

who strives to the best of his ability to ascertain these correct opinions will indue course obtain them These scholars declared that anyone who did notarrive at the correct conclusion in any issue pertaining to the uszligul or furulsquo hadsimply failed to exert himself sufficiently in this endeavour It is thereforeimpossible to believe that a scholar did his best to ascertain the true opinionyet was unable to arrive upon it Such failure can occur only in the event ofnegligence on the part of the mujtahid in his method of applying independentreasoning This is the general opinion of the majority of the scholars in thisgroup who did not differentiate between issues of creed and legal issues Thisopinion was held by Bishr al-Marisj and the greater portion of theMulsquotazilite present in Baghdad81 Some scholars in this group howeversubscribed to this opinion only with regard to issues pertaining to dogma inlegal issues they stated that the proofs for rulings could be both definite andindefinite If the proof for a ruling is definite the mujtahid must do his best toascertain the correct opinion If he fails to arrive at the correct opinion itshows that he did not do his best and he will be considered to have committeda misdeed If on the other hand the proofs concerning an issue are indefiniteit indicates that there is no specific opinion to be considered correctRather the correct ruling for each scholar is that which he is able toascertain by means of his independent reasoning This opinion was held by


67

Abu al-Hudhayl al-lsquoAllhf (d 234849) and those who followed him such asAbu lsquoAlj al-Jubbhrsquoj (d 302915) and his son Abu Hhshim (d 321933) It isalso the more recognised of the two opinions of al-Ashlsquoarj (d 324936) Thisopinion was also favoured by al-Baqjllhnj (d 4031013) al-Ghazhlj(d 5051112) and Ibn al-lsquoArabj (d 5431148) and their followers82

2 Al-Jahmiyyah al-Ashhlsquoirah and the majority of the jurists subscribed to theopinion that a mujtahid may sometimes ascertain the correct opinion andsometimes not This is not necessarily because of negligence in attempting todetermine the correct ruling but rather because it sometimes cannot beattained Having accepted that the correct ruling is sometimes unascertain-able with absolute certainty these scholars are still of the opinion that themujtahid who fails to ascertain it may nevertheless be punished not becausehe has committed a misdeed by erring in independent reasoning but simplybecause the Lawgiver can exact punishment without reason These scholarsclaim that it is understood from the revelation that every unbeliever will bepunished in the Hell Fire it makes no difference whether the unbeliever triedhis best to ascertain the truth concerning Islam and did not succeed orwhether he did not try at all83

This group divided the disputes which occurred between the Muslimscholars into two kinds

i Disputes concerning the furulsquoii Disputes concerning the uszligul

In relation to disputes concerning the furulsquo most scholars affiliated to thisgroup claim that if a mujtahid fails to ascertain the correct judgement he willnot be punished As some of them state this is because the Lawgiverpardons scholars who do not succeed in determining the correct ruling inrelation to the furulsquo They also cited the consensus of the predecessors thatthere is no sin upon those scholars who fail to ascertain the correct rulingAs for disputes in uszligul according to the majority among these scholars themistaken mujtahid commits a misdeed by his incorrect judgement Theyassert that there ought to be sufficient evidence for the correct opinion in therevelation

As indicated earlier this second opinion is held by most jurists and thefollowers of the four Imams This includes the greater portion of the follow-ers of Imam Aaringmad This can be seen clearly in al-lsquoUddah by Abu Yalsquola al-

Tamhjd by Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and al-Rawpartah by Ibn Qudhmah84 However IbnTaymiyyah criticises this opinion and states that it is contrary to the view ofthe salaf and the four Imams They believed that Muslim scholars do notincur sin because of their failure to determine the correct judgement in issuesconcerning either uszligul or furulsquo85 Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that this opinionwas held by Abu Aringanifah al-Shhfilsquoj al-Thawrj Dawud and others86 Hestates that it was not the practice of the companions and their followers tocharge any individual with unbelief provided they had exerted every possible


68

effort in seeking to ascertain the correct ruling The salaf did not even thinkthat a mujtahid who had erred in his judgements committed sins87

Ibn Taymiyyah supports this opinion He states first that claims about theexistence of a division of the sharjlsquoah into two parts (ie uszligul and furulsquo) do notstand up to criticism88

As an aside Ibn Taymiyyah also criticises the claim that the content of therevelation requires that every unbeliever will be punished in the Hell Firewhether or not the unbeliever tried his best to determine the truth aboutIslam he argues that this is in fact contrary to the Qurrsquoan sunnah and reasonIn rebutting this view Ibn Taymiyyah cites different textual evidence includingthe following89

He quotes part of a Qurrsquoanic verse in which Allah says lsquoWe neverpunish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)rsquo (Qurrsquoan 1715)

He also quotes the verses lsquoEvery time a group is cast therein itskeeper will ask ldquoDid no Warner come to yourdquo They will say ldquoYesindeed a Warner did come to us but we belied him and said lsquoAllahnever sent down anything (of revelation) you are only in great errorrsquo rdquo rsquo(Qurrsquoan 678ndash9)

Ibn Taymiyyah believes that these are clear texts highlighting the principlethat no group of people will be cast into the Hell Fire except after they havereceived a warning According to Ibn Taymiyyah those who were not able toascertain the truth of Islam would not therefore be cast into the fire90

Is the sharjlsquoah divided into two partsuszligul and furulsquo

The majority of jurists subscribe to the opinion that the sharjlsquoah is divided into twosections uszligul (fundamentals) and furulsquo (subsidiary issues) It appears that all thescholars affiliated to the Aringanbalj School are included in this category This maybe demonstrated by consulting the writings of both the early and later scholars91

As mentioned earlier Ibn Taymiyyah rejects this opinion and considers it aninnovation introduced by the Mulsquotazilah Jahmiyyah and the Ahl al-Kalhm IbnTaymiyyah suggests that this lsquoinnovationrsquo was transmitted to a number of schol-ars who authored works in uszligul al-fiqh and also therefore made reference to it intheir treatises Ibn Taymiyyah maintains that they were ignorant of the truenature of this view and its objective Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that this opinion is notmentioned in the texts or by consensus nor was it mentioned by any individualamongst the salaf or the Imams It is therefore to be deemed invalid92 IbnTaymiyyah demonstrates the invalidity of this division by mentioning that thosewho propagated this division did not establish appropriate criteria by whichdifferentiation between the two divisions could be ascertained93 The three


69

criteria employed by these scholars to differentiate between uszligul and furulsquo andcriticised by Ibn Taymiyyah are as follows

1 He mentions that some scholars claimed that the issues of uszligul comprisethe theoretical issues of creed as opposed to the issues of furulsquo which concernpracticalities94

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this view by describing it as unsystematic He explainsthat the denial of certain practical issues such as rejecting of the obligation of thefive daily prayers alms and fasting during the month of Ramaparthn would result ina charge of unbelief against the perpetrator In addition denying the prohibitionof adultery usury injustice and other comparable matters would result in a simi-lar ruling despite the fact that they are deemed practical issues within the sharjlsquoahBy contrast certain theoretical issues have been the subject of disagreement yetnone of the disputing parties were considered to be transgressors Ibn Taymiyyahcites examples of differences of opinion that occurred amongst the companions inrelation to several issues These included their difference of opinion as to whetherthe Prophet saw Allah or not whether certain words were from the Qurrsquoan or notand concerning the meaning of some of the texts from the Qurrsquoan and sunnah95

Ibn Taymiyyah is asserting by citing these disputes concerning theoreticalissues that occurred amongst the companions that they did not disapprove ofsuch disputes Nor did they charge one another with unbelief because of theiruncertainty on these theoretical issues Ibn Taymiyyah is attempting to illustratethrough this that the division of sharjlsquoah into the uszligul and furulsquo was not recognisedby the companions as there is nothing to indicate that they treated practical issuesand theoretical issues differently

Ibn Taymiyyah also makes the point that practical issues contain two aspectsnamely practice and theory If errors committed in practical issues arepardonable mistakes in theoretical issues which are devoid of practical elementsare more deserving of being pardoned96

2 The second criterion advanced for the differentiation between uszligul and furulsquois that issues of uszligul are those which are founded upon definite evidence whereasissues of furulsquo are based upon indefinite evidence97

Ibn Taymiyyah refutes this assertion by stating that there are many issuesconsidered to be furulsquo which are founded upon definite evidence A portion ofthese are known by some scholars but not by others A portion of the evidence isconsidered definite by consensus such as the prohibition placed upon mattersdeclared forbidden and the command placed upon those matters declared oblig-atory Nevertheless if an individual fails to comply with these rulings based upondefinite evidence because of his ignorance of them or due to the manner inwhich he interprets them he will not be charged with unbelief or disobedienceuntil he becomes aware of them98

Ibn Taymiyyah supports his view by citing certain events which occurredduring the time of the Prophet and his companions He makes reference toa group of companions who drank after dawn during Ramaparthn because they


70

misunderstood the meaning of a part of verse 187 in surah al-Baqarah whereinAllah says lsquoeat and drink until the white thread appears distinct to you from theblack threadrsquo They misunderstood this to mean that they were to wait until theycould visually distinguish one thread from the other whereas the verse is referringto the light of dawn and the darkness of night Their mistake violated a definiteproof but they were neither charged with unbelief by the Prophet nor consideredto be sinners Another example cited by Ibn Taymiyyah is the case of a group ofpeople during the time of the Caliph lsquoUmar who thought that consuming winewas permissible in Islam These individuals were not accused of disobedienceRather they were made aware of this important ruling in Islam and soughtrepentance for their mistake Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions that at the time of theCaliph lsquoUmar a woman was accused of committing adultery When the womanwas questioned she responded by saying that she was unaware that the act ofadultery was forbidden in Islam When her ignorance of the ruling became clearto the companions she was not punished for her action99

To further confirm the weakness of this second criterion Ibn Taymiyyah citesthe verse lsquoOur lord Punish us not if we forget or fall into errorrsquo (Qurrsquoan 2286)It is related in the Iacuteaaringjaring that Allah said lsquoI have done sorsquo100

Ibn Taymiyyah states that this text does not differentiate between mistakesin rulings based upon definite evidence and rulings based upon indefiniteevidence101

The citation of the Qurrsquoanic verse also serves to affirm his view that anindividual who commits a mistake in any issue whether pertaining to the uszligul orfurulsquo will not be committing a sin for the verse declares in general terms that theirmistake will be received with forgiveness Hence according to Ibn Taymiyyahany individual who claims that errors of judgement are sins contradicts theevidence from the Qurrsquoan sunnah and consensus102

Ibn Taymiyyah also criticises this criterion of differentiation from anotherperspective He states that the nature of definite and indefinite evidence is con-nected more to the individual who analyses the evidence than to the evidenceitself For some types of evidence are considered by certain scholars to be definitewhereas other scholars consider the same types to be indefinite103

As a result it is unlikely that complete agreement could occur concerning thesum total of evidence claimed to be either definite or indefinite Therefore itwould be inaccurate to employ this as a criterion in differentiating between therulings of the sharjlsquoah

3 The third criterion is that issues of uszligul pertain to those rulings determinedby the means of reason such as the attributes of Allah the divine decree anddestiny This is different from issues of furulsquo whose rulings are known to us bymeans of revelation such as the intercession (shafhlsquoah) and the removal ofnumerous individuals who committed major sins from the Fire104

Ibn Taymiyyah responds to this opinion by stating that unbelief andtransgression are sharlsquoj rulings which cannot be ascertained through the use ofreason105


71

It ought to be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah does not comment on the claim thatthe attributes of Allah the divine decree and other comparable matters aredetermined only by the use of reason and not through revelation This claim isnevertheless clearly unacceptable to Ibn Taymiyyah as he asserts in various placesin his treatises that belief in matters of the unseen such as the examples mentionedearlier must be founded upon evidence from the Qurrsquoan and sunnah althoughsound reason will be found to agree with these two sources106

Having stated that the division of the sharjlsquoah into the uszligul and furulsquo isnot correct Ibn Taymiyyah himself adopts the same terms in various parts ofhis treatises If this division is not correct why then did Ibn Taymiyyah use itThe answer to this question is not entirely certain It is possible that it wasconnected to a change in his independent reasoning This explanation is appli-cable to certain sections of his treatises evidently written at a later stage ofhis scholastic life but not others Another plausible reason for the presenceof these terms is that their use was ubiquitous amongst the scholars of his timeHe therefore used them as means of communicating with other scholars Thisexplanation is vindicated by the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah himself affirms the per-missibility of using the terminology of others if a need requires an individual todo so This is on the condition that their meanings are correct He mentioned thatthe salaf did not object to the use of certain terminology merely because it hadnot been used before but only because it contained incorrect meanings107

Therefore according to Ibn Taymiyyah if it is possible that the meanings ofthese terms can be corrected by applying the Qurrsquoan and sunnah to them they canbe used108

The comprehension of texts and its contradiction of correct analogy

A group of scholars maintains that there is no clear provision in the texts of theQurrsquoan and sunnah for one-hundredth (lsquoushr milsquoshhr) of the issues of the sharjlsquoah109

Some scholars affiliated to the Aringanbalj School in addition to others implementedthis claim in practice by asserting that the rulings on many issues were determinedby means of analogy and not by the text itself (naszligszlig) For example they stated thatthe prohibition of all kinds of intoxicants with the exception of khamr isascertained by recourse to analogy110

Ibn Taymiyyah states that this opinion is incorrect He says that the majority ofscholars subscribe to the opinion that most rulings concerning obligations arefounded upon textual evidence (nuszliguszlig) Other scholars went further and stated thatthe texts covered all rulings111

According to Ibn Taymiyyah this limitation of the scope of the sharjlsquoah textsoccurred as a result of a misunderstanding of the general texts and their impli-cations He asserts that the texts contain all the rulings pertaining to obligationwhether by means of the explicit indication inferred meaning or impliedmeaning of a given text He explains this by making reference to the Lawgiverrsquos


72

use of general rulings that apply to many sub-categories which are in turnapplicable to innumerable branches112

Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the opinion mentioned earlier that all intoxicants withthe exception of khamr are prohibited by means of analogy and not by the textsthemselves He bases his objection on his principle that the Lawgiver uses ageneral encompassing ruling that is applicable to various forms He argues thatthe word khamr is applicable to all types of intoxicants Therefore their prohibi-tion is actualised by means of the text itself This principle dictates that allforms of intoxicants regardless of whether they are liquids or solids areprohibited by the texts113

Ibn Taymiyyah stresses the need to use taaringqjq al-manhƒ (ascertaining the rulingrsquoscause)114 in order to determine whether a particular class is included under a gen-eral ruling or not115 He feels that the solution to most contested issues can befound within the texts by erudite scholars who possess a broad knowledge of thevarious legal pieces of evidence116 This does not mean that Ibn Taymiyyahdenies the legal validity of analogy On the contrary he states that it is inaccurateto assert that the use of analogy is incorrect At the same time he argues thata correct analogy cannot be in contradiction to a text (naszligszlig) If it does contradictthe text it is either incorrect or null and void117 His aim therefore is to placeanalogy firmly behind texts in priority

Ibn Taymiyyah explains that there are two types of analogy correct and incor-rect (valid and invalid) Correct analogy is one that is introduced by the Lawgiverand either determines parallels between similar cases a procedure known as qiyhsƒard or differentiates between dissimilar ones a procedure known as qiyhs lsquoaks

(reductio ad absurdum)118

Correct analogy is applicable when the cause upon which the original ruling isbased is present in another case without any distinguishing factor that wouldprevent the implementation of the ruling Ibn Taymiyyah states that the sharjlsquoah

is not opposed to this type of analogy119

In addition Ibn Taymiyyah mentions another type of analogy that is known asqiyhs bi al-ghhrsquo al-fhriq (isolating the cause) It is defined as an lsquoanalogy based uponthe absence of an effective disparity between two casesrsquo120 Again Ibn Taymiyyahmaintains that the sharjlsquoah is not opposed to this type of analogy121

He states that whenever the sharjlsquoah restricts certain rulings to specific cases itdenotes the presence of reasons for this act of particularisation According to IbnTaymiyyah these reasons may be comprehended by some but not by others Fora specific analogy to be correct it is not necessary that every scholar recognises itas correct122

Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that if a scholar discovers that certain Islamic rulingsof law contradict analogy it does not necessarily mean that those rulingscontradict correct analogy for the contradiction may in fact only be with anincorrect analogy which that scholar happened to consider correct He arguesthat if we become aware of a text that contradicts analogy then we mustunderstand that the analogy is invalid in this particular case It leads us to conclude


73

that this particular case possesses its own distinguishing features which produce thisparticularisation This is because there is no ruling present in the sharjlsquoah

that contradicts correct analogy the rulings may only be opposed by an invalidanalogy123

Ibn Taymiyyah does not invalidate any given analogy in all cases but only inthe particularised case As a consequence an analogy can be valid and invalid atthe same time It is invalid in the particularised case by reason of the text butvalid in the remainder of cases

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos insistence on the absence of contradiction between analogyand Islamic rulings of law seems to be an attack against a large number ofAringanbalj scholars as well as other scholars who point out the presence of thiscontradiction in various legal rulings124

Ibn Taymiyyah states that he came across no authentic aringad jth that is not inaccordance with the authentic general principles of Islam He had examinedwhat he could of the evidences of Islamic law and found no correct analogycontradicting an authentic aringad jth The converse is also true clear rationalevidence cannot contradict authentic narration Rather as Ibn Taymiyyahasserts whenever an analogy is at odds with a narration one of the two must beflawed The ability to distinguish between correct and flawed analogy howeverescapes even distinguished scholars let alone those who are less qualifiedIndeed the ability to discern correctly those effective legal attributes that have aneffect on rulings and to know the wisdom and meanings contained withinIslamic law is one of the finest and subtlest types of knowledge It includes theapparent which many people know and the subtle which only the elite knowAs a result the analogy employed by many scholars contradicts textual evidencebecause correct analogy is hidden from them just as many subtle legal indicationscontained within textual evidence are hidden from them125

Ibn Taymiyyah analysed certain cases in which it was claimed that there was acontradiction between analogy and textual rulings Two examples are discussedin the following sections

1 The contract of co-partnership muparthrabah

It has been claimed that this form of contract contradicts correct analogyAccording to Ibn Taymiyyah this claim is based on the assumption that thiscontract is a type of hire because it is work for a counter-value and in a contractof hire it is a condition that the work and counter-value are known On accountof this because the work and the counter-value in a co-partnership contract arenot known exactly some scholars have argued that the permissibility of this formof contract contradicts analogy which prohibits it126

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this view arguing that this contract is a form ofparticipation and not a type of hire Therefore there is no need to have preciseknowledge of the work and counter-value127 Ibn Taymiyyah explains that


74

according to Islamic law work is of three types

1 Where the work is stipulated by the contract and is also known and capableof being delivered This type is the contract of hire which is legally binding

2 Where the work is stipulated by the contract but it is either completely orpartially unknown such as where an individual says lsquoWhosoever finds suchand such an item for me I will give him such and suchrsquo In Islamic law thisform of contract is known as jalsquohlah (reward prize) which is a valid contractbut not binding If the two parties make this contract binding rather thanvoluntary then the contract is not valid

3 Where the money and not the work are stipulated by the contract This typeis called the lsquoContract of Co-Partnershiprsquo (muparthrabah) In this contract thegiver of the money is not so much concerned with the actual work done aswith the fruit of his labour which is the profit128

By means of this classification Ibn Taymiyyah intends to rebut the claimthat the contract of co-partnership is a type of hire and to affirm that it is atype of participation This may also be demonstrated by his statement concern-ing the frustration of a contract of co-partnership for any reason such as theabsence of a condition or the existence of an impediment In this instancethe worker ought to be given a fair part of the profit rather than a fair wage129

Ibn Taymiyyah supports his opinion by giving the example of a worker whoworked under an invalid contract of co-partnership In the event that theindividual worked for a long period of time for instance ten years and wasthereafter paid a fair wage he would receive more than the capital This differsfrom a valid contract under which he would receive only a fair share of theprofits130

2 A contract for the lease of a field with profit sharing (muzhralsquoah)

Ibn Taymiyyah observes that the claim of a contradiction in this case is basedupon the assumption of certain scholars that muzhralsquoah is a contract of hire for anunknown counter-value As a consequence a group of these scholars invalidatedall of its forms claiming that legal evidence indicates that this type of contract isprohibited Others however accepted a portion of such contracts based uponthe peoplersquos need for them131

Nevertheless Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this view and asserts that if ascholar considers the matter carefully he would conclude that the possibility ofinjustice and uncertainty occurring in a contract of muzhralsquoah is more distantfrom the contract of hire for delayed payment He explains that it is foundedupon the contractual principle that the tenant on the land benefits from theharvest132


75

Is it possible to make an analogy on rulings allegedto be in opposition to analogy

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that rulings said to be in opposition to analogy are of twotypes agreed upon and disputed ones According to Ibn Taymiyyah agreedrulings can be used for the purpose of analogy with similar cases for he explainsthat there is no ruling which contradicts a valid analogy Furthermore rulings areonly claimed to contradict analogy because they include a special meaning(effective cause) by which they can be distinguished from other rulings If thisspecial meaning is present in another case it can be given the same ruling by wayof analogy However if the ruling claimed to oppose the analogy is one disputedamongst scholars Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrates by recourse to a study of someof these cases that they are usually in agreement with analogy and not inopposition to it133

Are there any rulings in Islamic law that are only for Arabs

The Aringanbalj School of law claims that there are certain rulings which areapplicable to Arabs alone Ibn Taymiyyah opposes this view because there are notexts in the Qurrsquoan or sunnah to support it He also states that the Lawgiver doesnot restrict any ruling to the Arabs but rather employs general terms such aslsquobelieverrsquo lsquounbelieverrsquo lsquohypocritersquo lsquopious personrsquo and lsquotransgressorrsquo134

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions examples of rulings which have been claimed to beconfined to the Arabs Some scholars subscribe to the opinion that Arabs cannotbe enslaved during a state of war135 Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this opinion andstates that it opposes the opinion of the majority He supports his view by citingcertain historical events mentioned in the traditions One example was theenslavement of Banj al-Muszligƒaliq by the Prophet Furthermore in the traditionconcerning the tribe of Hawazhn the Prophet said lsquoSelect one of the twoenslavement or ransomrsquo136 Ibn Taymiyyah even observes that most of those whowere enslaved at the time of the Prophet were Arabs137

His opponents make reference to the order issued by lsquoUmar in which hecommanded that the Arab slaves be freed as a proof that their enslavement isimpermissible Ibn Taymiyyah responds that this order is not a legal ruling thatmust be followed Rather it was an order based on a maszliglaaringah existing at the timeof lsquoUmar138

Another ruling that was claimed to be restricted to the Arabs concerned theirexemption from the poll tax ( jizyah) if they did not accept Islam The payment ofthis tax was said to be obligatory upon the People of the Book only139

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that according to the majority opinion there is nodifference between Arabs and non-Arabs in relation to this ruling He supportsthis view by stating that all the texts pertinent to this issue are general He alsonotes that this tax was levied upon the Zoroastrians of Bahrain and upon the


76

People of Yemen who were a mixture of pagans and People of the BookNo differentiation was made between them in relation to the imposition of thetax Ibn Taymiyyah therefore concludes that the poll tax can be levied uponthe Arabs140

It has also been argued that whatever the Arabs disliked ought to be prohibitedfor all Muslims and whatever they liked should be made permissible for allMuslims This opinion was held by a number of Aringanbalj scholars such asal-Khiraqj al-Hajjhwj and al-Buhutj141 and according to al-Mardhwj thisopinion is the correct opinion of the Aringanbalj School142

Ibn Taymiyyah states that this claim opposes the opinion of Aaringmad himselfand those of the majority including the early Aringanbalj scholars Ibn Taymiyyahcites two proofs to support his opinion The first relates to the practice of the com-panions and their followers concerning that which was prohibited and that whichwas lawful These rulings were not dependent upon what was liked or dislikedamongst the Arabs The second concerns the fact that the Arabs were fond ofcertain things that were later on prohibited in Islam an example of this beingthe maytah (meat of an animal not slaughtered in accordance with sharlsquoj require-ments) In addition they had a disliking for matters which were made permissiblein Islam such as al-partab (a kind of lizard) The Prophet who was an Arab dislikedthis particular animal he mentioned that his personal dislike for it did not renderit prohibited When the animal was eaten in his presence he remarked lsquoI do noteat it and I do not prohibit itrsquo143

Another example of this form of restriction concerns the precedence givento Arabs in assuming the position of Imam for prayers Several Aringanbaljscholars such as al-Khiraqj Ibn Aringhmid and al-Qhpartj have subscribed to thisopinion144

Ibn Taymiyyah responded by stating that this view opposes the opinion of themajority and no text exists to affirm it Ibn Taymiyyah notes the tradition of theProphet in which he states lsquoThe person who recites the Book of Allah in the mostcompetent manner is to lead his people and if two are equal in their ability torecite then the one who has greater knowledge of the sunnah If they are equal inrelation to their knowledge of the sunnah then the one who emigrated(to Madjnah) first If they are equal in relation to the emigration then the onewho embraced Islam firstrsquo145

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the tradition clearly makes no reference to aprecedence in Imamate (leadership of the prayers) due to Arab origin146

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents cited the words of Salmhn al-Fhrisj as evidence tosubstantiate their opinion He said lsquoIt is an obligation for us with respect to youthat we do not lead you in prayers nor do we marry your womenrsquo147

Ibn Taymiyyah comments upon this statement by stating that this was Salmhnrsquospersonal opinion and not a legal ruling that had to be followed a matter which isdifferent from the words of the Lawgiver148

There is a dispute amongst the Aringanbalj scholars in addition to othersconcerning the issue of whether a non-Arab is equal to an Arab in marriage149


77

Ibn Taymiyyah comments upon this disagreement by stating that it is dependentupon independent reasoning Hence whichever of the differing opinions is sup-ported by a text from the Qurrsquoan or sunnah is the binding one He also maintainsthat the words of an individual whosoever he may be are not a proof againstthese two sources After highlighting this rule Ibn Taymiyyah observes that thereis no clear correct text emanating from the Lawgiver dealing with this issue150

After mentioning that the majority of scholars held the opinion that the Arabrace and particularly the tribe of Quraysh was superior to other races of peopleIbn Taymiyyah states that this principle is not applicable in relation to individualsHe mentions that this is due to the presence of a large number of non-Arabs whoare superior even to the greater portion of Arabs Furthermore in the latergenerations there were some non-Arabs who were superior to the Arabs who livedin the second and third centuries151

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the Lawgiver only restricts the rulings to effectivequalities and does not specify all Arabs in general by certain rulings NeverthelessIbn Taymiyyah does accept that there are certain rulings that only apply tospecific groups For example according to the opinion of some scholars the rulerof the Muslim community must be from the tribe of the Quraysh This howeveraccording to Ibn Taymiyyah only applies if it is possible He also stressesthat leadership is not for all of Quraysh but only for the appointed leader inquestion152

Another example of a ruling that is restricted to a specific group of peopleconcerns the impermissibility of charity being donated to Banj Hhshim IbnTaymiyyah mentions that this is in order to prevent any accusation of favouritismbeing made against them and also because they are to be given their share fromthe khumus (the fifth taken from the booty after which the remains are dividedamong the warriors) and al-farsquoj (that gained without any fighting)153

Maszliglaaringah as a source of law

The early Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Aringhmid in his book Tahdhjb al-AjwibahAbu Yalsquola in his treatise al-lsquoUddah and Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb in his book al-Tamhjd didnot make reference to maszliglaaringah (benefit) as a source of law The Aringanbalj scholaral-Majd (d 6521254) asserts that the maszliglaaringah is not a source of law and attributesthis opinion to the late Aringanbalj scholars of general principles154 The eminentAringanbalj scholar Ibn Qudhmah (d 6201223) provides more information regardingmaszliglaaringah and its status in Islamic law He classifies maszliglaaringah into the following threecategories

1 A type the correctness of which is affirmed by the sources of law This typeis in fact the source of analogy

2 A type the incorrectness of which is affirmed by the sources of law This typecannot be employed as a foundation upon which a ruling may be establishedfor it would result in an alteration to Islamic law


78

3 A type the correctness or incorrectness of which is not expressly affirmed bythe sources of law155 This third type of maszliglaaringah is divided by Ibn Qudhmahinto three kinds

i Benefits deemed necessary (partaruriyht) Ibn Qudhmah associated this typeof maszliglaaringah with the five necessary interests in Islamic law (al-partarurhtal-khams) namely the preservation of religion life reason offspring andmaterial wealth These are the five interests the scholars have concludedall rulings of Islamic law are geared towards protecting

ii Complementary benefits (aringhjiyht)iii Luxurious benefits (kamhliyht)156

In reference to the latter two types of benefits Ibn Qudhmah mentions that heis not aware of a disagreement concerning the impermissibility of founding a rulingwholly upon these benefits without the existence of other legal evidence to corrob-orate the accuracy and legitimacy of these benefits As for partaruriyht he says there isdisagreement amongst scholars concerning the acceptance of them as the sole basisfor a legal ruling157 The position of Ibn Qudhmah with regard to the use ofmaszliglaaringah in Islamic law appears to be shared by the majority of Aringanbalj scholars158

This was the position of maszliglaaringah in the Aringanbalj School of law before the timeof Ibn Taymiyyah Here now follows an analysis of maszliglaaringah and its validityaccording to the understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah defines maszliglaaringah as lsquoThat which is considered by a mujtahid toprocure a benefit while at the same time nothing exists within the rulings ofIslamic law to oppose itrsquo159

We notice that in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos discussion of the sources of Islamic law hedemonstrates great caution in approving maszliglaaringah as a source Ibn Taymiyyahstates lsquoThe use of maszliglaaringah mursalah (in Islamic law) frequently results in theenactment of laws that are not permitted by Allahrsquo160 (ie they contradict theestablished rulings of Islamic law) He also observes that the majority of innova-tions (bidalsquo ) were erroneously justified by those who invented them as beneficialmaszlighliaring and therefore correct161

Why was Ibn Taymiyyah so concerned about maszliglaaringah The answer to thisquestion can be determined by consulting Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own words He feltthat the use of what was deemed to be maszliglaaringah by certain leaders scholars andothers was the source of great disorder within Islamic law This occurred becausesome of the supposed maszlighliaring claimed by individuals were in fact prohibitedaccording to Islamic law but those who implemented them were ignorant of theirprohibition162 He reminds us that it is impermissible for scholars to declarecertain matters lawful or unlawful based on their desires163 He explains thatpeople often assume that these matters are of benefit to them in this life andin the hereafter without appreciating that the claimed benefit is sometimesaccompanied by harm that exceeds the benefit164


79

From what has been mentioned it may appear that Ibn Taymiyyah does notapprove of the use of maszliglaaringah in Islamic law Hence it might be assumed that hesubscribes to the same opinion as the majority of Aringanbalj scholars This seemshowever not to be the case as we find Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally establishingrulings on the foundation of the maszliglaaringah165 Also we find various references tomaszliglaaringah in his writings He asserts that the Messengers were entrusted by Allah toobtain maszlighliaring and perfect the existing ones in addition to preventing and elimi-nating the causes of corruption166 How then do we understand the statementsthat he made concerning the hazards of maszliglaaringah Ibn Taymiyyah recognises thatthe divine law does not neglect the maszliglaaringah completely He also affirms that thesharjlsquoah has been completed and there is no maszliglaaringah except that it has beenmentioned in the sharjlsquoah167 This does not mean that every maszliglaaringah is expresslymentioned in a text of the Qurrsquoan or sunnah instead it appears to mean that allcorrect maszlighliaring are found within the general rulings and principles of the sharjlsquoah

Ibn Taymiyyah maintains that if a maszliglaaringah is claimed to exist as a product ofindependent reasoning and not by reason of the sharjlsquoah either this claimedmaszliglaaringah is to be found in a text without the scholar being aware of it or it is nota valid maszliglaaringah at all168

Ibn Taymiyyah also criticises those who restricted the use of maszliglaaringah to thepreservation of the five necessary interests He asserts that the preservation of thefive necessary benefits which is in fact a means of repelling harmful outcomes isonly a part of the scope of maszliglaaringah for it is also comprised of other benefits169

What is meant by rarsquoy in Islamic law

This issue is a source of great confusion in the Aringanbalj references as well as thoseof other schools Most of those who asserted the permissibility of employing rarsquoy

neglected to clarify what they mean by the term The ambiguity surrounding thisissue appears to stem from a possible misunderstanding of certain Qurrsquoanicverses For example

lsquoBut if they answer you not then know that they only follow their ownlusts And who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts withoutguidance from Allahrsquo (2850)

This verse indicates that people may be divided into two categories thoseindividuals who adhere to the words of the Lawgiver and those who followtheir own desires Hence those who adhere to their rarsquoy are not following thewords of the Lawgiver rather they are following their own desires

lsquoFollow what has been sent down unto you from your Lord and do not followany auliyhrsquo beside him (Allah)rsquo (73)

lsquo Follow you that (Islam and its laws) and follow not the desires of thosewho are unawarersquo (4518) This verse commands believers to adhere to thesharjlsquoah of Allah and prohibits them from following the desires of those whoare ignorant


80

In addition the misunderstanding of certain narrations containing a condem-nation of rarsquoy by the salaf contributed to certain scholars rejecting the role of rarsquoy

in Islamic law Some of these narrations are as follows

It has been narrated that the second caliph Abu Bakr said lsquowhat earth wouldgive me support and what sky would shelter me if I explain a verse in thebook of Allah using my own rarsquoyrsquo

It has been narrated that lsquoUmar b al-Khaƒƒhb said lsquoThe people of Ahlal-Rarsquoy are the enemies of the sunnah This is because they could notunderstand it nor could they memorize it thus they put forward their rarsquoyrsquo

Alj b Abi Iumlhlib said lsquoIf the religion was founded upon rarsquoy then the bottomof the khuff would be more deserving of being wiped over than the toprsquo

Ibn Taymiyyah makes his position on this point clear He attaches great impor-tance to the texts of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah but acknowledges the role of rarsquoy inthe process of determining a legal ruling According to Ibn Taymiyyah rarsquoy isdivided into two different types censured and praiseworthy He explains that it isthe censured form of rarsquoy that was criticised by the predecessors (salaf ) IbnTaymiyyah defines this rarsquoy as the one which opposes one or more of the follow-ing the Qurrsquoan sunnah and the opinions of the predecessors and the general prin-ciples derived from them Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this form of opposition tothe sources can occur in the following ways

The opposition to one of these sources is founded upon no other sourcesAccording to Ibn Taymiyyah a mujtahid can only perpetrate this kind ofopposition when he is unaware of those sources opposing his opinion

A scholar is aware of these sources but does not implement them because ofsome other consideration170

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the condemnation of rarsquoy is not applicable toindependent reasoning by means of rarsquoy which is founded upon establishedgeneral principles in issues not mentioned explicitly in the Qurrsquoan sunnah and con-sensus171 According to Ibn Taymiyyah the use of this form of rarsquoy is restricted tothose scholars who are familiar with similar and dissimilar issues and who possessa great ability in the science of fiqh al-malsquohnj (textual implications)172 IbnTaymiyyah insists that whoever claims that the predecessors arrived at a consensusabandoning the use of rarsquoy in Islamic law is mistaken Similarly whoever claimedthe companions founded some issues upon rarsquoy alone is also mistaken Rather IbnTaymiyyah asserts that each scholar amongst the companions exerted his bestefforts in independently determining a new issue and every one of them presentedthe solution he arrived upon These solutions often varied from one scholar toanother Some companions offered solutions based upon what they understoodfrom the texts others offered solutions based upon the use of rarsquoy and analogy173

Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos eminent student argues for the presence of agrey area between the rarsquoy condemned by the companions and that praised by


81

them He refers to this as conclusively dubious rarsquoy in which the decision tocondemn or praise cannot be determined According to Ibn al-Qayyim the com-panions permitted the use of this third type of rarsquoy in practice delivering fathwhand determining a legal judgement However this usage was conditioned uponthe existence of a state of necessity In addition the companions did not considerthis type of rarsquoy as a binding source of law Therefore scholars may choosewhether or not to establish their opinions and judgements upon it174

Any acceptable rarsquoy comes within the category of rational knowledge It ought tobe asked then whether or not rational knowledge is considered as sharlsquoj knowledge

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the Aringanbalj scholarsrsquo division of knowledge intosharlsquoj and rational is not accurate at all times Rather the terms lsquorevealedrsquo (naql j)and lsquorationalrsquo (lsquoaqlj) should be used Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this is becauselsquosharlsquoj knowledgersquo can denote various meanings including

what the Lawgiver has ordered to be studied what the Lawgiver has revealed

Certain Aringanbalj scholars preferred the first definition and others the secondNevertheless Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the term lsquosharrsquoj knowledgersquo can refer tothese two meanings at the same time Therefore Ibn Taymiyyah concludes thatthe terms revealed and rational knowledge ought to be used and these two typesof knowledge can be included as sub-category under the term sharlsquoj175

Ibn Taymiyyah also asserts that the presence of a contradiction betweenrevealed and rational knowledge is impossible for sound revealed knowledge is inconformity with clear rational knowledge176

Postponing the clarification ofthe rulings of Islamic law

The Aringanbalj scholars seem to agree on the impermissibility of postponing the actof giving an Islamic ruling of law whenever one is needed177 Some of theAringanbalj sources even made reference to an agreement amongst the scholarsconcerning this issue178

Ibn Taymiyyah does not deny the existence of this consensus but he states thatit should not be understood incorrectly He explains that just as the clarificationof a legal ruling can become necessary it can also occasionally become necessaryto postpone the clarification This necessity may be found on the part of theinformant as well as the one subject to the ruling The informant cannot notify allof the people at the same time nor can he explain the sum total of legal rulings atonce This matter will be restricted to his ability and capacity Similarly anyonesubject to a ruling cannot receive and completely understand the entire legalruling at the same time rather he must do so gradually179

Ibn Taymiyyah bases his recognition of the capacity and ability of the individualin the act of clarifying the Islamic rulings of law upon several pieces of textual


82

evidence an example of which is verse 16 from the chapter al-Taghhbun in whichAllah says lsquoSo keep your duty to Allah (and fear Him) to the best of your abilityrsquoIn addition verse 286 of al-Baqarah lsquoAllah does not burden a person beyondhis abilityrsquo Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah quotes the Qurarsquonic verses referringto the removal of hardship (raflsquo al-aringaraj) An example of such a verse is 2185 lsquoAllahintends for you ease and He does not want to make things difficult for yoursquo andverse 2278 lsquoand has not laid upon you any hardship in the religionrsquo

Ibn Taymiyyah also connects the clarification of Islamic legal rulings toanother concept in uszligul al-fiqh namely the conflict between two advantages ordisadvantages In the event that two advantages conflict the more advantageousof the two will be followed even if this leads to the abandonment of the lessadvantageous Similarly in the event that one of two disadvantages must beselected the one responsible is obliged to select the least disadvantageous one Ina situation where the disadvantages and advantages exist in a single action andcannot be separated from each other the one responsible ought to weigh thepossible benefit and injury arising from the act in question If he discovers thatthe benefit does not outweigh the injury he should abandon that course of actionand vice versa180

It is interesting to note Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos comment concerning an instancewhen one of two obligatory acts has been given priority by the one responsibleThis would occur if it were deemed more important than the other act in asituation where the two acts cannot be practised at the same time He states thatthe one that is not practised is in fact in that instance no longer obligatory (iethe person responsible will not be considered to have committed a sin) Similarlyan action is not deemed prohibited when it is considered the least serious of twoprohibited acts and cannot therefore be avoided181

Accordingly Ibn Taymiyyah argues that before clarifying a legal ruling scholarsought to consider the circumstances surrounding the one entrusted with givinga decision and the consequence of clarifying the ruling By contemplating thematter the scholar will sometimes choose to go ahead with the clarification butalso sometimes avoid doing so as it is said lsquothe answer to some questions is thatyou do not answer themrsquo182

Ibn Taymiyyah supports this understanding of the procedure for clarifyingjurisprudential rulings by citing several sets of evidence such as the following

The Lawgiver did not reveal all jurisprudential rulings at once Instead therevelation of some rulings was postponed for certain reasons Sometimes thisdelay was to enable the Muslims to become accustomed to the alreadyrevealed rulings Certain other rulings were postponed until Islam hadbecome widespread and secure183

On the strength of this Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that scholars can alsopostpone the clarification of certain rulings until such time as the individualis able to practise them184

Allah said lsquoWe never punish until We have sent a Messengerrsquo (Qurrsquoan 115)


83

Ibn Taymiyyah says that there are two factors taken into consideration whendetermining whether the one responsible must implement a ruling or not

1 whether it was possible for the individual to be aware of the ruling2 whether the individual had the ability to practise it

Ibn Taymiyyah argues the need for these two conditions based upon the princi-ple that an individual who is mentally insane is absolved from legal responsibilitybecause of his inability to understand the ruling Therefore Ibn Taymiyyahargues that those who are not aware of a given legal ruling ought to be dealt within a similar manner In addition he mentions that the Lawgiver has pardonedthose who are incapable of implementing certain rulings For example the sickare excused from fasting and the poor are not required to give zakht ThereforeIbn Taymiyyah argues that anyone who is incapable of implementing certainrulings shall be pardoned in a similar manner185

Ibn Taymiyyah also presents rational arguments for his position He says thatan individual studying Islamic law cannot possibly encompass all of the rulingswithin it at the very beginning of his education If we agree that the laws he couldnot learn are not within his capacity then they cannot in fact be obligatory forhim at that stage If these matters are not considered obligatory for him thescholar should not order him to implement them at that stage but should post-pone the clarification of all of the obligatory and prohibited acts until the studentbecomes able to learn these Laws and practise them Ibn Taymiyyah asserts thatsuch a scholar will not be accused of condoning the practice of prohibited thingsor the neglect of obligatory acts186

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that scholars are not obliged to convey all the rulingswithin Islamic law at one go The scholar ought to convey them periodically ina manner he believes is consistent with the understanding of the addressee andhis ability to practise the rulings without the harm exceeding the benefit187

Who is permitted to imitate others in sharlsquoj rulings

Aringanbalj sources mention that neither mujtahids nor imitators are permitted to imi-tate others in issues pertaining to uszligul188 Some Aringanbalj sources include the mainpillars of Islam within the scope of this rule in addition to the best known Islamicrulings which are collectively described as lsquonecessary knowledgersquo189 They alsoappear to agree on allowing laymen to imitate scholars in relation to issues of al-

furulsquo190 Most Aringanbalj scholars also state that a mujtahid is not permitted to imitateanother scholar191

These opinions of the School which are found within most Aringanbalj sourcesconcerning these questions are problematic According to these opinions laymenare obliged to practise independent reasoning in spite of their inability to do so


84

Similarly according to some of these scholars mujtahids are not permitted toimitate other scholars regardless of the prevailing circumstances

One particular scholar has added further confusion on the issue of whether itis permissible for a scholar to imitate ( yuqallid ) another scholar On this occasionhowever the individual in question is not a Aringanbalj scholar but a leading Shhfilsquojscholar Al-Shirhzj (d 4761083) who states that the opinion of Aaringmadrsquos school isthat it is permissible for a mujtahid to imitate another scholar without restriction192

Ibn Taymiyyah discusses these issues within the School and offers his ownopinions He identifies the existence of certain trends within the Aringanbalj Schoolon the subject of independent reasoning First there were those who declared thatevery Muslim including laymen was obliged to practise independent reasoningin issues pertaining to creed Others held that the practice of independentreasoning is now prohibited and every individual must be an imitator in suchmatters Ibn Taymiyyah supports a moderate view according to which thepractice of independent reasoning is obligatory upon those who have the abilityto perform it193

The practice of independent reasoning in issues of furulsquo proved a source offurther disagreement amongst the scholars One opinion was that it is obligatoryfor every individual including laymen to practise independent reasoning in issuesconcerning the furulsquo Ibn Taymiyyah attributed this opinion to those he describedas lsquothe extremists amongst the Mutakallimun and juristsrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah considersthis opinion as weak and supports his point of view by rational evidence He agreesthat the practice of independent reasoning is obligatory when the person respon-sible has the ability to practise it This ability however is either deficient or absentin laymen as it is clear that it is difficult for them to fulfil the conditions for thepractice of independent reasoning Therefore it is not correct to create a generalrule that all legally competent individuals must practise independent reasoning Asecond view is the exact opposite that is all legally competent individuals must beimitators regardless of their status in knowledge This means that even scholarspossessing the ability to practise independent reasoning must imitate the earlyImams rather than practise their own independent reasoning194

Ibn Taymiyyah adopts the opinion that independent reasoning is obligatory forthose scholars who have the ability to execute it He does however acknowledgethe occasional need for such scholars to imitate others where they are incapableof determining a ruling on a specific issue for some reason For instance they maynot have found the necessary evidence or they may believe that there is nothingto distinguish between the different evidence before them Ibn Taymiyyah alsoacknowledges the need for scholars to practise taqllid in certain instances evenwhen the necessary evidence is available this would be the case for instancewhen there were constraints upon time195

Ibn Taymiyyah supports his opinion by arguing that independent reasoningaccepts the concept of divisibility and specialisation He explains that certainscholars are able to practise independent reasoning on some issues but not on


85

others Therefore it ought to be permissible for them to practise independentreasoning whenever they are able to do so196

He argues that every individual is obliged to do that which he is able to do Theextent and scope of independent reasoning should therefore be founded strictlyupon a personrsquos ability If a person studies an issue on which the scholars holdmore than one opinion and discovers that one of the opinions is affirmed bytextual proofs which according to his knowledge do not conflict with any othertexts there are two options available to him

1 to follow the opposing opinion solely on the basis that it is the opinion of hisschool of law According to Ibn Taymiyyah this is not an acceptable basisrather it is merely the practice of adhering to custom

2 to follow the opinion that is supported by the evidence According to IbnTaymiyyah this is the correct option for there is no proof known to thatperson to override the evidence affirming his forwarded opinion197

Those who consider following the opinion of onersquos school to be the legitimateoption argue the possible existence of certain evidence vindicating the schoolrsquosopinion which is unknown to the person who studied the issue198 Ibn Taymiyyahrejects this argument repeating his view that every competent individual is obligedto do what he is able He based this upon certain texts of the Qurrsquoan and the sunnahsuch as the Qurrsquoanic verse in which Allah says lsquoSo keep your duty to Allah to thebest of your abilityrsquo (6416) Also he cites the aringad jth of the Prophet in which hestates lsquowhen I enjoin a command upon you do what you are ablersquo199

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes from these texts that a person who has exertedhimself to the best of his ability in studying an issue has done as much as he isable Having done this he is obliged to follow that which he considers to be thecorrect opinion If new evidence became apparent after that he should adoptthe opinion supported by it Ibn Taymiyyah links this case with that of anabsolute mujtahid who alters his opinion because of new evidence appearingbefore him Ibn Taymiyyah stresses that when a person abandons an opinion foranother because of the appearance of new evidence he should be praised fordoing so This is different from the one who insists on following a particularview despite becoming aware of the existence of evidence that invalidates hisopinion and suggests the correctness of the opposing view such a person wouldbe censured200

Those who consider it an obligation to follow the opinions of the imams ratherthan the apparent purport of the evidences also argue that the Imams weregreater in knowledge and therefore their opinions hold greater weight

Ibn Taymiyyah put forward three points in response to this argument

1 The Imams differed amongst themselves on various jurisprudential rulingsTherefore according to the opponentsrsquo argument none of their opinions canbe followed as the one who attempts to study these issues is not deemed more


86

knowledgeable than any of them and cannot possibly judge between theiropinions

2 Although the companions were not all of an equal rank in knowledge theydid not follow one another in jurisprudential issues Rather they would eachbase their opinions upon legal evidence He presented an example in whichsome of lsquoUmarrsquos opinions were abandoned by the companions in favour ofthe opinions of other companions who were less knowledgeable than lsquoUmarbecause they had cited texts in support of their views

3 He asserts that if people were obliged to follow the Imam as opposed to thelegal evidence it would result in a distortion of the sharjlsquoah as appropriateevidence would be abandoned and the scholarsrsquo incorrect opinions wouldbe followed201

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that what has been attributed by al-Shirhzj to Aaringmadconcerning the unrestricted permissibility for a mujtahid to imitate another scholaris inaccurate202 In support of his rebuttal he cites Aaringmadrsquos well-known practiceof requesting his more knowledgeable students (for example Abu Dawudal-Aringarbj Muslim and Abu Zurlsquoah) not to imitate any other scholars Instead hewould direct them towards practising their own independent reasoning basedsolely upon the general sources of Islamic law203

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the permissibility of taqllid amongst the muqallidsand occasionally the mujtahids is conditional upon the muqallids not knowing ofany conflict between the limited views and the texts Otherwise this taqllid isforbidden204 Ibn Taymiyyah encourages scholars who are able to practiseindependent reasoning to follow their own ijtihhd based directly on the sources oflaw This does not mean that they do not derive benefit from the views andindependent reasoning of previous scholars On the contrary Ibn Taymiyyahemphasises that scholars ought to consider the treatises of previous scholarsparticularly those from the first three generations205

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos understanding is that it is innate in the nature of a humanbeing to imitate others He illustrates his point by presenting the example of achild who begins his life by following others in several different matters one ofwhich is religion Upon attaining maturity however people are obliged toexamine their actions and beliefs and determine whether they are in conformitywith the sources of law If they are incapable of doing that they are permitted toimitate scholars upon the condition that they do not know such scholarsrsquo opinionsto be in opposition to the texts206

Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to restrict the scope of imitation of a particular school byinsisting that the most correct approach is that an individual with a question shouldask a scholar regardless of his jurisprudential school207 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosstatement does not however entail a complete refusal to recognise the act of alayman imitating the rulings of a specific school He argues that this form ofimitation is permissible but not obligatory208 He points out that adherence to aspecific school must not be founded on worldly purposes but should instead be


87

established upon a good intention (ie to follow the truth)209 Thus whenever thetruth becomes clear to an imitator he should not hesitate to follow it even ifit opposes the views of his Imam210 This is because as Ibn Taymiyyah explainsMuslimrsquos duty is to obey Allah He may only follow a school if this does not entaildisobeying Allahrsquos laws211 Indeed the Imams themselves forbade people fromadopting all of their opinions as a whole Abu Aringanifah described a ruling that hededuced by means of independent reasoning as follows lsquoIt is my opinion and it isto the best of my knowledge but if someone offers a better one I will be willingto accept itrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah supports this with another statement from his mostprominent student Abu Yusuf When Abu Yusuf visited Imam Mhlik inMadjnah and the sunnah was clarified to him on certain issues he immediatelyretracted his former views because he became aware that they were in oppositionto the texts and declared lsquoIf my Sheikh had known about these evidences hewould have retracted as I didrsquo Similarly Imam Mhlik is reported to have said thathe was only a human being his opinions must therefore be examined in the lightof the Qurrsquoan and sunnah Al-Shhfilsquoj said that if a correct aringad jth is found to be inopposition to a view of his his opinion should be cast against the wall that is dis-carded Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions the statement of Imam Aaringmad lsquoDo notimitate me and do not imitate Mhlik Shhfilsquoj or al-Thawrj but learn as we didrsquo212

Ibn Taymiyyah discusses the statement of a leading Aringanbalj scholar IbnAringamdhn (d 6951296) He says lsquoIt is disapproved of for an individual who con-tinuously followed a specific school to thereafter contradict it (not act upon it)without evidence imitation or an alternative excusersquo Ibn Taymiyyah asserts thatthis does not contradict his view and says that two possible meanings can beinferred from Ibn Aringamdhnrsquos statement

1 Whosoever follows a specific school must not depart from any of its rulingswithout one of the three following reasons

i imitation of another mujtahidii a discovery of evidence supporting an opposing opinion in the school

iii a valid excuse permitting this departure

2 The impermissibility of altering onersquos school According to the secondmeaning the statement declares that moving from one school to another isnot allowed

Ibn Taymiyyah considers these two possible interpretations of Ibn Aringamdhnrsquosstatement and concludes that the first meaning is what this scholar intended Insupport of this he quotes Ibn Aringanbal as having said that it is impermissible forany Muslim to believe that a ruling on a point of Islamic law was obligatory andthereafter believe that it is not obligatory without evidence and only upon thebasis of whim and desire213

Although Ibn Taymiyyah accepts that following a specific school is permissible(but not obligatory) he states that it is prohibited for imitators to use their schools


88

as a criterion upon which they determine who will be granted their friendship andamity and vice versa214 He also recognises the possibly serious consequences offanaticism asserting that one of these consequences was the invasion of theMongols into the heart of the Islamic world He notes that fanaticism amongstthe schools of law and their followers was clearly manifest at that time Supportersof every school of law stood against one another It is even reported that some ofthe adherents of the four schools of law would not follow in prayer an imam whowas not affiliated to their school215

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that these fanatical followers were ignorant and had noknowledge of the evidence They would quote incorrect and weak proofs andoccasionally base their views which they would fight for on words narrated fromcertain scholars without being aware of the correctness and the authenticity oftheir chains216 Moreover if they discovered some of their opponents adoptingcertain opinions which were in fact matters of jurisprudential dispute among thejurists they would declare that this person should be abandoned and his act con-demned If the very same opinions were held by some of their affiliated membershowever they would ignore them and declare this issue as a matter of independ-ent reasoning and dispute217 On account of this division and disagreementpredominated in the Islamic world218

Corrections of misunderstandings of other schools ofIslamic law by Aringanbalj scholars case study of the

consensus of Ahl Al-Madjnah

Ibn Taymiyyah studied Aringanbalj principles and jurisprudence and corrected someincorrect or generalised statements issued by certain Aringanbalj scholars concerningother schools of law One of these issues is the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah

The Aringanbal j sources and the consensus of Ahl Al-Madjnah

All of the Aringanbalj sources before Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time and other sourcescompiled after his era in the science of the principles of jurisprudence appear tobe in agreement that the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah is not considered to be aproof in Islamic law This may be observed clearly in al-lsquoUddah by Abu Yalsquola219

al-Tamhid by Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb220 al-Rawpartah by Ibn Qudhmah221 al-Musawwadah byal-Majd222 Uszligul al-Fiqh by Ibn Mufliaring223 al-Mukhtaszligar by Ibn al-Laaringaringhm224 Shararingal-Kawkab by Ibn al-Najjhr225 and al-Madkhal by Ibn Badran226

These Aringanbalj scholars have neglected to clarify what is to be understood bylsquothe consensus of Ahl al-Madjnahrsquo Only some of these scholars have mentionedsome points in an attempt to clarify this concept Ibn Qudhmah explains thatthere is an agreement amongst the scholars that the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnahwas not considered a proof in his time227 The leading Aringanbalj scholar Ibn lsquoAqjl


89

states that the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah can be deemed a recognised proof inIslamic law but would be dependent upon whether the consensus concerns anissue on which their opinion is in fact traceable to a aringad jth from the ProphetIf their opinion was based merely upon their own independent reasoning theirconsensus is not to be considered as a binding proof228

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos clarification of this point

Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that this consensus is divided into four categories

1 The consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah that is considered to be a narration fromthe Prophet An example of this type of consensus is their agreement on thequantity of szlighlsquo and mudd (two types of measurement)229

According to Ibn Taymiyyah this type of consensus is agreed upon by thescholars He mentions that it is the opinion of Abu Aringanifah Mhlik al-Shhfilsquojand Aaringmad in addition to their followers230

It appears that when Ibn Taymiyyah mentions Abu Aringanifah as one ofthose scholars who subscribed to this opinion he does so on the strength oftwo points

i The general principles of Abu Aringanifah grant priority to a correct text infavour of reason

ii Abu Yusuf one of Abu Aringanifahrsquos most celebrated students visitedMhlik in al-Madjnah where they discussed various issues some of whichconcerned the narrations of Ahl al-Madjnah During this discussion itis reported that Abu Yusuf accepted the validity of the opinion of Ahlal-Madjnah on certain issues He also stated that if his companion(ie Abu Aringanifah) had known what he knew he would have retracted hisprevious opinions as he did231

2 The practice of the people of Madjnah before the assassination of lsquoUthmhnThis type of consensus is considered as a proof in the School of Mhlik andit is the opinion ascribed to al-Shhfilsquoj It is also the dominant opinion inAaringmadrsquos School232

3 In the event that there are two conflicting traditions or analogies and weare not aware which of the two is to be preferred but one of them wasimplemented by Ahl al-Madjnah does the implementation of this aringad jth byAhl al-Madjnah grant preference to it or not

According to Ibn Taymiyyah scholars were divided into two groups on thisquestion The first were those who stated that the implementation of a aringad jthor analogy by Ahl al-Madjnah grants preference to it This opinion was heldby Mhlik and Shhfilsquoj Abu Aringanifah however was of the opposite opinionThese two conflicting opinions are both found in the School of Imam AaringmadIbn Taymiyyah asserts that the most determined opinion in the school is theone that is held by the majority of the scholars (ie Mhlik and Shhfilsquoj)233


90

4 Is the practice of the people of al-Madjnah during the later stage (ie afterthe assassination of lsquoUthmhn) a proof or not Ibn Taymiyyah says that thereare two opinions relating to this point The first is that this practice is notdeemed a proof This is the opinion of Abu Aringanifah Shhfilsquoj and Aaringmad234

It is clear that the majority of Aringanbalj scholars in addition to others do notrecognise this last type of consensus There are other scholars who claimedthat such consensus is considered a proof within the Mhlikj SchoolNevertheless Ibn Taymiyyah argues that this is not the case He supports hisargument as follows

Ibn Taymiyyah cites the leading Mhlikj scholar lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb(d 4221031) who declared that this last type of consensus of Ahlal-Madjnah is not considered a proof amongst the leading Mhlikjscholars Furthermore this scholar suspects that the opinion was createdby a group of Mhlikj scholars amongst the people of Maghrib withoutany solid basis of evidence

Ibn Taymiyyah states that he could not find any indication in Mhlikrsquoswords that he considered this type of consensus as a valid proof Henotes that if Mhlik thought that this consensus was a proof he wouldhave recommended it to the people (as he did with the other sources forexample the Qurrsquoan and sunnah) The fact that he did not do so suggeststhat he did not think that it was a proof On the contrary Ibn Taymiyyahadds that when Mhlik was presented with the opportunity to establish hisMuwaƒƒa as the binding law of the state by Caliph Hhrun al-Rashjd herefused and explained that he had only collected the knowledge of histown235

It is evident from the discussions in this chapter that Ibn Taymiyyah played anotable role in the development of the general principles within the AringanbaljSchool Part of this role was in the form of clarifications of ambiguous points andanother was to correct misunderstandings of the general principles of the SchoolHe exerted considerable effort in harmonising the principles the School had devel-oped with what he considered to be the original principles of Aaringmad In doing sohe wanted to rid the School of innovations and theoretical precepts introducedunder the influence of groups such as the Mutazilis He also sought to deal withcertain possible ambiguities in Aaringmadrsquos principles (such as the use of weak aringad jth)


91

4

RECONSTRUCTION

Ibn Taymiyyah and Aringanbalj jurisprudence

Introduction

As mentioned in Chapter 3 Ibn Taymiyyah employed a critical approach in hisdiscussion of Aringanbalj jurisprudence and its general principles He found that thecorpus of Aringanbalj jurisprudence contained many rulings that were clearly basedon explicit evidence but there were many other rulings for which the source wasunclear He felt that this was due to a deficiency in the process of independentreasoning employed by the scholars who introduced these rulings into the Schoolor also due to a misinterpretation of the words of the Lawgiver or also of a prece-dent from Aaringmad In Chapter 3 an attempt was made to show some of the cor-rections and clarifications made by Ibn Taymiyyah to issues concerning generalprinciples of jurisprudence in the Aringanbalj This chapter contains a study anddiscussion of some of those corrections and clarifications made by Ibn Taymiyyahto the corpus of Aringanbalj fiqh This includes the following points within the School

innovation aringiyal the use of precaution and piety incorrect opinions jurisprudential terminology jurisprudential rules narrations

As the scope of these points is vast this chapter will highlight a few examples ineach area to reflect the general thrust of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos views and contributionto the development of the School

Innovation in the Aringanbalj fiqh

Ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that the Aringanbalj School contained several rulingsthat could only be classified as bidalsquo (innovations) He was amongst those scholarswho campaigned tirelessly against the presence of bidalsquo in Islamic law in general

92

and in Aringanbalj jurisprudence in particular He persevered in this struggle tosuch an extent that some of his eminent students such as Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj andal-Bazzhr stated that one of the most important merits of their Sheikh was hiseffort in confronting innovation1

Ibn Taymiyyah defines innovation as lsquothat which is not prescribed in thereligion of Allahrsquo2 He explains this general statement by stating that any actionin Islam must be supported by evidence either explicitly or implicitly from theQurrsquoan sunnah or consensus He insists that the practice in certain places or eventhe majority of them and the opinion of certain scholars or the majority of themcannot be employed as evidence to justify innovation3 Ibn Taymiyyah traces theadvent of innovation in Islam back to the assassination of lsquoUthmhn for prior tothis point he believed that the Muslim community as a whole established its beliefsand practices upon two sources textual proofs and reason that was in conformityto the texts4

Ibn Taymiyyah connects the existence of innovation within Aringanbalj fiqh tovarious factors First he asserts that there is a link between innovation and themisuse of maszliglaaringah as a source of law He states that many innovations were intro-duced as a result of some scholars and leaders considering these innovations to bemaszlighliaring5 Second certain scholars based their rulings on what they incorrectlyassumed to be a sound analogy and this meant that unsupported rulings wereintroduced into Islamic law6 Third scholars would use the apparent meaning ofa text to reach a ruling the without consulting the sunnah of the Prophet Aaringmadconsidered this to be a matter practised by the people of innovation7 Fourth IbnTaymiyyah blames the method of writing adopted by most of the later Aringanbaljscholars and others who abandoned recourse to the Qurrsquoan and sunnah andinstead relied on the opinions of their leaders and Imams in their treatises As aconsequence the Qurrsquoan and sunnah were judged according to whether theyagreed with the words of their leaders and imams and not vice versa8

Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally blames outsiders for the deviation of some ofthe followers of Aaringmad as it appears that some of the erroneous opinions inthe School were wrongly attributed to the Imam or to some of his followersThese opinions were then transmitted from generation to generation as part ofthe Schoolrsquos body of law He also indicates that some of the Imamrsquos followersmade additions to his words concerning particular points Aaringmadrsquos statementswere also on occasions either misunderstood or conveyed incorrectly by someof his followers Ibn Taymiyyah also argued that Aaringmad sometimes spokeabout a specific point and his statement was then generalised by some of hisfollowers On some issues according to Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmadrsquos followersselected the less preferred (marjuaring) of the two opinions attributed to the Imam9

Ibn Taymiyyah argued that imitation was partly responsible for the existenceof some of these practices Imitation and its negative consequences not onlyreduced the reality of the Lawgiverrsquos sovereignty to mere theory andsuperstition but also provided an escape for an individual from his responsibilityto fulfil the Lawgiverrsquos requirements10

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND AringANBALI_

JURISPRUDENCE

93

Finally Ibn Taymiyyah also traces back the existence of particular types ofinnovation to the Mongol invasion Greek philosophy and rational theology hadof course been introduced to the Islamic world at a much earlier date but theMongol invasion with its attendant destruction and confusion appears to havehelped it infiltrate Islamic doctrine to a greater extent These external influencesaffected Ibn Taymiyyah greatly and fuelled his desire to purify Islamic societyfrom innovations11

Ibn Taymiyyah draws attention to the severity of the misdeeds committed bythose learned people who legitimise some types of innovations and the public whoimitate them He asserts that a person who pursues a matter with the belief ofattaining divine nearness or by means of a word or deed renders a matter oblig-atory without these acts being prescribed by Allah is guilty of claiming as religionthat which Allah did not sanction The individual who follows the innovator inthis matter is guilty of ascribing a partner to Allah a partner who authorised areligious practice for him without the sanction of Allah12 Nevertheless IbnTaymiyyah realises that a scholar may have his own interpretation to justify hisruling The scholar will therefore be pardoned if he erred by reason of the exerciseof independent reasoning Indeed he may even be rewarded for his efforts Thisdoes not mean however that such a scholar may be imitated on this issue ashis rulings are inaccurate13

Ibn Taymiyyah is an adamant opponent of certain scholars who classify inno-vation as good and bad He argues that if a deed is considered good it must havethe Lawgiverrsquos implicit approval If it appeared so it is not acceptable to label itas a lsquogoodrsquo innovation rather it is deemed a sharlsquoj founded action14

Ibn Taymiyyah himself classifies innovations that have been introduced intothe sharjlsquoah into two types innovations in statement and belief innovations inactions and worship An extensive knowledge of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah shouldprevent a scholar from introducing these types of innovation15

Ibn Taymiyyah also categorises innovations according to the intention of thosewho introduce them

Innovations introduced by scholars whose intention was to follow the textuallegal evidences but who misunderstood these texts in doing so

Innovations introduced by individuals who wanted to corrupt the sharjlsquoah16

By means of a careful study of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises one discovers that helabels several rulings and practices in various subjects of jurisprudence as inno-vations Ibn Taymiyyah notes that there is more innovation present in matterspertaining to worship than on issues of belief17 Ibn Taymiyyah believes that thepresence of innovation in the Aringanbalj School is far less than in the other schoolsAccording to him this is founded upon Aaringmadrsquos teachings which include adetailed explanation of the sunnah and a severe condemnation of innovationThese principles are expressed in a more vociferous manner than in the statementsof the other scholars18


JURISPRUDENCE

94

Here follows a study of some rulings and practices found in the Aringanbalj fiqh

that are considered by Ibn Taymiyyah to be innovations

1 Ibn Taymiyyah and the ruling on the articulation of the intention for acts of worship

Scholars have agreed that the presence of correct intention is a condition for thevalidity of any act of worship19 This consensus is founded upon the aringadjth of theProphet in which he says lsquoThe reward for deeds is dependent upon the intentionand every person will be rewarded according to what he intendedrsquo20 Scholarsaffiliated to the Aringanbalj School in addition to others have disagreed on somedetails in relation to some acts of worship They have differed concerningwhether the intention is derived from the heart or whether it ought to be utteredupon the tongue in actions such as the performance of the prayer the fast andaringajj21 Certain Aringanbalj scholars and others maintain that the intention should beuttered22 They state that the utterance of the intention confirms the action23

Ibn Taymiyyah scrutinised this matter with reference to various acts of worshipand concluded that the claim that it is recommended to utter the intention isincorrect He labels it as an innovation24 Ibn Taymiyyah supports his position byciting the example of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs for it has notbeen narrated that they uttered the intention in any act of worship25 For instancean authentic aringadjth mentions that the Prophet started the prayer with al-takbjr that issaying Allah Akbar There is no mention of him uttering his intention to performthis action before commencing the prayer Similarly the Prophet is reported tohave started the aringajj with al-talbiyah that is saying labbayk Allahumma labbayk andthere is no narration suggesting that he uttered his intention26 The early scholarssubscribed to the opinion that the intention should be performed silently IbnTaymiyyah asserts that the four Imams in addition to many other scholars werein agreement that the intention is derived from the heart27 He discusses the claimmade by certain individuals affiliated to the Shhfilsquoj School that there is an opin-ion in their School that the utterance of the intention for prayer is obligatoryThey allege that this opinion is founded upon a statement of Shhfilsquoj himself IbnTaymiyyah argues that this opinion is in fact based upon a misunderstanding ofa statement by Shhfilsquoj in which he says lsquoThe utterance is obligatory at its start iethe start of prayerrsquo Some Shhfilsquoj scholars understood this statement to mean thatthe utterance of the intention at the start of the prayer is obligatory IbnTaymiyyah on the other hand insists that Shhfilsquoj was referring to the utteranceof takbjr and not the utterance of the intention The majority of scholarscriticised the explanation of Shhfilsquojrsquos statement given by some of his followersIndeed the majority of Shhfilsquoj scholars agreed that their Imam was referring inhis statement to the utterance of takbjr28 Interestingly in seeking to show that theopinion of some Aringanbalj scholars recommending the utterance of the intentionin acts of worship is devoid of foundation Ibn Taymiyyah makes use of theprinciple that a binding consensus cannot be overruled He argues that this


JURISPRUDENCE

95

Aringanbalj opinion was issued after the scholars had reached a consensus that theintention should be preformed silently29

2 Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of travelling to visit graves

The act of visiting graves in Islam is a recommended action this may be shownby consulting various aringadjths of the Prophet in which he encouraged Muslims tovisit cemeteries In some of these aringadjths he explains that graves are a means ofreminding the Muslim of the Hereafter30 Therefore we find that this action waspractised amongst the early generations In later years the graves of righteouspeople were granted a special status by some people Thus people would set outon a journey for the sole objective of visiting these graves This practice hadbecome widespread by the time of Ibn Taymiyyah As a consequence we find thathe discusses this issue on numerous occasions He issued a fatwh in which he statedthat this was an innovated practice It was this fatwh which resulted in one of themost serious periods of his detention that continued until his death in the year728132831

The opinion that it is permissible to undertake a journey solely in order to visitgraves was held by both Aringanbalj scholars and several leading scholars affiliated toother schools both before and during Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time Famous Aringanbaljscholars who subscribed to this opinion included Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisj32

Ibn Aringhmid and Ibn lsquoAbdus33 These scholars founded their opinion upon severalproofs First the Prophet had said lsquovisit gravesrsquo34 which includes the act oftravelling to visit them Second they cited aringadjths in which the Prophet is reportedto have encouraged people to visit his grave Furthermore in some of these aringadjths

he specified Paradise as being the reward for this deed Abu Muhammadal-Maqdisj also pointed out that the Prophet would visit the Qubhrsquo Mosque Healso commented upon the intended meaning of the Prophetic tradition in whichhe says lsquoDo not travel except to three mosques the Aringaram mosque the mosqueof the Prophet and al-Aqszligh mosquersquo35 He claimed that although it is not recom-mended to travel on a journey for the purpose of worship except to these threeplaces this does not mean that it is impermissible36

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises and refutes this opinion in various ways

He explains that this opinion opposes the aforementioned aringadjth of theProphet in which he states lsquoDo not travel except to three mosques rsquo It isclear that this aringadjth negates the validity of this act There is nothing tosuggest that it is merely disapproved of rather than prohibited Thereforethis action is not permitted at all37

He asserts that all of the aringadjths cited by his opponents in support of visitinggraves are either unauthentic or fabricated According to Ibn Taymiyyah thepeople of innovation (bidlsquoa) who first endorsed this practice were responsiblefor fabricating these aringadjths Thereafter some scholars of jurisprudence whopossessed little knowledge of the science of aringadjth cited them38


JURISPRUDENCE

96

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that this practice was neither founded upon authenticaringadjth nor was it known amongst the Prophetrsquos companions and their followersSimilarly it was not considered by any of the Imams to be a recommendeddeed Therefore whosoever performs this action as a sharlsquoj deed will be con-sidered as practising an action that is contrary to the texts and the consensusof the Imams39 Ibn Taymiyyah argues in his book al-Jawhb al-Bhhir thatwhoever disagrees with this fact will be founding his opinions upon merespeculation and he challenges his opponents to cite any recognised sourcefrom any of the Imams to vindicate their position40

With reference to the evidence cited by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisj IbnTaymiyyah presents the following criticism

ndash Abu Muhammad was not correct in citing the proof that the Prophetused to visit the Qubhrsquo Mosque for it is not necessary to saddle onersquoscamel in order to reach Qubhrsquo from Madjnah41 In other words thiscould not be considered a journey

ndash He rebuts the claim of Abu Muhammad that the aringadjth lsquoDo not travelexcept to three mosquesrsquo renders this act as not recommended but doesnot make it impermissible Ibn Taymiyyah criticised AbuMuhammad intwo ways

i Abu Muhammadrsquos explanation of this aringadjth implies that the act oftravelling to visit graves is not a valid deed whereas it is known thatall those who travel to visit graves intend by it and believe it to bea good deed

ii A principle in uszligul al-fiqh dictates that a text forbidding a deed resultsin its invalidity unless there are other proof to lessen the degree ofprohibition According to Ibn Taymiyyah this cannot be opposedby the aringadjths cited by his opponents because they are not authen-tic as has been mentioned previously42

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fatwh was received with great opposition by some of hiscontemporaries This was particularly so because his fatwh appears to include theact of undertaking a journey in order to visit the grave of the Prophet He argueshowever that the aringadjths cited by his opponents in favour of travelling for thepurpose of visiting the grave of the Prophet are incorrect43

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that his opinion on the issue of travelling to visit graves wasin fact the stance of all the earlier Aringanbalj scholars in addition to others It was onlylater that a disagreement developed on this point Their disagreement concernedwhether the act of undertaking a journey in order to visit graves was prohibited ornot none of them however considered it to be recommended44

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos discourse with his opponents concerning this issue took thetypical form of jurisprudential discussions It appears Ibn Taymiyyah felt thatthere was a hidden motive behind the solid opposition to his opinion and heasserts that his words were twisted in several ways He believed that the learned


JURISPRUDENCE

97

scholars did not regard his fatwh as being incorrect45 This belief is strengthenedby the fact that his fatwh was issued seventeen years before the accusation inrelation to this point was raised against him46

3 Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of increasing the rent in a hire contract

Certain Aringanbalj scholars claim that it is permissible to increase the rent in acontract of hire before the time of its expiry provided that the additionalpayment is less than a third of the original payment specified in the contract47

Ibn Taymiyyah rebuts this opinion by stating that it is an innovation that wasnot known amongst any of the Imams of the Schools of law and that contra-dicted the consensus of the scholars48 According to Ibn Taymiyyah the correctruling in relation to this issue is that the owner has no right either to increase theoriginal rent or to ask the hirer to return the hired object until the expiry date ofthe contract49

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion appears to be in agreement with a Aringanbalj jurispru-dential rule which states that the owner of property has no right of disposal overit until the expiration of the lease period50 In addition Aringanbalj scholars haveexplained that if a tenant rents property for a specific period of time andthereafter vacates it before the expiry date of the hire contract the tenant will beasked to pay the rent for the entire duration of the agreed term as he is boundby the terms of the original contract51 Similarly where the owner of the hiredobject increases the rent before the end of the contract his action will be deemedinvalid and the previous terms will remain legally binding

Aringiyal in Aringanbalj fiqh

Aringiyal (sing aringjlah) can be understood as the use of technical devices to circumventprohibitions and obligations under the sharjlsquoah Certain Aringanbalj scholars in addi-tion to scholars from other schools issued fathwh and wrote treatises in which theyaffirmed the validity of particular types of aringiyal It is evident that the use of someof these aringiyal was widespread amongst laymen and even amongst some scholarsduring Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time Hence we note that he devotes great attention tothis problem and opposes it strongly52

In this section we will analyse Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position towards aringiyal in Islamiclaw in general This will also clarify his opinion concerning the legitimate use ofaringiyal as a sharlsquojmeans by Aringanbalj scholars There then follows a case study of aringiyal

used by some Aringanbalj scholarsIbn Taymiyyah defines aringiyal as lsquothe means through which the legitimisation of

prohibited acts or the invalidation of obligatory duties can be attainedrsquo53 Hetraces the emergence of the practice of certain aringiyal and the fathwh validatingthem to the first century of Islam when the practice arose among a group ofuninformed people These people were severely criticised by the companions


JURISPRUDENCE

98

Ibn Taymiyyah says that the companions of the Prophet did not approve of anytype of aringiyal On the contrary whenever they were questioned about some ofthese aringiyal they would criticise them Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the sources of aringad-

jth and athar and mentions that they contain no fatwh from a companion validat-ing the practice of aringiyal He discovers that the first fathwh validating aringiyal appearedduring the era of the late followers (sighhr al-thbilsquojn) a period after the first centuryof Islam54 The leading scholars of the time disapproved of these fathwh55 Lateron however the use of aringiyal evolved and several scholars from different schoolsbecame involved in the act of issuing fathwh and writing treatises in which theyvalidated several types of aringiyal56

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the use of aringiyal is generally linked to certainscholars affiliated to Ahl al-Rarsquoy57 Nevertheless the early scholars of this schoolcriticised the use of aringiyal58 He mentions that the fathwh in this school supportingaringiyal dated back to the generation of the teachers of Imam Aaringmad IbnTaymiyyah quotes Bishr al-Surj one of his teachers as saying that he hadconsidered the knowledge during that time and determined that the method oflearning was the proper and common method of Ahl al-Aringadjth and the methodof Ahl al-Rarsquoy He commented upon the salient features of these two schoolsand mentioned that the use of aringiyal was one of the characteristics of the schoolof Ahl al-Rarsquoy59

Ibn Taymiyyah observes that even some of the followers of Ibn Aringanbal wereinvolved in this practice regardless of the fact that their Imam was known for hissevere opposition to it and is reported to have said lsquoNone of the aringiyal arepermissiblersquo60

Ibn Taymiyyah states that it is not possible to attribute the permission for aringiyal

to any of the Imams to do so would be to censure them Even if it has beennarrated for one of them that he permitted a aringjlah the prohibition for which isagreed upon amongst the scholars it means that either this narration is unau-thentic or the narrator did not understand the Imamrsquos objective in issuing thefatwh In the event that the narration is sound Ibn Taymiyyah insists that suchfathwh should still not be attributed to the Imams61 He explains that his positionis based upon the premise that all of the Imams declared that if any of their viewswere in opposition to the correct opinion the correct view ought to be followedand their views must be cast against the wall62

It is interesting to note that Ibn Taymiyyah also finds the root for some of thefathwh issued by the followers of the Imams in theological and not jurisprudentialfactors There were certain adherents who affiliated themselves to an Imam injurisprudential ramifications while at the same time disagreeing with them ontheological issues He presents the example of a group of Abu Aringanifahrsquos follow-ers who were affiliated to the Mulsquotazilites but nevertheless adopted Aringanafjjurisprudence63

Ibn Taymiyyah accepts that disputes concerning al-furulsquo are tolerated and thatpeople are entitled to follow one Imam or another in these matters of disagreementbut he does not believe it is permissible for a person to resort to one of these aringiyal


JURISPRUDENCE

99

by their act of following those scholars who declared them to be permissible Thisis because Ibn Taymiyyah believes that the prohibition of aringiyal is definite and notan issue of ijtihhd64 He explains that the prohibition of aringiyal can be located in theQurrsquoan the sunnah and the consensus of the companions in addition to othersources In support he mentions several verses from the Qurrsquoan one of which isverse 142 of Surah al-Nishrsquo in which Allah says lsquoVerily the hypocrites seek todeceive Allah but it is He Who deceives themrsquo The argument Ibn Taymiyyahdeduces from this verse may be summarised as follows The action of deceivingAllah is prohibited and aringiyal is a form of deception therefore aringiyal must beprohibited65

Ibn Taymiyyah also cites verse 231 of Surah al-Baqarah in which Allah says lsquoAndtreat not the Verses (Laws) of Allah as jestrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah explains his argumentby stating that this verse comes after rulings for various issues including divorcemarriage saving the marriage and retracting a divorce According to IbnTaymiyyah if this verse is read within context it implies that any one whopronounces the relevant formulas in these situations without sincerely intendingthem would be mocking these rulings and this verse prohibits ridiculing therulings of Allah66

Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions certain aringadjths in support of his stance He cites aaringadjth (mentioned earlier) which he describes as primary evidence for the prohibitionof aringiyal narrated by al-Bukhhrj in which the Prophet states lsquoThe reward for deedsis dependent upon the intention and every person will be rewarded according towhat he has intendedrsquo67

The third category of evidence cited by Ibn Taymiyyah is the consensus of thecompanions This occurred when some of the companions disapproved of certainaringiyal and the remainder of the companions kept silent In addition it wascommon knowledge that they disapproved of the aringiyal that were in existenceduring their time It is evident that this type of consensus is a tacit consensus andnot an explicit consensus68

Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the juristic principle that intentions mustbe considered when judging actions customs and acts of worship The principlestates that the validity of the intention determines the validity of the action Theconclusion sought by Ibn Taymiyyah through this process of logical deductionis that the intention in aringiyal is invalid because the objective of any aringiyal is to avoidthe legal ruling Therefore the aringiyal is also invalid69

Ibn Taymiyyah also states that permitting aringiyal contradicts the concept of sadd

al-dharhrsquoilsquo (blocking the means) because whereas the Lawgiver seals all the pathstowards a prohibited act the people supporting aringiyal endeavour to obtain it by anypossible means70

Ibn Taymiyyah employs further logical arguments in support of his positionFor example he refers to aringiyal as being a form of deceit deceit is prohibited andtherefore aringiyal must be prohibited too71 Similarly if it is prohibited for one personto deceive another it must also be the case that an attempt to deceive the Creatorby avoiding sharlsquoj rulings is prohibited72


JURISPRUDENCE

100

Let us consider the position of Ibn Taymiyyah on the contract of nikharing al-taaringljlas an example of aringiyal legitimised by some Aringanbalj scholars

Nikharing al-taaringljl is a type of marriage performed by a person for the purpose oflegitimising the remarriage of a man to his former wife from whom she has beendivorced thrice and thus irrevocably divorced73 Ibn Taymiyyah explains that thistype of marriage can occur in various ways including the following

The muaringallil (the man who marries the divorcee) demonstrates that his intentionin entering into a marriage contract is to legitimise the remarriage of the firsthusband and his ex-wife This form of marriage is invalid74

The muaringallil conceals the truth that his intention in entering into this contractis to legitimise the remarriage of the divorced woman to her ex-husbandWhen this occurs there appears to be some confusion within the AringanbaljSchool Although the early narration from Aaringmad prohibits this type ofmarriage we find that certain Aringanbalj scholars claimed the existence of twoviews (wajhayn) on this issue Others claimed the existence of two narrationsfrom Aaringmad the first states that the contract is valid and the second statesthat it is invalid75

Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that the view of Aaringmad and the early Aringanbalj scholarsare that this form of contract is invalid This is also the opinion of some of thelater Aringanbalj scholars such as Abu Yalsquola in his late treatises Abu rsquol-Mawhhib andIbn lsquoAqjl (in his book al-Tadhkirah)76 Another opinion attributed to Aaringmad statesthat despite this contract being valid it is reprehensible77 This opinion is attrib-uted to Ibn Aringanbal as a riwhyah by some Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Sharjf AbuJalsquofar and Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and is attributed to him as a wajh by other Aringanbaljscholars such as Abu Yalsquola in al-Mujarrad and Ibn lsquoAqjl in al-Fuszligul78 In additionIbn Taymiyyah states that this last opinion is the only riwhyah mentioned by Ibnal-Bannh79

According to Ibn Taymiyyah this last opinion within the Aringanbalj School isbased upon a narration from Aaringmad by his student Aringarb (d 280893) In thisstatement Aaringmad is reported to have expressed his reprehension for this type ofcontract80 This extreme dislike is understood by some Aringanbalj scholars to beequivalent to prohibition whereas others understood it to be merely encouragingpeople to abstain from performing this act81

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises the opinion that this type of contract is reprehensibleand explains that Aringarbrsquos narration cannot be used as an evidence because thesubject-matter of Aringarbrsquos narration is not nikharing al-muaringallil He had in fact questionedAaringmad concerning the ruling on a man who marries a woman whom he intendsto divorce after a period of time Therefore Aaringmadrsquos answer cannot be appliedto the issue of nikharing al-muaringallil Moreover when answering the same question onanother occasion asked this time by lsquoAbd Allah b Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal declaredthis marriage to be reprehensible and that it is considered to be mutlsquoah (a temporarymarriage whose limit is stated in the contract)82


JURISPRUDENCE

101

Ibn Taymiyyah illustrates that if Aaringmad considers this type of contract to bemutlsquoah then an analogous to the ruling on mutlsquoah must be applied to it It is com-mon knowledge that the contract of mutlsquoah is prohibited according to the opinionof the majority of the companions (excluding Ibn lsquoAbbhs and some of his stu-dents) and all the jurists affiliated to the various schools of law Therefore IbnAringanbalrsquos declaration of reprehensibility must only be understood as a prohibi-tion Ibn Taymiyyah does affirm the presence of another narration on the samequestion posed by Ibn Aringanbalrsquos disciple Abu Dawud In this instance Aaringmad isreported to have said that he reprehended this contract and that it is similar to thecontract of mutlsquoah83

Ibn Taymiyyah notes that this last narration may provide another explanationfor the disagreement within the Aringanbalj School concerning this contract This isbecause Ibn Aringanbal is reported in this narration to have said that this contract issimilar to the contract of mutlsquoah but not necessarily that it is identical to mutlsquoah84

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents cited other proofs in support of the permissibility ofthis type of contract One is a aringadjth attributed to the Prophet and reported by anunnamed companion The narrator mentions that at the time of the Prophet aman married a woman but the companions thought that he had not married herexcept in order for her to return to her ex-husband When the news of this matterreached the Prophet he asked lsquoDid he call witnessesrsquo They replied lsquoYesrsquo He askedif he had paid the dower and they replied lsquoYesrsquo Finally he asked if sexual inter-course had taken place and they replied lsquoYesrsquo Thereafter the Prophet said lsquoThedeceit has gonersquo (ie there is no aringjlah in this contract and it is therefore valid)85

Ibn Taymiyyah objects to the citation of this aringadjth by claiming that thetradition is void (bhƒil ) He claims that one of the narrators of this aringadjth is Mush bMuƒayr86 who is described as matruk which can be literally translated as ldquoaban-donedrdquo He was also described as shqiƒ which can be translated literally as lsquofallingrsquoHe was known for attributing unknown narrations to the renowned scholars ofaringadjth Ibn Taymiyyah states that none of his narrations can be accepted87

In support of his opinion Ibn Taymiyyah quotes the opinions of severalscholars of aringadjth and rijhl who condemned Mush b Muƒayrrsquos narration Hequotes Ibn Malsquojn who describes this narrator as a liar88 and Abu Aringhtim al-Rhzjwho considers his aringadjth as lsquoabandonedrsquo and lsquodhhhibrsquo89 He cites Abu Zurlsquoahwho states that his aringadjth is lsquoabandonedrsquo90 and lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn b al-Aringakam whodeclares that the people (ie of aringadjth) abandoned his aringadjth91 Ibn Taymiyyah alsocriticises an unnamed author who he describes as reckless for describing thisnarrator as reliable (thiqah)92

It is important to note that this disagreement concerns the situation where themuaringallil intends taaringljl and does not disclose his intention According to IbnTaymiyyah if the muaringallil (the new husband) and the muaringallal lahu (the formerhusband) agree upon the intention of taaringljl before the contract it is regarded asinvalid by the majority of Aringanbalj scholars93

Furthermore if this intention is expressed in the contract it becomes invali-dated by the vast majority of Aringanbalj scholars94 although Abu Yalsquola (in al-Khilhf )


JURISPRUDENCE

102

and Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb derived (kharraja) another opinion from Ibn Aringanbalrsquos wordsThey made the express provision void but declared the remainder of contractvalid95 Some Aringanbalj scholars adopt this view in all cases96 Ibn Taymiyyahhowever considers this view to be wholly fallacious He argues that it is not appro-priate to describe this derivation (takhrjj ) as an opinion of Imam Aaringmad97 He alsopoints out that even those individuals who validate this type of contract regard itas reprehensible98

The use of precaution (iaringtiyhƒ) and piety (waralsquo) in Aringanbalj jurisprudence

From a review of treatises on fiqh it will be seen that scholars sometimes expressa preference for carrying out an action or refraining from one beyond the strictrequirements of a text The intention of the scholar is to ensure that in the eventof some doubts as to whether a ruling exists the Muslim does not inadvertentlyfail to observe the law

Although many scholars including Aringanbaljs have made use of the concept ofprecaution ambiguity continues to surround various aspects of it such as thelimitation on its use and its status in Islamic law This section contains a studyof these points from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos perspective and some practical examplesillustrating Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role in Aringanbalj jurisprudence

We do not find Ibn Taymiyyah offering a definition of the term precaution in histreatises but his student Ibn al-Qayyim defines it as lsquoan individual doing his best tofollow the sharlsquoj rulings without exaggeration and extravagance nor omissionrsquo99

Ibn Taymiyyah has made several references in his treatises to the status ofprecaution Ibn Taymiyyah argues that all of the principles of the sharjlsquoah areindicative of the fact that precaution is neither obligatory nor prohibited100 In a dif-ferent place he explains that it can only be described as permissible101 Accordingto Ibn Taymiyyah this permissibility is confined to instances where the texts are notexplicit in their rulings102 Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that if the permissibility ofpracticing precaution is not restricted to such grey areas in the texts the criteriagoverning the implementation of precaution will be unclear and imprecise103

Ibn Taymiyyah states that those scholars who arrived at opinions that are notin agreement with the texts are excused if these texts seemed ambiguous to themAs for those scholars for whom the implication of the texts was clear they are notallowed to follow the opinions of the first group as a precautionary measurebecause this is not within the proper scope of precaution104 In certain instancesthe Lawgiver has conveyed two methods for performing one deed Examples arethe mode of adhhn (call to prayer) szligalht al-khawf (prayers under threat of attack)and istiftharing (post-takbjr words in the prayer) According to Ibn Taymiyyah thecorrect position in such circumstances is that the individual should perform theaction according to one form on one occasion and an alternative form on anotherThey should not apply precaution to the performance of this type of deed asthere is no scope for precaution where the texts are clear on an issue105 Despite


JURISPRUDENCE

103

the presence of a disagreement amongst the Aringanbalj scholars in relation to theruling concerning these issues Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the stance of Aaringmadwith regard to these issues is comparable to his own deductions106

In practice there are several issues where Aringanbalj scholars and others appliedprecaution to their rulings It appears that this was due to the existence of disputesamongst the scholars on the rulings on these issues therefore the scholars appliedprecaution in order to err on the side of caution Ibn Taymiyyah comments thatprecaution cannot be applied to issues merely because of the existence of differencesof opinion It is only permissible to exercise precaution in areas of dispute whenwe are unaware of the textual evidences pertinent to the issue107

Scholars have explained that the objective in using precaution is to avoidcommitting a prohibited or disliked deed Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges this butargues that there are exceptions to this general ruling For instance whenever adisliked action in the sharjlsquoah becomes necessary it becomes obligatory to performit and the reprehensibility disappears108 Similarly if an action is prohibited in thesharjlsquoah as a way of blocking the means to another prohibited act it can bepermitted when a preponderant benefit exists109

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos understanding of and approach towards precaution comesout clearly from his writings on Islamic law in general and the Aringanbalj School inparticular For example in certain jurisprudential issues he states that al-Shhfilsquojexercised precaution in obligation prohibition and permissibility to such anextent that it resulted in severe hardship on the part of the individual concerned (al-mukallaf )110 Ibn Taymiyyah sometimes supports the use of precaution byAringanbalj School111 but in other cases he disagrees with its use For instanceAringanbalj scholars have differed on the ruling when there are factors (eg clouds)that conceal the ability to sight the first appearance of the new moon after thesetting of the sun on the twenty-ninth day of Shalsquobhn A group of these scholarssubscribe to the opinion that fasting in these circumstances is obligatory112 Thisopinion is based upon the use of precaution as the next day could mark the firstday of Ramaparthn Other Aringanbalj scholars hold the opinion that fasting on this dayis forbidden based on the aringadjth indicating that the commencement of Ramaparthnonly occurs after the sighting of the new moon Furthermore they argue that anobligation cannot be based upon doubt113

Ibn Taymiyyah takes a third position He feels that most of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos wordsindicate that fasting on this day is neither obligatory nor prohibited but ratherthat it is recommended This is derived from a series of narrations fromcompanions such as lsquoUmar lsquoAli and Mulsquohwiyah in which they were cited asfasting on that day114

This case is an example of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos implementation of his aforemen-tioned understanding of precaution He sees no room for it in various situationsHe does not accept that fasting on this day is obligatory although this opinion isattributed to Aaringmad in one of two narrations and is the view held by the greaterportion of later Aringanbalj scholars (who claimed that it was also the position of themajority of earlier Aringanbalj scholars)115 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rejection of this opinion


JURISPRUDENCE

104

is based upon several points including the principle that precaution cannot bemade obligatory He states lsquoIndeed the doubtful and uncertain cannot be madeobligatory nor prohibited but can be made recommended This is because theprinciples of the sharjlsquoah do not forbid precaution and yet do not render an actobligatory merely because of the presence of doubtrsquo116

One area in which Aringanbalj scholars have extensively employed the concept ofprecaution is purification (eg ritual ablution) This has resulted in a significantdegree of hardship upon individuals following this School This difficultly did notgo unnoticed by Ibn Taymiyyah He states that applying precaution to water usedin purification because of mere doubt about its ruling is impermissible in Islamiclaw He asserts that all types of water are originally pure by themselves and cannotbe claimed to be impure without evidence of impurity117

The concept of precaution was well known within the Aringanbalj School of lawparticularly in matters pertaining to lsquoIbhdht (worship) Similarly this School wasdescribed as the School of waralsquo (piety) in relation to worldly affairs especially inissues of mulsquohmalht (transactions) In several Aringanbalj sources there are narrationsthat Ibn Aringanbal or other Aringanbalj scholars practised or approved of certain typesof waralsquo118 During the time of Ibn Taymiyyah a statement was circulatedamongst laymen and was even subscribed to by some scholars to the effect thatto consume the lawful was now an impossibility (mutalsquodhdhr) Those who propa-gated this claim supported their assertion with both textual and rational evidenceThe core argument was that lawful and unlawful gains had become so mixed thatthey could no longer be distinguished from one another119

Ibn Taymiyyah was presented with this statement and asked to respond to it Hebegan by tracing the origin of the statement He explained that the statement waspresent during the time of the Imams who agreed that whoever raised this claimwas mistaken Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges that a similar claim circulated amongstthe people of innovation unqualified jurists and corrupted sections of the ascetics(Ahl al-Nusuk) This claim was received with strong disapproval by the Imams IbnTaymiyyah adds that even Aaringmad who was known for his exemplary piety disap-proved of this statement In later years serious deductions were made from thisstatement Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this statement caused some scholars to goso far as to claim that certain aringudud punishments such as the punishment for theftcould no longer be carried out because of the presence of doubt (shubhah) that isthe doubt occasioned by the mixing of lawful and unlawful money According toIslamic justice a aringadd punishment is waived in cases of doubt120

Ibn Taymiyyah notes that this argument was conveyed to some jurists whoauthored works on the subject of jurisprudence These individuals consisted of twoparties those who subscribed to the opinion that the individual concerned must notconsume in excess of what is necessary and those who acknowledged the resultanthardship of this statement and therefore ignored the need to practice waralsquo (piety)121

According to Ibn Taymiyyah some individuals derive their position of pietyfrom narrations approving the use of this concept Ibn Taymiyyah asserts thatsome of these narrations are either fabricated or misunderstood122


JURISPRUDENCE

105

Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges that piety is one of the foundations of thereligion (qawhlsquoid al-djn) He supports this statement by several aringadjths includingthe authentic aringadjth in which the Prophet says lsquowhat is lawful is evident and whatis unlawful is evident and in between them are things of a doubtful nature whichmany people do not know So he who guards against doubtful things keeps hisreligion and honour blameless and he who indulges in a doubtful thing indulgesin unlawful thingsrsquo123

Ibn Taymiyyah explains however that waralsquo which is defined by him as theavoidance of or refraining from doing something124 can be divided into two typesThe first is the obligatory waralsquo which he defines as abstaining from whatever thatwould lead to the Lawgiverrsquos censure and punishment This type according toIbn Taymiyyah includes doing the obligatory and refraining from committing theprohibited125 The second type of waralsquo is the recommended which he defines aslsquoabstaining from whatever is feared to lead to the Lawgiverrsquos censure and punish-ment without the existence of a contradicting preponderant benefit or injury thatleads otherwisersquo In this last category according to Ibn Taymiyyah are includeddeeds that have some similarity to either expressly obligatory or prohibited deedsin Islamic law126

Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies what he means by lsquothe existence of a contradictingpreponderant benefit or injury that leads otherwisersquo by stating that if there is aconflict between the practice of or the abstention from a deed that has somesimilarity to other obligatory or prohibited deeds then the one that secures morebenefits and that leads to lesser injury must be upheld127

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that whenever there is no doubt about the permissibilityof something then abstaining from it is not correct waralsquo and whenever there is nodoubt that an action is not ordered by the Lawgiver then doing it is not in factcorrect waralsquo128

In order to determine the correct understanding implementation and implica-tions of this concept Ibn Taymiyyah suggests that the following principles mustbe taken into consideration

Not every matter considered by a jurist to be unlawful is prohibited This isbecause prohibition is established by the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensus or analogyTherefore whenever a disagreement occurs between scholars concerningwhether a particular matter is prohibited or lawful a decisive criterion will bethe above-mentioned evidence129 Ibn Taymiyyah is of the view that partof the problem is that certain people have received fathwh from certainscholars and then attempted to impose what they assumed to be the correctrulings upon all Muslims130

If a Muslim engages in certain types of transactions which he considers tobe lawful it is permissible for other Muslims who do not agree with thepermissibility of these transactions to engage in business with him His fellowMuslims should accept the money that he made in his trade in disputedissues even though they do not approve of their permissibility131


JURISPRUDENCE

106

The mixing of prohibited substances with lawful ones is of two types

1 Matters prohibited due to their attributes such as maytah (an animal notslaughtered in accordance with the sharlsquoj requirements) blood and pig Ifthis type is mixed with other lawful substances such as food or water andthis act of mixing results in a change in the lawful substancersquos tastecolour or smell then the latter will be prohibited If no change occursthe scholars differ on whether or not the lawful substance becomesunlawful132

2 Matters prohibited due to the manner in which they were acquired butwhich are in essence lawful such as money taken by force or illegally If thismoney is combined with money acquired legally this process of mixing willnot render the latter prohibited Therefore if a person usurped money andmixed it with his legally acquired money the total sum of money would notbe considered prohibited gain Only the usurped part would be deemedprohibited gain Therefore the person whose money was usurped can takehis money from the total sum of the usurperrsquos money133

It is evident that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos intended objective from this point is todemonstrate the invalidity of the premise that whenever unlawfully acquiredmoney is mixed with lawfully gained money it becomes prohibited to trans-act with the whole sum of money

According to Islamic law the unknown is almost equal to the non-existentvarious rulings are founded upon this principle For instance when a valuablearticle is found and its owner is unknown the finder is obliged to advertisethe matter for the duration of a year If after this period elapses no one hasclaimed the article the finder can pursue one of two courses he can eithertake possession of the item himself or donate it as a charitable gift In eithercircumstance if the owner of the valuable appears the finder will be respon-sible for paying compensation to him Another example of a ruling basedupon this principle is that if a person dies leaving an estate in the absenceof a known heir this estate may be disposed off in a manner beneficial tothe community If an heir of the deceased appears later on he will becompensated accordingly 134

In elucidating these principles Ibn Taymiyyah intends to remove much of thehardship resulting from the incorrect application of precaution For examplethose who agree that no wealth or food is permissible because there is doubtabout the sellerrsquos actions or earnings have no sound basis for their position

Incorrect (ghalaƒ) rulings in Aringanbalj fiqh

As mentioned previously Ibn Taymiyyah started his jurisprudential career withinthe Aringanbalj School In later years he familiarised himself with the other schools


JURISPRUDENCE

107

of law too During this later stage he developed a new approach to his study offiqh both Aringanbalj and otherwise It was a significantly more critical approach inwhich he studied analysed and compared the various opinions of the School IbnTaymiyyahrsquos adoption of this new critical method of study resulted in severalbenefits for later scholars and students Among his most important legacies is hisanalysis of a large number of weak opinions within the Aringanbalj School Heexpended his best efforts in detecting and attempting to rectify these opinionsThis section is devoted to elucidating several issues pertaining to this subject Tobegin we shall clarify the most important causes for the existence of these opin-ions within this school from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos perspective Thereafter we shallexamine some of the particular rulings that Ibn Taymiyyah considered to beincorrect We shall concentrate only on a few examples as the study of all ofthese issues is certainly beyond the scope of this work

Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally specifies the reasons for the existence of theseopinions and occasionally these reasons are implied in his discussions He explainsthat the process of transmitting the opinions of the Imam or the School is prac-tised by scholars in two ways First scholars transmit what they hear or observefrom the Imam of the School or his School and obviously attribute this statementor action to him or to his School as appropriate Second scholars occasionallyattribute opinions to an Imam or to his School because they assume these opin-ions to be in conformity with the general principles of the Imam or the Schoolwithout actually having heard the opinion According to Ibn Taymiyyah thissecond method has resulted in serious mistakes because scholars have attributedvarious opinions to the Imams and their schools based upon their own inferencesopinions have thus been ascribed to the Imam or School135 This is one of themain reasons why the sources of the Aringanbalj School contain a large number ofconflicting narrations and opinions attributed to Imam Aaringmad136 resulting ingreat confusion within the School Ibn Taymiyyah determined that there areseveral instances where certain Aringanbalj scholars have incorrectly attributednarrations and opinions to the Imam this is one of the main causes behind thepresence of dubious opinions in the School

Ibn Taymiyyah laments that certain authors also zealously quote their Imamrsquosopinion regardless of what the Book of Allah and the sunnah of the Messengerdictate on these issues It is clearly evident from this practice that these scholarsplace the statements of their Imams above the source texts in authority137 IbnTaymiyyah mentions that another reason for conflicting and weak opinions is thatscholars wrote some of their treatises at an early stage of their scholarly life butlater on wrote other treatises in which they retreated or revised their earlier viewsOther scholars however cited the earlier treatises as representing the view ofthe school

Ibn Taymiyyah also explains why particular treatises often contain more weakopinions attributed to the School than others authored by the same scholar Forexample there are several opinions wrongly attributed to Aaringmad by al-Qhpartj AbuYalsquola Ibn Taymiyyah states that Abu Yalsquola authored some of his works such as


JURISPRUDENCE

108

al-Muaringarrar by founding them upon a treatise from another school He wouldconsider the issues mentioned in these sources and then mention the views ofAaringmad and his companions concerning them Occasionally he would formulatehis own ruling upon the general principles of the School Ibn Taymiyyah argueshowever that Abu Yalsquola was often incapable of determining the correct opinionof the School His views including the weak ones were later attributed to theSchool because he was one of its leading exponents In addition in later yearssome of his eminent students and leading scholars of the School such as IbnlsquoAqjl followed his opinions and conveyed them in their jurisprudential treatises138

It appears that some Aringanbalj scholars delivered rulings concerning particularissues and other scholars then applied these rulings to other issues which theybelieved were similar to the original issues In fact there was a dissimilaritybetween the two issues This resulted in confusion and mistakes in several issueswithin the Aringanbalj School139 Ibn Taymiyyah provides several more factors forthe existence of weak or conflicting opinions certain views are claimed to be theopinions of Aaringmad when they are in fact the views of some of the Aringanbaljs140

Some Aringanbalj scholars based certain rulings on statements by Aaringmad where infact there are more statements by him in opposition to these opinions141 Otherrulings are based on old opinions of Aaringmad which he subsequently abandoneddue to a change in his independent reasoning142

In several cases two conflicting narrations have been related to Aaringmad by hisfollowers In closer analysis Ibn Taymiyyah discovered that Aaringmad actuallydifferentiated between the two situations His followers were therefore mistaken inassuming that the two narrations were two different opinions of Aaringmad for onesituation143 Sometimes conflicting opinions attributed to either the School or itsImam were in reality the product of later stage in the Aringanbalj School as IbnTaymiyyah asserts144 These in summary are the main factors that can be describedas historical Ibn Taymiyyah also claims that there are other errors which arosefrom defective reasoning Certain incorrect opinions were based upon a misunder-standing of the terminology used in particular aringadjths145 On other occasionsscholars had misunderstood Aaringmadrsquos reference to source texts For instanceAaringmad may have referred to a specific text by mentioning only a portion of it butthis portion may in turn refer to more than one text Some of these texts may beweak or fabricated Thereafter some of the Aringanbalj scholars assumed that Aaringmadpreferred one of these types of aringadjths over an authentic aringadjth on the same issue146

Ibn Taymiyyah also states that incorrect rulings arose when Ibn Aringanbal basedthem on aringadjth that he incorrectly deemed to be correct According to IbnTaymiyyah these aringadjths were inauthentic because of particular types of defects inthem of which Ibn Aringanbal had no knowledge147 This unlike the other factors hasless to do with procedure and interpretation by the scholars of the School and is infact simply a criticism by Ibn Taymiyyah of some of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos aringadjth analysis

The existence of conflicting and incorrect opinions within the School in certainissues where there is no naszligszlig emanating from the Imam resulted in the Aringanbaljscholars getting divided into two parties148


JURISPRUDENCE

109

In most instances where there are two or more opinions derived from Aaringmadmentioned in certain Aringanbalj sources such as al-Khfj and al-Muqnilsquo by IbnQudhmah al-Muaringarrar by al-Majd and al-Rilsquohyah by Ibn Aringamdhn there is a cer-tain degree of ambiguity as to which is the correct opinion It would appear thatIbn Taymiyyah was aware of this and we therefore observe him clarifying themeans by which the correct opinion of the School can be ascertained He believesthat this can be attained by consulting certain other Aringanbalj sources for instanceal-Talsquoljq by Abu Yalsquola al-Intiszlighr by Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and lsquoUmad al-Adillah by IbnlsquoAqjl Ibn Taymiyyah notes that these texts have been summarised by otherscholars and the texts and their summaries provide a useful guide to the correctopinions within the School149

Ibn Taymiyyah believes in any case that a scholar who possesses an extensiveknowledge of the general principles of Aaringmad and his statements should have nodifficulty in determining the correct opinion of the School He also asserts that ascholar who has an extensive knowledge of the sharjlsquoah and its evidences canascertain what is correct in the sharjlsquoah This last point contains an acknowledge-ment by Ibn Taymiyyah that the correct opinion in the School may not be thecorrect according to the sharjlsquoah In that case a scholar who has the ability todetermine proofs from the sharjlsquoah is obliged to follow what is correct accordingto the evidences of sharjlsquoah and not according to the criteria of the School150

It is evident from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos explanation for the existence of incorrectopinions in the Aringanbalj School that he was not content with merely pointing outwhat was incorrect Rather we observe him attempting to eradicate this problemby identifying the root causes for their existence Much of this is admittedly sub-jective and it is not hard to imagine other scholars disagreeing with IbnTaymiyyahrsquos criticism of say Abu Yalsquolarsquos opinions based on the uszligul of the Schoolor Aaringmadrsquos classification of certain aringadjth as sound

Here now follow a few examples of rulings within the Aringanbalj jurisprudencedeemed as incorrect by Ibn Taymiyyah

1 Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue ofpraying in a cemetery

To perform the prayer in a cemetery is deemed impermissible for its prohibitionblocks of the means ( yasudd al-dharhrsquoilsquo) to polytheism151 Nevertheless severalAringanbalj scholars claimed that it is permissible to offer the prayer in a place whereonly one or two graves are situated According to this group of scholars this isbased upon the premise that the cemetery must consist of three graves or morefor it to be considered a cemetery152

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the differentiation between a cemetery containingthree graves or more and a cemetery containing one or two is not to be found inthe words of Aaringmad or those of the other early Aringanbalj scholars Furthermorehe asserts that what may be determined from their general statements andcitations is a prohibition of performing the prayer in a place where a single grave


JURISPRUDENCE

110

exists Ibn Taymiyyah supports this opinion by explaining that maqbarah

(cemetery) is given this name because it is a place where dead bodies are buriedand not because it is the plural of the singular term qabr (grave) Therefore thereis not even a lexical proof for the divergent opinion and thus the number ofgraves has no effect upon the ruling prohibiting prayer in a cemetery153

2 The extent of the permissible use of silver by males

Aringanbalj scholars appear to be in agreement on the ruling that it is prohibited formales to use silver except in certain matters such as wearing a silver ring154

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opposition to the stance of the Aringanbalj scholars is based uponthe following points

1 The Lawgiver has permitted the use of small amounts of silver for thepurpose of ornament Hence small amounts of silver should be permitted ifthere is a need for it

2 He accepts the principle that if there was a general text prohibiting thewearing of silver the opinion of Aringanbalj scholars would be consideredaccurate but he argues there is no single authentic general text to prohibitthe wearing of silver Accordingly no individual may assume the right toprohibit any type of adornment by the use of silver except if that type hasbeen specifically mentioned in a text155

Despite the presence of a clear consensus amongst the Aringanbalj scholarsconcerning this point we observe that in his treatise al-Furulsquo Ibn Mufliaringadamantly supports his Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah He states that neither the Aringanbaljscite (textual) evidences to support their position nor could he find a prohibition inthe words of Aaringmad156

3 Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of the timing of a contract of hudnah (truce)

Aringanbalj scholars subscribe to the opinion that the hudnah (truce) cannot beaccepted as a valid contract unless the exact duration of the contract is knownAs a consequence we find that several Aringanbalj scholars defined the term hudnah

as lsquoan agreement contracted for the people of aringarb (war) for the suspension offighting enduring for a certain period of time with or without considerationof paymentrsquo157 They differed in relation to the duration of the contract certainAringanbalj scholars held the opinion that it is impermissible for the contract toexceed ten years in duration Others permitted this and rendered it a mattersubject to the ijtihhd of the leader158 The first opinion was described by Abu Yalsquolaas the well known (copyhhir) opinion of Ibn Aringanbal159

The two different groups of Aringanbalj scholars cited various proofs for theirrespective opinions Those who held the opinion that the duration of the truce


JURISPRUDENCE

111

must not exceed ten years based their opinion on the truce negotiated betweenthe Prophet and the unbelievers of the Quraysh in the year of al-Hudaybiyah160

They assert that the duration of the truce must not exceed the period of the truceof Hudaybiyah as the Prophet himself negotiated it and therefore it is a bindingexample161 Those who claim that it can exceed ten years argued that if thecontract is deemed permissible for ten years then it must also be consideredpermissible for an additional period similar to the contract of hire In additionthey state that the permissibility of the contract of truce during the ten-yearperiod is founded upon a reason ndash public interest (maszliglaaringah) ndash that continues to beapplicable beyond ten years This purpose is probably more appropriate to aperiod condition of hudnah than it is to a state of war162

Numerous Aringanbalj sources appear to suggest that it is the position of all scholarsAringanbalj and otherwise that the exact duration of the truce must be known163

Al-Mardhwj also asserts that this is the opinion that was adopted by the scholarsof the Aringanbalj School164 This suggestion appears to be inaccurate During thecourse of this study we shall learn that Ibn Taymiyyah is in adamant oppositionto it In addition Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that a group of Aringanbalj scholars oneof whom was the leading Aringanbalj scholar Ibn Aringamdhn affirms the existence ofwajhayn (two views) in the School concerning this point165

Ibn Taymiyyah rebuts this opinion that is that the period of the contract ofhudnah must be specified arguing that this opinion contradicts Aaringmadrsquos generalprinciples and is also in opposition to the texts of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah in whichthe period of most hudnah contracts was not specified166 He further supports hisargument by the observation that in the Qurrsquoan and sunnah the Lawgiver hasordered the believers to fulfil their pledges conditions covenants and contractswarning them at the same time about the serious consequences of treachery andthe act of breaking a vow or promise167 There is no restriction in durationmentioned for such pledges and contracts

4 Ibn Taymiyyah and the conditions stipulated by the parties partners in a contract of marriage

The Lawgiver has specified certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order tolegitimise a marriage including for instance payment of the dowry and thepresence of witnesses168 Furthermore the Lawgiver allows the two parties tostipulate their own conditions provided that these conditions do not conflict witha sharlsquoj text Aringanbalj scholars studied a large number of conditions which couldbe stipulated by either party and clarified whether or not they are valid169 Oneparticular condition discussed by Aringanbalj scholars is where the husband or wifestipulates the existence of certain attributes in his or her spouse such as wealthbeauty and virginity Here only the conditions stipulated by the man are consideredbinding170

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this opinion and observes that it is not establishedupon a correct legal foundation Furthermore he asserts that the conditions


JURISPRUDENCE

112

stipulated by the woman are in fact more binding than those of the man andclaims that there is a consensus of (early) Aringanbalj scholars in addition to otherson this point171 Therefore it cannot be possible that only the manrsquos stipulationsare binding

The practical effect of the oppositionrsquos opinion is that if a man stipulatescertain attributes that are found to be absent in his partner he has the legal rightto dissolve the contract of marriage If however that stipulation came from thewoman she would have no right to dissolve the contract According to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion which he attributes to all scholars the two parties possessthe same right to dissolve the marital contract whenever such conditions have notbeen fulfilled

5 Ibn Taymiyyah and selling non-existent material

Several Aringanbalj scholars have stipulated that in order for an object to be sold itmust be in existence at the time of the sale They based their ruling on a aringadjth ofthe Prophet in which he states lsquoDo not sell that which you do not haversquo172

Ibn Taymiyyah studied the various texts and evidence related to this issue andstates that there are two possible inferences from the meaning of the Propheticaringadjth lsquoDo not sell that which you do not haversquo The first meaning is that it isprohibited to sell an object that does not exist at the time of the contract Thesecond meaning is that it is prohibited to sell an item that cannot be handed overto the buyer at the time of delivery173 This second meaning allows for the objectto be absent at the contract so long as it is ready by the date of delivery IbnTaymiyyah observes that the Lawgiver has permitted some transactions where theobject is not present at the time of the contract Examples are the contract of hireand the contract of baylsquo al-salam (forward purchase) Therefore Ibn Taymiyyahconcludes that the first interpretation was clearly not intended It can therefore beconcluded that the only possible correct meaning of the aringadjth is the second oneIbn Taymiyyah supports this conclusion by noting the absence of a single textfrom the Qurrsquoan and sunnah or any narration from the companions whichsuggest that the sale of a non-existent item is prohibited merely because of itsnon-existence There is evidence however that the Lawgiver prohibited the saleof certain non-existent items when sold in conjunction with items already inexistence This prohibition is not based upon the existence or non-existence of theitem but rather on the fact that these types of sale contain a great element ofgharar (risk and uncertainty) As a consequence there is a risk in these types of salethat the item in question may not be handed over at the time of delivery174

6 Ibn Taymiyyah and the sale and replacement of a type of waqf (endowment) with another

If an endowment becomes unfruitful the predominant opinion withinAringanbalj jurisprudence is that it is permissible to sell it or replace it with another


JURISPRUDENCE

113

endowment175 If however the sale or replacement of the endowment is basedmerely upon the expectation of a greater yield arising from the new one theAringanbalj scholars appear to agree that the sale and replacement is invalid Thismay be evidenced by al-Muaringarrar176 al-lsquoUddah177 al-Mughnj178 Shararing al-Zarkashj179

al-Inszlighf180 al-Rawpart181 Aringhshiyat al-Rawpart182 and al-Furulsquo183

Ibn Taymiyyah on the contrary asserts that it is permissible to sell an endowmentor replace one type by another irrespective of whether or not the current endow-ment has stopped bearing fruit In both circumstances he founds the permissibil-ity of the sale and replacement of an endowment on the expected benefit fromdoing so He bases this ruling on an analogy with the permissibility of changingthe sacrificial animal (hadj) in al-aringajj with another based upon the expected benefitrising from this change184

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion has been followed by some Aringanbalj scholars amongstwhom was Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disciples He gave thisopinion greater weight by endorsing it as a judgement while he was serving as ajudge185 The judgement of Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal was challenged by certain Aringanbaljscholars such as the judge Jamhl al-Djn al-Mardhwj (d 7691367) who insistedthat this judgement was in opposition to the general principles of the AringanbaljSchool186 Al-Mardhwj also wrote a treatise clarifying his opinion on this issue andincluded a criticism of his opponents This book is entitled lsquoal-Whpartiaring al-Jalj fi naqd

aringukm Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal al-Aringanbaljrsquo187 Al-Mardhwj mentioned that Ibn Mufliaring is inagreement with this criticism188 Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal did not retreat as a result ofthis criticism Instead he compiled a treatise in which he clarified the opinionsregarding this issue and affirmed the correctness of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos view IbnQhpartj al-Jabal was supported by various other Aringanbalj scholars such as Burhhn al-Djn Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Sheikh al-Sulhmiyyah189 After this period certainAringanbalj sources began to mention that there are two opinions or even narrationsin Aringanbalj jurisprudence regarding this issue190 This is an example therefore ofhow an opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah in defiance of all other Aringanbalj authority waseventually adopted as part of the corpus of the Aringanbalj jurisprudence

7 Killing a free person for a slave

Aringanbalj sources appear to agree that there is no equality between a free personand a slave in relation to the issue of retaliation This means that a free personcannot be sentenced to death for killing a slave191

Ibn Taymiyyah adamantly opposes the stance of the Aringanbalj School assertingthat there are no correct definite texts which can be used as a legal foundationupon which this opinion may be established192 On the contrary Ibn Taymiyyahargues that the evidences of the sharjlsquoah are indicative of the accuracy of his oppo-site position193 He explains that this may be evidenced through various aringhdjths

where the Prophet states that whosoever kills his slave will as a consequence beexecuted194 Ibn Taymiyyah elucidates upon a detailed explanation for this whenthe master kills his slave the right of retaliation will be placed upon the leader of


JURISPRUDENCE

114

the Muslim community and not upon the master This is simply because a killercannot be granted the right of retaliation for one whom he himself killed195 IbnTaymiyyah draws an analogy based upon the ruling that a killer has no right to theinheritance of his victim if they are related to one another Similarly a mastercannot inherit the right of retaliation of his victim slave196 Ibn Taymiyyah furthersupports his position by clarifying that according to the sunnah if a slave was pun-ished by his master with extreme cruelty the slave would automatically be freed197

Ibn Taymiyyah states that the killing of a slave is the most severe and extreme actof cruelty Therefore the deceased slave has in fact died while he was a free personwhich again means that the leader of the Muslim community assumes the right ofretaliation198 Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this principle can also apply to any freeperson who kills a slave and not merely to a master who kills his slave199

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes by asking why it would not be allowed to apply thedeath sentence to a free person who killed a slave when the Prophet declared lsquotheblood of Muslims is equalrsquo200

Although the words of Aaringmad and the Aringanbalj scholars appear not to makereference to this opinion Ibn Taymiyyah claims that this view is the strongestaccording to the opinion of Aaringmad201 It appears Ibn Taymiyyah is stating thatthis opinion is the strongest according to the general principles of Aaringmad ratherthan any of his actual words in relation to this point

Jurisprudential terminology ofthe Aringanbalj School

The science of terminology occupies a position of great importance in Islamiclaw for a ruling is determined by reference to its definition Ibn Taymiyyahscrutinises the terms used by the Aringanbalj scholars and makes reference to severalterms that were surrounded with confusion and uncertainty It appears that IbnTaymiyyah attributes this confusion and uncertainty to the absence of a clearcorrect criterion by which suitable definitions to the various terms may be ascer-tained Consequently Ibn Taymiyyah presents his own preferred criterionHe clarifies that the meaning of terms attached to rulings in the Qurrsquoan andsunnah may be determined in one of the three ways The first is where terms aredefined by the Lawgiver for instance the terms lsquoszligalhhrsquo lsquozakhtrsquo lsquoszligawmrsquo and lsquoaringajjrsquoThe second is where terms that can be defined by reference to the language suchas lsquosunrsquo lsquomoonrsquo lsquoskyrsquo and lsquoearthrsquo The third is where the meaning of terms canbe determined by reference to the custom and practice of the people Examplesof this category are the terms lsquosalersquo lsquomarriagersquo and lsquopossessionrsquo Ibn Taymiyyahexplains that this last method is neither defined by the Lawgiver nor have the peo-ple of language agreed upon its definition therefore these terms may differ fromone society to another based upon the premise that customs vary from one soci-ety to another and from one time to another202

It is evident that the first two categories are not capable of being alteredbecause either the Lawgiver defines them or they are understood by recourse to


JURISPRUDENCE

115

the use of language According to Ibn Taymiyyah the establishment of thiscriterion for defining terms in Islamic law leads to a correct understanding ofthe two main sources of the sharjlsquoah the Qurrsquoan and sunnah203

The following section contains a study of some cases wherein the Lawgiver hasdefined terms and thereafter certain Aringanbalj scholars have apparently redefinedthem or where terms are mentioned in a general context in the texts and havebeen particularised by the School

1 Ibn Taymiyyah and the term khamr

According to Islamic law Khamr is prohibited and particular rulings have beenattached to it This term has been mentioned in several texts of the Qurrsquoan andthe sunnah For instance in the Qurrsquoan Allah states lsquoThey ask you (O Muhammad)about khamr and gambling Say lsquoIn them is a great sin and some benefit for menbut the sin is greater than the benefitrsquo (2219) Also in the chapter of al-Mhrsquoidah

verses 90ndash91 Allah orders believers to abstain strictly from the consumption ofkhamr There are also several aringadjths which concern the issue of khamr204 In orderfor these rulings to be applied in practice the term khamr must first be definedCertain Aringanbalj scholars for instance Ibrhhim al-Aringarbj (d 285899) and Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb connected the term khamr to particular kinds of intoxicants205

Similarly some later Aringanbalj scholars hesitated as to whether the punishment forconsuming Khamr can be administered to those who take the aringashjshah (hemp)206

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises these opinions for their opposition to the texts of theQurrsquoan and the sunnah as well as in addition to the words of Imam Aaringmad IbnTaymiyyahrsquos claim rests on the generality of the texts prohibiting the consump-tion of khamr Therefore when these scholars particularised the texts in theabsence of evidence they were in fact opposing the two sources of law IbnTaymiyyah asserts in any case that the Lawgiver has defined this term in thearingadith lsquoEvery intoxicant is khamrrsquo207

In reply to one justification given for the opposing opinions Ibn Taymiyyahasserts that the practice of the Arabs of the pre-Islamic era is of no consequencein the understanding of khamr since the Prophet defined it Therefore this termcannot be restricted to denote a specific form of intoxicant208

In reference to the issue of aringashjshah specifically Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that thepunishment for consuming khamr is applicable to the taking of aringashjshah This isfirst because it comes within the purview of the ruling on khamr and secondbecause of the presence of harm in this substance similar to that in khamrIndeed in certain circumstances its harm is greater than that of khamrFurthermore he argues it is common knowledge that those who take it becomeaddicted to it209

Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions the fact that the absence of discussion of thisissue by former scholars cannot be used as an evidence to denote its permissibil-ity Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this is because the substance in question wasunknown in the Islamic world until the time of the appearance of the Mongols210


JURISPRUDENCE

116

2 Ibn Taymiyyah and the term aringaypart (menstruation)

The term lsquoaringaypart is the subject of several rulings in the Aringanbalj School of law Theduration of the menstruation is not specified in a text nor is it known by recourseto language Certain Aringanbalj scholars attempted to determine a limit to theperiod of menstruation A group amongst them specified the maximum andminimum durations of it while others specified only the maximum211 IbnTaymiyyah declares that the truth is that there is neither a maximum nor aminimum duration for menstruation For the basis of this stipulation is empiricalobservation and it is difficult to determine limits for such matters by experiencebecause of the inherent differences amongst women212 There is much scope foruncertainty in these matters and it is not accurate for an individual to reject thatwhich he does not know213

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the narration cited by certain Aringanbalj scholars tosupport the existence of a minimum period for menstruation is false as it isunknown amongst the scholars of aringadjth214 Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to explain thatthe Lawgiver defined specific Islamic law terminology but did not define the termmenstruation It can therefore be concluded that this term and other similarterms can only be determined by experience if the definition can also notbe ascertained through the language215 According to Ibn Taymiyyah thisprinciple is also applicable to the period of postnatal bleeding216 As mentionedhowever gathering conclusive evidence from experience is difficult in these matters

3 Ibn Taymiyyah and the term safar (travelling)

The term lsquosafarrsquo is mentioned in the texts and several rulings have been connectedto it A definition for the term lsquotravellingrsquo must first be determined in order toimplement these rulings The majority of Aringanbalj scholars confined travelling toa certain destination and differentiated between long journeys and short onesThey claim that those rulings that are connected to this term are dependent uponthe duration of the journey They state that these rulings are divided into twotypes first those rulings which can be applied to lengthy journeys alone Theseinclude the acts of shortening and combining prayers breaking the fast and wip-ing over footwear for a period of three days and accompanying nights Secondrulings that are applicable to both long and short journeys This includes the actof performing ablution with clean sand (tayammum) praying on the rharingilah (themeans of transport) and eating carrion in a state of necessity217

Ibn Taymiyyah believes that these restrictions and factors for differentiation aredevoid of foundation for they are not expressed by the Lawgiver nor are theyrequired by the language218 Ibn Taymiyyah also rejects the aringadjth cited by a groupof Aringanbalj scholars in which the Prophet is reported to have said lsquoO people ofMakkah do not shorten prayers in a journey that is less than four barjds

from Makkah to lsquoAsafhnrsquo219 Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrates that this aringadjth is


JURISPRUDENCE

117

unauthentic in two ways

1 The chain of this aringadjth is acknowledged amongst the leading scholars ofaringadjth to be undoubtedly fabricated220

2 It is known that the Prophet emigrated to Madinah He spent most of his lifethere after the emigration residing in Makkah only for a short period oftime Why therefore did the Prophet instruct the people of Makkah and notdo the same to the people of Madinah In addition what is the position ofthe remainder of the Muslim world in relation to this ruling221

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the correct understanding of this term can bedetermined only by means of its general meaning in the language and customduring the time it is used Accordingly all rulings are applicable to any journeythat is accepted by the people of the language to come within the meaning oflsquotravellingrsquo222

4 Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of khullsquo(dissolution of marriage)

According to Islamic law divorce has been prescribed in order to provide a meansfor the husband to terminate the marriage If however the wife is unhappy or feelsan aversion towards her husband she may also release herself from the marriageby the procedure known as khullsquo This procedure is initiated when the wife asks forthe marriage to be dissolved A request can thereafter be made for the dowry to bereturned and any other gifts she received from her husband If the process isperformed and accepted by both parties the marriage is dissolved223

The point of discussion here concerns whether there are special expressions tobe used in order for the marital contract to be dissolved via khullsquo or whether thiscan be achieved through the use of any expression even those used for divorceAccording to al-Mardhwj in the opinion of the majority of Aringanbalj scholars theterms used in khullsquo must be specific and it is not allowed to use for instance theterms for divorce Should terms other than those specified by the Aringanbalj scholarsbe used the khullsquo will not take place224

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises the position of the Aringanbalj scholars and asserts thatwhenever khullsquo is conditionally performed upon a payment from the wife there isno restriction on the expressions that must be used for the procedure of khullsquo isthe only method of dissolving the marital contract with the condition of pay-ment225 The intention of the wife should therefore be obvious from her actionsand there is no need for her to use a specific formula

5 Ibn Taymiyyah and the term lsquohqilah

According to Islamic criminal law there is no right of retaliation against theperson who causes the death of another unintentionally although blood money isrequired from the lsquohqilah and not from the killer226


JURISPRUDENCE

118

The Aringanbalj School of law contains several opinions for the identification ofwho is referred to by the lsquohqilah The two opinions which are most frequently citedare the following

The first opinion is that the lsquohqilah consists of the paternal uncles and theirchildren however distant they are in descent According to this opinionthe father sons and brothers are not included The second opinion states that thelsquohqilah consists of the father sons brothers and every agnatic heir227

Ibn Taymiyyah subscribes to an opinion different from these two He states thatthe words of the Lawgiver provide no definition for the term lsquohqilah Thereforethe correct definition of this term is that it includes lsquoevery individual who helpsand supports the person at the time and the placersquo228 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos definitionis wider in scope than all the other definitions offered by Aringanbalj scholars

It may appear that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos definition is in opposition to the practiceat the time of the Prophet where the relatives alone were asked to pay the bloodmoney Ibn Taymiyyah explains however that the relatives of an individual wereincluded in the term lsquohqilah at the time of the Prophet simply because therelatives were the helpers of a person at that time The definition of this termchanged in the time of lsquoUmar when he established an organised army in severaltowns and the members of this army were considered as the lsquohqilah to oneanother229

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos understanding of the term lsquohqilah has influ-enced the understanding and application of this term in the current law of SaudiArabia for we note that it has been defined as lsquoa group that may stand for twothirds of the payment of the diyah within three years of the unintentional killingof another person by one of its members if they are able to do sorsquo230

Rules in Aringanbalj jurisprudence

Generally in his writings and particularly in his jurisprudence Ibn Taymiyyahemploys general rules and maxims in order to regulate the vast number ofjurisprudential ramifications The most important feature of his maxims is theprinciple that they are founded upon textual evidences and not according to thepractice of the Aringanbalj School He asserts that the Qurrsquoan and the sunnah containgeneral words which are in fact general rules encompassing a number of differ-ent ramifications231 Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that the Lawgiver differentiatesbetween rulings concerning dissimilar issues while the rulings for similar issueswill be similar232 He also states that an individualrsquos neglect to ascertain a rulingconcerning an issue coming within the general rules of the sharjlsquoah leads to theconclusion that he did not understand those general rules233 Also the Lawgiverrsquosmaxims are in agreement with the general maqhszligid (goals and objectives) of thesharjlsquoah and maszliglaaringah for they afford ease to those subject to its rulings234

There is no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos understanding of the general maximsof Islamic law affected his use of rules in jurisprudence as well as his positiontowards rules used by Aringanbalj scholars He employs some rules while also disputing


JURISPRUDENCE

119

the correctness of several rules and maxims employed in the Aringanbalj School oflaw The following sections examine some of the rules used by Ibn Taymiyyahdemonstrate certain aspects of their implications for Aringanbalj jurisprudence andalso discusses particular Aringanbalj rules that were the subject of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquoscriticism

1 Rules used by Ibn Taymiyyah and certain aspects of their implications for Aringanbalj jurisprudence

1 Ibn Taymiyyah uses the rule lsquoif the Lawgiver connected a ruling to a generalnoun it will govern all the classes falling under that general noun without anyrestriction or exclusion unless they were restricted or excluded by the LawgiverHimself rsquo235

On application of this rule to Aringanbalj jurisprudence Ibn Taymiyyah discoversthat several rulings were not applied by Aringanbalj scholars to some classes includedwithin the meaning of a general noun According to Ibn Taymiyyah these schol-ars did not found their opinions on legal or linguistic evidences which wouldjustify the exemption of these classes from the general rulings236

There follows three examples of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos use of the aforementionedrule237

i Ibn Taymiyyah and types of water Tayammum (sand ablution) is a substitute forwater ablution in the event that water is not available or someone is unable to useit Ibn Taymiyyah notes here that the word lsquowaterrsquo is general therefore it includesall types of water (excluding impure water)238 As a result Ibn Taymiyyah con-demns the commonly accepted opinion within the Aringanbalj School that water isdivided into three types impure water completely clean water (ƒahur) and cleanwater (ƒhhir)239

According to these scholars there is a difference between the second and thethird category The second type refers to water that has not undergone any type ofchange as compared to that which has been used previously for ablution or waterthat has been mixed with other clean substances This alteration may result in achange in the taste of the water its colour or its smell Water characterised by oneof these changes can however still be treated as lsquocleanrsquo (the third category)240

This classification is based upon one of two narrations from Aaringmad Earlyleading Aringanbalj scholars preferred this narration and it is the predominantopinion amongst the later Aringanbalj scholars241

Ibn Taymiyyah on the other hand asserts that the other narration fromAaringmad which states that all types of water may be used for the ritual ablution issupported by most of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos words on this subject242

According to Ibn Taymiyyah this last opinion is the correct one because theclassification of clean water into two types is not founded upon correct evidencefrom either the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensus or analogy On the contrary by meansof the implementation of the aforementioned rule it is clear that the texts of the


JURISPRUDENCE

120

Qurrsquoan and sunnah indicate the incorrectness of this classification the texts aregeneral and do not refer to any classification of water243 Those Aringanbalj scholarswho were in favour of the three-fold classification were confused as to what couldbe considered as completely clean water (ƒahur) or only clean water (ƒhhjr)244

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is consistent with his maxim and provides a clearbasis for this ruling as opposed to the view of most of the later Aringanbalj scholarswhich is ambiguous and results in confusion and inconsistency

The end result of the classification adopted by the Aringanbalj scholars is thatablution can be performed with ƒahur water but not ƒhhir According to IbnTaymiyyah however ablution may be performed by using either type of water asthere is no legal distinction between them

ii Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of wiping over Khuffayn Another issue IbnTaymiyyah analysed by recourse to this rule is the wiping over the khuffayn (boots)or jawrabayn (socks) as part of ritual ablution

The commonly accepted opinion within the Aringanbalj School states that thepermissibility of wiping over the boots and socks is dependent upon severalconditions For instance the boots or socks (or other similar items) should not betorn and they must be capable of standing firmly by themselves without beingsupported by another object245

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the correct opinion on this point is that it ispermitted to wipe over the boots and socks providing that they can be describedas boots and socks It is of no consequence whether they are torn nor whetherthey are capable of standing without support246

Ibn Taymiyyah again bases his opinion upon the same aforementioned rulethe texts permitting the act of wiping over the khuffayn are general It is thereforenot accurate to differentiate between them in the absence of textual evidences Hesupports his opinion by the fact that the companionsrsquo boots and socks were notdevoid of tears hence if there had been a prohibition regarding this matter itwould have been established and transmitted from them247

It ought to be noted that this opinion is not the view of Aaringmad nor of most ofhis followers Ibn Taymiyyah however asserts that if Aaringmadrsquos general principlesand words in analogous issues are studied and analysed one can conclude thatthis opinion is a syllogism of Aaringmadrsquos opinion on the act of wiping over the bootsand socks248

iii Ibn Taymiyyah and the issue of ratifying contracts There are several opinions inthe Aringanbalj School in relation to the issue of ratifying contracts The first opin-ion states that contracts cannot be ratified without the use of certain expressionsspecified by the jurists Therefore no transaction will be legally accepted unlessthese particular forms are used This entails that there must be an offer from oneperson with certain terms and a resultant acceptance from another with certainterms For example if a person wants to buy an item for example bread he mustarticulate the words ishtaraytu hhdhh (I would like to buy this) and the buyer mustrespond by saying qabilt (I have accepted) This procedure must be applied to anytransaction whether small or large


JURISPRUDENCE

121

The second opinion of the School states that such formulas must be usedexcept in the case of transactions that are usually ratified through actions alonesuch as purchasing small items In this circumstance the aforementioned proce-dure need not be applied as is also the case for an endowment of a mosque andthe giving of a gift249

Ibn Taymiyyah subscribes to the opinion that there is no specific formula thatmust be adhered to in order to ratify transactions as there are no textual evi-dences in support of any of these forms250 He also asserts that it was not the prac-tice of the Prophet his companions and their followers to adhere to certain wordswhen ratifying a contract251 Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyah also argues thatAaringmadrsquos general principles are in opposition to this opinion Therefore a trans-action can be ratified by any procedure that is commonly known in a society252

He also criticises the claim that certain Arabic words must be used in order toratify every type of transaction such as the words zawajtuka and qabiltu in acontract of marriage Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that this cannot be correct as it isnot only Arabs that deal in transactions It would be similarly incorrect to teach aperson to utter words in Arabic the exact meaning of which he may not knowrather he should be allowed to ratify contracts in his own language253

Ibn Taymiyyah concludes by stating that the general principles of the sharjlsquoah

indicate that the correct rule governing contracts is lsquoContracts may be ratified byany word or action that identifies the intention of the two parties in the contractprovided that these words and acts do not conflict with the sharjlsquoahrsquo254

2 Legal rulings are not binding until the one entrusted with the responsibilitybecomes aware of them

Ibn Taymiyyah uses this maxim to oppose certain rulings of Aringanbalj jurispru-dence One of these concerns the consequences of the beginning of Ramaparthnbeing established during the daytime of one of its days According to the Aringanbaljscholars the mukallaf must do two things he must immediately stop performingany action that nullifies the fast and after Ramaparthn he must make up this day offasting According to Ibn Taymiyyah the individual concerned is obliged to startfasting as soon as the proof for the start of Ramaparthn is established but the indi-vidual does not have to make up that day at a later time Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ion is founded upon the rule mentioned earlier the Muslim cannot be responsibleto make up the fast when he was not aware of the coming of Ramaparthn until laterin the day255

2 Aringanbalj rules refuted by Ibn Taymiyyah

Some of the Aringanbalj Schoolrsquos rules are clearly established upon the correctfoundation of the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensus analogy or some other recognisedsource of law It may be argued however that other rules are established uponincorrect conclusions deduced by certain scholars These rules were then used toderive rulings which were necessarily incorrect


JURISPRUDENCE

122

Ibn Taymiyyah recognised this problem and studied those rules developed byAringanbalj scholars He accepts some of these rules and rejects others As alwaysthe criterion he employs in determining which rules to accept and which to rejectis the extent to which they are based on correct evidences256

The following section studies certain rules subjected to criticism and refutationby Ibn Taymiyyah

1 Ibn Taymiyyah and the Aringanbalj rule lsquoprayer cannot be postponed beyondits time except in two situations rsquo

Certain Aringanbalj scholars subscribed to the following rule lsquoPrayer cannot bepostponed beyond its time except if the postponement is coupled with theintention of combining two prayers or if the individual concerned is engaged infulfilling a condition of the prayerrsquo257

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises this rule and refutes it in several ways First he saysthat this rule has not been mentioned by any previous scholar except for certainShhfilsquoj scholars Even then they did not generalise the rule but rather restrictedit to particular issues only This is contrary to the later Aringanbalj scholars who gen-eralise the application of the rule258 Second Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that this ruleopposes the consensus of scholars who prohibit the postponement of the prayerafter its due time simply because the individual concerned is engaged in thepreparation of some of its conditions Therefore according to the consensus ifthe time for a prayer arrives and the individual does not have water in order toperform the ablution but knows that he can find water after the time of theprayer it is prohibited to delay the prayer even though the individual is preoccupiedwith fulfilling one of the conditions in searching for water259

Ibn Taymiyyah presents another example to illustrate this point and to supportthe consensus An illiterate person has the ability to learn Surat al-Fhtiaringah in orderto read it in his prayer as it is one of the pillars of the prayer If it becomes clearhowever that he will not complete learning it until the time of the prayer elapsesthe ruling states that he performs the prayer without it260

In further rebuttal of the Aringanbalj scholars Ibn Taymiyyah mentions certainestablished rulings of Islamic law that are in opposition to it For example a personwho does not know the takbjr and tashahud or any other obligatory acts of theprayers and cannot learn them within the prescribed time of a prayer is askedto pray in time even before learning them Similarly the individual who performsthe prayer of khawf (prayer under threat of attack) when he could have per-formed the prayer in its complete form out of its time is correct in performing theprayer of khawf within the time Finally a person who does not know the directionof the qiblah or is doubtful about it is obliged to pray and not delay the prayer untilhe reaches a city where he can determine the exact direction of the qiblah261

2 Ibn Taymiyyah and the Aringanbalj rule lsquothe general rule is that all contractsand conditions are prohibited except those permitted by the Lawgiverrsquo

Certain Aringanbalj scholars subscribed to the opinion that all contracts andconditions are prohibited except those permitted by the Lawgiver Ibn Taymiyyah


JURISPRUDENCE

123

indicates that the existence of this opinion is based upon the presence of certainnarrations wherein Ibn Aringanbal justified the invalidity of particular types ofcontracts because they were neither referred to by texts nor by analogy262

Ibn Taymiyyah states that the correct rule in relation to this issue is in fact asfollows lsquoAll contracts and conditions are permitted except where otherwise statedby the Lawgiverrsquo He argues that the majority of Aaringmadrsquos narrations are inagreement with this Indeed Aaringmad is considered as one of the scholars mostrecognised for his acceptance of new contracts and conditions263 Ibn Taymiyyahbelieves that Aaringmadrsquos general principles suggest that stipulations in contracts areacceptable providing that they do not contradict with a sharjlsquoah text264 He doesnote that most of the conditions and contracts accepted by Aaringmad are found tohave an origin in texts or analogy but he argues that this cannot be used asevidence to suggest that he did not permit contracts and conditions other thanthose founded on these two sources Ibn Taymiyyah explains that this is becauseAaringmad possessed an extensive knowledge of aringadjth it is therefore only to beexpected that his acceptance of a condition or a contract is in agreement with atext or analogy but this should not exclude others not covered by these sources265

In addition Ibn Taymiyyah mentions a rational form of evidence to supporthis opinion He states that there are several texts ordering Muslims to fulfil theircontracts and conditions and other texts forbidding them from breach of anagreement or promise Therefore if the general rule states that contracts andconditions are prohibited except those permitted by the Lawgiver it would not becorrect to order believers to fulfil contracts and conditions in general withoutclarification266

3 Ibn Taymiyyah and the Aringanbalj rule lsquothe naszligszlig (text) of the endower(the founder of an endowment) is as the naszligszlig of the Lawgiverrsquo

This rule is present in certain Aringanbalj sources but there is ambiguitysurrounding the meaning and application of this rule Ibn Taymiyyah presents aclear explanation when he states that the similarity between the text of the endowerand that of the Lawgiver is that both refer to the intended meaning of the lsquoauthorrsquoTherefore we understand the intended meaning of the endower by recourse to histext as we understand the intended meaning of the Lawgiver by recourse to his textIbn Taymiyyah asserts that understanding the text of the endower requires knowl-edge of the individualrsquos custom in writing and speech and whether this language isformal Arabic or colloquial Beyond this however Ibn Taymiyyah sees similaritybetween the text of the endower and that of the Lawgiver in that acting upon thetext of the Lawgiver is obligatory whereas acting upon the text of the endower issubject to it being approved by the Lawgiver This is because the text of the endowercan contain both valid and invalid conditions and it is not lawful to fulfil the invalidconditions267

As an application of this Ibn Taymiyyah says that if the endower ordered aperson who was not the best suited to be the Imam during the prayer his orderwould be ignored Instead the order of Allah ought to be followed by selectingthe individual who was granted precedence by the Lawgiver268


JURISPRUDENCE

124

Narrations in Aringanbalj jurisprudence

In Aringanbalj jurisprudence there are often conflicting narrations related byAringanbalj scholars from Imam Aaringmad It is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah was aware ofthis problem as we find him in various issues trying to solve the contradictionsbetween these narrations The following section analyses two methods that IbnTaymiyyah used to resolve these problems First he showed that some narrationshad been attributed to Ibn Aringanbal incorrectly Second he tried to show thatcertain opinions of Aaringmad were simply incorrect This second method isof course not so much about resolving conflicting narrations as it is aboutdiscarding certain opinions contained in the narrations entirely

1 Narrations proved by Ibn Taymiyyah to be attributed to Ibn Aringanbal incorrectly

The large number of conflicting narrations and opinions attributed to ImamAaringmad has resulted in great confusion within the Aringanbalj School IbnTaymiyyah studied Aringanbalj jurisprudence and he presented numerous pieces ofevidence to substantiate his claim that certain Aringanbalj scholars have attributednarrations and opinions to the Imam incorrectly Examples are

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion with regard to the narrations in Aringanbalj jurisprudence concerning the

punishment for drinking khamr Aringanbalj sources make reference to two narra-tions in relation to the punishment for consuming khamr The first states thatthe punishment is forty lashes and the second states that it is eighty lashes269

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Aaringmadrsquos second narration on this issue is notas the Aringanbalj scholars have mentioned According to Ibn TaymiyyahAaringmadrsquos correct position as set out in the second narration is that the fortylashes is a aringadd (fixed) punishment while the number between forty andeighty is neither obligatory nor prohibited Rather it is a discretionary penaltythat is left to the exclusive discretion of the judge dependent upon theexpected benefit of the sentence270

The leading Aringanbalj scholar al-Zarkashj mentioned the two narrations ofAaringmad according to the Aringanbalj scholars then he commented saying lsquobeaware that the vast majority of Aringanbalj scholars convey the narrations(of Aaringmad with regard to this issue) as mentioned earlierrsquo Thereafteral-Zarkashj mentioned the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah in relation to Aaringmadrsquoscorrect position in the second narration Al-Zarkashj then stated that therecan be no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos explanation is the opinion that issupported by legal evidences271

The delay in acceptance in a marriage contract In the Aringanbalj School there aretwo narrations attributed to Aaringmad regarding whether it is permissible forone of the parties to a marriage contract to delay acceptance In one of these


JURISPRUDENCE

125

two narrations Aaringmad is said to have prohibited the delay and to haveinsisted on the requirement of simultaneous acceptance of both parties at thesame sitting but in another narration he is said to have permitted thedelay272

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that what is narrated from Aaringmad is the firstnarration whereas the second narration is in fact based on a statement issuedby Aaringmad permitting the delay in specific circumstances that is when theacceptance was made by the second party after the information reached himbecause he was not present at the same sitting (majlis) This statement ofAaringmad according to Ibn Taymiyyah was misunderstood and generalisedby some leading Aringanbalj scholars such as Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb in his treatiseal-Hidhyah Ibn Qudhmah in his book al-Muqnilsquo and al-Majd in his bookal-Muaringarrar who thought Aaringmadrsquos statement permitting delay in theacceptance of the marriage applied to all cases273

2 Narrations of Aaringmad proved by Ibn Taymiyyah to be incorrect

We find that Ibn Taymiyyah disagrees with opinions adopted by the AringanbaljSchool on various issues which he insists are based on incorrect narrations Hisdisagreement with these opinions and his refutation of the narrations upon whichthese opinions were based are supported by various textual and rationalevidences This section contains study cases of this point

The nullification of ablution when a man touches a woman The predominantopinion within the Aringanbalj School is that when a man touches a woman hisablution will be considered nullified This means that he is obliged to performthe ablution another time274 This opinion is held and supported by severalAringanbalj scholars such as al-Mardhwj275 The view in fact is based upon anarration of Aaringmad276

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that this narration is contrary to the generalprinciples of Islamic law In addition he asserts that there is no report that thecompanions would re-perform their ablution because they had touched theirwives or others277

Compulsion in marriage The majority of Aringanbalj scholars subscribe to theopinion that the guardian of a virgin mature (of age) female can give her inmarriage without the need to seek her consent This opinion is reported asbeing narrated from Ibn Aringanbal and has been supported by various leadingAringanbalj scholars such as al-Khiraqj Abu Yalsquola Ibn Abj Yalsquola Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb Ibn al-Bannh Ibn Qudhmah Ibn Abj Hubayrah278 Al-Mardhwjdescribes this opinion as lsquothe correct opinion in Aringanbalj jurisprudencersquo andalso claims that it is the position of the majority of Aringanbalj scholars279

Ibn Taymiyyah states that this opinion is incorrect and argues that theguardian has no right to compel a woman to accept a marriage He bases his


JURISPRUDENCE

126

opinion on the following arguments

ndash He quotes the aringadjth of the Prophet in which he states lsquoA matron shouldnot be given in marriage except after her consultation a virgin should notbe given in marriage except after her permissionrsquo280 In this aringadjth IbnTaymiyyah establishes the point that the Lawgiver does not differentiatebetween whether the woman is a virgin or not for the purposes ofconsent Rather the consent of both individuals is required in order toratify the contract of marriage The differentiation mentioned by theLawgiver concerns the manner in which this consent can be expressedand the amount of consultation required281

ndash He expresses his surprise that his opponents do not permit the guardianto dispose off a mature womanrsquos wealth without her consent while theyallow him to ratify the contract of marriage without her consent eventhough her marriage is incomparably more important than her wealthFurthermore he questions why given that it is not permissible for theguardian to force his child to eat drink or wear what she does not likethe Lawgiver would thereafter allow a guardian to compel his child tomarry an individual she does not like Ibn Taymiyyah also argues thatthe Lawgiver declares that He creates love and affection between the twoparties of a marriage so it is therefore not possible that He would allowa woman to live with someone she dislikes282

ndash In the event of a dispute occurring between the two parties which theyare incapable of solving privately the final option available in order tokeep the marriage functioning is to appoint two aringakamayn (arbiters)These two individuals attempt to reach a solution that is advantageousto both parties This option can include the dissolution of the maritalcontract so that a woman can escape from a life of difficulty and hard-ship If this is the procedure prescribed by the Lawgiver at this stage ofa family crisis could it be possible that the Lawgiver would permit theguardian of a mature female to compel her to accept a marriage againsther own volition283

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah states that virginity is not a legitimate reason for aringajr

(interdiction) for we find that the words of the Lawgiver do not makereference to this Therefore when the majority of Aringanbalj scholarsestablish the permissibility of a marriage of compulsion upon theexistence of virginity in a mature female it is contrary to the generalprinciples of Islamic law284

From the discussions in this chapter we can conclude that several aspects ofAringanbalj jurisprudence were affected by Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos contributions to thisscience It is also evident that in most instances he attributes the existence ofcertain deficiencies to the Aringanbalj scholars rather than to Imam Aaringmad himselfNevertheless examples were given of instances where Ibn Taymiyyah criticises


JURISPRUDENCE

127

narrations from Aaringmad and also Aaringmadrsquos authentication of certain hadithsAlthough he does show considerable respect for Aaringmad his aim is always to bringthe Schoolrsquos opinions in line with the Qurrsquoan and sunnah Interestingly IbnTaymiyyah occasionally rejects words accurately attributed to Aaringmad and claimsthat such words do not truly reflect Aaringmadrsquos opinion as they contradict hisgeneral principles It is as if he is correcting Aaringmad and showing him where heinadvertently ignored his own principles This is further proof that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos aim is to adhere to the Qurrsquoan and sunnah rather than simply tocause the School to adhere to its Imamrsquos words


JURISPRUDENCE

128

5

THE LEGACY

The influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Aringanbalj jurists

Introduction

Ibn Taymiyyah was amongst those scholars who exerted a great influence uponscholars both of his generation and of following generations There have beencertain characteristic features of his influence and they have extended to varioussubjects and sciences Ibn Taymiyyah commanded a very large number of follow-ers from all sections of society including scholars members of the lay public andeven political leaders1 Many of these individuals were authorities in their ownfields traditionists jurists authors and reciters which illustrates his versatility andability to attract a wide interest in the many study-circles he conducted2 A groupof his students such as al-Amjr Zayn al-Djn Katabagha al-lsquoHdilj (7211321)3

Sayf al-Djn Burhq (7571356)4 and Iacutealharing al-Djn al-Takrjtj (7441344) werefrom the ruling circles5 Others such as Fakhr al-Djn al-Iacutehrsquoigh (d 7421341)were judges6

A significant number of students attended this scholarrsquos lectures and study-circleswhile others benefited from his stay in prison during his frequent incarcerations7

A complete survey of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos notable students is not available8 but it isgenerally recognised that they were prodigious in number lsquokhalqun kathjrrsquo9 Thesestudents were affiliated to various schools of Islamic law for example al-Dhahabjand Ibn Kathjr (d 7741372) were Shafilsquojs while Ibn al-Qayyim and IbnMufliaring were Aringanbaljs10 Others were affiliated to different Islamic sects for exam-ple al-Zarlsquoj (d 7411340)11 was for the most part Ashlsquoarj12 while al-Iumlufj(d 7161361) claimed to be influenced by the Shilsquoite doctrine13

Despite their diverse backgrounds it is interesting to note that most of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos disciples were influenced by his creed There may have been variousfactors contributing to this but one was the clarity of his approach in discussingthe issues of this science14 He exerted great effort in order to clarify what hebelieved to be the true methodology of the salaf15

There can be no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah also influenced scholars in thesciences of fiqh and uszligul al-fiqh This influence became manifest in his time andhas continued up to the present and it has been witnessed and recognised invarious parts of the Islamic world It is even reported that his jurisprudential

129

influence reached India during his lifetime through the efforts of some of hisstudents such as al-Ardabilj lsquoAlim al-Djn and Ibn al-Aringarjrj16 This influenceresulted in reformations taking place in various aspects of the life of that part ofthe Islamic world including the political system This has prompted certaincontemporary writers to claim that the first state based upon the dalsquowah of IbnTaymiyyah was the Tughlugidsrsquo (Taghliqiyyah) state17

Many of his students followed his example in enjoining what is proper andforbidding what is improper This resulted on several occasions in some of thesescholars being interrogated and imprisoned For instance Ibn Marj al-Balsquolibikjwas lashed and exiled he then escaped to the Arabian Peninsula18 Sharaf al-Djnal-Aringarhnj well known as Ibn Najjaring (d 7231323)19 was detained due to his sup-port for Ibn Taymiyyah20 Others such as Ibn al-Qayyim received the samepenalty because they issued jurisprudential fathwh in agreement with their sheikhrsquosopinions These statements often dealt with the same issues that had resulted intheir teacherrsquos detention21

Ibn Taymiyyah was well known as a leading mufti in his time Therefore severalAringanbalj scholars sought permission from him to issue fathwh The books ofIumlabaqht make reference to several scholars who were acknowledged by IbnTaymiyyah as having the authority to issue fathwh One such example wasIbn Qhpartj al-Jabal a brilliant disciple who studied various sciences under IbnTaymiyyah Several leading scholars one of whom was Ibn Taymiyyah grantedhim authority in ifthrsquo (issuing fathwh) although he was only a youth22

There is no complete record available detailing all the disciples of IbnTaymiyyah in the various sciences or even in the science of jurisprudence and itsprinciples alone They can however be found scattered throughout the books ofƒabaqht It is beyond the scope of this work to attempt to compile a record of thesescholars or even to discuss some examples of the eminent non-Aringanbalj scholarswho were influenced by this scholar since this chapter is concerned only with theAringanbalj scholars who were influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah Even then it is beyondthe scope of this work to mention all of the Aringanbalj scholars influenced byhim for countless Aringanbalj scholars have encountered Ibn Taymiyyah or hisscholarly legacy There were great many Aringanbalj scholars who benefited fromhim during his lifetime primarily as his students These include Ibn al-Qayyim(d 751ndash1350) Ibn Mufliaring (d 7631361) Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj (d 7441343)23

al-Zarlsquoj (d 7411340)24 al-Manbijj (d 7301330)25 Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal(d 7711369)26 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Ghanj al-Aringarhnj (d 7451344)27 al-Iumlufj (d 7171317)Ibn al-Muaringib al-Maqdisj (d 7371336)28 Ibn Najjaring (d 7231323)29 al-Dhabhhj(d 7111311)30 and Ibn al-Munajjh (d 7241324)31 Certain other leading Aringanbalj scholars are mentioned in the books of Iumlabaqht although it is unclearwhether or not they were students of Ibn Taymiyyah One of these is al-Aringarhnj(d 7451344)32

The objective of this chapter is instead to identify whether or not IbnTaymiyyah has had an enduring influence on Aringanbalj scholars from his genera-tion up to the present time It is only appropriate that the Aringanbalj School of law

INFLUENCE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH ON AringANBALI JURISTS

130

is the subject of this study as Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos contact with this School wassignificantly greater than with the other Schools of law In addition Ibn Taymiyyahspent most of his life in Damascus which was at that time an established centreof the Aringanbalj School33 In assessing the extent of his influence the followingsection studies and analyses a representative sample of Aringanbalj scholars

A study of the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on selected Aringanbalj jurists

In order to obtain a clear illustration of this influence two types of sources havebeen consulted The first are biographical accounts written by Aringanbalj scholarsand others The second are selected treatises written by those Aringanbalj scholarswho form the subject matter of the study These case studies include examples ofAringanbalj scholars selected from different eras Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Mufliaring wereeminent students of Ibn Taymiyyah al-Jurhlsquoj (d 8831478) and al-Mardhwj(d 8851480) were leading Aringanbalj scholars of the ninth hijri century al-Hajjhwj(d 9681561) and al-Futuaringj (d 9721564) were scholars of the tenth centuryal-Karmj (d 10331624) and al-Buhutj (d 10511641) were scholars of theeleventh century Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb (d 12061791) was a scholar of the twelfthhijri century al-Salsquodj (d 13761956) lived in the fourteenth century finally IbnlsquoUthaymjn (b 13471928) was a leading contemporary scholar

It ought to be noted again that the vast scope of this field is such that it is notfeasible to treat all the aspects of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon these Aringanbaljjurists It should be sufficient to make reference to some examples to showwhether or not Ibn Taymiyyah exerts an influence upon these juristsFurthermore this chapter is primarily restricted to the issues on which thesescholars have made explicit references to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and prefer-ences rather than seeking to extract Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos underlying influence fromtheir general writings

Ibn al-Qayyim (691ndash7511292ndash1350)

This scholarrsquos lineage (nasab) was Muhammad b Abi Bakr b Ayyub b Salsquodb Aringariz al-Zarlsquoj He was known variously as Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn QayyimIbn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Shams al-Djn and was also known by the kunyah

Abu lsquoAbd Allah34

Ibn Qayyim attended the study-circles of various scholars in Damascus thecity in which he was born Some of his teachers such as his father and IbnTaymiyyah were authorities in various disciplines and so he studied more thanone subject with them35 On the whole however it appears that he studied indi-vidual branches of knowledge under the supervision of specialist scholars Forinstance he received tuition in the science of inheritance and jurisprudence fromSheikh al-Majd al-Aringarhnj36 and he studied the science of aringadjth and rijhl underthe eminent scholar al-Mizzj37


131

His biography suggests that he acquired the bulk of his knowledge in hisbirthplace Damascus It is probable that he did not feel the need to travel muchto other parts of the Islamic world in order to seek knowledge because this citywas an important centre of knowledge at his time38

Ibn al-Qayyim became a famous sheikh in his own right after completing hisstudies and due to his scholarly reputation he attracted many students39 Histime was occupied in teaching issuing fathwh and composing several importanttreatises on various sciences Amongst his most famous books in the science ofjurisprudence and its principles are Zhd al-Malsquohd fi hadi khair al-lsquoIbhd and Ilsquolhmal-Muwaqqilsquojn lsquoan Rabb al-lsquoAlamjn40

He has been referred to in certain sources as a Aringanbalj scholar41 Neverthelessone specialist in Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos treatises and jurisprudence declared after acomprehensive study of his works that he was an absolute mujtahid42 Indeed hebecame recognised as one of the mujtahids revivers of the religion of the fourteenthcentury43

The influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Ibn al-Qayyim

Ibn al-Qayyim was described as lsquoone of the notable companions of IbnTaymiyyahrsquo44 Several scholars mention that he was inseparable from (lazama) hissheikh and studied under his supervision and guidance (akhadha lsquoanhu)45 His com-panionship of Ibn Taymiyyah lasted for a lengthy period of time spanning fromthe return of the latter from Egypt in 7121312 until his death in 728132846 Hewas exceedingly familiar with the opinions and words of his sheikh on variousissues he narrates from him directly (samilsquotu)47 or he mentions acts that he personallysaw his sheikh performing (shhhddtu)48

Ibn al-Qayyim clarified the status of his sheikhrsquos knowledge of Aringanbalj law Heasserts that the position of his sheikhrsquos preferences (for one opinion over another)are at the least not inferior if not superior to the preferences of leading scholarsin the Aringanbalj School of law such as Ibn lsquoAqjl and Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb and even theirsheikh Abu Yalsquola Therefore Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preferences can be employed forthe support of fathwh and rulings49

Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos jurisprudential treatises as well as his other treatises are indica-tive of the great impact Ibn Taymiyyah made on this scholar He was particularlyinfluenced by the methodology implemented by his sheikh in delivering fathwh aswell as by his personal characteristics50 The great similarity between the opinions ofthese two scholars on various issues is a testament to the extent to which Ibnal-Qayyim was influenced by him This influence is further evidenced through hisallusions to and lengthy citations of the opinions and preferences of his teacher51 Itis also abundantly clear that Ibn al-Qayyim was very familiar with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosworks as he left a great document entitled Asmhrsquo mursquoallafht Ibn Taymiyyah in which helisted on an extensive number of his sheikhrsquos treatises Another proof of his famil-iarity with the opinions and preferences of his sheikh is his ability to differentiatebetween the earlier (subsequently retracted) and later opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah52


132

It is clear that Ibn al-Qayyim attaches great importance to these opinions andpreferences He often cites Ibn Taymiyyah when consolidating various opinions inthe School53 and when labelling various rulings in the School as incorrect (ghalaƒ)54

There is clear similarity between Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position towards the leadingscholars and Imams and that of Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that thesuperiority of scholars in the level of their knowledge does not necessitate theacceptance of all of their opinions Similarly the existence of some incorrectopinions within their rulings does not render all of their opinions invalid or meanthat these scholars can be censured because of their adherence to these incorrectopinions According to Ibn al-Qayyim the correct stance is that we should believethat these mujtahids in holding these incorrect opinions were not in fact commit-ting a misdeed Conversely we should not consider them to be infallible Thismethod in fact according to Ibn al-Qayyim was the same method employed bythese Imams themselves and other leading scholars towards the opinions held bythe companions of the Prophet Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that this method of deal-ing with the Imams cannot be rejected except by two types of persons eitherthose who do not know the excellent characteristics of the scholar in Islam orthose who are ignorant of the sharjlsquoah This as Ibn al-Qayyim explains is becausean individual who possesses knowledge of the sharjlsquoah and is acquainted with reallife situations can see clearly that a great renowned scholar can err sometimes andthat he is forgiven for his mistakes and rewarded for his independent reasoningHe must not be however followed in these mistaken rulings nor should he beattacked for holding these opinions55

It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos understanding of the correctposition to take towards the opinions of leading scholars seems to contribute tohis critical approach in studying the Aringanbalj law in which he also seems to beinfluenced by his sheikh Therefore for instance he sometimes rejects some opin-ions found in the School and at other times accepts opinions after making certainmodifications56 Occasionally Ibn al-Qayyim states that Aaringmadrsquos opinion isincorrect and further supports his claim by comparing Aaringmadrsquos ruling to the gen-eral principles of Aaringmad himself57 In order to solve an existing conflict betweenscholars he occasionally cites the position of his sheikh58 In addition he describescertain opinions of his sheikh as lsquoopinions that suit the general principles of ImamAaringmadrsquo59 lsquowhat the correct evidences bear witness torsquo60 lsquowhat was endorsed bythe majority of the Predecessorsrsquo61 lsquowhat is nearer to the implementation of thearingadjth and the general principles of the sharjlsquoahrsquo62 lsquothe undoubtedly correct opin-ion necessitated by the words and general principles of Aaringmadrsquo63 On occasionhe praises his sheikh by stating that he has not read any other previous scholarmaking a certain beneficial point made by Ibn Taymiyyah64 In various rulingshe defends the opinions of his sheikh although they were in opposition to thepredominant opinion of the School These opinions include those that resulted insome of his detentions such as the ruling concerning the triple divorce and givingan oath for a divorce Ibn al-Qayyim devotes particular sections of his treatises toassert the correctness and accuracy of his sheikhrsquos positions which he affirms


133

through the use of various textual and rational evidences65 Concerning some ofthese issues Ibn al-Qayyim declares that his sheikh was able to refute his oppo-nentsrsquo evidence but his opponents succeeded in altering the argument concern-ing the disputed issues from one whose foundation was jurisprudential in natureto one which was political Hence they would lodge their complaints in politicalcircles According to Ibn al-Qayyim this was the most potent lsquoevidencersquo for hisopponents one to which his sheikh was incapable of responding As a consequenceIbn Taymiyyah was detained for long periods of time66

Despite the opposition Ibn Taymiyyah received Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that hissheikhrsquos position regarding these jurisprudential issues exerted a great influenceupon the society of his time According to Ibn al-Qayyim this influence tookvarious forms such as the suspension of innovations and the increased use oftexts and sayings of the companions as evidence67

It seems also that Ibn al-Qayyim benefited from his sheikhrsquos knowledge in thescience of aringadjth He cites him in various places in this regard68 Sometimes herefutes certain aringadjths and he backs his opinion with statements issued by IbnTaymiyyah rebutting the same aringadjths69 and sometimes he cites his sheikhrsquosclarification of certain terms or phrases mentioned in some aringadjths70 On otheroccasions he outlines opposing opinions to those of his sheikh with regard to somearingadjths and then he gives preference to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions71 It is interestinghowever that where Ibn Taymiyyah seems to find certain statements in somearingadjths problematic as they seem to him to be in opposition to general rulings wefind Ibn al-Qayyim asserting that the alleged conflict is non-existent72 Thisappears to indicate that both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim had a critical andanalytical approach towards the textual content of aringadjths

It is important to note that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon this scholar alsoextended to theology Ibn al-Qayyim declares in his poem entitled lsquoal-Nuniyyahrsquo

that prior to his contact with Ibn Taymiyyah he had subscribed to a number ofincorrect opinions concerning creed Once he had met Ibn Taymiyyah howeverhe altered these opinions73

Due to the strong connection between Ibn al-Qayyim and his sheikh he sharedin some of the interrogations experienced by his sheikh He was occasionallyinterrogated for issuing a fatwh in agreement with the fatwh of his sheikhFor instance he was imprisoned after he issued a fatwh concerning the issue ofundertaking a journey in order to visit the grave of the Prophet and concerningthe triple divorce on which he agreed with his sheikh74

This close relationship between Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim appears tobe the cause for the claim made by some individuals that Ibn al-Qayyim was onlyan emulator of Ibn Taymiyyah75 Ibn Aringajar while testifying to the extensiveknowledge of this scholar in various sciences observes that Ibn al-Qayyim wasvery fond of his sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and this caused him to defend his sheikhand to follow him in all of his opinions76

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos clear influence upon Ibn al-Qayyim must be accepted Itappears however that the allegation that Ibn al-Qayyim was only emulating his


134

sheikh is incorrect as a careful study of his treatises reveals that he occasionallyasserted opinions of his own77 On certain issues he discloses an inclinationtowards opinions that are in opposition to his sheikhrsquos point of view78 Sometimeshe states that his sheikh was unaware of the existence of some opinions held byother scholars79 In fact Ibn al-Qayyim openly disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah inrelation to some issues80

Ibn al-Qayyim was known for his prodigious studies in various Islamicsciences81 The treatises produced by him were in fact founded upon a large num-ber of sources besides the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah82 Both Ibn Rajab and IbnKathjr state that he had acquired a large number of books that were not availableto most scholars83 Furthermore Ibn al-Qayyim was educated under several otherleading scholars of his time84 which suggests that Ibn Taymiyyah was not theonly intellectual influence upon him

It is more correct to say that Ibn al-Qayyim followed his teacherrsquos method ofstudying jurisprudence in a comparative and analytical manner He would there-after formulate his own opinion on the basis of its proximity to the texts of theQurrsquoan and Sunnah85 When we observe Ibn al-Qayyim to be in agreement withhis sheikh it is clearly apparent that he was not merely influenced by him but thathis agreement is based upon a comprehensive analysis of the evidence86 Itappears that his vast encyclopaedic knowledge assisted him in this process ofinvestigation87 In fact it would not be incorrect to say that Ibn al-Qayyim bothconveyed and revised his sheikhrsquos knowledge88

An examination of Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos treatises has revealed the fact that incomparison with other Aringanbalj scholars he has not in fact made many direct ref-erences to the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah89 This clearly does notmean that Ibn Taymiyyah did not influence him for we find a great similaritybetween the jurisprudential rulings of these two scholars The influence went tothe core of Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos approach to jurisprudence Al-Shawkhnj noted thatthis agreement was founded upon the fact that Ibn al-Qayyim primarily based hisopinions upon legal evidences just as Ibn Taymiyyah did Al-Shawkhnj does notdispute the fact that the lengthy period of association between these scholars leftan influence upon the jurisprudential opinions of Ibn al-Qayyim90 It is probabletherefore that Ibn al-Qayyim sometimes related an opinion shared by him andIbn Taymiyyah without seeing the need to make reference to his teacher

In closing it is useful to mention two concise statements made by two leadingscholars The first is that of Ibn Aringajar al-lsquoAsqalhnj who says lsquoIf there was novirtue of Ibn Taymiyyah except his famous disciple al-Sheikh Shams al-Djn IbnQayyim al-Jawziyyah the writer of the great beneficial treatises that benefit hisfollowers as well as his opponents this would be more than sufficient to illustratethe excellence of his (Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos) rankrsquo91 The second statement is fromal-Salsquodj who describes Ibn al-Qayyim as lsquothe one student who benefited themost from his sheikh and the one was most proficient in his scholarly legacy(aqwamuhum bi lsquoulumih) and the most knowledgeable in the sciences of revelationand reason amongst Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos studentsrsquo (Tables 1 and 2)92


135

Ibn Mufliaring (708ndash7631308ndash1362)

Ibn Mufliaringrsquos full name was Muhammad b Mufliaring b Muhammad b Mufrijal-Maqdisj al-Iacutehliaringj He was born in Damascus93 and it was in this city that hecommenced his education Ibn Taymiyyah was the most eminent teacher of IbnMufliaring Amongst his other famous teachers were the judge Jamhl al-Djnal-Mardhwj (d 7691367) Ibn al-Musallam (d 7261326) al-Mizzj andal-Dhahabj Under the tutelage of these scholars Ibn Mufliaring studied varioussciences such as jurisprudence and its principles aringadjth and syntax94 He was pri-marily recognised as an authority in the science of al-Furulsquo (jurisprudence) Heappears to have been recognised by scholars as a master of this subject as early aswhen he was only 21 or 22 years old This can be understood from a narrationreferred to in several books of T abaqht in which Ibn al-Qayyim is quoted as say-ing in the year 7311331 that lsquothere is no one more knowledgeable in the worldregarding the Aringanbalj School of law than Ibn Mufliaringrsquo95

After completing his studies and developing his own approach Ibn Mufliaring wasappointed as a teacher He instructed students in several schools such as al-IacuteharingibahSheikh Abj lsquoUmar and al-Salhmiyyah96 Ibn Mufliaring was not only a teacher ofjurisprudence but also a muftj97 and for a certain period of time a judge98

Ibn Mufliaring was also a respected author particularly in the science of jurispru-dence and its principles which was his specialist field He compiled the bookal-Furulsquo which concerns the science of jurisprudence This treatise has become


136

Table 1 The extent to which Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Zhd al-Malsquohd cites thejurisprudential opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah

Volume 1 57 61 62 71 131 136 199 222 237 264 276 304 311 316 319 324360 375 378 407 434 439 440 448 456 464 465 472 480 495 499505 518 520

Volume 2 21 22 53 88 118ndash122 127 141 148ndash150 209ndash210 218 231 333Volume 3 37 138 152 309 454 492Volume 4 358Volume 5 9 86 155 197 215 248 306 312 353 406 415 438 450 475 557 593

606 658 673 717 730 749 781 783 807 809 811 823 833

Table 2 Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential opinions andpreferences in his book Ilsquolhm al-Muaqqilsquo jn

Volume 1 137 473 479 498 508 twice 519 520Volume 2 5 8 9 14 15 16 20 33 35 36 60 111 132 164 239 365 412Volume 3 7 42 96 118 120 twice 123 125 twice 150 223 224 274 279 283 298

twice 301 352 360 367 448Volume 4 7 12 27 78 99 111 144 twice 203 215 219 223 226 233 243 264 272

295 319 322 334

very well known and a recognised source within the School Several Aringanbaljscholars have expressed their appreciation of this work and described it as one ofthe greatest most precious and most comprehensive treatises99 Another impor-tant treatise by Ibn Mufliaring is his book uszligul al-fiqh which (as the name suggests)concerns the science of the principles of jurisprudence It has been claimed thatthere is no other Aringanbalj treatise in this science that is comparable to this book100

The influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Ibn Mufliaring

Ibn Taymiyyah was astonished by the extensive knowledge of Ibn Mufliaring and hewould often remark lsquoyou are not Ibn Mufliaring (the son of the successful) you areMufliaring (the successful)rsquo101

Ibn Mufliaring attached himself to Ibn Taymiyyah and absorbed a large amountof his knowledge This companionship continued until he became the mostknowledgeable of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students in relation to his sheikhrsquos opinionsand preferences It is even reported that Ibn al-Qayyim would consult him in thismatter102 This can be further supported by Ibn al-Mubrrid who reported that itwas said that the foremost amongst Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students in jurisprudencewas Ibn Mufliaring in aringadjth it was Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj and in creed and sects and inthe renunciation of worldly pleasures (azhadahum) it was Ibn al-Qayyim who alsoachieved a balance between (al-mutawassiƒ bayn) the two sciences of aringadjth andjurisprudence103

The Aringanbalj sources and biographical accounts do not contain muchclarification of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon his student Ibn MufliaringTherefore the most relevant treatise concerning this point is Ibn Mufliaringlsquos afore-mentioned book al-Furulsquo According to al-Mardhwj it is one of the most importanttreatises written in the Aringanbalj jurisprudence104

It is evident from a reading of al-Furulsquo that Ibn Mufliaring commands an extensiveknowledge of his sheikhrsquos opinions and preferences These opinions and prefer-ences are primarily related to the various issues of jurisprudence although hedoes occasionally cite his sheikhrsquos opinions regarding issues of creed

It is also apparent that through his lengthy association with him he was able toacquire most of his sheikhrsquos jurisprudential knowledge He would also frequentlyconsult several treatises of his sheikh in compiling his own work for we find himquoting numerous treatises such as Shararing al-lsquoUmdah Iqtiparthrsquo al-Iacuteirhƒ al-Mustaqjm

al-Ajwibah al-Miszligriyyah al-Iacutehrim al-Maslul Minhhj Ahl al-Sunnah and al-Fathwhal-Miszligriyyah105

This long and close association with Ibn Taymiyyah and his treatises appears tohave conferred upon Ibn Mufliaring the ability to predict Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position oncertain issues in the absence of an explicit text from him On occasions he makesreference to lsquowhat the words of Ibn Taymiyyah indicate would be his opinionsrsquo106

He mentions various rulings on which Ibn Taymiyyah clearly had a preference andthose about which he entertained a reservation or hesitation107 On various issuesIbn Mufliaring attempts to clarify the intended meaning of his sheikhrsquos words108


137

All the aforementioned points affirm the fact that this scholar commanded agreat familiarity with his sheikhrsquos opinions and treatises

It goes without saying that Ibn Mufliaring attaches great importance to the opinionsof Ibn Taymiyyah he cites his opinions in various places in his book109 and onseveral occasions he expounds the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah complete withhis evidence Such citations occasionally run to several pages110 Ibn Mufliaringsometimes supports his opinions by citing the position of his sheikh111

It is important to note that Ibn Mufliaring considered Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos narrationsas a source through which even conventional Aringanbalj jurisprudence can be deter-mined On occasions Ibn Mufliaring appears to mean Ibn Taymiyyah when he sayslsquobalsquopart aszligaringhbinarsquo (some of our fellow Aringanbaljs) without mentioning Ibn Taymiyyahby name112 On various issues he attributes some rulings to the Aringanbalj Schoolas narrations (riwayht) wajh or qawl (opinions) and occasionally attributes opinionsto some scholars via the narrations of Ibn Taymiyyah113 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos classi-fication of opinions within the Aringanbalj School is also cited by Ibn Mufliaring114 Oncertain issues he affirms the existence of an agreement between his sheikh andthe Aringanbalj School115

On the other hand certain opinions attributed by Ibn Taymiyyah to the Aringan-balj School are questioned by Ibn Mufliaring On several issues he describes the attri-bution of opinions by his sheikh to the School as lsquostrangersquo He suggests that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos lsquostrange opinionsrsquo are caused by a misunderstanding of generalstatements uttered by either Ibn Aringanbal or some of the leading Aringanbalj schol-ars116 Occasionally Ibn Mufliaring appears to reject Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos claim con-cerning the existence of certain opinions in the Aringanbalj School He studies thepossible legal ground upon which this claim is founded Thereafter he cites clar-ifications made by Aringanbalj scholars of those grounds in a manner that does notsupport the claim of his sheikh117 On other issues also he declares clearly thatwhat Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned as copyhhir al-madhhab (the predominant opinionwithin the School) he himself had not found to be mentioned as such byAringanbaljs118 Indeed Ibn Mufliaring sometimes asserts that the opinions found inthe School on a certain issue do not include those Ibn Taymiyyah claims theexistence of119

Despite the critical approach adopted by Ibn Mufliaring in studying the attributionof opinions by Ibn Taymiyyah to the Aringanbalj School some Aringanbalj scholarshave questioned the correctness of the attribution of some of these opinions byIbn Taymiyyah to the School which Ibn Mufliaring narrates from him They assertedthat some of these opinions were only attributed to the School by Ibn Taymiyyahand denied the existence of these opinions within the School120

This critical approach does not detract from the general respect Ibn Mufliaring feltfor Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn Mufliaring considers his sheikh as an authority not only ontheAringanbalj School but also on the opinions of the other schools of law he attrib-utes various opinions to these schools basing them upon the words of IbnTaymiyyah121 Furthermore Ibn Mufliaring occasionally accepts the existence of aconsensus amongst scholars or the fact that a ruling originates from the opinion


138

of the predecessors based upon Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos narration of it122 There areoccasions however where Ibn Mufliaring disputes the accuracy of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosnarration of a consensus of the scholars He cites some Aringanbalj scholars whoassert the existence of conflicting opinions within the School regarding the issuesin question123 Clearly therefore Ibn Mufliaringrsquos knowledge of Aringanbalj fiqh was vastenough to use it as a measure against such claims of consensus

As with Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn Taymiyyah also influenced Ibn Mufliaring in hisgeneral approach towards the study and analysis of Aringanbalj jurisprudence IbnMufliaring cites his sheikhrsquos opinions when they are in opposition to the AringanbaljSchool or at least to the opinions of some of its leading scholars124 On severaloccasions he also cites his sheikhrsquos thoroughgoing discussion of the opinionsof Aringanbalj scholars and their evidences125 Similar to Ibn al-Qayyim IbnMufliaring conducts his own corrections of Aringanbalj jurisprudence and some of hiscounter-arguments for this purpose are based upon the words of his sheikh126

Ibn Mufliaring was also impressed by Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos campaign against innovationWe find him classifying several practices and rulings as innovations in doing sohe occasionally cites the words of Ibn Taymiyyah in support127

Considering Ibn Mufliaringrsquos long association with Ibn Taymiyyah it is to beexpected that he would have been influenced by him to a considerable degree butit would be incorrect to consider him a blind follower of his sheikh For the mostpart his interest was in transmitting rather than supporting the jurisprudentialrulings of Ibn Taymiyyah On certain occasions he demonstrates his support forhis sheikhrsquos jurisprudential rulings128 but on other occasions he criticises hissheikhrsquos opinions and disputes his evidence129 In some places Ibn Mufliaring evenstates that his sheikhrsquos opinions are lsquodisorderlyrsquo or that his sheikh seems to hesitatein his rulings130 In other places he calls Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions regardingsome jurisprudential issues lsquostrangersquo and goes on to suggest reasons for the exis-tence of these strange rulings131 He sometimes considers Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulingto be lsquoquestionablersquo ( fihi nacopyar)132 or he argues that the opinion of certain Aringan-balj scholars is more likely to be correct than that of his sheikh133 On other occa-sions although Ibn Mufliaring does not expressly state his view on the opinion of hissheikh it is nevertheless clear that he is not in agreement with him This can bededuced from his citation without criticism of various evidences that are contraryto his sheikhrsquos opinions134 Ibn Mufliaring occasionally observes that although the evi-dence seems to suggest certain conclusions Ibn Taymiyyah does not hold them135

On certain issues Ibn Mufliaring considers some of the legal evidence cited by IbnTaymiyyah to be weak and he occasionally quotes Ibn Aringanbal in support of theview that some aringadjths employed by Ibn Taymiyyah are unsound136 Ibn Mufliaring isnot afraid to point out where Ibn Taymiyyah is alone in subscribing to certainopinions137 As other times Ibn Mufliaring attempts to find an accommodationbetween the opinion of his sheikh and other Aringanbalj scholars by weighing up theevidence carefully138

It is evident that Ibn Mufliaring was well versed in his sheikhrsquos opinions to theextent that he was able to dispute claims by other scholars that Ibn Taymiyyah


139

subscribed to certain opinions by reference to what he knew of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions on such matters139 Despite Ibn Mufliaringrsquos considerable familiarity withIbn Taymiyyahrsquos knowledge however he was prepared to admit when he wasunsure about his sheikhrsquos opinion on any particular issue140 Despite this there areoccasions where Ibn Mufliaring narrates what he considers to be Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions but the narration appears to be incomplete In such situations furtherclarification is needed as the ruling is problematic without it141

The study of al-Furulsquo not only provides us with the information necessary todetermine the extent of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon Ibn Mufliaring but alsohelps us to collect a considerable number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions TheTable 3 shows the volumes and page numbers of al-Furulsquo wherein Ibn Mufliaring hascited the opinions and preferences of his sheikh


140

Table 3 References to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences made by Ibn Mufliaring inhis book al-Furulsquo

Volume 1 72 73 twice 77ndash78 twice 78 79 twice 85 87 93 97 100 101 103 106 107118 119 123 124 125 128 thrice 129ndash130 133 134 139 148 151 153154 155 157 twice 160 163 thrice 165 twice 167 173 176 179181 twice183 twice 184 193 twice 196 197 198 199 twice 201 203 thrice 205 206thrice 208 209 213 217 219 220 twice 222 twice 224 227 thrice 229231 234 235 238 241 twice 242 244 245 thrice 246 255 256 258 259261 twice 262 263 267 thrice 269 twice 272 281 287 thrice 289 291 293294 twice 295 twice 304 306 thrice 308 319 324 325 330 333 334 336345 346 347 twice 352 353 354 355 356 twice 357 358 360 379 375393 397 400 twice 408 410 413 four 414 415 thrice 418 421 twice 423twice 425 427 428 430 431 433 442 444 twice 452 454 thrice 456 457thrice 458 459 460 thrice 467 485 491 twice 492 493 494 496 four 505twice 513 516 517 518 520 522 524 526 twice 528 531 twice 534 538539 542 544 546 547 548 thrice 553 554 twice 556 558 560 562 567568 twice 569 572 573 twice 576 twice 577 twice 578 584 585 587 590591 597 599 604 607

Volume 2 8 11 13 17 22 25 27 28 twice 30 33 38 47 51 54 57 58 thrice 64 6971 72 74 89 91 99 105 109 twice 110 118 125 129 130 four times 131136 137 twice 142 150 twice 155 156 159 160 167 175 177 179184ndash185 210 216 217 221 223 243 248 twice 249 251 twice 252 260263 264 273 274 276 twice 277 286 287 twice 289 290 291 twice 298299 302 304 305 307 310 311 312 313 twice 314315 316 323 327336 338 348 351 399 403 404 407 437 440 twice 443 464 twice 445twice 467 474 477 498 500 534 537 540 557ndash558 576 587 588 589591 twice 592 twice 602 603 610 619 620 629 twice 637 639 641 651654 658 661 665 667

Volume 3 4 7 9 13 19 24 41 42 48 twice 50 65 twice 66 74 75 twice 76 100 108112 113 115 twice 118 124 125 137 138 143 144 145 thrice 167 168194 204 206 225 226 227 232 twice 237 twice 239 twice 272 293 297300 twice 301 340 344 350 356 357 374 390 440 454 496 497 499500 502 503 508 509 513 514 515 516 519 520 521 523 twice 524528 529 531 twice 534 539 twice 541 545 546 554 555 564 565


141

Table 3 Continued

Volume 4 5 6 9 22 23 25 27 twice 36 38 41 42 50 51 twice 54 twice 60 62 twice64 74 77 79 twice 84 86 92 94 97 98 102 twice 105 126 131134 135 twice 137 twice 138 139 twice 145 147 148 149 153 154 155 157159 160 twice 162 164 167 168 170 171 twice 179 185 186 187 196thrice 197 202 207 225 237 238 242 244 twice 250 262 264 twice 265twice 275 283 285 twice 286 twice 288 twice 289 291 292 293 298 307316 317 322 335 343 345 346 349 353 375 377 384 thrice 393 396397 399 400 402 404 405 twice 406 twice 411 thrice 415 416 417 thrice418 twice 423 426 428 435 twice 436 439 twice 440 twice 441 446 448458 460 461 463 465 474 twice 477 478 482 twice 500 503 508 510511 514 516 517 520 523 524 526 527 529 thrice 531 538 555 558559 568 581 twice 585 587 588 589 593 594 595 four times 596 599four times 600 five times 601 602 603 twice 608 609 610 612 twice 615618 twice 619 twice 621 622 623 625 630 631 635 636 638 639 645649 652 655 661 662 668 712 716717

Volume 5 3 thrice 8 9 11 44 47 50 51 52 53 twice 77 81 85 100 132 133 136145 147 155 twice 160 162 163 169 172 176 178 twice 188 189 192193 194 195 199 207 210 211 212 215 216 217 thrice 218 200 twice224 twice 225 twice 234 247 268 272 285 288 293 300 302 thrice 304308 310 322 329 339 342 343 twice 346 352 354 356361 362 363twice 364 365 367 thrice 368 370 371 378 409 414 424 twice 425 426432 440 442 452 464 466 474 492 500 506 twice 507515 518 twice519 524 526 twice 530 545 546 548 550 twice 555 558 wice 570 574587 589 596 599 twice 601 603 604 606 614 635 640642 650 660662 663668 669

Volume 6 12 twice 46 54 twice 55 twice 56 61 64 68 71 73 75 twice 76 twice 8389 95 106 107 twice 109 115 twice 118 120 123 126 136 139 142 twice143 twice 144 147 twice 150 152 twice 153 twice 156 157 159 160 161164 twice 165 twice 167 172 175 178 182 183 184 185 188 194 195196 202 204 205 213 217 218 223 228 229 230 237 243 246 250253 255 256 twice 257 259 260 265 twice 267 269 twice 270 twice 271272 twice 273 274 twice 275 twice 276 279 280 twice 284 287 288 twice290 thrice 291 292 293 294 295 296 twice 297 twice 303 twice 304 313315 319 320 321 335 338 339 340 thrice 341 342 344 345 347 thrice350 352 353 365 367 386 389 390 398 402 404 twice 408 414 415417 420 422 423 twice 424 425 428 429 436 437 440 454 457 462463 467 473 475 475 479 480 twice 487 489 twice 492 494 497 twice498 twice 499 twice 500 501 502 504 505 twice 511 513 514 516 519525 527 twice 533 twice 549 550 551 twice 553 555 562 564 565 567570 572 573 576 578 581 582 584 588 589 594 595 599 601 605615 617 625 629 633

Al-Jurhlsquoj (d 8831478)

Al-Jurhlsquojrsquos full name was Abu Bakr b Zayd b Abj Bakr b Zayd b lsquoUmar bMaaringmkd al-Aringasanj He was born in Jurhlsquo one of the areas in Nhblis in8251422142 The Jarakisah Mamluks governed Egypt and al-Shhm during thisperiod143

Al-Jurhlsquojrsquos journey for the acquisition of knowledge can be divided into threemain phases The first phase was at his birthplace in Jurhlsquo where he studied thefundamentals of various Arabic and Islamic sciences such as the Qurrsquoan and itsinterpretation jurisprudence and syntax The second phase started when hemoved to Damascus in the year 8421438144 where he attended the classes ofvarious leading scholars such as Ibn Qundus (d 8611457) a well known Aringanbaljscholar under whom he studied such sciences as jurisprudence principles ofjurisprudence inheritance Arabic language and rhetoric145 He also studiedunder the supervision of Abu Shalsquor (d 8441440) who was a leading scholar invarious sciences such as aringadjth tafsjr fiqh and usul146

The year 8611457 marks the beginning of the third phase of al-Juralsquojrsquos questfor knowledge In that year he travelled to Egypt where he studied under severalleading scholars such as al-Balqjnj (d 8681464) al-Jalhl al-Maaringalj (d 8641459)al-Aringiszlignj (d 8811476) the judge lsquoIzz al-Djn al-Kinhnj (d 8761471) Ibnal-Humhm al-Aringanafj (d 8611457) and al-Sakhhwj (d 9021497)147

A careful study of the biographies of al-Jurhlsquojrsquos teachers indicates that duringthe first phase he was engaged in the study of the fundamentals of various sciencessuch as Qurlsquoan aringadjth Tafsjr and fiqh He progressed during the second stage to amore detailed study of a number of Islamic and Arabic sciences but was still pri-marily taught by Aringanbalj scholars During the third stage it is evident that themajority of his teachers were from a non-Aringanbalj background After a lengthyperiod of time travelling and having expended considerable effort in his quest forknowledge al-Jurhlsquoj became a teacher judge and mufti He also composed severaltreatises most of which concerned the science of jurisprudence and its principles

The influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on al-Jurhlsquoj

A study of some of the treatises al-Jurhlsquoj composed reveals that he was familiarwith the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah This may be evidenced ina number of ways he describes some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential prefer-ences as being contradictory148 he comments upon Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos indecisionon certain rulings149 he mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah holds two conflicting opin-ions concerning a single issue in different places in his treatises150 he highlightsthe fact that Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally mentions two of Aaringmadrsquos narrationswithout indicating a preference for one of them151

The opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah appear to command therespect of al-Jurhlsquoj He cites Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos classification of the opinions of theAringanbalj School152 and some of his legal derivations153 He quotes IbnTaymiyyahrsquos explanation of the causes behind the existence of jurisprudentialdisputes154 He occasionally explicitly mentions Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism ofsome of the narrations related from Ibn Aringanbal or the opinions of the Aringanbaljscholars155 Furthermore it is reported that he wrote a treatise in which hedefended Ibn Taymiyyah against the claim advanced by the leading Shhfilsquojscholar Ibn al-Hhrsquoim that Ibn Taymiyyah issued sixty problematic rulings156


142

The influence of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions upon al-Jurhlsquoj also manifested itselfthrough his introduction of new meanings for existing terms in the AringanbaljSchool This can be observed in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab in which he presentsseveral terms in relation to Ibn Taymiyyah These terms are as follows

lsquoAla al-Ashhar This term is used by al-Jurhlsquoj to refer to the presence of anarration from Aaringmad in the Aringanbalj School which was preferred by IbnTaymiyyah and which is opposed by another narration in the School

Fi al-Ashhar Al-Jurhlsquoj uses this term to denote the existence of a wajh in theAringanbalj School which was preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah and which isopposed by another opinion in the School

Fi Ashhar This term is used by al-Jurhlsquoj to refer to the existence of an opin-ion held by Ibn Taymiyyah which opposes the opinion subscribed to byother Aringanbalj scholars157

By use of these terms al-Jurhlsquoj has systematically categorised Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions concerning jurisprudential issues into the following categories

Opinions preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah which are in fact narrations fromAaringmad

Opinions preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah which are in fact wujuh (opinions) inthe Aringanbalj School of law

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions which are in opposition to the predominantopinion of the Aringanbalj School of law

The opinions and preferences mentioned by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab

can be divided into four types as follows

1 Narrations preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those opinionslabelled by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as lsquoala al-Ashhar) (Table 4)

2 a wajh preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those opinions labelledby al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as fi al-Ashhar) (Table 5)

3 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preferences only (the opposite of those opinions labelled byal-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as fi ashhar) (Table 6)

4 miscellaneous opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah attributed to himby al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab using the name lsquoAbu rsquol-lsquoAbbhsrsquo orlsquosheikh al-islamrsquo (Table 7)


143

Table 4 Narrations preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those opinions labelled byal-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as lsquoala al-Ashhar)

7b 16b 22b 24b 25b 26a 26b 29b 31a 32a 32b twice 39b 43b 46a 47a 49b 57a58a 79b 87a 95a 103a 116a 138b 190a 192a

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on the writings of this scholar can be attributed tovarious factors

It has been mentioned previously that al-Jurhlsquoj spent a long time acquiringknowledge in the city of Damascus Here Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos legacy was stillvery much alive through the activities of his followers

The treatises of this scholar are indicative of the fact that he must haveconsulted Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential treatises and fathwh

He consults the treatises of Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Mufliaring they are two ofthe most important sources of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences158

As mentioned previously al-Jurhlsquoj studied under Abu Shalsquor who was wellknown for his comprehensive understanding of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos knowledge159

This did not prevent al-Jurhlsquoj from criticising some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionsOn certain issues he argued that Aaringmadrsquos scholarly legacy did not support whatIbn Taymiyyah claimed to be the opinion of the School160 He even states that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion on some issues is contrary to the consensus of the Aringanbaljscholars161


144

Table 7 Miscellaneous opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah attributed to him by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab using the name lsquoAbk rsquol-lsquoAbbhsrsquo or lsquosheikh al-islamrsquo

3a 4b 6a twice 7a twice 8a twice 10a twice 10b 11a twice 12a 13a 15 thrice 17a 20a21a 22b 24b 26a twice 27a twice 32a twice 34b 38a twice 40a twice 40b 41a thrice42a 42b 44a thrice 46a twice 47b 49a 53a 55a 56a 56b twice 58a twice 58b 60a60b 61a twice 62b thrice 63a 64b 65a 65b twice 66a thrice 66b 67a 67b thrice 68bthrice 70a 71a twice 72a 74a 76a 77a twice 78b 79a thrice 80b 81a 82b twice 83a85a 86a 87b 89a twice 90a thrice 90b 91a 91b thrice 93a 94b 96a twice 97b 98a99b 102b twice 103a 103b 104a twice 104b 105a twice 105b twice 109a 110b 111atwice 111b 112a four times 112b thrice 113b 114a 114b thrice 115a 121a twice 121btwice 124b 125a twice 126b twice 127a four times 128a 128b twice 129b 130b twice131a 131b four 135b 137a four times 138a 138b thrice 139a 140a twice141a 142a143a twice 142b five times 144a twice 147 twice 155a 159b twice 160b 163a 163b166a 166b 167b 175b twice 176a 176b 178a 178b 179a twice 180b 181a 184athrice 185a 185b 186a thrice 186b thrice 187b 189a 189b 189a 191b 192a 192b193a 193b twice 194a 194b 195b 197b twice 198a twice 199a 199a 200a twice 201b205a twice 205 twice 206a 206b 207a 207b twice 209a five times 213a 213b 214a214b twice 215b 219b 220a twice 222a twice 223a

Table 6 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preferences only (the opposite of those opinions labelled by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as fi al-Ashhar)

10a 12b 26a 29a 34b 41a 41b 43a 142b

Table 5 A wajh preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (the opposite of those opinions labelled by al-Jurhlsquoj in his book Ghhyat al-Maƒlab as fi al-Ashhar)

3a 5a 7b 11a 12b 13b 14b 15a 17b 21a 23b 24a 24b 26a 27a 29b 31b twice 39b40a 42a 68a 72a 139a 167b 198b 201

Al-Mardhwj (d 8851480)

His full name was Abu rsquol-Aringasan lsquoAlj b Sulaymhn b Aaringmad b Muhammadal-Mardhwj He was born in the year 8171414162 This scholar served the AringanbaljSchool of law in various ways

As a jurist After studying under the guidance and supervision of severalgreat scholars al-Mardhwj became a well-known jurist in the School to theextent that he was awarded with the title lsquothe muszligaaringaringiaring (corrector) andmunaqqiaring (reviewer) of Aringanbalj jurisprudencersquo At a later stage in his life hewas widely regarded as the leader of the School163

As a judge164

As a writer Al-Mardhwj bequeathed a great scholarly legacy in the scienceof Aringanbalj jurisprudence The most important works amongst this collectionare al-Inszlighf and Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo165 These books are composed in a uniquemanner for they are not written according to the normal method employedby Aringanbalj scholars Rather they scrutinise previous Aringanbalj works and thenadvance various corrections to the original works

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on al-Mardhwj

It is clear that al-Mardhwj commanded a wide knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions and preferences This can be evidenced in a number of ways

A vast number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and jurisprudential preferencesare to be found in the work al-Inszlighf166 He also quotes at length from the treatisesof Ibn Taymiyyah167

Al-Mardhwj occasionally mentions certain opinions as lsquomost probably theopinion of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo168 This expression suggests that al-Mardhwj hasan understanding of what can be attributed to this scholar In additionwhere some Aringanbalj scholars mention certain rulings and attribute them tolsquosome former Aringanbalj scholarsrsquo we find al-Mardhwj asserting that thescholar to whom they are referring is Ibn Taymiyyah169

He speculates on what Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion would be on certain issueseither by drawing an analogy with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions on otherissues170 or according to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos general principles171

He is familiar enough with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos views to point out where heretracted an opinion172 or where he abstained from giving a legal ruling173

The significance of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on al-Mardhwj can be clearlynoticed in the methodology he employs in his book al-Inszlighf He mentions that hisapproach in this book is to convey jurisprudential opinions from Aaringmad and theAringanbalj scholars He offers a precise and systematic methodology for discoveringthe opinion of the School If the predominant opinion within the School is clear


145

or well known or was preferred by the vast majority of the scholars then he wouldsupport it in spite of the existence of another opinion claimed by a minority ofAringanbalj scholars to be the predominant opinion If on the other hand there is adistinct dispute among the Aringanbalj scholars about what is the predominant opin-ion then he would rely on the position of particular Aringanbalj scholars includingIbn Qudhmah al-Majd Ibn Mufliaring and Ibn Taymiyyah He explains the impor-tance of these scholars in Aringanbalj jurisprudence when he states that theyreviewed the contribution of former Aringanbalj scholars and they explained clearlyand masterfully the general rules of the School If these scholars also disagreedon what is the predominant opinion in the School then he would follow in mostcases what Ibn Mufliaring preferred in his book al-Furulsquo If for some reasonsal-Mardhwj disagrees with Ibn Mufliaringrsquos preference or when Ibn Mufliaring himselfdoes not offer any preference al-Mardhwj mentions that in most cases the pre-dominant opinion will be that agreed upon by Ibn Qudhmah and al-Majd In theevent of a disagreement occurring between these two scholars al-Mardhwj statesthat the predominant opinion will be that which was supported by either IbnRajab or Ibn Taymiyyah If no support can be found from these two scholarsthen the predominant opinion will be that which is held by Ibn Qudhmah ratherthan al-Majd174 Al-Mardhwj asserts that this methodology employed by him isin agreement with the methodology specified by Ibn Taymiyyah to solve theexistence of disputes about the predominant opinion within the School175

Al-Mardhwj utilises the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah in various ways Hementions various rulings present in Aringanbalj jurisprudence and considered by IbnTaymiyyah to be innovations176 problematic177 irregular178 very weak179 orincorrect180 He cites Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion regarding the authenticity of somearingadjths 181 and he also cites his explanations for some aringadjths and certain jurispru-dential terminology and statements182 On various occasions he conveys opinionswithin the Aringanbalj School183 or those which were agreed upon among scholars184

through the narrations of Ibn Taymiyyah even if they are not found in otherAringanbalj sources185 He cites Ibn Taymiyyah on various issues in relation to theclassification of opinions within the Aringanbalj School186 In various issues he usesIbn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion to indicate what is more correct from the opinionswithin the Aringanbalj School187 or what Aringanbalj scholars support188 Al-Mardhwjmentions the rulings that Ibn Taymiyyah determined through the use of analogywith189 or derivation from190 the predominant opinions in the School concern-ing other issues Also we find that al-Mardhwj in al-Inszlighf mentions various pointsfrom Ibn Taymiyyah under the heading of lsquobeneficial knowledgersquo191

A careful analysis of al-Mardhwjrsquos comments and his manner of narrating IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences provides us with a clear picture of hisposition towards these opinions which can be summarised as follows

He occasionally supports Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos stance where it reflects anopinion within the Aringanbalj School192 and sometimes even where it is not anopinion found within the School193 Even where Ibn Taymiyyah states that


146

certain rulings pronounced by some Aringanbalj scholars cannot exist in realitywe find that al-Mardhwj occasionally supports Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position Hestates that reason testifies to its correctness and requires it He labels it asthe exact correct opinion about which there can be no doubt194 Indeedal-Mardhwj uses a rich variety of expressions to show his agreement with IbnTaymiyyahrsquos positions On some occasions he asserts that the adoption ofIbn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is in fact itself an implementation of all of thelegal evidences on these issues195 On other similar issues he states that hefinds himself leaning towards Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion196 He asserts thatIbn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion in relation to some issues is supported by theauthentic Sunnah197 In other cases he asserts that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionreflects the practice of all Islamic generations198 Al-Mardhwj mentions thatgreat hardship will result from implementing the opinion opposing that heldby Ibn Taymiyyah199 He occasionally asserts that the general principles ofthe Aringanbalj School of law necessitate the correctness of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinion200 Al-Mardhwj even describes some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulings asbeing the correct opinions and people have no choice but to follow them201

Al-Mardhwj also asserts with reference to certain issues that a large numberof leading Aringanbalj scholars are in agreement with the opinion of hissheikh202 He cites some Aringanbalj scholars supporting Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos posi-tion on some issues203 and on other issues in contrast we find that al-Mardhwjcites Ibn Taymiyyah criticising opinions within Aringanbalj jurisprudence thatwere sometimes adopted by leading Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Khiraqj AbuYalsquola Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb Ibn lsquoAqjl Ibn al-Jawzj al-Majd Ibn Aringamdhn andIbn Qudhmah204 Of course al-Mardhwj also supports his own opinions byciting statements of Ibn Taymiyyah205

Al-Mardhwj describes some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulings as strong withoutactually disclosing his own opinion206 Al-Mardhwj occasionally mentionsthat Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is the closest to what is correct207

Al-Mardhwj occasionally declares Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion to be incorrect208

or problematic ( fihi nacopyar)209 He cites scholars who criticise some of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions210 and agrees with the criticism in a number of thesecases211 Sometimes after refuting Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion al-Mardhwjasserts that Ibn Taymiyyah would not reject his (ie al-Mardhwjrsquos) opinion ifhe had heard it212 He describes some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions as beingcontrary to the widely recognised opinion of the Aringanbalj School213

Concerning some of these issues al-Mardhwj says that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosstatements regarding certain issues go beyond what is known from Aaringmad214

or that Ibn Taymiyyah is unsystematic when conveying certain Aringanbalj opin-ions For he sometimes describes an opinion in the School as a lsquonarrationrsquoand sometimes as an lsquoopinionrsquo215

On some issues al-Mardhwj neither supports nor opposes Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions but points out the existence of conflict between a number of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions216 For instance he notes that Ibn Taymiyyah describes


147

an issue in one part of his treatise as being lsquonot obligatoryrsquo whereas in adifferent part he declares lsquothere is no dispute amongst the scholars concern-ing its obligationrsquo217 Al-Mardhwj notices that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulings areoccasionally in opposition to some of his own general rules218 In otherplaces al-Mardhwj suggests the presence of hesitation emanating from IbnTaymiyyah regarding certain issues219 On some occasions we find thatal-Mardhwj tries to find an accommodation between the position of theSchool and that of Ibn Taymiyyah220

This analysis of al-Mardhwjrsquos attitude towards Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions andpreferences indicates that for the most part he was a conveyer of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions rather than a staunch supporter of these views

Al-Mardhwjrsquos familiarity with the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyahis derived from various sources some of which are the following

Al-Mardhwjrsquos consultation of various treatises authored by Ibn Taymiyyahsuch as Shararing al-lsquoUmdah221 al-Qawhlsquoid222 Iqtiparthrsquo al-Iacuteirhƒ al-Mustaqjm223 andal-Fathwh al-Maszligriyyah224 al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquoiyyah225 Shararing al-Muaringarrar226 Minhhjal-Sunnah227 These sources in addition to others are mentioned by al-Mardhwjas being references for his book al-Inszlighf228

Al-Mardhwj uses the narration of Ibn Mufliaring as a source of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions229 it was from this scholar that he sought an explanation for someof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos statements230

He consults other sources containing Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions suchal-Ikhtiyhrht by al-Balsquolj231 Tajrjd al-lsquoInhyah fi Taaringrjr al-Nihhyah by Ibnal-Laaringaringhm232 al-Fhrsquoiq by Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal233 al-Iumlabaqht by Ibn Rajab234 andal-Zarkashj235

Al-Mardhwj studied under the leading scholar Abk Shalsquor236 who as mentionedearlier was well-versed in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions (Table 8)


148

Table 8 The extent of al-Mardhwjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferencesin his book al-Inszlighf

Volume 1 22 24 twice 27 32 33 twice 36 thrice 38 43 47 twice 56 57 59 twice 6062 6773 77 79 81 82 four 83 four 84 86 twice 87 thrice 88 four 89 92twice 95 twice100 101 102 thrice 110 thrice 111 114 118 121 twice 124twice 128 twice 130135 twice 140 142 147 158 159 162 twice 167 168169 172 twice 173 twice176 177 179 twice 182 twice 183 twice 186twice 187 190 191 192 194 198199 200 twice 201 thrice 202 211 twice215 228232 234 237 243 244 247 250 twice 251 253 259 260 twice261 twice 262 216 thrice 217 218 219 222 263 thrice 265 270 271twice 272 279 281 282 283 twice 284 twice 285 293 thrice296 twice298 300 303 304 twice 307 309 twice 310 312 313 314 317 318 five320 322 324 325 twice 327 328 330 332 334 twice 335 four 338 342344 347348 352 354 twice 351 355 357 twice 358 twice 359 361 twice372 376 thrice377 383 twice 386 389 four 393 394 396 397 399 402

(Table 8 continued )

405 twice 408 409 415 417 422 423 thrice 424 twice 426 thrice 428twice 429ndash430 435 437 440 441 thrice 442 443 twice 448 450 452twice 459 twice 469 472 473 twice 474 475476 479 480 481 482 483486 twice 490 495 496 498

Volume 2 8 11 23 24 26 29 30 twice 39 43 44 47 twice 49 55 57 58 64 747879 thrice80 twice 88 98 107 108 112 118 134 137 138 twice 146 154155 156 159 161162 twice 164 165 thrice 167 170 twice 172 175 176178 twice 180 181 twice184 189 190 192 193 twice 198 202 206 twice208 209 210 twice 212 twice214 218 twice 219 222 229 230 thrice 231233 thrice 234 240 245 246 247 252253 260 263 267 272 273 274276 277 twice 278 thrice 280 twice 288 289 thrice 290 291 308 309316 318 twice 320 321 322 325 330 335 337 twice 339 340 341 twice342 343 362 365 twice 368 378 thrice 387 389 396 398 399 400 406four times 407 411 412 414 415 420 422 426 427 430 436 439 441449 451 456 458 twice 462 twice 463 464 505 509 524 525 531 533thrice 534 543 548 549 550 551 557 558 560 562 twice 567 569thrice 570

Volume 3 19 22 twice 28 35 39 twice 65 twice 84 85 twice 90 100 114 115 twice130 131 132 139 145 147 149 twice 150 153 165 177 179 181 182186 192 195 196 201 212 217 218 221 234 twice 237 239 251 254thrice 255 257 261 262 266 268 twice 269 thrice 270 273 twice 277twice 278 twice 282 285 286 287 294 295 297 299 twice 300 301 302303 five times 311 twice 312 313 315 318twice 322 329 332 335 twice337 342 343 344 346 thrice 347 thrice 349 354 357 thrice 366 367 368twice 383 385 386 387 twice 400 twice 405 407 twice 411 413 thrice425 431 433 434 twice 435 447 453 460 465 467 488 489 495 500twice 503 506 508 562 563 thrice

Volume 4 4 5 6 7 11 twice 15 16 29 twice 31 38 40 43 44 49 52 twice 53 57twice 66 twice 71 73 74 twice 80 twice 82 87 89 107 110 twice 111114 115 116 twice 119 four 124 125 135 143 144 149 160 167 169176 185 189 190 191 196 198 199 twice 200 202 205 207 209 212213 215 217 221 222 twice 223 232 233 234 thrice 235 twice 236 twice237 238 240 249 252 256 257 258 twice 264 twice 265 twice 266 275277 278 282 283 286 287 289 twice 290 291 295 twice 296 299 twice301 302 308 twice 309 310 thrice 319 321 327 330 332 333 335 337twice 338 339 thrice 348 351 353 thrice 355 356 twice 357 359 367373 374 375 378 397 398 twice 399 405 407 410 414 415 417 426427 428 449 459 461 twice 462 463 four 464 thrice 466 467 468 thrice469 473 474 475 481

Volume 5 12 14 twice 16 twice 23 32 33 thrice 34 41 43 44 47 48 53 60 65 68twice 69 76 twice 80 twice 98 108 109 112 125 130 131 134 143 148149 154 167 168 177 190 twice 196 203 205 210 215 twice 216 234236 237 238 249 250 254 255 twice 256 261 twice 264 269 271 274276 thrice 281 282 285 303 322 324 twice 327 332 339 340 344 347348 368 372 373 four 375 404 420 thrice 421 422 425 twice 426 twice427 437 440 446 452 454 twice 461 thrice 462 463 twice 468 469 471twice 472 473 478 481 482 twice 483 twice 484 485

Volume 6 3 4 5 8 13 16 21 27 29 30 thrice 36 twice 37 twice 38 39 40 41 twice42 twice 43 44 thrice 46 47 twice 51 63 67 twice 68 82 84 90 twice 91

Table 8 Continued

93 twice 94 102 112 113 117 119 122 twice 130 twice 131 132 144146 155 168 174 179 193 196 202 213 215 twice 219 225 twice 228236 238 241 255 257 272 twice 286 326 371 376 377 414 429 446

Volume 7 3 9 twice 10 11 twice 12 17 21 22 23 twice 25 27 28 29 31 46 twice47 twice 49 four 50 51 twice 52 twice 53 54 twice 55 twice 56 twice 57twice 58 61 63 four 64 four 65 66 twice 68 four 69 twice 72 thrice 7778 80 84 twice 88 twice 94 96 97 99 twice 100 twice 101 twice 102twice 104 112 115 116 117 130 131 133 thrice 134 135 137 twice 141twice 146 twice 148 155 twice 156 twice 157 161 201 202 208 209 231twice 235 237 245 270 287 298 303 304 twice 306 twice 308 309 311323 326 340 345 348 349 352 twice 354 358 370 371 379 twice 382386 394 403 twice 405 407 408 415 423 437 446 475 494 495 twice

Volume 8 3 6 twice 8 twice 10 11 twice 12 18 25 26 28 29 twice 30 thrice 32 37twice 40 45 twice 46 48 51 twice 55 twice 57 58 twice 59 64 twice 66 6869 twice 71 74 75 77 80 86 87 90 twice 94 99 twice 100 101 thrice 102107 twice 108 twice 109 110 114 115 117 120 twice 122 twice 125 126127 128 134 136 137 twice 144 twice 145 152 153 154 twice 155 twice156 twice 158 thrice 160 161 163 164 thrice 165 166 twice 168 twice172 173 176 177 180 181 188 198 200 twice 201 twice 202 twice 206207 210 213 twice 214 216 217 218 221 222 229 230 twice 231238 twice 241 twice 244 247 248 249 251 252 twice 255 258 270 271278 284 289 296 298 302 twice 303 306 307 310 315 317 318 319 320325 thrice 326 twice 330 thrice 332 333 336 338 340 347 twice 354 355360 362 364 371 373 381 382 twice 383 twice 384 387 393 twice 396398 410 twice 412 twice 419 423 424 twice 426 427 431 432 433 436437 438 439 441 444 446 448 twice 449 twice 451 452 453 twice 463467 479

Volume 9 5 7 22 27 28 35 55 59 60 twice 61 twice 64 65 71 79 80 87 88 105107 114 116 120 121 138 145 twice 150 154 twice 168 170 202 220233 249 258 267 twice 268 269 twice 276 279 284 288 289 292 twice295 twice 312 314 316 317 334 341 342 343 357 365 365 371 383395 403 406 twice 412 419 440 442 444 447 469 483 487 491

Volume 10 3 twice 6 7 16 34 67 140 150 151 154 156 168 169 171 177 183185 199 201 203 215 217 222 225 226 twice 228 twice 230 twice 231234 239 241 243 244 247 249 twice 250 thrice 277 285 286 292 295299 301 303 306 312 313 twice 319 322 323 325 326 327 twice 333334 342 345 348 349 351 355 356 357 358 twice 359 370 371 374382 383 386 387 388 393 397 twice 398 404 twice 408 440

Volume 11 12 14 15 twice 18 19 four 25 27 twice 28 29 31 32 34 38 39 45 twice47 53 94 117 120 twice 121 123 125 128 133 135 147 150 152 165169 170 171 twice 172 175 179 twice 180 181 twice 187 190 192 195198 twice 213 220 221 twice 222 225 231 233 twice 237 242 246 thrice248 thrice 249ndash250 253 255 260 twice 261 twice 271 272 274 284 286288 297 301 305 twice 311 twice 313 314 315 316 twice 317 322 323twice 324 325 327 328 twice 330332 333 335 twice 340 341 five 346thrice 348 355 358 363 368 379 396 407

Volume 12 6 7 twice 8 9 twice 13 18 20 38 39 41 twice 44 45 46 thrice 48 49twice 50 twice 53 twice 62 71 73 81 83 86 92 98 104 108 109 111113 120 twice 122 four 124 127 129 130 131 144 145 thrice 151 152161 171 195 197 198 211 222 twice 224 twice 225 230 236

Table 8 Continued

Al-Aringajjhwj (d 9681561)

His name was Mush b Aaringmad b Mush b Shlim b lsquoIsa b Shlim al-Aringajjhwj Hewas born in Palestine in the year 8951490 where he started his basic studies Hethen moved to Damascus where he continued his studies until he assumedthe position of muftj of the Aringanbalj School in Damascus He was also an eruditeteacher who himself exerted a considerable influence upon various later Aringanbaljscholars This scholar authored and left various important treatises such asal-Iqnhlsquo and Zhd al-Mustaqnilsquo237

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on al-Aringajjhwj

Al-Aringajjhwj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions on various jurisprudential issues inhis treatise al-Iqnhlsquo238 The source works of these opinions are Ibn Taymiyyahrsquostreatises such as Shararing al-lsquoUmdah239 and al-Fathwh al-Miszligriyyah240 and the treatisesof his students such as Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal in his book al-Fhrsquoiq 241 and Ibnal-Qayyim242

Ibn Taymiyyah is referred to by the use of the term lsquoal-sheikhrsquo in al-Iqnhlsquo Thisis clarified in the introduction when al-Aringajjhwj states that whenever this term hasbeen used he means lsquosheikh al-Islam the sea of sciences Abu rsquol-lsquoAbbhs AaringmadIbn Taymiyyahrsquo243 In the Aringanbalj School of law this term had been commonlyused to refer to the leading Aringanbalj scholar Ibn Qudhmah Since the appearanceof Ibn Taymiyyah however Aringanbalj scholars began to associate this term withIbn Taymiyyah as well Later on particularly in the time of al-Aringajjhwj and thefollowing period the Aringanbalj scholars have employed this term to denote IbnTaymiyyah exclusively244

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences cited and mentioned by al-Aringajjhwjin al-Iqnhlsquo can be primarily classified as follows

Al-Aringajjhwj refers to various rulings and practices labelled by Ibn Taymiyyahas lsquoinnovationsrsquo245 In the majority of instances it is not clear whetheral-Aringajjhwj agrees with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position in relation to these issues ornot as he does not comment on them

On occasions al-Aringajjhwj mentions the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah as theopinion of the School246 On other issues he bases some rulings on no morethan the words of Ibn Taymiyyah247

Occasionally al-Aringajjhwj mentions an opinion of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos that iscontrary to the recognised opinion within the Aringanbalj School248 and oncertain issues al-Aringajjhwj mentions Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rejection and refutationof opinions held by certain Aringanbalj scholars249

Al-Aringajjhwj cites Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos explanations and definitions of certainwords terms and rules250

Some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences mentioned by al-Aringajjhwjcontain information beyond what is known in the School251 Al-Aringajjhwj also


151

points out exceptions made by Ibn Taymiyyah to a general ruling held by theSchool252

Al-Aringajjhwj occasionally mentions opinions held by Ibn Taymiyyah inwhich he accepts the opinion of the School in certain forms and rejects it inothers253

He also cites Ibn Taymiyyah attributing opinions to lsquomost of the scholarsrsquo254

lsquoall of the Imamsrsquo255 lsquopossibly all of the scholarsrsquo256 or lsquoall of the scholarsrsquo257

Al-Aringajjhwj occasionally cites Ibn Taymiyyah classifying258 or supportingsome opinions within the Aringanbalj School259

In most instances it is evident that al-Aringajjhwj adopts a passive approachtowards the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah as cited in al-Iqnhlsquo Onlyin a few cases does he express his agreement with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rulings260 Oncertain issues he prefers an opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah that is in opposition to therecognised opinion within the Aringanbalj School261 In addition al-Aringajjhwj some-times cites Ibn Taymiyyah attributing opinions to lsquomost of the scholarsrsquo whereasthe School in fact holds the opposite opinion262

It appears that al-Aringajjhwjrsquos agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah on some issues isbased on the fact that the same opinions had been approved by previous leadingAringanbalj scholars For instance the words of approval used by al-Aringajjhwj to sup-port Ibn Taymiyyah are occasionally the very words used by al-Mardhwj263 Itought to be mentioned that to the best of our knowledge al-Aringajjhwj did notdirectly criticise or refute any of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences citedin al-Iqnhlsquo even if he did not often expressly support them either

It can be concluded that the level of influence Ibn Taymiyyah exerted uponthis scholar was apparently limited264 This can also be supported by the fact thatthe rulings in al-Iqnhlsquo are generally speaking in agreement with the predominantopinions of the Aringanbalj School On several issues these rulings are contrary toIbn Taymiyyahrsquos position265

This relatively minor influence can be attributed to the methodology employedby al-Aringajjhwj in al-Iqnhlsquo He states that his book is based upon only one opinionin the School that is the opinion of the leading Aringanbalj scholar al-Mardhwj inhis books al-Inszlighf Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo and al-Tanqjaring266 The leading Aringanbalj scholaral-Karmjwho compiled a treatise in which he amalgamated al-Iqnhlsquo and al-Muntahhasserts that the authors of these two books generally followed the opinions ofal-Mardhwj267 It is not surprising therefore that Ibn Taymiyyah has a relativelyminor influence on the treatise

Nevertheless al-Aringajjhwjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions demonstratesthe importance given to Ibn Taymiyyah and his knowledge in the tenth centuryAl-Iqnhlsquo which is among al-Aringajjhwjrsquos most important treatises has become one ofthe main sources upon which ifthrsquo and judgement are based in the Aringanbalj Schoolof law The importance of the work has continued to be recognised from thetenth century up to the present time amongst the Muftis in the Aringanbalj School


152

in various parts of the Islamic world and indeed amongst the judges in the Saudicourts of law (Table 9)268

Ibn al-Najjhr (d 9721564)

This scholarrsquos name was Muaringammad b Aaringmad b Abd al-lsquoAziz al-Futuaringj thoughhe was well known as Ibn al-Najjar He was born in Cairo in the year 8981493He studied under various scholars one of whom was his father the chief judgeal-Futuaringj269 Later on he became a leading teacher and judge He compiled sev-eral important treatises pertaining to Aringanbalj jurisprudence and its principlessuch as Muntahh al-Irhdht and al-Kawkab al-Munjr Al-Shalsquorhnjmentions the peoplersquosagreement that the death of this sheikh would occasion the death of Aaringmadrsquos fiqh

in Egypt270 He died in the year 9721564271

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on Ibn al-Najjhr

The vast majority of this scholarrsquos opinions mentioned in his jurisprudentialtreatises are in agreement with the predominant opinions of the Aringanbalj Schoolof law272 Ibn al-Najjhr quotes Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on a jurisprudential opin-ion in al-Muntahh on only one issue This can be attributed to various factors Thepoint is that al-Muntahh is written according to the method of mukhtaszligarht (shorttreatises) which necessitates brevity The second reason involves the methodologyemployed by Ibn al-Najjhr in this treatise Ibn al-Najjhr mentions in theintroduction to this book that he combined two books the first being al-Muqnilsquo byIbn Qudhmah and the second al-Tanqjaring al-Mushbilsquo by al-Mardhwj273 He thenadded some important issues that are not mentioned in these two books274

In addition he excised various things found in the original works some of


153

Table 9 The extent to which al-Aringajjhwj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and legal preferencesin his book al-Iqnhlsquo

Volume 1 3 4 19 twice 27 32 42 43 55 59 74ndash75 77 78 79 80 103 twice 111114 119 126 129 136 144 twice 147 149 thrice 153 154 157 159 160165 169 170 184 189 195 198 199 205 231 232 233 twice 237 twice291 300 304 twice 316 318 321 323 328 333 334 341 346 368 382387 396 twice 398 twice 402 409 twice 411

Volume 2 15 24 35 39 44 47 48 51 twice 52 54 55 thrice 58 thrice 64 76 72 92123ndash124 163 175 184 185 twice 201 202 204 207 208 209 223 273thrice 275 278 281 287 297 301 319 337 357 361 363 389 397

Volume 3 4 5 twice 11 38 60 132 157 159 161 163 167 twice 182 186 189 190192 200 201 220 221 thrice 229 twice 231 232 twice 240 241 242 243248 254 twice 262

Volume 4 2 3 4 5 9 10 21 twice 47 twice 72 112 133 136 141 144 153ndash154 158 162168 246 265ndash266 269 270ndash271 271 twice 272 273 292 297 306 308 315316 317 320 332 334 354 357 359 360 364 367ndash368 369ndash370 five 376ndash377 381 384 389 390 twice 391 392 400 428 437 twice 441 453 454 455

which are the following275

He omitted words and phrases that he considered unnecessary He omitted the marjuaring (the less preferred) opinions and all the divergent

branches that the two scholars founded upon them He mentions in his book only those opinions preferred by al-Mardhwj in his

book al-Tanqjaring even if the other Aringanbalj scholars held otherwise Heoccasionally made exceptions to this general rule in certain circumstances

ndash When Aringanbalj scholars practice the opinion preferred by other Aringanbaljscholars

ndash When the opinion is described by certain Aringanbalj scholars as being lsquoashharrsquo(the more predominant opinion) as compared to the one mentioned byal-Mardhwj in his book al-Tanqjaring

The argument that the scant citation of Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Muntahh isbecause it is a mukhtaszligar and the methodology employed by Ibn al-Najjhr can befurther supported by the fact that Ibn al-Najjhr does cite Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ions in his treatise Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh which is a commentary on al-Muntahh276

The opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned by Ibn al-Najjhr in this treatise canbe classified into the following categories

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential preferences277

Rulings and actions regarded by Ibn Taymiyyah as innovations278

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own classification of opinions within the Aringanbalj School279

Refutation and criticism of some rulings within the School280

Beneficial points281

Explanations by Ibn Taymiyyah of the real intended meaning of some statements issued by Aaringmad or other Aringanbalj scholars282

Additional points added by Ibn Taymiyyah to existing rulings in the AringanbaljSchool283

It is interesting that in Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh Ibn al-Najjhr used the narration of IbnMufliaring284 and occasionally the narration of al-Mardhwj285 as a source for IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions286 Ibn al-Najjhr also cites these two scholars in some issuesendorsing and supporting the position taken by Ibn Taymiyyah287 and in others


154

Table 10 Opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah cited by Ibn al-Najjhr in his book Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh(Volume 1)

177 183 199 201 203 204 205 208 223 224 231 237 240 245 246 247 249 250281 282 294 306 315 316 317 318 320 326 344 357 364 374 378 382 387 409413 432 433 492 502 587 608 680 686 693 701 711 715 716 752 769 772

he cites Ibn Mufliaring expressing some reservations about some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions288 Also where some leading Aringanbalj scholars find some narrations inthe School strange and unlikely Ibn al-Najjhr quotes al-Mardhwj asserting thatIbn Taymiyyah was in favour of the narration in question (Table 10)289

Al-Karmj (d 10331623)

His full name was Marlsquoj bYusuf b Abi Bakr b Aaringmad al-Karmj He was bornin Palestine where he acquired knowledge from the leading Aringanbalj scholarssuch as Muhammad al-Mardhwj and Yaaringyh b Mush al-Aringajjhwj290 Thereafter hemoved to Cairo where he completed his studies291 Later on he assumed the posi-tion of the sheikh of the School and divided his time between teaching issuingfathwh and compiling various important sources Several of these works forexample Ghhyat al-Muntahh and Daljl al-Iumlhlib concern the science ofjurisprudence292

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on al-Karmj

It is evident that this individual had knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionsand was sympathetic towards his cause This may be evidenced by his biogra-phy of Ibn Taymiyyah which is an abridgement of the works of the two Aringan-balj scholars al-lsquoUqud by Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj and al-Alsquolhm by al-Bazzhr293

In addition Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences have been cited by al-Karmj on various issues where he refers to him as lsquoal-sheikhrsquo294 It is evidentthat this scholar commanded a particular knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ions and preferences for we find him identifying some of his opinionswhich were cited by some Aringanbalj scholars without attributing them to IbnTaymiyyah295

This scholar refers to various rulings and practices considered by IbnTaymiyyah to be agreed upon among scholars296 and others which are consid-ered by him as innovations297 On certain issues al-Karmjmakes reference to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opposition to opinions of the Aringanbalj School298 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquoscriticism of some Aringanbalj rulings299 in addition to his explanation and classifica-tion of some Aringanbalj statements300 He sometimes attributes to Ibn Taymiyyahextrapolations made to statements in the Aringanbalj scholars301 In some instanceshe expressly supports Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position302

Various sources are mentioned by this scholar when he makes reference to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions These include Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own treatises such as Shararingal-lsquoUmdah303 and Minhhj al-Sunnah304 and the treatises of his students such asal-Ikhtiyhrht by al-Balsquolj305 and al-Hdab al-Sharlsquoiyyah by Ibn Mufliaring306 Needless tosay al-Karmjrsquos acquaintance with al-Aringajjhwj and Ibn al-Najjhr must be a primarycause for Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon him (Table 11)


155

Al-Buhutj (d 10511641)

His name was Manszligur b Yunis b Iacutealharing al-Djn b Aringasan b Aaringmad thoughhe was commonly well known as lsquoal-Buhutjrsquo Certain Aringanbalj scholars awardedhim with the title lsquothe sheikh of the Aringanbaljs in Egyptrsquo307 The majority of histreatises are devoted to the study and explanation of existing Aringanbalj sourceworks such as al-Iqnhlsquo al-Muntahh and al-Zhd308

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on al-Buhutj

Al-Buhutj apparently possessed an acute knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos viewsfor he is able to identify an opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah even when it is cited byAringanbalj scholars without they attributing it to him309 Al-Buhutj himself cites IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences on various issues referring to him aslsquoal-sheikhrsquo310 Various sources were referred to by this scholar when conveying theopinions of Ibn Taymiyyah These included Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos own treatises suchas Shararing al-lsquoUmdah311 and Minhhj al-Sunnah312 in addition to the treatises of his stu-dents such as al-Ikhtiyhrht by al-Balsquolj313 al-Hdab al-Sharlsquoiyyah and al-Furulsquo by IbnMufliaring314 and al-Fhrsquoiq by Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal315 Furthermore it can be argued thatthe presence of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions in the treatises of this scholar is a directconsequence of his acquaintance with the legacy of the two leading Aringanbaljscholars al-Aringajjhwj and Ibn al-Najjhr

As with some of the other scholars examined earlier this scholar makes referenceto Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opposition towards the opinions of the Aringanbalj School316 hiscriticism of certain Aringanbalj rulings317 as well as his additions to318 explanation319

and classification320 of some Aringanbalj statements Al-Buhutj also mentions variousrulings and practices considered by Ibn Taymiyyah to be innovations321

In some issues he supports the position of Ibn Taymiyyah322 and on oneoccasion where Ibn Mufliaring states that what Ibn Taymiyyah declares to be theopinion of the Aringanbalj School is in fact only a wajh in the School al-Buhutj


156

Table 11 The extent to which al-Karmj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences inhis book Ghhyat al-Muntahh

Volume 1 19 15 22 29ndash30 5163 77ndash78 93 96 97 113 132 144 163 170 172 1751772 178 180 183 189 196 227 230 243 244 254 264 269 270 277279 301 302 331 332 333 343 345 356 3602 362 381 386 387 404442 443 453 459 462 464 473 475 487 488 489 493 494 501 504505 506 5072 509

Volume 2 1 11 19 21 twice 26 30 31 33 34 43 46 52 61 82 83 93 101 103 107109ndash110 121 thrice 122 124 127 139 141 190 208 212 241 245 250270ndash271 290 291 295 twice 299 300 four 301 302 305 306 307 310 316twice 318 324ndash325 327 368

Volume 3 2 5 thrice 15 28 29 33 63 64 66 84 twice 105 107 122 130 131 134158 223 236 269 300 316 317 twice 334 337 338 339 twice 345 349369 373 393 394 395 400 401 403 twice 409 414 435 439 449 487 489

asserts that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos view is indeed the predominant opinion within theSchool and is also the opinion determined by Ibn al-Najjhr in al-Iqnhlsquo323

Sometimes al-Buhutj derives an analogy based upon Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions324 Occasionally he conveys the existence of consensus regarding someissues from the treatises of Ibn Taymiyyah such as Shararing al-lsquoUmdah325

Al-Buhutj mentions rulings in the School and points out that Ibn Taymiyyahrestricted their application to particular situations326 Similarly al-Buhutj alsomentions existing rulings in the School which were generalised by IbnTaymiyyah327

This scholar cites Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos practice on certain issues such as his practicein relation to exorcism328

Al-Buhutj disagrees with or does not fully accept some of the opinions held by IbnTaymiyyah This can be noticed through al-Buhutjrsquos citation of statements issued bysome leading Aringanbalj scholars in which they seem to disagree with IbnTaymiyyah329 He also cites other leading Aringanbalj scholars clarifying that some opin-ions within the School which were supported by Ibn Taymiyyah were in fact oldstatements of Aaringmad who had replaced them with new opinions (Tables 12ndash14)330

During this period (ie the time of al-Karmj and al-Buhutj) it is evident that thecitation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions by Aringanbalj scholars was an established prac-tice Note that these two scholars even cite Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos arguments that certain


157

Table 12 The extent to which al-Buhutj cited Ibn Taymiyyah in his book al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo

25 52 138 210 294

Table 13 The extent of al-Buhutjrsquos citation of the opinions and preferences of IbnTaymiyyah in his book Kashshhf al-Qinhlsquo (Volume 1)

21 24 32 35 54 55 64 67 75 110 120 149 157 158 twice 159 176 183 187 201212 222 twice 232 244 245 256 257 270 279 284 287 294 299 300 308 309 314332 335 337 345 359 363 411 thrice 413 414 437 468 470 twice 478 506

Table 14 The extent to which al-Buhutj cited Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and legalpreferences in his book Shararing al-Muntahh

Volume 1 13 19ndash20 26 27 39 40 44 49 53 61ndash62 73 74 Twice 78 92 155 158172 174 181 195 twice 234 237 252 253ndash254 twice 268 299 332 351ndash352 358 359 363 425 437 439 455 477 465 466

Volume 2 52 69 70 71 twice 72 94 129 142 159 173 176 204ndash205 232 275 277291 332 342 347 351 354 374 423 427 457 twice 495 501 503 four506 507 twice 511 516ndash517 522 524 525 577 625 683

Volume 3 18 39 56 79 86 89 91 twice 96 97 114 120 121 128 131 135 245 272351 355 356 360 362 385 395 400 404 418 422 446 465 twice 467479 480 493ndash494 501 547 564 566 571 579 584ndash585

rulings in Aringanbalj jurisprudence are innovations even though they are mentionedin the treatises of the two main Aringanbalj sources al-Iqnhlsquo and al-Muntahh331

Despite the references to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions in the treatises of these twoscholars it seems that Ibn Taymiyyah exerted only a limited influence upon theirviews This can be concluded through the following

Several rulings in the Aringanbalj School that have been termed innovations byIbn Taymiyyah are nevertheless found in the treatises of these scholars332

Various rulings in the Aringanbalj School that have been declared incorrect byIbn Taymiyyah are to be found in the treatises of these scholars333

In certain instances we find the two scholars citing some leading scholars whorefute opinions in the School that were subscribed to by Ibn Taymiyyah334

One can therefore conclude that the Aringanbalj scholars of this era (ie the eleventhcentury) and the one preceding it (ie the tenth century) founded their opinions inthe main on the existing opinions within the School This reliance on existing opin-ions meant that there was little discussion of the legal evidences This is the essenceof Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos criticism of al-Iqnhlsquo and al-Muntahh These two sourceshave remained the two most important Aringanbalj works from the time they werecompiled Despite this Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb states that the majority of the rulingspresent in these two sources are opposed to the words of Aaringmad and even to thetexts of the sharjlsquoah335 It seems reasonable to suggest that a greater emphasis on IbnTaymiyyah might have encouraged the discussion of legal evidences

It ought to be noted that since both of al-Karmj and al-Buhutj confinedthemselves to the clarification of the writings of Ibn al-Najjhr and al-Futuaringj336 itwas inevitable that their works would be affected by the two latter scholarsrsquomethodology which limited the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb (d 12061791)

This scholarrsquos full name was Muhammad b lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb b Sulaymhn b lsquoAljal-Wahaybj He was born in the year 11151703 in a town called al-lsquoUyayynahwhere he studied from an early age under several scholars One of thoseentrusted with this task was his father who was a jurist and a judge Thereafterhe embarked upon various journeys in order to seek knowledge in the Aringijhz Iraqand al-Aaringshrsquo He was later to become the leading scholar and reformer of histime In addition he bequeathed several treatises in various subjects Ibn lsquoAbdal-Wahhhb did not leave a great number of works in the field of jurisprudenceHis authorship on this subject is contained in two medium-sized volumes thatwere collected and published by the Imam University in Saudi Arabia The twovolumes are composed of the following

Mukhtaszligar al-Inszlighf wa rsquol-Shararing al-Kabjr Mukhtaszligar al-Hadj


158

Adab al-Mashj ilh al-Iacutealhh Aaringkhm al-Iumlahhrah Shuruƒ al-Iumlahhrah wa arkhnuhh wa wajibhtuhh Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid Mabaringath al-Ijtihhd wa rsquoI-khilhf

It appears possible that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb wrote little on the science of jurispru-dence because he was preoccupied with the re-establishment of basic Islamicbeliefs which had been almost forgotten by the society of his time337

After undertaking lengthy journeys for knowledge teaching and reforming IbnlsquoAbd al-Wahhhb died in the year 12061791 following a short period of illness338

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb

Scholars have mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah exerted an important influence onIbn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb He sought encouragement from his example in the devel-opment of his determination to denounce rigid imitation of medieval commen-taries and to utilise independent reasoning339 It is said that the Aringanbalj scholarlsquoAbd Allah Ibn Ibrhhim al-Najdj was the first person who introduced him to theworks of Ibn Taymiyyah340 Later on it appears that he became known amongsthis contemporaries for his acquaintance with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos words On oneoccasion he was approached by some of his contemporaries and requested toexplain some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos statements341 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb also becameknown for his citation of Ibn Taymiyyah to the extent that the extensive citationof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions is a characteristic by which some scholars identifiedsome of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos treatises342

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb can be evidencedthrough various aspects some of which are the following

There is a clear similarity between the jurisprudential rules employed by IbnlsquoAbd al-Wahhhb and those of Ibn Taymiyyah Occasionally he attributesthese rules to Ibn Taymiyyah343 and sometimes he does not344

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb is in agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah concerningvarious important issues such as the refutation of Greek logic and the ven-eration of saints tombs and shrines345 Like Ibn Taymiyyah before himlsquoAbd al-Wahhhb fell foul of the financial beneficiaries of the local shrineestablishments346

There is a clear similarity between the various jurisprudential opinions ofthese two scholars347 Nevertheless we find that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb sub-scribes to certain opinions in the School which Ibn Taymiyyah criticised348

This may be because of one of three reasons either he believed that they arethe correct ruling despite Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disagreement or he was unawareof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of them or he was simply reporting the opinions


159

adopted by the Aringanbalj School rather than expressing his own position withregard to these issues

He occasionally mentions the opinion of the School and then makes referenceto a conflicting opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah without expressing a preference349

On certain occasions he cites two conflicting opinions narrated from IbnTaymiyyah regarding a single issue350

It appears that he was influenced by the critical approach adopted by IbnTaymiyyah towards the study of Aringanbalj jurisprudence Therefore wenotice that he declares most of the rulings mentioned in the treatises al-Iqnhlsquoand al-Muntahh which have long been the two main reference works forAringanbalj scholars to be in opposition not only to the words of Aaringmad butalso to the words of the Lawgiver351

His position on the concept of imitation reflects that of Ibn Taymiyyah bothIbn Taymiyyah and Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb were strongly attacked by scholarsin their time who claimed that they were in opposition to the entire works ofearlier schools Both of these two scholars lived in the era of taqlid Thisperiod started at the end of the tenth century During this period scholars wereno longer considered capable of exercising or permitted to exercise inde-pendent reasoning This state of affairs continued for a considerable periodof time and few social forces or individuals dared to challenge the authorityof imitation or some of the medieval legal manuals Amongst the noteworthyexceptions were these two leading scholars352

He was influenced by Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos zero-tolerance of innovations Helabels various practices and rulings in the Aringanbalj School as innovations Inthe majority of these issues he explains that he based his judgements uponIbn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions353

It was shown earlier that the extensive citation by Aringanbalj scholars in the tenthand eleventh centuries of the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah did not necessarily meanthat he exerted a noticeable influence upon the opinions of these scholars on thecontrary these individuals were usually in agreement with the stance of the earlyAringanbalj scholars This changed after the call of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb We noticethat the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah have considerably influenced the opinions ofAringanbalj scholars since the time of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb up to the present timeparticularly after the publication of a large number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises354

The effect of this influence is also apparent within the ruling circles In thetwentieth century King lsquoAbd al-lsquoAziz of Saudi Arabia declared his intention toformulate a code of law embodying the teaching of Ibn Taymiyyah355 In addi-tion the resolution of the Ministry of Justice number 31253 dated 231381Hstates that the legal preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah are considered as one of thesources of judgement356 Furthermore although Aringanbalj jurisprudence in itsentirety forms the predominant School of law in Saudi Arabia and its jurispru-dence is taught in all educational institutions in the country particular emphasis


160

has been placed on the opinions and preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah on thoseissues on which he disagrees with the School357

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb possessed various treatises of Ibn Taymiyyah and it wasknown that he honoured his works358 He also abridged some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosworks such as Minhhj al-Sunnah359 He also gave due importance to the work ofsome of his students most notably Ibn al-Qayyim He cites the opinions of Ibnal-Qayyim on various issues360 and he also abridged some of his works Forinstance Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos work entitled Mabaringath al-Ijtihhd wa rsquol-Khilhf(section on jurisprudential disagreement and independent reasoning) is in fact anabridgement of a portion of Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos book Ilsquolhm al-Muaqqilsquojn He alsoabridged the work of al-Mardhwj entitled al-Inszlighf It was concluded earlier thatthis book is amongst the most comprehensive sources of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ions and preferences In this abridgement Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb refers to thoseopinions and legal preferences of Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in the original workal-Inszlighf In his Mukhtaszligar this scholar refers to Ibn Taymiyyah as lsquoal-Sheikhrsquo(Tables 15 and 16)361


161

Table 15 The extent of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions andpreferences in his book al-Iumlahhrah which is comprised of 43 sheets

6 six times 7 twice 9 thrice 10 twice 12 13 thrice 14 15 16 twice 18 20 21 twice 22twice 23 twice 24 25 27 28 9 30 31 32 33 twice 34 thrice 35 twice 37 38 39 4041 42 43

Table 16 The references made by Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions andpreferences in his book Mukhtaszligar al-Inszlighf referring to him as lsquoal-sheikhrsquo

15 nine times 20 seven times 21 thrice 25 twice 26 nine 32 four 40 thrice 47 six 48 six54 ten 63 six 64 six 73 once 74 eleven 75 once 80 nine 81 eight 87 thrice 88 five 89thrice 90 six 97 thrice 98 thrice 104 four 108 twelve 110 five 113 four 139 five 140nine 150 eight 162 five 163 ten 164 twice 171 sixteen 185 eleven 186 six 198 sixteen204 seven 208 twice 224 eleven 225 four 230 seven 235 four 237 twice 257 five 258eight 260 once 261 six 263 five 265 twice 266 nine 268 five 271 five 272 four 284 four298 four 299 five 321 eight 341 four 342 eight 345 once 346 twice 357 eight 358 once369 six 388 thrice 389 four 403 six mistake 404 seven 405 nine 428 six 429 eight 430five 436 five 437 thrice 465 thrice 466 twelve 467 thrice 486 once 487 six 488 four489 six 502 twice 504 twice 515 six 520 twice 521 five 533 seven 534 six 550 twice551 nine 552 four 554 once 560 nine 561 ten 565 five 566 eight 576 twice 577 four578 six 579 four 580 four 585 thrice 586 thrice 588 thrice 592 once 593 twelve 594thrice 598 five 600 once 606 once 612 once 616 nine 617 nine 626 twice 627 eleven632 thrice 633 thrice 636 twice 642 four 643 twice 658 eleven 659 six 660 six 663thrice 664 nine 666 once 668 once 669 once 674 four 675 five 679 five 682 four 684once 685 nine 686 twice 687 thrice 689 four 692 once 693 twice 699 five 704 twice715 thrice 716 seven 717 thrice 723 four eleven 725 eight 730 six 731 thrice 736 six751 once 752 ten 753 seven 754 thrice 776 five 777 nine 778 seven 779 eight 780 ten781 nine 782 twelve 783 twice

Al-Salsquodj (d 13761956)

This scholarrsquos full name was lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn b Nhszligir b lsquoAbd Allah b Nhszligir bAringamad al-Salsquodj He was born in the year 13071889 His mother and father diedin the years 13101892 and 13131895 respectively362 He acquired knowledge invarious Arabic and Islamic sciences under the guidance and supervision of severalscholars in his time363 In addition he possessed or had access to a large numberof references and source works that he used in his personal studies364

Later on this scholar became the sheikh mufti and Imam of the city oflsquoUnayzahrsquos Grand Mosque (in Saudi Arabia) and its Friday preacher He supervisedal-Malsquohad al-lsquoIlmj the institute of Arabic and Islamic studies in his town365 Hewas also offered the position of judge on various occasions these offers wererejected an action which appears to have been motivated by piety366

This scholar bequeathed a significant scholarly legacy in various sciences Hisworks concerning the sciences of jurisprudence and its sources are of consider-able importance in relation to the contemporary sources of the Aringanbalj SchoolAmongst the most important of these treatises are

Al-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah min al-Mashrsquoil al-Fiqhiyyah In this book al-Salsquodjmentionshis preferences in relation to many jurisprudential issues He states that the solecriterion applied by this scholar in his selection of his preferred views is thecorrectness of the evidence upon which these opinions are based This is soeven if they are contrary to the recognised opinion of the Aringanbalj School367

Al-Fathwh al-Salsquodiyyah This treatise comprises the fathwh issued by this scholarduring his life

Iumlarjq al-Wuszligul This book contains various rules and maxims concerningdifferent sciences amongst which are the two sciences of jurisprudence and itsprinciples Another reference to this treatise will be made later on in this section

Al-Qawhlsquoid wa al-Uszligul al-Jhmilsquoah wa rsquol-Furuq wa rsquol-Taqhsim al-Badilsquoah al-NhfilsquoahThis treatise is divided into two sections the first contains rules that applyequally to various similar sets of circumstances the second part deals with issuesthat have some aspects of similarity but have different rulings in Islamic law

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on Al-Salsquodj

Several biographers who have written accounts of this scholar believe thatal-Salsquodj benefited greatly from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim Al-Basshmwho was one of al-Salsquodjrsquos students mentions that the treatises of Ibn Taymiyyahand Ibn al-Qayyim enabled al-Salsquodj to comprehend issues in their true light368

Another student of al-Salsquodj al-Qhpartj states that his sheikh was wholeheartedlyengaged throughout his entire life in the consultation of the books of jurispru-dence and aringadjth and those written by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim for theywere his lsquostaple dietrsquo (sabuaring and ghabuq)369 The testimonies of these two studentsof al-Salsquodj are corroborated by al-Salsquodjrsquos own son lsquoAbd Allah He testifies that the


162

most oft-consulted and the most beneficial sources for his father were those ofthese two scholars He asserts that they had a significant influence uponal-Salsquodj370 In addition Ibn Bhz the former Mufti of Saudi Arabia encounteredal-Salsquodj on various occasions He testifies to the presence of a great link betweenthis scholar and Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim explaining that al-Salsquodj usedto pay great care and attention to the works of these two scholars371 Some ofal-Salsquodjrsquos treatises are either abridgements or explanations of the works of thesetwo scholars Furthermore Ibn Saljm (d 13231905) one of al-Salsquodjrsquos teacherswas an admirer of the treatises of these two scholars372

Al-Salsquodj reveals his opinion of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises when he states that thetreatises of lsquothe great Imam the sheikh of Islam and Muslims Taqj al-Djn Aaringmadb lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm b lsquoAbd al-Salhm b Taymiyyah may Allah sanctify his soul con-tain all the beneficial and correct sciencesrsquo373 He also asserts that these treatisescontain the sciences of narration and reason morals and manners Similarly theycombine the objectives of the sharjlsquoah the legal means jurisprudential issues andtheir evidence from the sharjlsquoah in addition to the philosophy behind these rulingsAl-Salsquodj asserts that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises are characterised by a detailedclear explanation of the correct opinions in addition to a criticism of the incorrectviews He also states that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos books contain a considerable degree ofauthenticity On account of what has been mentioned al-Salsquodj asserts that whoso-ever commands an extensive knowledge of both Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises and theworks of other scholars would reach the conclusion that there are no treatiseswhich are equal or even similar to those of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos374

Al-Salsquodj describes the influence exerted by Ibn Taymiyyah upon his time and thefollowing generations He states that it is obvious that lsquothe existence of sheikh al-islam

Ibn Taymiyyah and his students in the centuries of this ummah is by the grace of theCreatorrsquo375 He states that they lsquohave performed a significant role in the clarificationand conveyance of great knowledge as well as in their struggle against the people ofinnovation and disbelief rsquo376 Al-Salsquodj affirms the importance of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquostreatises which had become widespread by the fourteenth Islamic century bypointing out that there is great benefit to be acquired from their existence377

It is clear that al-Salsquodj was well known among his contemporaries as being wellversed in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly heritage as we find that he was approachedseveral times to explain and clarify the position of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding certainquestions378 In defending Ibn Taymiyyah against his detractors al-Salsquodj also pointsout that some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions have been gravely misunderstood379

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly works have left a considerable impression onal-Salsquodjrsquos writings on various sciences such as creed interpretation of the Qurrsquoanjurisprudence and its principles380 One of the most important manifestations ofIbn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon this scholar is the strong connection between hisjurisprudence and the general principles of jurisprudence381 Al-Salsquodj asserts thatthe sources and maxims of sciences are as important as the foundations of housesand roots of trees for just as the house and tree cannot stand upright withouttheir foundations and roots similarly legal rulings must be derived from the


163

general principles of Islamic law382 Al-Salsquodj acquired a significant number of thegeneral rules and maxims of the sharjlsquoah from Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibnal-Qayyim It ought to be noted that he compiled a treatise in which he gatheredmore than one thousand general principles and rules related to several sciencesfrom the treatises and fathwh of these two scholars383

An obvious element of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon this scholar can benoticed through the concordance between al-Salsquodjrsquos legal preferences and theopinions of Ibn Taymiyyah on many jurisprudential issues Al-Salsquodjmade his ownlegal preferences in jurisprudence some of which are contrary to the position ofthe Aringanbalj School His preferences are generally in agreement with the opinionsof Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim384 In several instances he indicates that thepreferred opinion is that of Ibn Taymiyyah385 Occasionally he mentions only theopinion that he prefers without referring to Ibn Taymiyyah386 On certain issueshe mentions the opinion of the School and his sheikh without expressing a pref-erence387 while at other times he refers to views of his sheikh as very strongopinions and proceeds to set out in detail the basis for these opinions388

A study of the fathwh issued by al-Salsquodj in his treatise al-Fathwh al-Salsquodiyyah

shows that he cites Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential opinions over forty times Ononly one occasion do we find that al-Salsquodj disagrees with Ibn Taymiyyah389 andon three issues he does not reveal his own opinion390 On two other occasions headmits his inability to reach a conclusion regarding what is the most correct opin-ion391 On the remaining issues we find that al-Salsquodj offers his support to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions describing them as lsquovery strongrsquo392 lsquowhat agrees with thegeneral principles and foundations of the sharjlsquoahrsquo393 or lsquothe moderate opinionrsquo394

Although this scholarrsquos citations of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential opinionsand legal preferences are not particularly numerous he does subscribe to the sameopinions as Ibn Taymiyyah on a large number of other jurisprudential issues with-out explicitly referring to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position on these issues395 Thisapproach adopted by al-Salsquodj in addition to his student Ibn Uthaymjn as will beexplained later on is reminiscent of the approach adopted by Ibn al-Qayyim

It is also evident that Ibn Taymiyyah influenced al-Salsquodj in his approachtowards Aringanbalj jurisprudence as we find him employing a critical method in hisstudy of the Schoolrsquos rulings Al-Salsquodj wrote a treatise in which he objected tovarious Aringanbalj rulings which he believed were in opposition to the correctevidences396 He states that it is obligatory upon the one who seeks knowledge tohave a firm determination to give precedence to the words of Allah and HisMessenger above the words of any one else Therefore those seeking knowledgeshould practice independent reasoning in relation to understanding the words ofthe Lawgiver if they commit mistakes they will be forgiven397

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence spread through al-Salsquodjrsquo to various partsof Saudi Arabia due to the widespread distribution of al-Salsquodjrsquos works398 This hasbeen complemented by a significant number of al-Salsquodjrsquos students assumingpositions as teachers judges leading scholars and muftis They have collectively con-veyed the methodology of their teacher to the current generation (Tables 17ndash19)399


164

Ibn lsquoUthaymjn (d 14212000)

Muhammad b Iacutehliaring Ibn lsquoUthaymjn was one of the most eminent students ofal-Salsquodj This sheikh was born in the town of lsquoUnayzah on the 27th of Ramaparthnin the year 13471929 He graduated from al-Sharjlsquoah college and then became ateacher of Islamic sciences at an institute affiliated to the Imam University Lateron he was appointed as a professor in al-Sharjlsquoah college in the Imam UniversityIn addition he was also a member of the Body of Senior Scholars in Saudi ArabiaVarious works containing the fathwh issued by this scholar have been published Healso compiled various treatises on miscellaneous subjects Twenty works accreditedto this scholar have been published to date One particular treatise is in the scienceof jurisprudence and is entitled lsquoal-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo lsquoAla Zhd al-Mustaqnilsquo400

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on Ibn lsquoUthaymjn

It is evident that Ibn lsquoUthaymjn attaches great importance to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosviews and preferences as he is in agreement with him concerning numerous issuesHis praise for him indicates that this scholar appears to have great admiration forIbn Taymiyyah His lucid explanations indicate that Ibn lsquoUthaymjn is well versedin the terminology employed by Ibn Taymiyyah401 He also conveys the wisdombehind certain rulings in Islamic law from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos perspective402

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on Ibn lsquoUthaymjn can be evidenced through severalpoints one of which is Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrsquos use of the opinions of Ibn TaymiyyahThis section briefly analyses the explicit and implicit references he makes to thework of Ibn Taymiyyah In some instances Ibn lsquoUthaymjn mentions Ibn


165

Table 17 The extent of al-Salsquodjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences inal-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah

15 27 41 46 60 69 108 109 114 115 116 118 119 126 twice 127

Table 18 The agreement of al-Salsquodjrsquos legal preferences with those of Ibn Taymiyyah inal-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah

7 twice 8twice 9 10 11 12 twice 13 14 15 twice 16 thrice 18 thrice 19 22 24ndash2627 29 32 35 37 40ndash41 45 twice 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 twice 57 twice 59 twice 6263 twice 68 90 101 103 twice

Table 19 The extent of al- Salsquodjrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences inal-Fathwh al-Salsquodiyyah

129 144 155 182 183 194 208 221 241 241ndash242 243 286 293 295 298 329 343438 450 472ndash474 476ndash478 482 499 500 512 517 519 526 528 twice 532 534 537553 556 561 564 566 570 576 581 596 598 599

Taymiyyahrsquos preferences without expressing an opinion himself403 Sometimes herefrains from giving his view while describing Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion as strongor very strong404 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn often prefers Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion to thepredominant opinion of the Aringanbalj School405 He conveys his praise for IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions using a variety of expressions he mentions that the evi-dence affirm the accuracy of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions406 he says that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion is the one that deserves to be followed407 he describes IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion as the best opinion amongst the various conflicting opin-ions408 he states that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is correct according to the generalrules of the School409 and he states that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos ruling is most in con-formity with the needs of the people410 At other times however Ibn lsquoUthaymjnis not so forthcoming in his support for Ibn Taymiyyah On occasions hementions with evident hesitancy that it can be said that the opinion of IbnTaymiyyah is accurate411 On certain issues he accepts Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionbut with slight modification412 Sometimes he mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah isin opposition to the opinions of the Aringanbalj School but does not reveal his ownopinion the implication however is that he is not entirely convinced by IbnTaymiyyahrsquos arguments Indeed there are other times where Ibn lsquoUthaymjnopenly disagrees with Ibn Taymiyyah413 After preferring the opinion of theSchool and supporting it by various evidences he refers sometimes to the exis-tence of a conflicting opinion held by Ibn Taymiyyah414 In addition on certainoccasions he explains that he has followed the opinion of the School rather thanthat of Ibn Taymiyyah as a means of precaution415 In one particular case heeven states that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos ruling is problematic as it is contradicted by thepractice of some of the companions416 He sometimes describes an opinion withinthe Aringanbalj School as more likely to be correct than Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion417

or he states that the legal evidence supports his position rather than that of IbnTaymiyyah418 There are certain rulings which Ibn Taymiyyah restricted to certainpeople Ibn lsquoUthaymjn responds that he lsquofinds something in his heartrsquo against theruling as he feels that the sharjlsquoahrsquos evidences affirm the generality of the rulings419

In certain rulings where Ibn Taymiyyah insists on the prohibition of some acts IbnlsquoUthaymjn believes that they are permissible provided that particular conditionsare fulfilled420 In one case he argues that a ruling given by Ibn Taymiyyah wasinaccurate and that he believes that Ibn Taymiyyah was influenced by the pre-dominant opinion of other jurists He asserts that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion andthat of the other jurists contradict various authentic evidences421

Interestingly Ibn lsquoUthaymjn occasionally gives unusual reasons for adoptingIbn Taymiyyahrsquos views In one issue he states that he imitated Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinion owing to the absence of correct evidence pertaining to that issue422 Healso suggests that following some of the fathwh of Ibn Taymiyyah is occasionally anecessity as the opposing opinion causes unnecessary and unwanted hardship423

As mentioned previously there are various jurisprudential rulings on whichthese two scholars agree Ibn lsquoUthaymjn does not necessarily refer to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos position on the issue in question (Tables 20)424


166

Ibn lsquoUthaymjn also adopts some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos strategies in resolving theconflict between two jurisprudential opinions In al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo for examplehe sometimes opts for opinions which take a median position between theconflicting rulings of other jurists He justifies this approach by stating that IbnTaymiyyah sometimes utilised this methodology425

Another area where Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on this scholar can be witnessedis Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrsquos citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of certain Aringanbalj opin-ions and narrations426 As is the case with Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn lsquoUthaymjn doesnot appear to have any difficulty with rejecting opinions in the School if they con-flict with his view of what the correct evidence is This reflects Ibn Taymiyyahrsquoscritical approach to the body of Aringanbalj law427 He also labels several rulingswithin the School as innovations and it is clear that on many of these he takes hisinspiration from Ibn Taymiyyah428 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn was also influenced by variousrules and maxims employed by Ibn Taymiyyah429

There appear to have been several causes for the emphatic influence of IbnTaymiyyah upon Ibn lsquoUthaymjn the most important of which are the following

This scholar was influenced to a considerable degree by his sheikh al-Salsquodjwho was also as mentioned earlier considerably influenced by IbnTaymiyyah Ibn lsquoUthaymjn studied various subjects under al-Salsquodj such ascreed interpretation of the Qurrsquoan aringadjth and jurisprudence and its generalprinciples430 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn was highly regarded by al-Salsquodj as evidenced byhis response when Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrsquos father transferred his residence to Riyadhand expressed a desire that his son should do likewise Al-Salsquodj wrote to himlsquothis is not possible rather we hope that Muhammad will remain with us andbenefitrsquo431 The sheikh desired that Ibn lsquoUthaymjn continue his classes andthus derive benefit from his tuition Ibn lsquoUthaymjn describes the impact uponhim of his relationship with this sheikh when he comments lsquoI was greatlyinfluenced by him in his manner of teaching and presenting knowledge andmaking it understandable to the students by use of examples and explana-tions I was also greatly influenced by his good manners Indeed Sheikh lsquoAbdal-Raaringmhn [ie al-Salsquodj] had excellent manners and character in addition toan abundance of knowledge and worshiprsquo432

Ibn lsquoUthaymjn studied certain works pertaining to the sciences of aringadjth andjurisprudence under Ibn Bhz the former mufti of Saudi Arabia Thisincluded some of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah433

The mass publication and circulation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos works and inparticular his Fathwh commenced during this period A large number werefirst published after 13801960 that is after the death of al-Salsquodj

Ibn lsquoUthaymjn also abridged some of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnal-Qayyim Although it could be said that his desire to abridge the workscame from his existing respect for those two scholars it is also likely thatthe net of abridgement brought him into contact with their ideas on a moreintimate level


167

Table 20 Various issues in al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo (Volume 1ndash8)434 where Ibn lsquoUthaymjn refersto Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and is in agreement with him

The issue The predominant Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn lsquoUthaymjnopinion in the Aringanbalj School

How many division Three435 Two436 Two437

of water are thereDoes the quantity of If the water is less The quantity of The same opinion as

the water have an than two qullah it water has no Ibn Taymiyyah440

effect on its purity becomes impure effect the realif it is infiltrated as soon as it consideration by an impurity encounters dirt438 is whether a

change has occurred or not439

Is the siwhk No441 Yes442 Yes443

permitted for a fasting person in the afternoon

Should the This is This is not The same opinionintention be recommended and allowed and it is as Ibn Taymiyyah446

uttered in acts the worshipper an innovation445

of worship says it silently444

Is the permissibility Yes447 No448 No449

of wiping overthe khuffaynconditional uponother matters

Is wiping over the No450 Yes451 Yes452

lufhfah (clothwrapping)permissible

Can a woman No453 Yes in a case of The same opinion as perform ƒawhf necessity454 Ibn Taymiyyah455

during her periodWhen a person No456 Yes457 Yes458

has a bath is itsufficient that he intended to remove the major impurity

Is there a time limit Yes459 No460 No461

for menstruationMay trees be rented No462 Yes463 Yes464

for their fruitsDoes aringuqnah break Yes465 No466 No467

the fastDoes cupping break Yes468 No469 No470

the fast of thecupper even if hedoes not havecontact with theblood

Conclusion

In conclusion the following points can be deduced from this chapter

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences have been cited by Aringanbalj scholarsfrom his time up to the present time The level of citation and Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosinfluence upon these scholars has differed from one scholar to the next Indeedcopious citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions by some of these scholars doesnot necessarily entail that they were influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah in most rul-ings Some Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Salsquodj do not cite agreat deal of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions but it is clear that they were greatlyinfluenced by him On the other hand other scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring andal-Mardhwj cite a great number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions without therebeing much apparent impact on their jurisprudential opinions Like all greatscholars Ibn Taymiyyah gave wings to his students and enabled them to soarSome therefore were more profoundly influenced by his overall methodologyeven if they did not agree with many of his conclusions Others saw him as animportant teacher and authority in the School possessing an independentmind They would like his opinions perhaps as counter-arguments to theSchoolrsquos predominant opinion without necessarily agreeing with him

It is also evident that those scholars who were influenced by him to a significantdegree support Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position because they consider that theevidence of the sharjlsquoah testify to their correctness and in this they followhis method This is also further stressed by lsquoAbd Allah Ibn lsquoAbd Wahhhb(d 12421826) who discusses a jurisprudential issue in which Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosposition seems to oppose the opinion of possibly all scholars According tohim the near-unanimous opinion is supported by correct textual evidenceslsquoAbd Allah Ibn lsquoAbd Wahhhb asserts that those who oppose the position ofmost of the scholars have no legal ground for their opinion apart from thefact that it was supported by Ibn Taymiyyah who based his ruling on a nar-ration from Ibn lsquoAbbhs He states that what was cited by Ibn Taymiyyah tosupport his position cannot be used in opposition to the correct legal evi-dence narrated from the Prophet lsquoAbd Allah Ibn lsquoAbd Wahhhb adds thatalthough Ibn Taymiyyah was one of the mujtahid scholars if his ruling con-tradicts with the correct evidence then his opinion has to be rejected Heasserts it is not permissible to imitate the opinion of the sheikh without know-ing the correctness and accuracy of the evidences adduced by him and hisunderstanding and interpretation of the opposing evidences lsquoAbd Allah IbnlsquoAbd Wahhhb says that the correct position in dealing with the opinions ofscholars is to compare them to what is in the book of Allah and the Sunnah ofhis Messenger He also states that it is not permitted to imitate the opinionof a scholar simply because they were more knowledgeable in the meaningsof these legal evidence He asserts that such practice was denounced by IbnTaymiyyah and labelled as a censured imitation471


169

During the tenth and eleventh centuries the citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions and his influence upon Aringanbalj scholars appears to be very limitedThere may be various factors behind this the methodology adopted by thesescholars in the writing of their treatises is a major factor

From the twelfth century up to the present time the citation of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions and his influence upon Aringanbalj scholars appears tohave gradually regained its importance This can be attributed to variousfactors amongst which are the following

ndash The call of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhhbndash The widespread presence of students of the leading scholar al-Salsquodj

who was greatly influenced by Ibn Taymiyyahndash The considerable attention devoted to the treatises written by Ibn

Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim This resulted in the editingand publication of a large number of them

In this chapter a number of important points have been elaborated upon withreference to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon Aringanbalj scholars There is no doubtthat he has became a major reference for Aringanbalj scholars down the ages eitherin challenging predominant opinions in the School or as a source for unusualopinions or as an inspiration for employing a critical methodology in analysingthe Schoolrsquos body of law It seems also that his influence has grown in the pastcentury through the efforts of certain followers amongst the scholars and thewidespread dissemination of his writings

Chapter 6 offers a more detailed study of one particular jurisprudential rulingissued by Ibn Taymiyyah which gives an example of the way that he hasinfluenced the Aringanbalj School


170

6

A CASE OF CONFLICT

The intended triple divorce revisited

Introduction

Several issues in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudence proved to be a source ofconfrontation between him and other scholars within the Aringanbalj School Thischapter is devoted to an analysis of one of the most significant jurisprudentialissues in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos life His opinion on this issue was a catalyst for some ofhis interrogations and also left an indelible influence upon Aringanbalj jurispru-dence1 This matter concerns the intended triple divorce Does it have the effectof the third and final repudiation or is it treated as a single pronouncement withthe stated number having no effect2

Great confusion has been caused by the alleged existence of consensus opposingIbn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion in relation to this point Furthermore Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosposition is not clearly presented in some of the sources The discussion in thischapter will therefore focus on the following points

A clarification of the position of the Aringanbalj School of law concerning thispoint according to Ibn Taymiyyah and the Aringanbalj sources

A clarification of the position of Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue A presentation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos evidences on this point and his criticism

of the oppositionrsquos evidences An examination of whether or not Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion regarding this

point is contrary to a consensus of Muslim scholars

Types of divorce in Islamic law

It can be said that Islamic law categorises divorce into two types sunni and bidlsquojSunni (ie in accordance with the sunnah) divorce occurs when a man divorces hiswife through a single pronouncement during a stage of her purity from menstru-ation in which he has not had sexual intercourse with her Bidlsquoj divorce takes placeif a man pronounces divorce during the stage of menstruation or in a period ofpurity during which sexual intercourse has occurred3

Valid divorces are in turn classified in Islamic law into two kinds rajlsquoj(revocable) and bhrsquoin (irrevocable)4

171

The position of the Aringanbalj School of law concerning the lsquotriple divorcersquo

A certain degree of confusion exists concerning this issue The difficulty arisesfrom what is actually meant by triple divorce Is this type of divorce permissibleor not Is it binding What was the actual opinion of Ibn Aringanbal himself Thissection seeks to clarify these points

1 What is actually meant by triple divorce

The dispute amongst the Aringanbalj scholars does not relate to the situation wherethe divorce is pronounced three times each pronouncement taking place after aperiod of waiting (lsquoiddah) This point is lsquoagreed uponrsquo as permissible amongst theAringanbalj scholars a stance which is also accepted by Ibn Taymiyyah5

The most important forms of the triple divorce which form the subject-matterof the controversy within the Aringanbalj scholars

Where the divorce is pronounced thrice in one sitting within one phrase (ieanti ƒhliq thalhthan)

Where the divorce is uttered in three phrases in one sitting (anti ƒhliq anti ƒhliqanti ƒhliq or anti ƒhliq wa ƒhliq wa ƒhliq or anti ƒhliq fa ƒhliq fa ƒhliq)

Where the divorce is uttered at three different times once on every occasionuntil the completion of the three pronouncements before rajlsquoah (revocation)

In all three forms the Aringanbalj scholars discuss two separate points

1 whether this type of divorce is permissible or not2 if it is permissible what is its resultant effect Does it have the effect of the

third and final irrevocable repudiation or a single revocable divorce

2 Triple divorce permissible or prohibited

There is a disagreement amongst the Aringanbalj scholars as to whether or not thetriple divorce is considered a permissible form of divorce6 Their disagreementwas founded upon conflicting narrations emanating from Ibn Aringanbal himself7

According to several Aringanbalj scholars the correct narration of Ibn Aringanbalconcerning this issue states that it is prohibited8 Ibn Taymiyyah who also believesthat this type of divorce is prohibited9 clarifies the reason for the existence ofthese conflicting narrations He mentions that initially Ibn Aringanbal held theopinion that this type of divorce was permissible but later on he altered his opin-ion Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Ibn Aringanbal as stating that he pondered over theQurrsquoanic verses specifically concerning divorce and determined that the onlyform of permissible divorce is the revocable type10

According to Ibn Taymiyyah after this alteration in Ibn Aringanbalrsquos opinion thisview became the predominant opinion in the Aringanbalj School11

THE INTENDED TRIPLE DIVORCE REVISITED

172

According to Ibn Taymiyyah the vast majority of Aringanbalj scholars are inagreement with him that this type of divorce is an innovation and that itsperformance is prohibited If this type of divorce begins to be performed how-ever the Aringanbalj scholars consider it as a valid divorce Ibn Taymiyyah opposesthis stance he believes that it is prohibited and that it cannot have a legal effect

3 The legal effect of triple divorce

If the divorce is pronounced triply in one phrase at once (ie anti ƒhliq thalhthan) orrepeated three times in one sitting (anti ƒhliq anti ƒhliq anti ƒhliq) or the divorce isuttered at three different times within one period without rajlsquoah taking place(revocation) several leading Aringanbalj scholars say that the opinion within theAringanbalj School is that this form of divorce has the effect of the final repudiation12

4 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position on the legal effect of triple divorce

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is that a triple divorce has the same ruling as a singlepronouncement and the number mentioned has no effect13 According to himthere is no distinction between the utterance of three divorces in one phrase (suchas ƒalaqtuki thalhthan ndash I have divorced you thrice) or in three separate phrases(such as anti ƒhliq anti ƒhliq anti ƒhliq ndash you are divorced you are divorced you aredivorced)14

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos evidence

Ibn Taymiyyah cites several types of evidences to support his opinion three ofwhich are the following

1 He cites several pieces of textual evidence including the following

Muslim narrates that Ibn lsquoAbbhs said lsquoDivorce in the period of theMessenger of Allah (peace and blessing be upon him) Abu Bakr and inthe first two years of the caliphate of lsquoUmar if pronounced thrice atonce was counted as one but lsquoUmar gave it effect against themrsquo15

Ibn lsquoAbbhs also said lsquoRukhnah divorced his wife thrice in a single sessionand was greatly saddened in his longing for her The Messenger of Allahquestioned him lsquohow did you divorce herrsquo He replied lsquoI divorced herthrice in a single sessionrsquo The Prophet said lsquothat is a single divorcereturn to her by revocation if you wantrsquo16

2 Ibn Taymiyyah argues that no one during the time of the Prophet whodivorced his wife triply was considered by the Prophet to have performed alegally valid divorce He asserts that there is no authentic or sound aringadjth thatsuggests otherwise He acknowledges the existence of certain narrations


173

mentioned in some of the collections of aringadjth such as a aringadjth narrated bylsquoAli another by lsquoUbhdah and another by al-Aringasan but he declares that theyare either weak or fabricated17

3 Ibn Taymiyyah makes reference to rational evidences examples of which are

He asks how the majority of Aringanbalj scholars can consider thisdivorce to be impermissible and yet also claim that it is binding Hestates that the texts necessitate that only the Sunni divorce can bebinding He supports his argument by referring to a maxim that wasaccording to him implemented by the salaf and the leading juristsincluding the four Imams This maxim states lsquoEvery contract which ispermitted in certain forms and prohibited in others such as sale andmarriage if performed in the prohibited form will not be consideredbinding and vice versa in the instance of the permitted formrsquo18 IbnTaymiyyah appears to imply that it is clear that this rule applies to thetriple divorce because it is a prohibited form of divorce Therefore thejurists must consider it as non-binding and accept only the permittedforms of divorce

He also argues that if this divorce is considered by the Lawgiver to beimpermissible but this does not result in its invalidity what purpose isserved by the division of divorce into two types permissible and imper-missible19 What difference does it make to the Muslim

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the Lawgiver prohibits certain mattersbecause they contain absolute or preponderant corruption (mafsadah)The purpose behind the prohibition is to prevent that corruption Ifhowever an act is prohibited yet at the same time its consequences arebinding what is the purpose of the prohibition According to IbnTaymiyyah if this were true it would lead to the existence of a contra-diction in the legal rulings but the Lawgiver is far removed from makingcontradictory rulings20

Ibn Taymiyyah explained why some leading scholars such as lsquoUmarhad ruled that the triple divorce takes the effect of a total of threeseparate divorces He argues that lsquoUmar had seen that the people of histime were using this form of divorce widely despite it being prohibitedby the Lawgiver He felt that therefore there was a need for strict actionto prevent them from doing so and hoped that the best way was to bindthese people to the consequences of their actions21

According to Ibn Taymiyyah this type of action can be included under the classof lsquodiscretionary punishmentsrsquo which can be used when it is needed He acknowl-edges the existence of certain rulings where a separation between a couple isenforced by either the Lawgiver or the leader of the Muslim community22

Ibn Taymiyyah stresses however that lsquoUmarrsquos ruling concerning the tripledivorce met with considerable opposition amongst the companions According to


174

Ibn Taymiyyah this opposition was based on the following reasons

lsquoUmarrsquos opponents amongst the companions deemed this type ofdiscretionary punishment impermissible

they thought that the Lawgiver did not impose this type of punishment they believed that the ruling issued by lsquoUmar and other scholars did not

differentiate between those who deserved punishment because they performan act deliberately while aware of its consequences and those who wereunaware of its prohibition in the Sharjlsquoah or performed some form ofinterpretation (tarsquowjl) of it23

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rebuttal of the evidences of his opponents

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents cited several evidences some of which are thefollowing

The companion Fhƒimah bint Qays was divorced by her husband triply24

Rifhlsquoah also divorced his wife triply25

lsquoUwaymir who was an imprecator (mulhlsquoin) of his wife divorced her thrice26

In their argumentation the opposition declared that all three events occurredduring the lifetime of the Prophet who was not reported to have voiced hisobjection The opposition concluded that these proofs suggest that the tripledivorce is permissible and takes the effect of three separate divorces27

Ibn Taymiyyah studied the various evidences and then reached the followingconclusions

Fhƒimah and Rifhlsquoahrsquos husbands made three pronouncements of divorceand then the divorce took legal effect after their period of waiting hadexpired Therefore the opposition cannot cite these aringadjths as proofs asthe divorces in question were conducted according to the Sunni divorce Hesupports his claim by citing a narration in the Iacuteaaringjaring wherein it is mentionedthat the divorce that took place was in fact the third divorce pronouncementwhich therefore completed three divorces

According to Ibn Taymiyyah when the narrators of the first two aringadjths men-tion that the divorces were lsquothalhthanrsquo (triple divorce) it does not necessarilymean that the divorces were in the triple form The same term can also applyto three divorces which take place separately after their waiting periodsor revocability In fact Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the latter meaning oflsquothalhthanrsquo is the one most likely to be intended This is because this type ofdivorce is agreed upon amongst the Imams as a binding form of divorce inaccordance with the sunnah In addition Ibn Taymiyyah states that this typeof divorce was common practice during the time of the Prophet whereas thetriple pronouncement of divorce on the few occasions that it occurred was


175

disapproved of by that generation According to Ibn Taymiyyah the logicalconclusion is that this word lsquothalhthanrsquo should be understood according to thecommonly practised meaning of the word during that time This is becauseit is impermissible to link a word of general impact to a practice which isdisapproved of and not to the commonly practised meaning28

In relation to the citation of the aringadjth of lsquoUwaymir Ibn Taymiyyah presentsthe following criticism

ndash The triple divorce performed by lsquoUwaymir took place after a permanentseparation had occurred between him and his wife (or at least the obli-gation of separation) by reason of the lilsquohn (imprecation) Furthermoreit can be said that the divorce pronounced by lsquoUwaymir only affirmedthe permanent separation caused by the lilsquohn The dispute at hand how-ever concerns whether or not a separation can be initiated by the tripledivorce It is clear from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos textual and logical discussion ofthe aringadjth of lilsquohn that he intends to clarify that the citation of this aringadjthby the opposition is inaccurate as it is irrelevant to the dispute amongstthe scholars

ndash If the separation was caused as a result of the triple divorce its legalconsequences must become manifest One such consequence is that thedivorce becomes revocable if a new marriage takes place between thewife and a second husband and thereafter the second marriage endsThis cannot be the case with lilsquohn which confirms the fact that the sep-aration in the aringadjth of lsquoUwaymir was caused by means of the lilsquoan andnot by a triple divorce

ndash The transmitter mentioned in this narration that lsquoUwaymir divorced hiswife triply He then states that the Prophet validated this form of divorceIbn Taymiyyah argues that if this divorce is valid and was practised dur-ing the time of the Prophet as a valid form of divorce there would havebeen no need for it to be validated by the Prophet29 The narrationtherefore contains inconsistency or the facts have been misunderstood

Ibn Taymiyyah then points out some of the serious consequences of affirmingthe validity and legal effect of a triple divorce

The scholars who subscribe to the opinion that it is valid are also of theopinion that the taaringljl marriage is prohibited In this ruling they were follow-ing the Prophet and his companions As for the triple divorce there is noevidence from the Lawgiver that it is binding and equal to three divorcesA combination of these two rulings resulted in great hardship and also led tothe appearance of several types of corruption Some people apostatisedfrom Islam because they were legally compelled to be separated from oneanother due to the utterance of the triple divorce This resulted in hatredbetween people and more importantly it led to a reduction in the prestige ofIslamic law


176

Conversely some of these scholars attempted to ameliorate the hardshiparising from the combination of the two rulings by permitting the taaringljlmarriage This opinion however was widely disapproved of by the majorityof the early scholars including the Imams30

Was this ruling of Ibn Taymiyyah in opposition to the consensus

of the Aringanbalj scholars before his era

The Aringanbalj sources appear to suggest that there was no disagreement regardingthis issue in the School31 Ibn Taymiyyah retorts that there were some Aringanbaljscholars who held the opinion that a triple divorce does not have the effect ofthree separate divorces32 but he does not identify who these Aringanbaljs were

The following section contains a study of two types of selected Aringanbaljsources the first type predates Ibn Taymiyyah and the second group of sourceswere written after the appearance of this scholar This system has been adoptedin order to provide a clear picture of the issue as related in the Aringanbalj sourcesIn addition it will also help to identify Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence upon theAringanbalj sources and the School with regard to this issue

Some of the books of mashrsquoil which were the first sources collected in theAringanbalj School contain references made by Aaringmad on this topic In everyinstance Aaringmad maintains that the intended triple divorce has the effect of threeseparate divorces which occur after the required periods of waiting33

Al-Khiraqj (d 334945) in his Mukhtaszligar the oldest Aringanbalj jurisprudentialMukhtaszligar states that this type of divorce is a divorce in accordance with the sun-

nah but declares that it is preferable to divorce according to the agreed uponform34 As mentioned earlier the agreed form is that one divorces his wife througha single pronouncement during a period of her purity from menstruation inwhich he has not had sexual intercourse with her

Ibn al-Bannh (d 4711078) in his commentary on al-Khiraqjrsquos Mukhtaszligarpoints out the existence of a dispute within the School regarding the issue ofwhether the triple divorce is a Sunni or bidlsquoj divorce He does not howeversuggest any sign of disagreement in the School on its legal effect that is that ithas the effect of the third repudiation35

Ibn Qudhmah (d 6201223) in his book al-lsquoUmdah does not mention anydisagreement in the Aringanbalj School about the effect of the triple divorce but it isinteresting to note that he classifies this type of divorce as prohibited rather thanSunni36 Bahhrsquo al-Djn al-Maqdisj (d 6241227) in his commentary on al-lsquoUmdah

entitled al-lsquoUddah Shararing al-lsquoUmdah also does not refer to a division within theSchool in relation to the effect of this type of divorce and he supports the stancetaken by Ibn Qudhmah in which he considers this type of divorce to be bidlsquoj37

Al-Majd Abu rsquol-Barakht (d 6521254) Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos grandfather in hisbook al-Muaringarrar asserts the existence of a dispute amongst the Aringanbalj scholarsas to the status of a triple divorce but he does not mention a dispute aboutits legal effect38


177

As for the source works of Aringanbalj jurisprudence compiled after IbnTaymiyyahrsquos time we find that the situation has altered The following sectioncontains a study of two of these sources al-Inszlighf by al-Mardhwj and al-Furulsquo byIbn Mufliaring The importance of these two sources stems from the fact that theirauthors were considered leading scholars of the Aringanbalj School The first wasrecognised as the leader of the School during his time39 while the second wasconsidered the most knowledgeable individual in the School40

Al-Mardhwj states that the correct opinion within the Aringanbalj School is thatthe triple divorce has the effect of three separate divorces He says that this wasAaringmadrsquos view and was subscribed to by the al-aszligaringhb (the followers of Aaringmad)41

Al-Mardhwjrsquos statement implies the existence of consensus regarding this issueamongst the followers of Aaringmad At the same time al-Mardhwjrsquos statement thatthis ruling was lsquothe correct opinion in the Schoolrsquo implies that there was a differ-ence of opinion within the Aringanbalj School someone must have held lsquothe otheropinionrsquo Al-Mardhwj does not identify the opponents of the predominant viewof the School although he does attribute it to Ibn Taymiyyah It is possible thathe therefore believes that there was an agreement amongst Aringanbalj scholarsconcerning this ruling up to the time of Ibn Taymiyyah Although he doesmention that al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos grandfather was said to hold theopposing opinion and secretly issued fathwh in support of it al-Mardhwj clarifiesthat this was made known to him by Ibn Taymiyyah himself42 It seems that evenif al-Majd did hold this opinion there was no public disagreement in the Schoolbefore Ibn Taymiyyah

A similar analysis is found in lsquoal-Furulsquorsquo a treatise written by Ibn Mufliaring whowas of course one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students He refers to the opposing opin-ion attributes it to Ibn Taymiyyah and cites his words at length in order to explainhis view Again Ibn Mufliaring does not attribute this opinion to any of the otherAringanbalj scholars43

Does this mean that there were no Aringanbalj scholars who publicly subscribed tothis view before Ibn Taymiyyah If so what of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos statementclaiming that certain Aringanbalj scholars held this opinion

This is a problematic issue to which the Aringanbalj sources according to myknowledge do not present an answer It is possible that Ibn Taymiyyah wasalluding to his grandfather by the statement lsquosome Aringanbalj scholarsrsquo for IbnTaymiyyah himself mentions that his grandfather subscribed to this opinion It isalso plausible to assume that Ibn Taymiyyah did not mean that Aringanbalj scholarsheld this opinion44 but rather that it conforms to the methodology employed byparticular Aringanbalj scholars As we saw earlier it was the practice of severalAringanbalj scholars to attribute opinions to the School based upon their agreementwith the general principles of Ibn Aringanbal Therefore this attribution was basedupon mere inference and deduction and not by a clear narration There are twopossible methods Ibn Taymiyyah could have used in order to draw this conclusion

First Ibn Taymiyyah believes that the notion that the triple divorce is consideredimpermissible by Ibn Aringanbal yet at the same time is legally binding is against


178

Ibn Aringanbalrsquos own principles Ibn Taymiyyah makes several points in support ofhis argument

Ibn Aringanbal himself relates two aringadjths showing that the triple divorce isconsidered as a single divorce

There are no correct aringadjths from the Prophet opposing this view In additionthe Qurrsquoan is in complete agreement with the sunnah as there is no versesupporting the opposing view

According to Ibn Aringanbal a prohibition in the words of the Lawgivernecessitates the invalidity of the prohibited act if it is committed

According to Ibn Taymiyyah a combination of these three points leads to thefollowing conclusion Ibn Aringanbalrsquos opinion according to the principles on whichhe based his jurisprudence must be that the triple divorce is considered a singledivorce and cannot have the effort of more than that number45

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Aaringmadrsquos ruling that triple divorce is prohibited andat the same time legally effective is contrary to Aaringmadrsquos own general principles

The second manner in which Ibn Taymiyyah attributed this opinion to someAringanbalj scholars is again an inference from the methodology of particularscholars He discusses Ibn Aringanbalrsquos reasons for not acting upon aringadjths such asthe aringadjth of Rukhnah which declare that the triple divorce takes the effect of onlya single divorce He explains that Ibn Aringanbal abandoned these aringadjths because heinitially understood from other texts that this type of divorce is permissible IbnTaymiyyah deduces that Ibn Aringanbal used the principle of abrogation in order toharmonise the apparent contradiction between the texts so that he believed thearingadjth giving full effect to it abrogated those treating it as single divorce Accordingto Ibn Taymiyyah it became clear to Ibn Aringanbal later on that there is no con-tradiction between the correct aringadjths and he declared that this type of divorcecould not have the effect of more than a single divorce However Ibn Aringanbalmaintains his view that this form of divorce is binding as three separate divorcesAccording to Ibn Taymiyyah this is primarily attributed to Ibn lsquoAbbhs He is thenarrator of the aringadjth which states the triple divorce has the effect of a singledivorce but he also used to issue a fatwh in support of the opposite opinionAccording to one of two opinions from Ibn Aringanbal the practice of the narratorissuing a fatwh that is contrary to his narration is a defect that weakens the imple-mentation of that narratorrsquos transmission as it suggests that an abrogation hasoccurred Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the apparent opinion of the Schoolwhich he asserts is the final opinion held by the majority of Aringanbalj scholars isthat this is not a defect Ibn Taymiyyah supports this by stating that Ibn lsquoAbbhsrevealed that he did not implement his narration because he found that this typeof divorce was widely practised by the people of his time and thus there was aneed for drastic measures to prevent this abuse46 Therefore he felt that thebest way to check this abuse was to leave people to face the consequences of theirrashness


179

It appears that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos purpose is to prove that Ibn lsquoAbbhs did notthink that his narration of the aringadjth was abrogated Ibn Taymiyyah also gaveanother narration from Ibn lsquoAbbhs in which he issued a fatwh stating that a tripledivorce pronounced at once is considered to be a single divorce47 It is possiblethat Ibn lsquoAbbhs issued this fatwh before he became concerned about the abuse ofthis form of divorce

Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the presence of Aringanbalj scholars who did not think thata narrator acting contrary to his narration is a defect which weakens his narrationTherefore it is possible that when he said that some Aringanbalj scholars held that thetriple divorce is equivalent to a single divorce he was referring to those Aringanbaljscholars who do not think that there is a defect in a narrator acting in a manner con-trary to his narration The main ruling in the School was based primarily on thecontradiction in Ibn lsquoAbbhsrsquos stance Ibn Taymiyyah may have felt therefore that ifthe problem with Ibn lsquoAbbhsrsquos narration could be resolved there would have beennothing to stop some scholars accepting the single-divorce opinion

Ibn al-Qayyim had some difficulty with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos claim He mentionsthat he attempted at length to identify the scholars who subscribed to this opinionbut failed to do so48 He then advanced possible meanings for Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosclaim that this opinion was held by earlier Aringanbalj scholars

By lsquosome Aringanbalj scholarsrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah means his grandfather al-MajdAs mentioned earlier Ibn Taymiyyah claimed that his grandfather used tohold this opinion and would secretly issue Fathwh in accordance with it

A second possible explanation is based upon a disputed issue in the field of uszligulal-fiqh and was discussed by Ibn Taymiyyah earlier When the narrator of aaringadjth issues a fatwh in conflict with a aringadjth he narrated is it the correct positionto follow the aringadjth and ignore the fatwh of its narrator Or is it to suspend thearingadjth and to follow the fatwh of its narrator as it is possible that he was awareof another text that abrogates the aringadjth that he narrated There are two opin-ions on this issue and both from Aaringmad In the matter at hand Aaringmad did notimplement the aringadjth of Ibn lsquoAbbhs (in which he narrated that the triple divorcewas considered as a single divorce during the time of the Prophet Abu Bakrand a period of the caliphate of lsquoUmar) because Ibn lsquoAbbhs used to issue fatwhin opposition to his narration This accords with one of Aaringmadrsquos opinionswhich gives preference to the fatwh over the aringadjth According to Aaringmadrsquossecond opinion the narration is to be preferred Ibn al-Qayyim effectivelyconcludes that if Aaringmad were to rule according to this second opinion hewould have said that the triple divorce has the effect of only a single divorce49

The final point Ibn al-Qayyim advances in order to solve this problem is thateven if there was no earlier Aringanbalj scholar who held this opinion the factof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos preferring this ruling gives it the standing of a qawl (opin-ion) in the School According to Ibn al-Qayyim if Ibn Taymiyyah is to beconsidered of a similar rank to the leading Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Qhpartjand Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb his opinion should be considered one that can be


180

attributed to the School Indeed Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that Ibn Taymiyyahwas of a higher status than these scholars Therefore his view is accepted andcan be attributed to the School as an opinion50

It is clear from the previous discussion that Aringanbalj sources after IbnTaymiyyahrsquos time began to refer to the existence of another opinion in the Schoolon the subject of the triple divorce and attributed this opinion to Ibn TaymiyyahThis contrasts with the Aringanbalj sources before Ibn Taymiyyah which do not referto any disagreement within the School regarding the effect of the triple divorceThis leads us to the conclusion that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion was contrary to thatof the Aringanbalj scholars before his era unless he was correct in attributing thisopinion to his grandfather or to certain other Aringanbalj scholars The next sectionwill analyse whether Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion was in opposition to the consensusof the scholars of the ummah

Is Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on triple divorce in opposition to an existing consensus

amongst the scholars

Aringanbalj sources before Ibn Taymiyyah appear to suggest that there was aconsensus amongst the Aringanbalj scholars on this issue for they do not makereference to any opposing opinions The other three schools of law also appear toshare this position51

There are many scholars before and after Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time whomaintain the existence of a consensus amongst the scholars that the triple divorcepronounced once has the effect of a third and final repudiation This claim wasmade by al-Shhfilsquoj52 Abu Bakr al-Marwazj53 Abu Bakr al-Rhzj54 Ibn al-lsquoArabj55

al-Bhjj56 Ibn Rajab57 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Barr58 Ibn al-Tjn59 al-Subkj60 Ibn Aringajaral-Haythamj61 and al-Dusuqj62 Certain other scholars claimed that the existenceof such consensus can be understood from a statement made by Ibn al-Mundhirin his book al-Ijmhlsquo63 Also some scholars such as al-Sarkhasj in his book al-

Mabsuƒ attribute the opinion that triple divorce takes the effect of only onedivorce to the Shjlsquoah This implies that the Sunni scholars were in agreement ongiving the triple divorce the effect of three separate divorces carried out in accor-dance with the sunni divorce64 Indeed Ibn Taymiyyah himself mentions thatsome scholars argued that his opinion was in opposition to the consensus of thescholars at the time of lsquoUmar65

1 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rebuttal of the existence of a consensus amongst Muslim scholars

regarding the triple divorce

Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the claim that the scholars agreed that the triple divorcehas the effect of the third repudiation His refutation of this alleged consensus is


181

based upon several proofs including the following

Ibn Taymiyyah explains that his opposing view was held by some of thecompanions such as Abu Bakr lsquoUmar in the first two years of his caliphatelsquoAlj Ibn Maslsquoud Ibn lsquoAbbhs (in one of his views) al-Zubayr and Ibn lsquoAwfSimilarly many of the followers subscribed to the same view Ibn Taymiyyahasserts that the existence of a dispute amongst the predecessors concerningthis issue is a fact that cannot be denied66

As mentioned earlier he asserts that his grandfather al-Majd used to holdthe opinion that the triple divorce counts only as a single pronouncement Atother times however he declared that it has the effect of three separateSunni divorces According to Ibn Taymiyyah these conflicting positions werebased on an alteration in his independent reasoning or on the use of maszliglaaringah

in particular cases67

Ibn Taymiyyah cites Ibn Mughjth in al-Muqnilsquo where he attributed IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion to some of the Mhlikj scholars of Cordoba (Qurƒubah)such as Ibn Zinbhlsquo al-Aringusaynj Ibn Mukhlid and Ibn al-Aringabhb In additionIbn Mughjth attributed this opinion to approximately twenty Mhlikj scholarsfrom Toledo (Iumlulayƒilah)68 Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions that there is anarration from Malik supporting this opinion69

Ibn Taymiyyah claims that this opinion was held by Muhammad b Muqhtilal-Rhzj who was a leading Aringanafj scholar70

The majority of the ˝ahirites state that the triple divorce has the effect of asingle pronouncement71

Ibn Taymiyyah criticises the inconsistency of his opponents who claim tofollow the ruling of lsquoUmar on this issue while they did not follow him on otherissues in which consensus could more safely be claimed and which also appearto be supported by evidences from the Qurrsquoan and sunnah He presents theexample of the taaringljl marriage Some scholars permitted this form of contractdespite lsquoUmarrsquos ruling to the contrary and despite the evidence of the Qurrsquoanand sunnah opposing their view Another example is their disagreement withlsquoUmarrsquos ruling concerning the issue of land conquered by the Muslims bymeans of force They subscribed to the opinion that the land must be or canbe divided amongst the soldiers whereas lsquoUmar preferred otherwise72

He argues that those who claimed that this ruling was agreed upon by thecompanions were simply unaware of the opposite view

He suspects that another reason which assisted in the creation of the allegedconsensus is that some Shilsquoites followed the opinion that the triple divorce hasthe effect of a single one73 Certain Sunni scholars perhaps felt the need todisassociate from the Shilsquoites on this issue

Ibn Taymiyyah draws attention to the point that not every ruling issued bylsquoUmar was accurate and a matter of consensus for some of them werebased upon his own independent reasoning He supports this by refering tothe opposition of some of the companions to particular rulings For instance


182

on the issue of providing residence and maintenance to a woman divorcedirrevocably lsquoUmar had the opinion that she is legally entitled to assistanceThe majority of the companions disagreed with him Some of them were ofthe opinion that she is entitled to residence only and others were of the opin-ion that she is not entitled to any form of assistance at all neither residencenor maintenance74

There are in fact several leading scholars who agree with Ibn Taymiyyah inaffirming the existence of a dispute amongst the scholars regarding the ruling ontriple divorce

These include Ibn Aringazm75 Ibn Rushd76 al-Nawawj77 Ibn Qudhmah78 al-Lakhmj79 al-Iumlaaringhwj80 al-Nasafj81 Abu rsquol-Waljd al-Qurƒubj82 Ibn al-Qayyim83

Ibn Aringajar84 al-Shawkhnj85 Ibn Bhz86 and most of the members of the body ofsenior scholars in Saudi Arabia87 It is interesting to note that some of those whoclaim the existence of consensus regarding this point were zealous opponents ofIbn Taymiyyah88 and it is possible that they were influenced by a desire to refutehim in making this claim

2 Has the ruling of the Prophet been abrogated by the consensus of the companions at the time of lsquoUmar

Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that a binding ruling issued by the Lawgiver cannot bealtered This is because a ruling cannot be abrogated after the death of theProphet due to the termination of revelation He points out that rulings issued bycompanions which are contrary to the texts were not based upon an assumptionthat their consensus could abrogate the text of the Lawgiver It was rather anexample of independent reasoning for which they will be rewarded IbnTaymiyyah states that he initially believed that the view of some of the MulsquotazilitesAringanafjs and Mhlikjs that consensus can abrogate a text of the Lawgiver was basedon the idea that consensus must be based upon a text in the first place It is indis-putable that one text can be abrogated by another text Later on however hediscovered that their intention was to claim that consensus by itself can abrogatea text According to Ibn Taymiyyah this opinion is very dangerous as it leads toalteration in the sharjlsquoah89

3 Is this issue a matter for independent reasoning

When there is a disagreement amongst the companions on a ruling (as is the casewith triple divorce) a method is required by which one or another opinion can begiven preference According to Ibn Taymiyyah the correct method is toundertake a careful study of the evidence concerning the disputed issue in thesources of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah as these two sources have been mentioned bythe Lawgiver as references to be consulted in order to rectify disputes concerningreligious and legal issues90


183

After consulting these sources Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that there is nothingwhatsoever in the Qurrsquoan or in the sunnah which can be considered as evidencefor those who claim that the triple divorce has the effect of three separate divorcesHe also states that the use of analogy and contemplation upon the generalprinciples of Islamic law support this conclusion He reiterates the rule that lsquoifthere is a contract or type of worship which is occasionally permissible and occa-sionally prohibited it will not be binding when it is performed in its prohibitedform and vice versarsquo91

Ibn Taymiyyah argues that when the evidence of the Sharjlsquoah suggests theaccuracy of an opinion it cannot be considered irregular (shhdhdh) even if it washeld by only a minority of scholars This is because the scholars are in agreementthat the number of scholars who hold a particular opinion has no bearing on itscorrectness and accuracy92

After explaining this point Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say that those who holdthe opinion that triple divorce has the effect of three separate divorces will berewarded for their independent reasoning despite the fact that they are mistakenThis is because they exercised their best efforts in seeking to determine the correctruling In support of his argument Ibn Taymiyyah calls upon several pointsincluding

The verse in chapter al-Baqarah lsquoOur Lord Punish us not if we forget or fallinto errorrsquo (Qurrsquoan 2286) It has been narrated from the Prophet that Allahsaid lsquoI have done sorsquo93

The authentic aringadjth narrated by al-Bukhhrj and Muslim in which theProphet says lsquoWhen a judge exercises ijtihhd and issues a correct judgementhe will have two rewards If [however] he errs in his judgement he will beconferred with one rewardrsquo94

In addition Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that when a mujtahid issues a fatwh on a sharlsquojmatter on which opinions already exist and he bases his fatwh on evidence that hebelieves affirm the correctness of his position no one has the right to compel himto follow an opposing opinion95 This does not mean that his opponentrsquos opinionwill be considered to be part of the sharjlsquoah brought by the Prophet This isparticularly so if those opinions are known to be in opposition to the Qurrsquoan andsunnah He supports this assertion by what is narrated of some of the companionsthat when they issued a ruling by use of independent reasoning they woulddeclare that the sharjlsquoah is far removed from their mistakes96

There may be another interesting reason for Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos continuousdeclaration that his opponents are excused for those incorrect rulings that theyassumed to be based on correct evidence It appears that when Ibn Taymiyyahexcused his opponents despite his belief that they were mistaken in their legalrulings he hoped to be the recipient of similar treatment from his opponentsparticularly as Ibn Taymiyyah believed that he was in possession of the correctproof Ibn Taymiyyah must have felt particularly aggrieved about the treatment


184

he received for opposing the majority having been prevented from issuing a fatwhconcerning this issue and having been imprisoned for the same reason

As mentioned previously there is no Aringanbalj scholar before Ibn Taymiyyahrsquostime known to have held the opinion that the triple divorce is equivalent ineffect to a single divorce excluding his grandfather al-Majd as Ibn Taymiyyahhimself mentions It is therefore interesting to note that various scholars andorganisations after his time have adopted Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion such as al-Aringarjrj (d 8031400)97 Jamhl al-Djn al-Imam (d 7981396)98 and al-Dawhlibj(d 8621458)99 Ibn al-Mubarrid also states that it appeared to him that thescholars who came from the families of Mufliaring and al-Mardhwj in the time ofIbn Rajab agreed with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion100 Furthermore it is now thecodified law in various Islamic countries such as Egypt101 Sudan102 SyriaJordan Morocco103 and Libya104 This opinion was also held by several leading con-temporary scholars such as al-Salsquodj105 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn and Ibn Bhz the formermufti of Saudi Arabia106

It can be concluded that the claim that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on tripledivorce violated the consensus of the scholars is simply not true as disagreementon the issue was mentioned by various other scholars It should be pointed outthat no proof could be found during the course of the current study that couldsupport Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos claim that his ruling was also held by his grandfather al-Majd in addition to other earlier Aringanbalj scholars It does appear howeverthat there is some truth to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos argument that the ruling within theSchool is in opposition to Aaringmadrsquos general principles It is also evident thatIbn Taymiyyahrsquos ruling has left a long lasting influence on Aringanbalj scholars TheAringanbalj sources appear to agree on the principle that the triple divorce amountsto an irrevocable divorce Nevertheless as a result of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos efforts inconnection with this matter certain Aringanbalj sources started referring to theexistence of another view within the School and usually attributed it toIbn Taymiyyah and those who supported his position


185

186

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be deduced from this research

The study of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos life and works proves that he was a jurist as wellas a traditionist (muaringaddith)

Ibn Taymiyyah lived in an era known for its political and social upheaval andone that has become known as the era of imitation He was subjected tovarious detentions and persecutions but nevertheless succeeded in attainingan elevated status amongst his contemporaries

A comparison of the general principles and sources of Ibn Aringanbal and IbnTaymiyyah based upon their words and their approaches suggests no vitaldifferences between them These sources are the Qurrsquoan sunnah consensusand analogy They also used several methods in ruling legal preferencessuch as Istiaringshn Istiszligaringhb and Istiszliglharing A study of the educational environmentduring Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos time the opinions of some of his contemporarieswith regard to his status in knowledge and the jurisprudential treatises of thisscholar supports the view that he was an absolute affiliated mujtahid (mujtahid

muntasib) It appears that despite being capable of forming his own Schoolhe chose to affiliate himself to an existing one and work to correct some ofits aberrations

Ibn Taymiyyah played a noticeable role in developing and refining principlesand rulings within the Aringanbalj School of law His influence has beendetected in several issues and important findings have been noted some ofwhich are

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that consensus can be of two types explicit andtacit The first type concerns an explicit agreement amongst scholarsnarrated through a mutawhtir chain of narrators In the second type thereis no affirmation of the non-existence of opponents but it cannot be saidthat all scholars have expressed their view Ibn Taymiyyah asserts thatcontrary to the claim of some scholars Aaringmad did not completely rejectthe concept of consensus Rather he used the first type of consensus asa source of law but he confined the authority of this type of consensus

to the first three generations for the creation of this type of consensusafter this period is particularly difficult Tacit consensus on the otherhand is a proof that the establishment of which is not confined to aspecific time but at the same time does not lead to certainty but merelyto probability Therefore this type of consensus can be rejected in favourof a stronger proof

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah resolves the problematical issue regarding weak aringadjthbeing one of Aaringmadrsquos sources of law He clarifies that the classificationof aringadjth during Aaringmadrsquos time was different from the one that appearedlater during the time of al-Tirmidhj He concludes that the weak aringadjthused by Aaringmad were in fact equivalent to the aringasan aringadjth according tothe new classification of aringadjth

ndash It has been traditionally accepted that the Arabic language is dividedinto two categories literal and metaphorical This view is mentioned andapproved of in most Aringanbalj sources Ibn Taymiyyah rejects the exis-tence of this division His rejection is based upon a critical study of theevidences for the existence of the term metaphor in Islamic terminologyand the Arabic language in addition to a critique of the identity of thealleged majority subscribing to the division of the language

ndash Another complicated issue in the principles of jurisprudence is thecorrectness of and errors made by the mujtahid scholars The opinions onthis point appear to be unclear and occasionally contradictory IbnTaymiyyah analyses the various opinions of the jurists and concludesthat the most accurate viewpoint regarding this issue is that only one ofthe various opinions offered by scholars on any single issue can becorrect This does not mean however that those scholars who erredare sinful and liable for punishment in the Hereafter Rather in accor-dance with a sound aringadjth they are mujtahids who will be rewarded fortheir independent reasoning He rejects the distinction made betweenuszligkl and furk so that a scholar who errs in the uszligkl of Islam is liable forpunishment whereas he will be excused if the error concerns the furulsquoHe argues that this claim is based on the false claim that the sharjlsquoah isdivided into two essential categories uszligkl and furklsquo

ndash Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rejection of the claim that the sharjlsquoah is divided intotwo types uszligkl and furklsquo is based upon the non-existence of any sharlsquo jevidence supporting this division He further supports his opinion byanalysing the criteria presented by certain scholars through whichdifferentiation between the two types can be achieved He concludes thatnone of the criteria advanced can lead to a clear cut division rather theylead to ambiguity and uncertainty

ndash Particular Aringanbalj scholars followed the views of others who claimedthat the texts of the Qurrsquoan and sunnah cover only a small percentage ofthe issues of the sharjlsquoah Ibn Taymiyyah firmly opposes this view andinsists that the texts cover most of the issues of sharjlsquoah by themselves

CONCLUSIONS

187

without the need for recourse to analogy He attributes the opposingopinion to a misunderstanding of the general texts and their implications

ndash He also asserts that there is no contradiction between correct texts andcorrect analogy as they are always in agreement with one anotherWhere there is an apparent contradiction this is only because a scholarhas employed an incorrect analogy or utilised an unsound text

ndash Another interesting point studied by Ibn Taymiyyah is the claim madeby the Aringanbalj scholars that certain rulings are only applicable to ArabsIbn Taymiyyah concludes that the Lawgiver only bases these rulings oneffective qualities and does not distinguish all Arabs in general by certainrulings

ndash It is commonly believed that maszliglaaringah is one of the general sources of lawin the Aringanbalj School but a careful study of the sources and referencesin the general principles of the School suggests otherwise In fact mostAringanbalj scholars are of the opinion that maszliglaaringah is not a source of lawNevertheless it is clear that maszliglaaringah was used by Ibn Taymiyyah andother Aringanbalj scholars There is however a difference between IbnTaymiyyahrsquos method in using maszliglaaringah and that of most of the Aringanbaljscholars We find that Ibn Taymiyyah was very cautious in his use of itdue to his belief that it frequently results in the enactment of lawscontrary to the general rulings of Islamic law He also notes that mostinnovations that had cropped up were justified as beneficial maszlighliaring bythose who innovated them Ibn Taymiyyah also rejects the restriction ofmaszliglaaringah to the preservation of the five necessary benefits (al-Icircarkrhtal-Khams) Rather he believes that the preservation of the five necessarybenefits is only a part of the scope of the maszliglaaringah as it also pertains toall other benefits that the sharjlsquoah seeks to preserve and procure

ndash The Aringanbalj scholars have permitted the use of rarsquoy when decidingcertain jurisprudential rulings the Aringanbalj sources are unclear as towhat is meant by the term rarsquoy Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the onlypermitted type of rarsquoy is the one based upon general principles derivedfrom the Qurrsquoan sunnah and consensus He also asserts that it is incor-rect to divide knowledge into rational and sharlsquo j The correct division isto divide knowledge into textual and rational which are both consideredto be sharlsquo j

ndash The Aringanbalj sources mention that neither mujtahids nor imitators arepermitted to imitate in issues concerning uszligkl Certain Aringanbalj sourcesinclude within this the main pillars of Islam as well as those well-knownIslamic rulings that are described as lsquonecessary knowledgersquo They appearto permit laymen to imitate scholars in relation to issues of al-furklsquo Inaddition the majority of Aringanbalj scholars state that a mujtahid is notpermitted to imitate another scholar Ibn Taymiyyah subscribes to amoderate view He states that the practice of independent reasoning isobligatory upon those who have the ability to undertake it He also

CONCLUSIONS

188

accepts the need to imitate by those qualified to practice independentreasoning if they are incapable of determining a particular ruling

ndash Aringanbalj sources have often examined particular issues concerning theother schools of law The consensus of Ahl al-Madinah was selected asa case study for the purpose of this research The Aringanbalj scholars donot consider this consensus as a proof in Islamic law and yet do notadvance a suitable explanation of what is intended by this consensus IbnTaymiyyahrsquos clarification presents a clear explanation and classificationof this concept and its legitimacy This is an example of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosefforts in refining the Aringanbalj School while also advocating a justapproach to the tools used by other schools

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos role in developing Aringanbalj jurisprudence has been notableThe following points are worthy of note

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah believes that the presence of innovation in the AringanbaljSchool is considerably less than in the other schools This is rooted in thedetailed explanation of the sunnah given by Aaringmad and his severecondemnation of innovation Nevertheless Ibn Taymiyyah finds variousrulings and practices in the Aringanbalj School that he considers to beinnovations He also notes that more innovations are to be found inissues of worship than those of belief He links the existence of innova-tion in Aringanbalj jurisprudence to various factors for instance the misuseof maszliglaaringah in Islamic law rulings based on invalid analogy the methodof writing adopted by most of the later Aringanbalj scholars This researchstudied certain rulings labelled by Ibn Taymiyyah as innovations It canbe concluded that these innovations do indeed have no foundation in thesharjlsquoah nor in the words of Aaringmad

ndash The fathwh permitting certain types of aringiyal in Islamic law havetraditionally been linked to the School of Abu Aringanifah Ibn Taymiyyahobserves that some leading Aringanbalj scholars also engaged in issuingfathwh permitting certain types of aringiyal despite the fact that their Imamwas known for his strong disapproval of aringiyal The issue of the taaringljlmarriage was examined as a case study of a ruling in the School that wasconsidered by Ibn Taymiyyah to be a form of aringiyal He argues thatrulings issued by certain Aringanbaljs permitting some forms of thismarriage were based on incorrect evidences and a misunderstanding ofAaringmadrsquos words

ndash The use of precaution and piety by Aringanbalj scholars in jurisprudentialrulings has led in some instances to great hardship and difficulty IbnTaymiyyah argues that all of the principles of the sharjlsquoah are indicativeof the principle that precaution is neither obligatory nor prohibited Heasserts that it can only be described as permissible and this permissibil-ity is confined to areas where the legal texts are not explicit on certainrulings Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that if the permissibility of practising

CONCLUSIONS

189

precaution is not restricted to the implicit meaning of the textsthe criteria governing the implementation of precaution will becomeunclear and imprecise Ibn Taymiyyah notes that several Aringanbaljsources contain narrations in which Ibn Aringanbal or other Aringanbalj schol-ars are said to have practised or approved of certain types of waralsquo IbnTaymiyyah acknowledges that piety is one of the foundations of thereligion (Qawhlsquoid al-Djn) but insists that in order to determine the correctunderstanding and implementation of this foundation several importantprinciples must be taken into consideration

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to prove that Aringanbalj jurisprudence containsvarious rulings that are incorrect He determines this by comparingthese rulings with the general sources of Islamic law in addition to thestatements and general principles of the Imam of the School

ndash Various forms of terminology in the Aringanbalj School of law weresubjected to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scrutiny He connects the existence of anincorrect definition of various terms in Islamic law to the absence ofclear criteria by which a correct understanding of these terms can beattained Ibn Taymiyyah proposes such criteria when he divides termi-nology used and attached to rulings in the Qurrsquoan and sunnah intothree types terms defined by the Lawgiver terms defined by thelanguage and terms whose definitions can be determined by consideringthe custom and practice of the people He asserts that these criteria leadto a correct understanding of the two main sources of the sharjlsquoah theQurrsquoan and sunnah Ibn Taymiyyah proves that certain terms defined bythe Lawgiver have been redefined by some Aringanbalj scholars Otherterms that are general in the texts have been erroneously particularisedby the School

ndash An important feature of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential maxims is thatthey are based upon textual evidences and not on the practice of theAringanbalj School He asserts that the Qurrsquoan and sunnah contain generalwords which are in fact general rules covering a number of differentoccurrences He also states that scholars who could not determine aruling within the general rules of the sharjlsquoah did not understand thosegeneral rulings He also noted that Aringanbalj scholars did not applyseveral rulings to particular kinds that are included under general nounsThese scholars did not base their opinions on legal or linguistic evidenceswhich dictate the exclusion of these types from the general rulings

ndash Ibn Taymiyyah critically studied the narrations in Aringanbalj jurispru-dence He suggests that certain narrations have been attributed to IbnAringanbal incorrectly or attributed to him or to other leading scholars byinference only

A study of selected Aringanbalj sources proves that the citation of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions and preferences amongst the Aringanbalj scholars has

CONCLUSIONS

190

continued in differing degrees since his era up to the present time It wasnoted however that the numerous citations of his opinions by some scholarsdo not mean that they were particularly influenced by him Those scholarswho were influenced by him appear to support Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos positionbecause they believe that the evidences of the sharjlsquoah affirm their correctnessFrom the twelfth Islamic century up to the present time the citation andinfluence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Aringanbalj scholars appears to have graduallyincreased in momentum This can be associated with various factors some ofwhich are the call of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb the widespread presence ofal-Salsquodjrsquos students the increased level of editing and publication of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos works as well as the works of some of his students especiallythose of Ibn al-Qayyim

Various jurisprudential rulings issued by Ibn Taymiyyah have been severelycriticised by Aringanbalj scholars but at the same time have left an influence onthe School Some of these opinions are claimed to be in opposition to theconsensus of Aringanbalj scholars or even the consensus of all Muslim scholarsThe intended triple divorce was selected as a case study A careful study ofAringanbalj references Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises and recognised sources of theother Schools of law affirms that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fatwh on this issue does infact find support in the opinion of some other scholars Therefore the claimthat Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion was in opposition to the consensus of allMuslim scholars is inaccurate It seems however to be correct that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos position on this issue was in opposition to the stance of allformer Aringanbalj scholars Nevertheless it is clear that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ion on this issue has left a long lasting effect on the position of the SchoolWe find that since the time of Ibn Taymiyyah the Aringanbalj sources havestarted referring to the existence of dispute among Aringanbalj scholars withregard to this issue Indeed several reputed scholars have since held the sameopinion as Ibn Taymiyyah

It may therefore be concluded that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos contribution to the sciencesof jurisprudence and its general principles has undoubtedly left an indelible markin Islamic law in general and the Aringanbalj School of law in particular a mark thatcan be observed up to the present time Indeed it appears that in the past centuryhis influence has increased dramatically He is used as an inspiration and a refer-ence for the critical review of traditional opinions in both the Aringanbalj School andother schools Scholars and governments alike have found that particular rulingsthat Ibn Taymiyyah made in opposition to the majority of scholars better servethe interests the sharjlsquoah seeks to protect He also serves as an example for thosewho argue that the door of ijtihad was never closed There is no doubt that hiswork was dynamic and free from the strictures of taqlid

CONCLUSIONS

191

NOTES

INTRODUCTION

1 EI vol iii pp 954ndash9552 See a discussion of this issue in Chapter 2 of this work

1 IBN AringANBAL AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

1 Most western scholars translate madhhab as lsquoschoolrsquo Makdisi on the other handasserts that madhhab cannot be translated as school of law except in the pre-classicalperiod before the tenth century but rather it should be translated as lsquoguildrsquo SeeMelchert the formation pp xivndashxvii Makdisi Religion pp 233ndash252 In this workmadhhab has been translated as school of law because it appears to be the closestmeaning to the term madhhab and because the reference to schools of law by the termmadhhab has become problematic as it is a word which can refer to madhhab in creedand or madhhab in jurisprudence

2 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 2 p 86 Ismhlsquoil al-Tashrjlsquo p 3423 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 37 There is a similar narration in the Musawwadah

p 5144 This era spanned from 132749 to the middle of the fourth century of Islam At the very

start of this period the Umayyad Dynasty declined and was supplanted by the AbbasidsSee Sharaf al-Djn Thrjkh p 143 lsquoAbd al-Qhdir Nacopyrah p 191 al-Suyuƒj Thrjkh p 273Philips The Evolution p 52 In this era Islamic law developed rapidly especially underthe influence of the eponyms for the four major sunni schools Abu Aringanifah Mhlik al-Shhfilsquoj and Ibn Aringanbal Another element of this era was the composition of severalimportant references in jurisprudence and aringadjth This era is known as lsquothe golden era ofIslamic lawrsquo lsquothe era of the flowering of Islamic lawrsquo lsquothe era of Compositionrsquo and lsquotheera of the mujtahiddjn Scholarsrsquo See al-Shhj al-Madkhal pp 86ndash87 This flowering wasfacilitated by several important factors The importance attached generally speaking bythe Abbasid caliphs to knowledge and to the scholars of that time the discovery ofpapyrus (al-kaghid ) in the time of the Umayyad which facilitated the copying of thesources of the different sciences and the appearance of several famous scholarsAl-Ibrhhjm al-Madkhal pp 153ndash154 al-Iumlurayfj Thrjkh pp 86ndash99 In addition to thefour schools of law there were many other schools of law in this period such as those ofal-Zahiris al-Awzhlsquoj al-Layth and others See al-Ddjbhnj al-Madkhal pp 281ndash285al-Zarqh al-Fiqh pp 77ndash78 al-Drlsquohn al-Madkhal p 127 Shalabj al-Madkhalpp 204ndash207 Zaydhn al-Madkhal pp 148ndash151 Aringasshn al-Madkhal p 90 Madkural-Madkhal pp 163ndash166 Contemporary scholars are of the opinion that these schoolsdied out However Ibn Taymiyyah states that several of these schools in factamalgamated with the surviving schools He gives the example of Ibn lsquoUyayynah whose

192

school was incorporated within the schools of Shhfilsquoj and Aaringmad and also mentions thatal-Laythrsquos opinions are usually in agreement with those of Mhlik or al-Thawrj IbnTaymiyyah Fathwh vol 4 p 177 Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that at his time the school ofal-Thawrj was still in existence in Khurashn Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 583 Thisopinion of Ibn Taymiyyah does not appear to have been commonly known by hiscontemporaries This could be why he said lsquoIf it was said Where did you find thisexplanationrsquo then he explained that it is found in the book of the Shhfilsquoj scholar AbuAringhmid al-Aszligfarhrsquoinj entitled lsquoDiwhn al-Sharhilsquo rsquo Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 4 pp 177ndash178There has been a growing interest among contemporary scholars and researchers incollecting and studying the jurisprudential opinions of old eminent scholars Sometimeswhole treatises (consisting often of several volumes) have been devoted to these scholars

5 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 236 Makdisi The Rise p 197 Ibn Salsquod al-Iumlabaqht vol 7 p 237 al-Nashratj al-Imhm p 278 Ibn al-Jawzj al-Manhqib p 319 Iacutehliaring Sirat p 31

10 Al-Aszligbahanj Aringilyat vol 9 p 16411 Al-Nashratj al-Imhm p 2912 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 65 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 p 530 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj

Manhqib p 127 al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 1 p 29213 Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 1 p 292 vol 2 pp 431ndash43214 Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies Abu Yusuf rsquos status when he describes him as being more

knowledgeable than Zufar (d 158775) another student of Abu Aringanifah In addi-tion he states that when Abu Yusuf disagreed with Abu Aringanifah and Muaringammadfollowed him the correct opinion will be found with Abu Yusuf Ibn Taymiyyahattributes this to the fact that Abu Yusuf travelled to al-Aringijhz where he studiedtraditions which were not known in his region He was therefore reported to havesaid lsquoIf my companion (ie Abu Hanifah) knew what I know (ie of traditions) hewould change his ruling as I didrsquo Hence it is clear that Abu Yusuf was a scholar ofjurisprudence who possessed knowledge of the science of aringadjth Ibn TaymiyyahFathwh vol 20 p 304 Also al-Muzanj described Abu Yusuf as demonstratingthe greatest attachment to tradition amongst Ahl al-Rarsquoy Ibn Malsquojn says lsquoThereis none more knowledgeable and trustworthy (athbat) than Abu Yusuf (amongst Ahlal-Rarsquoy)rsquo Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 1 p 293

15 Al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 18816 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 30417 Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 1 p 29318 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 10 p 362 vol 20 p 4019 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 2620 Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 1 p 29321 In one narration on the authority of Aringanbal Aaringmad says lsquoI memorised all that I

heard from Hushaym during his lifersquo Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 2 p 431 al-AszligfahhnjAringilyat vol 9 p 164

22 Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 2 p 431 In al-Iumlabaqht by Ibn Salsquod Hushaym was allegedto have used some types of tadljs Ibn Salsquod Iumlabaqht vol 7 p 227 Tadljs is defined byBurton as

dissembling by giving the impression of being able to report from a personwhom one has not however met or if having met him not heard from himwhat one purports to transmit as being his words It is also used for disguis-ing the name of an informant with the probable intent to mislead Onewho practises tadljs is a mudallis

(Burton An Introduction p 201)

NOTES

193

23 This is according to some narrations of Ibn Aringanbal In others however he states thathe first heard from this scholar in the year 177793 Al-Aszligbahhnj Aringilyat vol 9pp 162ndash164 al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 183 It seems that this difference is notrelated to narrators rather it is related to Aaringmad himself This is because he states inanother narration that he studied under Hushaym in the year 177793 and that hedid not understand ( yalsquoqil ) all that he narrated Thereafter he states that he joinedHushaymrsquos circles later on in the year 179ndash180795ndash796

24 Al-Aszligbahhnj Aringilyat vol 9 pp 162ndash163 al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 18325 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 2926 Iacutehliaring Sirat p 32 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 29 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 3 p 18627 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 144 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal p 27 Ibn Taymiyyah suggests

that the first meeting between these two scholars was the one which took place aroundthe year 198814 See Minhhj vol 7 p 533

28 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal p 31ndash33 Ibn Taymiyyah in his book Minhhj vol 7 p 530533 asserts that Aaringmad studied under Abu Yusuf but he does not believe thatAaringmad was a student of al-Shhfilsquoj He asserts rather that these two scholars werecontemporaries who met ( jalash) and benefited (istafhdh) from each other

29 Al-AszligbahhnjAringilyat vol 9 p 170 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 pp 6 18 al-DhahabjSiyar vol 11 pp 195ndash196 Al-lsquoUlaymj al-Manhaj vol 1 p 130

30 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 631 Al-Aszligbahhnj Aringilyat vol 9 p 170 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 6 al-Dhahabj

Siyar vol 11 p 21332 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib pp 360ndash362 al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 224 Aaringmad was also

asked during the latter part of his life to narrate aringadjth to the Caliph of that time andto his son Aaringmad however vowed not to narrate any aringadjth with its chain to any onebecause of his fears of temptations Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 pp 97ndash98 Ibn AbuYalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 12

33 Ibn Salsquod Iumlabaqht vol 6 p 74 Ibn Aringajar Tahdhjb vol 6 pp 310ndash315 This scholarwas said to have some characteristics of Shilsquoism When Ibn Aringanbal was asked aboutthis he stated that he had not heard from him anything to support this Ibn AringajarTahdhjb vol 6 p 313

34 Al-Aszligbahhnj Aringilyat vol 9 pp 174ndash17535 Iacutehliaring Mashrsquoil vol 1 p 9636 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 33137 Iacutehliaring Sirat p 121 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 549 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 16

Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 7038 Iacutehliaring Sirat pp 48ndash65 al-Suyuƒj Thrjkh pp 328ndash332 Ibn al- Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol

1 p 69 Al-Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar pp 11ndash13 al-Aszligbahhnj Aringilyat vol 9 pp 193ndash207al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 pp 232ndash265 Nimrod Aaringmad pp 198ndash287 Haque lsquoAaringmadIbn Aringanbalrsquo pp 72ndash83 There are some treatises which deal with the Miaringnah forinstance Miaringnat Aaringmad by al-Aringhficopy lsquoAbd al-Ghanj al-Maqdisj

39 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib pp 87ndash8840 Ibid p 9041 Al-Dhahabj Tadhkirat vol 2 p 432 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj in his book entitled Manhqib

(pp 130ndash148) mentions a large number of statements articulated by scholars in praiseof Ibn Aringanbal

42 Introduction of Ikhtilhf al-Fuqahhrsquo by al-Iumlabarj pp 10ndash16 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbalpp 163ndash181 Al-Turkj Uszligul pp 81ndash93 Shalabj al-Madkhal pp 200ndash201 Madkural-Madkhal pp 156ndash157 lsquoAbd al-Qhdir Nacopyrah p 288 Schacht An Introduction p 63Some contemporary writers repeated the same accusation against Aaringmad See forinstance Safiullah lsquoWahhabismrsquo p 80 Schacht remarks lsquofor some time Ibn Aringanbaland his adherents were regarded by the followers of the other schools not as reallsquolawyersrsquo but as mere specialists in traditions Nevertheless the Aringanbaljs became one

NOTES

194

of the recognised schools and although they were never numerous they countedamong their adherents a surprisingly high proportion of first-class scholars inall branches of Islamic learningrsquo Schacht having consulted the books of Mashrsquoilreached the conclusion that Aaringmad was in fact both a jurist and a traditionistMoreover Schacht considers Aaringmadrsquos treatise al-Musnad as the real basis of hisschool of law Schacht Thalhthat Muaringhpartarht p 107 quoted by al-Hhj al-˝hhirah vol 2p 375

43 Al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 21 Shararing Muntahh vol 1p 9 al-Turkj Uszligul pp 83ndash84Aringasshn al-Madkhal p 112 Shalabj al-Madkhal pp 200ndash201

44 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 5 pp 1594ndash1600 al-Mardhwj al-Taaringbjr part 3 vol 2pp 630ndash636 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 577ndash580

45 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 p 428 al-Balsquolj al-Ikhtiyhrht p 64 Also Ibn Mufliaringmentions this narration of Aaringmad in his book al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 534 According to IbnTaymiyyah Aaringmad combined knowledge in the sciences of aringadjth and jurisprudenceSee Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 p 429

46 Ibn Aringajar Tahdhjb al-Tahdhhb vol 1 p 7347 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj Manhqib p 144 Similar statements are narrated also from other

leading scholars see Ibid p 144 14648 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 5849 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Tabaqht vol 1 pp 6ndash7 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 66 Al-Dhahabj

and al-Iumlufj mention that Aaringmad did not believe in composition See al-DhahabjSiyar vol 13 p 522 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 p 626

50 See Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 211ndash21251 It is clear that there are narrations in the Musnad inserted by lsquoAbd Allah Aaringmadrsquos son

It is also widely believed that al-Qaƒjlsquoj added some narrations to the Musnad Thishowever has been proved inaccurate See for details al-Faryawhlsquoj Sheikh al-Islamvol 1 p 545

52 Haque Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal p 6853 This system of arrangement has its own advantages and disadvantages One of its

most serious drawbacks is that it is usually difficult to find a tradition under its sub-ject Ibn al-Bannh tried to solve this defect by compiling his book lsquoAl-Fataring al-Rabbhnirsquoin which he rearranged al-Musnad according to subjects Nevertheless al-Musnadrsquossystem affords the researcher the opportunity to find in one section the sum-total ofnarrations transmitted by a single companion

54 According to Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad did not mean to narrate only what he thoughtto be authentic Rather he wanted to collect what his sheikhs narrated on this issueTherefore it is clear that this book contains correct as well as weak aringadjths Later onlsquoAbd Allah b Aaringmad b Aringanbal and al-Qaƒijlsquoj added to the narrations narratedby Aaringmad in this book Most of the narrations added by al-Qaƒjlsquoj are lies andfabrications See Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 5 p 23 vol 7 pp 97ndash99 223

55 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 p 35256 This book has been referred to by several scholars such as Ibn Abu Yalsquola in his Iumlabaqht

vol 1 p 311 Recently this work has been translated into English57 The book lsquoal-Raddrsquo has been published and the second book lsquoJawhbhtrsquo is mentioned

in several sources such as Ibn al-Jawzj in his Manhqib p 261 and Ibn Abu Yalsquola in hisIumlabaqht vol 1 p 8

58 The first two books have been published and the last two have been mentioned in severalsources such as Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 8 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 261 andIbn al-Qayyim cited the book of Iumlhlsquoat al-Rasul on several occasions in his book Ilsquolhmsee for example vol 2 pp 300ndash304 Al-Dhahabj asserts that the book entitled Kithbal-Iacutealhh was not written by Aaringmad Al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 287 This howeverhas been called into question by the contemporary Aringanbalj scholar Abu Zayd Fordetails see Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 2 pp 617ndash618

NOTES

195

59 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 26360 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 7 Al-Dhahabj in his Siyar mentioned a narration

which states that there were about 5000 people who attended Ibn Aringanbalrsquos studycircles and only less than 500 who were known to write down his lessons Abu Zaydin his book al-Madkhal al-Mufaszligszligal vol 2 p 1211 mentions that the narrators ofAaringmadrsquos fiqh numbered 200

61 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 6662 Al-Thaqafj Mafhtjaring vol 2 pp 353ndash35463 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 114 vol 2 p 17464 Ibid vol 2 p 17465 Ibid al-Thaqafj Mafhtjaring vol 2 pp 353ndash354 In another narration Aaringmadrsquos

disapproval was not because al-Kawsaj used to narrate Aaringmadrsquos mashrsquoil but due to histaking money for narrating them Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 2 p 174

66 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 143 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 366 al-lsquoUlaymjal-Manhaj vol 1 p 245

67 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 14368 Ibn Rajab al-Dhayl vol 1 pp 173ndash176 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 pp 444ndash44569 Ibn Rajab al-Dhayl vol 1 p 173 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 44470 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 212 al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 13 p 8971 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 21372 Ibid p 34573 Ibid vol 1 p 39 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 67374 Al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 11 p 33175 Ibid76 Ibid and Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 5877 Al-Dhahabj Siyar vol 14 p 29878 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 34 pp 111ndash11279 This point will be further elaborated in Chapter 4 when discussing the issue of the

existence of incorrect opinions within the Aringanbalj School80 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 p 498 lsquoAbd al-Qhdir Nacopyrah p 30081 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 p 498 50282 Al-Suyuƒj Aringusn al-Muaringapartarh vol 1 p 480 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal pp 498 504

al-Dusuqj Muqadimah p 21083 Al-Suyuƒj Aringusn al-Muaringapartarh vol 1 p 48084 Ibid p 50685 Musa al-Madkhal p 163 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal pp 406ndash416 al-Iumlurayfj Thrjkh

pp 131ndash134 al-Hazhymh al-Madkhal pp 89ndash90 al-Iumlanƒhwj al-Madkhal p 207Ismhlsquojl al-Tashrjlsquo pp 344ndash345 Abu Zahrah Thrjkh pp 542ndash543 lsquoAbd al-QhdirNacopyrah p 300 al-Dusuqj Muqadimah p 210 Madkur al-Madkhal p 156

86 It seems that this claim was first raised by Ibn Khaldun See Ibn Khaldun al-lsquoIbarvol 1 p 803 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal p 407 Also this same accusation has beenraised by some contemporary writers such as Madkur in his work al-Madkhalpp 156ndash157 Several scholars have however asserted that this claim does not standon solid ground as the books of Aringanbalj jurisprudence are full of the use of inde-pendent reasoning Also Abu Zahrah asserts that it is not an accurate explanation forthe narrow expansion of the Aringanbalj School Abu Zahrah explains that it was thisSchool after all which declared that the door of independent reasoning cannot beclosed Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal p 407 Also see al-Drlsquohn al-Madkhal pp 166ndash168Aringasshn al-Madkhal p 112

87 This accusation is levelled against the school of Aaringmad lsquoIt is a strict schoolrsquo or thatit is lsquothe strictest of the four juristic Schoolsrsquo Al-Drlsquohn al-Madkhal pp 163ndash164Aringasshn al-Madkhal p 112 Madkur al-Madkhal p 156 Abu Zahrah Thrjkh p 505Shalsquobhn al-Tashrjlsquo p 344 Other scholars assert that there is no real basis for this

NOTES

196

accusation and it was only made because of certain facts the main four of which arethe personal life of Aaringmad which was characterised by piety and waralsquo variousfollowers of this School participated in aringisbah their disputes with their opponentsregarding issues of creed the existence of some fanatics among the followers of thisSchool who were involved in attacks on some of their opponents Al-Drlsquohn al-Madkhalpp 164ndash166 Aringasshn al-Madkhal p 112 Abu Zahrah Thrjkh p 505 Some of thosewho describe the Aringanbalj School as strict refer to the strictness in the adherence totextual evidences when delivering juristic verdicts See for instance Shalsquobhn al-Tashrjlsquop 344 This however is problematic as if a researcher goes back to the definition ofjurisprudence in relevant terminology they find that it has been defined in several waysone of which is lsquothe derivation of practical legal rulings from their detailed evidencersquoDetailed evidence consists of textual and rational evidences If no text can be found thenother sources of Islamic law will be implemented and this was employed by AaringmadSome people base their claim concerning the strictness of the Aringanbalj School on certainjuristic verdicts on some minor questions A number of those questions are however notlimited to the Aringanbalj School Yet there is no doubt that there are scattered questions inwhich the Aringanbalj School is in my opinion strict Such strictness is not however attrib-utable to the Aringanbalj juristic sources and principles rather it is by virtue of the Schoolgranting precedence to caution and prudence in those questions

88 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 p 509 al-Dusuqj Muqaddimah pp 210ndash211 al-Iumlanƒawjal-Madkhal p 207 Philips The Evolution of Fiqh pp 86ndash87 Schacht An Introduction toIslamic Law pp 66ndash67 Mush al-Madkhal p 163 Badrhn al-Sharjlsquoah p 212

89 Scholars are in general agreement as to why they were called lsquoMamhlikrsquo which was areference to their original status as slaves Opinions differ however concerning thereason why they were called lsquoAl-Baaringriyyahrsquo Some scholars attribute it to the fact thatthey were transported to the Ayyubirsquos Kingdom over the sea (Baaringr) Another viewis that they lived in an area of land bordering the river Nile which was known aslsquoal-baaringrrsquo The first opinion was adopted by al-Dhahabj though the majority of writershave mentioned the second See Al-Maaringmud Mauqif vol 1 p 104 Lane-Poole TheMohammadan Dynasties p 80 Islahi Economic p 23 Irwin the Middle East in theMiddle Ages pp 3ndash4 18 Ashtor A Social and Economic History of the Near East p 280al-lsquoAbbhdj fj Thrjkh p 82

90 Al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy p 20 Lane-Pool The Mohammadan Dynasties p 80 Ibn Kathjr inal-Bidhyah vol 13 p 201 describes al-Iacutehliaring Ayyub as the isthdh (teacher) of theMamluks There are occasional references to the employment of Mamluks appar-ently of Iranian origin under the Umayyads and early Abbasids in the eighth cen-tury The employment of the Mamluks by the caliphs and by provincial dynasties onlyreally became widespread in the ninth century By this time the overwhelming major-ity of such troops were clearly Turkish in origin They were playing an increasinglyimportant and ultimately a dominant role in the affairs of the Caliphate and the stateswhich succeeded it or seceded from it At the time of the last of the great Ayyubidprinces al-Iacutehliaring Ayyub ruler of Egypt from 1240 and of Damascus from 1245 untilhis death in 1249 the reliance on Turkish Mamluks increased markedly Most ofthe Mamluks purchased by al-Iacutehliaring Ayyub were descendants from a Turkish tribe theKipchak It is said that they had not been employed in significant numbers by anyprevious ruler of Syria or Egypt Al-Iacutehliaring Ayyub also created a new elite corps theBaaringriyyah who were numbered between 800 and 1000 and were composedpredominantly of Kipchak Turks See Irwin the Middle East pp 3ndash5 12 18 AlsoAshtor Asocial and Economic history p 280 Amital-Preiss Mongol p 18 al-lsquoAbbhdj fjThrjkh pp 77ndash78 It is because of this connection between al-Iacutehliaring and Mamluks thatsome sources named this group after him see Holt The Age p 83

91 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 202 and cf to Irwin the Middle East p 26 Holt TheAge p 83 Some researchers debated the point that the Baaringrj Mamlukrsquos era started

NOTES

197

from the year 1250 as they mentioned that not one of the five rulers who held theSultanate between 1250 and 1260 was a Baaringrj Mamluk and two of those rulersopenly opposed the Baaringrj faction Furthermore for the first two years at least therewas a widespread reluctance amongst the former emirs and slaves of al-Iacutehliaring Ayyubto acknowledge that the Ayyubid Sultanate over Egypt had really ended with the mur-der of Turhnshah See Irwin The Middle East in the Middle Ages p 26 Amital-PreissMongol p 17

92 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 25193 Ibid p 248 Also Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 7 p 508 and Amital-Preiss Mongols

pp 26ndash4894 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 261 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 7 p 513 Sourdel

Medieval Islam p 131 al-lsquoAbbhdj f j Thrjkh pp 156ndash157 Amitai-Preiss Mongols p 56There are two interesting points about this caliph discussed in some sources Firstsome sources doubted the relationship of this caliph to the Abbasids For furtherdetails see Al-lsquoAbbhdj fj Thrjkh pp 157ndash158 The second is that several weeks afterthe installation of this caliph he was sent with a relatively small army to free Iraqfrom the hands of the Mongols There have been several attempts to unveil the sultanrsquosmotivation behind this dispatch For a critical study of this point see Amitai-PreissMongols pp 58ndash60 al-lsquoAbbhdj f j Thrjkh pp 159ndash160

95 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 7 p 513 Amital-Preiss Mongols p 63 al-lsquoAbbhdj fjThrjkh pp 161ndash162 Holt The Age p 112 Louist Nacopyariyyht pp 174ndash176

96 This was the caliph al-Mustakfj who was at first imprisoned then placed under housearrest and at the end exiled to Quszlig a city in Egypt till his death 7401339 IbnKathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 191 204

97 For further details of this point see Berkey The Transmission of Knowledge in MedievalCairo This does not mean that the great city of Damascus at that time lost itsimportance as a cultural and educational centre For more details see ChamberlainKnowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus 119ndash1350

98 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah p 12099 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 274

100 Shurh in Islamic law here denotes that the head of state should consult those of soundjudgement concerning problematic issues and have recourse to the people in order toresolve cases of difficulty so as to be safe from mistakes and free of errors SeeAl-Mhwardj al-Aaringkhm al-Sulƒaniyyah p 68 The Prophet was ordered by Allah tofollow this procedure as Allah says in The Qurrsquoan lsquoAnd consult them in the matterand if you have come to a decision then place your trust in Allahrsquo (3153)

101 These taxes were of extreme importance to the Mamluks and at the same time theywere very costly and burdensome to the public This was because the war between theMamluks and Mongols lasted for approximately sixty years For further details of theevents of this era see Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah from vol 13 p 102 to vol 14 p 29Amitai-Preiss Mongols and Mamluks al-lsquoAbbhdj Thrjkh pp 107ndash252

102 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 pp 102ndash103 Ibn al-Athjr al-Khmil vol 12 pp 358ndash359103 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 pp 226ndash230 Amitai-Preiss Mongols pp 15ndash16104 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 pp 248ndash249 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 7 p 508

Amitai-Preiss Mongols pp 26ndash48 The Mongols unintentionally and indirectly helpedcreate the force which was to stop them at lsquoAin Jhlut and was to frustrate their plansto conquer Syria in the succeeding years This occurred as the Mongols attacked thesteppes of southern Russia the Mamluksrsquos land of origin and brought upon most ofthem death slavery and captivity Then they were bought by the Ayyub Sultansespecially by al-Iacutehliaring and later on they became the rulers who were able to stop theMongols Amitai-Preiss Mongols p 18

105 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 356

NOTES

198

106 As it happened between Ibn Taymiyyah and some of the sultans of his time andbetween al-Nawawj and sultan al-˝hhir See Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 93ndash96al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm pp 74ndash75 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 120ndash123

107 Al-lsquoAbbhdj f j Thrjkh pp 119ndash125 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 119ndash120al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy pp 24ndash25

108 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah p 123 al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy p 23 For further details of theera of these two rulers see Holt The Age pp 90ndash98 107ndash119 Amitai-Preiss Mongolspp 49ndash235 al-lsquoAbbhdj Thrjkh pp 145ndash208 223ndash233

109 Musa Ibn Taymiyyah p 35 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 121ndash122 124110 Islahi Economic p 29 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah p 124 Maqrizj and some others

assert that the year 8061403ndash1404 was the one which marked a turning point for theworse with regard to the economic situation of the Mamluk Sultanate David Ayaloncounters that this event should be regarded as only one of the important milestonesin the process of decline He also asserts that the visible roots of this decline wereevident considerably earlier than at the end of the eighthfourteenth centuries to thebeginning of the ninthfifteenth centuries and this decline is also clearly noticeable inthe third reign of Sultan al-Nhszligir Muhammad b Qalaun (709ndash7411309ndash1340) Forfurther details of this point see Ayalon lsquoSome Remarks on the Economic Decline ofthe Mamluk Sultanatersquo pp 108ndash124 in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1993 (16)

111 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 243112 For a clear picture of the political situation of this era see Al-Iacuteafadj al-Whfj vol 7

al-Manhal vol 1 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 and 14 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 1 IbnBarada al-Nujum vol 9 and Amital-Preiss Mongol al-lsquoAbbhdj fj Thrjkh pp 77ndash237During this era a succession of different sultans ruled the country Ibn Kathjral-Bidhyah vol 13 pp 353ndash394 vol 14 pp 3ndash61 al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy pp 22ndash23

113 Islahi Economic p 29114 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 9 pp 9ndash10 Muhammad Sheikh al-Islam pp 39ndash42 Ibn

Taymiyyah in his book al-Manƒiq attributes responsibility to Muslim philosophersfor the existence of some problems in the Islamic sciences including the science ofthe general principles of jurisprudence Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 9 pp 23ndash24He asserts that the leading Imhms in the Arabic and Islamic sciences who compiledtreatises on these subjects before the translation of Greek philosophy did not pay anyattention to philosophy Fathwh vol 9 p 23 He concedes nonetheless that theapproach adopted by the Muslim philosophers is clearer than other philosophersFathwh vol 9 p 15 Furthermore he mentions that although some Muslim philoso-phers produced certain innovations they did contribute to the criticism of philosophyFathwh vol 9 pp 9ndash10

115 Netton Allah Transcendent p 6116 Ibn Khuldun al-lsquoIbar vol 1 pp 802ndash803 806117 Al-Mardhwj mentions that there were some scholars who reached the status of

mujtahid during this era and he gives Ibn Taymiyyah as an example Ibn al-NajjhrShararing al-Kawkab al-Munjr vol 4 pp 569ndash570

118 A similar statement is made by Ridgeon in his unpublished PhD thesis lsquoNothing but theTruthrsquo p 16 in describing the time of lsquoAzjz Nasafj who lived in the thirteenth century

119 Amital-Preiss Mongol pp 1ndash2120 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 270 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 143 There are

two views concerning the reason why Ibn Taymiyyah was called by this name Thefirst Abu rsquol-Barakht b al- Mustanfj the author of the history of Arbela questionedFakhr al-Djn Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos uncle about it He replied

My father or my grandfather I am not sure which made the pilgrimage toMakkah leaving his wife in a state of pregnancy On arriving at Taima alittle girl who came out of a tent attracted his attention and on his return

NOTES

199

to Aringarrhn he found that his wife had lain in of a daughter [sic] Whenthe child was presented to him he exclaimed ya Taimiya ya Taimiya(O the girl of Taima The girl of Taima) Being struck by her resemblanceto the little girl he saw there The child was therefore named Taimiya

(Ibn Khallikanrsquos Biographical Dictionary vol III p 97 and Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2)

The second opinion was that his mother or grandmother was called Taymiyyah and thathe was named after her Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 52 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2Grammatically the attribute to Taima is Tymawayi because the masculine form of therelative adjective derived from Tayma is Taimaui Ibn Khallikanrsquos Biographical Dictionaryvol III pp 97ndash98 There were four places known by the name Aringarrhn as Yhqutal-Aringamawj mentioned in his book Mulsquojam al-Buldhn the first a village in Aringalab thesecond an area in Damascus the third Aringarrhn al-Kubra and al-Sughra two villages inBahrain the fourth a place between al-Raaringa and al-raqah The last one was thebirthplace of Ibn Taymiyyah It is claimed that this city was named after Aringaran theProphet Ibrahimrsquos brother who first built it This city was a famous centre of the SabiansAt the time of the Tartarsrsquo invasion this town was destroyed See Al-Hamadhhnjal-Buldhn p 179 Yaqut Mulsquojam pp 271ndash273 al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 73

121 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 387122 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm pp 18ndash19123 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 143124 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 3 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 54 and Iacuteafi al-Djn al-Qawl

pp 5ndash6 Following the custom of the time Ibn Taymiyyah compiled a mashyakhahthat included forty-one sheikhs and four sheikhht This mashyakhah is narrated byal-Dhahabj see Ibn Taymiyyah al-Arbalsquoun p 61

125 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 388126 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 380127 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Arbalsquoun pp 101127128 Ibid p 121129 Ibid p 73130 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 54 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 54131 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 54 78132 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 5 and the same statement is quoted by Chamberlain

Knowledge p 125133 Ibn Abd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 338 Ibn al-lsquoImhd

Shadharht vol 8 p 143134 Aringarbj Ibn Taymiyyah pp 31ndash32 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah p 437 The subject of

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disciples will be studied in some detail in the chapter dealing withthe influence of this scholar upon Aringanbalj jurists This has been done in order toavoid repetition

135 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 28 pp 67ndash68 180136 Ibid pp 65ndash66 80ndash81 126 241ndash243 306ndash307137 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm pp 69ndash70 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 91ndash99 Ibn Taymiyyah

Fathwh vol 28 pp 410ndash423138 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 17 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 95139 Al-Iacuteafadj al-Whf j vol 7 p 19140 Chamberlain Knowledge p 159141 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 58 Chamberlain Knowledge p 161142 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 70 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 pp 41 85143 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 31 See another example where Ibn Taymiyyah was

consulted about an appointment of a headmaster in Knowledge by Chamberlain p 97144 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm pp 75ndash76

NOTES

200

145 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1 pp 66 68 al-Iacuteafadj al-Whf j vol 7 p 22146 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 1 p 166 al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 74 Little the Historical

p 322 Al-Shawkhnj stated that this alleged accusation was behind his long lastingimprisonment See Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1 p 71

147 Ibn Rajab mentioned that he saw in Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos writing that he was offeredthese positions before the year 6901291 See Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 390

148 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 73149 Ibid pp 74ndash75 Another example is when the deputy of al-Shhm was asked to send

Ibn Taymiyyah to Egypt and he refused The messenger tried to threaten the deputyby claiming that it had come to the knowledge of the political circles in Egypt thatIbn Taymiyyah had prepared to take the deputyrsquos position As a consequence thedeputy agreed to send him to Egypt Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 128 This same accu-sation is said to have been started by Naszligr al-Manbijj who mentioned it to the rulingcircles in Egypt and encouraged them to take action against Ibn Taymiyyah (ibid)

150 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 13 p 374 This event was behind Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos writingof al-Iacutehrim al-Maslul lsquoAlh shhtim al-Rasul (ibid)

151 Al-Aringamawiyyah is one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises on creed It was written as an answerto a question sent to him from Aringamhh a town in Syria See Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 102This book has been published with Majmulsquo al-Fathwh in addition to a separate issue

152 This is the main issue upon which this treatise was based As a consequence variousparts of it contain an affirmation of the creed of al-Salaf and criticism of al-KhalafSee Ibn Taymiyyah al-Aringamawiyyah with Fathwh vol 5 pp 5ndash120

153 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 113ndash114 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 pp 4ndash5154 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 5155 Ibid pp 40ndash42 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 114156 Ibid pp 114ndash115157 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 117158 Al-Whsiƒiyyah is another treatise of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos concerning creed It was written

as a response to a request by a judge from the town of Whsiƒ pertaining to the beliefof the predecessors See Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 118 The treatise was published intwo forms with Fathwh and in separate issues

159 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 117ndash125160 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 266 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 42 and al-Karmj

al-Kawhkib p 130161 Ibid162 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 130 Also Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 266ndash267 and Ibn

Kathjr al- Bidhyah vol 14 p 46163 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 131 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 49164 Ibn Taymiyyah was asked by the sultanrsquos deputy to stay in Egypt for a while in order to

benefit the people by his knowledge according to Ibn Kathjr in al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 50Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj in al-lsquoUqud p 269 and al-Karmj in al-Kawhkib p 131 It appears thatIbn Taymiyyah himself wanted to stay longer after he recognised the advantages of itThis can be understood from the letter Ibn Taymiyyah wrote to his mother (Ibn lsquoAbdal-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 273ndash275) in Damascus in which he apologised for being awayfrom her and in which he explained that this was for the sake of the greater good

165 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 50 and al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 133166 Ibid pp 133ndash135167 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 pp 54ndash55 There were rumours spread abroad that Ibn

Taymiyyah was killed while he was in Alexandria according to al-Karmj inal-Kawhkib p 135

168 Ibid169 Ibid

NOTES

201

170 Al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy p 94171 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 130 Also Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 266ndash267 and Ibn

Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 46172 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 74 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 337ndash341 and Ibn

Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 401173 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 95 106 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 325ndash326 Ibn

Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 401174 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 95175 Ibid176 Ibid pp 135ndash136 148ndash153 and al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 148ndash158 174177 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr p 68 al-Maaringmud Mauqif vol 1 p 174 It appears that Naszligr

al-Manbijj was also responsible for some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos detentions especiallythose in the year 7051305 Furthermore Naszligr al-Manbijj seems to have succeededin convincing some scholars such as the judge Ibn Makhluf to join his campaignagainst Ibn Taymiyyah See Ibn Kathjr in al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 41 and al-Karmj inal-Kawhkib pp 114ndash115 127ndash128 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj in al-lsquoUqud p 204

178 Al-Dhahabj Dhayl Thrjkh p 24179 Iacuteafj al-Djn al-Aringanafj al-Qawl p 8 Ibn Nhszligir al-Shhfilsquoj wrote a treatise entitled

lsquoal-Radd al-Whf jrrsquo in which he criticised and refuted this claim He quoted eighty-sevenscholars who referred to Ibn Taymiyyah as lsquosheikh al-islamrsquo See Ibn Nhszligir al-Raddal-Whf jr pp 57ndash222

180 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd al-Whf jr pp 57ndash265 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 159ndash173 Alsoal-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy p 110

181 Ibid al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 31 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 146182 Ibid p 64183 Ibn Aringhmid Rishlah p 15 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 505184 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2185 Ibid pp 4ndash26186 Ibid p 26187 Al-Bukharj al-Qawl p 7188 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1 pp 64ndash65189 Al-Dhahabj Dhayl pp 23ndash26190 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 23ndash25191 Shayshnj al-Aringhficopy p 61 al-Munajjid in his introduction to Siyar Alsquolhm al-Nubalhrsquo

vol 1 p 21192 Al-Dhahabj Dhayl p 25 Tadhkirah pp 1496ndash1497 al-Dawudj Iumlabaqht p 48193 Shayshnj al-Aringhficopy pp 61ndash63 al-Munjjid in his introduction to Siyar Alsquolhm al-Nubalhrsquo

vol 1 pp 20ndash21194 See for instance al-Dhahabj Dhayl p 27 Tadhkirat p 1497195 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 pp 267ndash268 al-Aringusaynj Dhayl al-lsquoIbar p 148

al-Suyutj Dhayl Tadhkirat pp 347ndash348 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 243al-Asnawj Iumlabaqht vol 1 pp 558ndash559 al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 2 pp 110ndash112al-Nulsquoaymj Thrjkh al-Madhris vol 1 pp 78ndash80 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 3pp 426ndash427 al-Katbj Fawht al-Whf jyyht vol 3 pp 315ndash316 al-Whf j vol 2pp 163ndash168 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd pp 65ndash73 al-Zaraklj al-Alsquolhm vol 6 pp 222ndash223Kaaringhlah Mulsquojam pp 289ndash290

196 Al-Subkj Iumlabaqht vol 9 pp 100ndash124197 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 392ndash393 Also Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 96 Furthermore the

style of this letter is poor and does not reflect al-Dhahabjrsquos method of writing nor hisknowledge of the Arabic language and Rhetoric Also it should be pointed out thatsome writers stated that al-Dhahabjrsquos writing was an easy target for counterfeits andthat this treatise might be one such example See Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 69 (footnote)

NOTES

202

It is interesting to note however that al-Whsiƒj (d 7111311) who was considered tobe one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students and followers refers to the existence of a treatisein which the writer defamed Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Whsiƒj al-Tadhkirat p 40 Theidentity of the writer is not revealed by al-Whsiƒj but through an analytical study ofal-Whsiƒjrsquos book lsquoal-Tadhkirahrsquo one is able to conclude certain facts about the possibleauthor When al-Whsiƒj attempted to explain the motive behind the compilation ofthis treatise he mentioned that one of the reasons could be that the writer of this trea-tise was influenced by his old age (ibid p 41) In another place al-Whsiƒj indicatesthat this treatise was written to criticise Ibn Taymiyyah a scholar who devoted histime to defending Islam at the end of the seventh century (ibid pp 30 40) It can bededuced from these last two points that this treatise was written at the end of the sev-enth century by a writer who was old at that time We can therefore conclude fromthis that the author could not have been al-Dhahabj al-Dhahabj was 28 years oldat the end of the seventh century as he was born in 6731274 In addition even ifwe considered the time of al-Whsiƒjrsquos death in the year 7111311 as the time of thecompilation of this treatise he still could not have been the writer of this treatise ashe was only 38 years old at that time More clues are available through following thediscussion of al-Whsiƒj on this point He points out that people of innovation will begratified when they know that lsquoone of our followers has traduced Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo(ibid p 41) It is clear from this statement that the writer was not one of those whowere considered to be lsquothe people of innovationrsquo but was rather one of those schol-ars who adopted the same line as that of Ibn Taymiyyah If this is true why did hewrite the treatise Al-Whsiƒj surmises that the writer was influenced by either his oldage or by covetousness (ibid p 41)

198 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 114 Little Ibn Taymiyyah p 324199 For instance Judge Jalhl al-Djn al-Aringanaf j (see al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 113) Judge

Ibn Makhluf al-Mhlikj (see al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 115 129) and al-Shhfilsquoj judgeSee al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 149 Also one of his most serious opponents wasal-Subkj See Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Iacutehrim pp 18ndash19

200 An example of this group is Karjm al-Djn al-Ayhkj who was the head of mashyakhatSalsquojd al-Sulsquoadhrsquo in Cairo This Sheikh used to attack Ibn Taymiyyah See Ibn Kathjral-Bidhyah vol 14 p 55

201 AbuHayyhn was a famous scholar in the science of Arabic Language See Ibn Nhszligiral-Radd pp 113ndash114 Al-Aringadjthj obtained her PhD from Cairo University in the year1964 in a study of this scholar as a grammarian and this work was published in 1966

202 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 146203 Al-Zamlikhnj was a famous Shhfilsquoj scholar and judge who died in 7271327 See Ibn

al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 140204 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 55205 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 103 Al-Zamlikhnj wrote two treatises criticising Ibn Taymiyyah

The first lsquoAl-Radd lsquoalh Ibn Taymiyyah fjMasrsquoalat al-˝iyhrahrsquo (criticism of Ibn Taymiyyahabout the issue of visiting graves) The second lsquoAl-Radd lsquoalh Ibn Taymiyyah fj Masrsquoalatal-Iumlalhq (criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah about the issue of divorce) see Ibn al-lsquoImhdShadharht vol 8 p 140

206 Al-Dhahabj Dhayl p 24207 Ibid p 24208 Al-Dhahabj Dhayl Thrjkh p 24209 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 1 pp 156 161ndash162210 Al-Iacuteafadj al-Whf j vol 7 p 18211 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 77212 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 395213 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1 pp 64 70

NOTES

203

214 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 3 p 233215 Ibid p 245216 Ibid pp 245ndash246217 Al-Shaybhnj Awrhq p 11218 Ibid219 Al-Iacuteafadj al-Whfj vol 7 p 18220 Al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm pp 35ndash37221 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1 p 64 al-Iacuteafadj al-Whfj vol p 20 Ibn Rajab Dhayl

vol 2 p 391 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 64ndash72 and al-Nadwj al-Aringhficopy p 284222 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 78 It seems that al-Dhahabj intended to point out the large

number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises without being specific about their exact number Itappears that he was not certain himself as he mentioned differing figures in other placessuch as in Dhayl Thrjkh al-Islam and Dhayl Tadhkirat where he mentioned the number of300 volumes or more and in Dhayl al-lsquoIbar where he mentioned the number of 200 Seeal-Dhahabj Dhayl Thrjkh al-Islam p 23 Dhayl al-lsquoIbar p 84 Dhayl Tadhkirat p 1497

223 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 64ndash66 al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm pp 25ndash28 Ibn al-Qayyim inhis book Asmhrsquo mentions that he did not have knowledge of the exact number of hissheikhrsquos treatises Ibn al-Qayyim Asmhrsquo p 8 Abu lsquoAbd Allah Ibn Rushayyiq or most likelyIbn Taymiyyahrsquos brother asserts that even if Ibn Taymiyyah himself wanted to specifythe exact number of his treatises he could not have done so Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqudp 64 It should be pointed out the ascription of the book Asmhz to Ibn al-Qayyim hasbeen questioned by the editors of al-Jhmilsquo They assert that the author of this work wasIbn Rushayyiq Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos secretary This is also confirmed by the contemporary Aringanbalj scholar Abk Zayd for details see Shams and al-lsquoImran al-Jhmilsquo pp 10 56ndash61

224 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 28 368 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 174 and al-Iacuteafadjal-Whfj vol 7 p 23 In al-Bidhyah we find al-Birzhlj specified the amount of thesetreatises as 60 volumes and 14 bundles of kurasht (booklets) See Ibn Kathjral-Bidhyah vol 14 p 146 Meanwhile Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj narrated from Ibn Rushayqthat these treatises were 14 packets (ruzmah) See Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 28These treatises were taken to Khizhnat al-Kutub al-lsquoHdiliyyah (al-lsquoHdiliyyah library)according to Ibn Kathjr in al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 146 This was not however the abid-ing place of these books as al-Birzhlj stated that the judges and jurists divided themamongst themselves (ibid) It appears that either all of these books or at least some ofthem were taken back from the scholars mentioned earlier and were kept with al-Qazwinj the Shhfilsquoj judge of the time Then they were handed to the next Shhfilsquojjudge al-Subkj (one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents) In the year 7421341 this judgewas ordered by al-Fakhrj the sultanrsquos deputy of the time to return the treatises Aftermuch hesitation the judge handed them to the deputy who in turn handed them toZain al-Djn lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos brother and Ibn al-Qayyim IbnKathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 215 This account differs from what Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdjrelated in his book al-lsquoUqud (p 44) from Ibn Rushayq (d 7491348) that these bookswere not returned presumably Ibn Rushayq was not aware of the recovery of thesebooks Perhaps Ibn Rushayqrsquos statement was made before the restoration of thesetreatises This is probable since Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj the author of al-lsquoUqud died in7441343 and his book must have been written before this date

225 Al-Bazzhr al-A lsquolhm pp 35ndash37226 Ibn Taymiyyah was given the ijhzah (permission) to issue fathwh by Sharaf al-Djn

al-Maqdisj who used to pride himself in this See Ibn Kathjr al-Bidayah vol 13 p 380227 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 321 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 141228 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 327229 Ibid pp 223ndash224 It seems that Ibn Taymiyyah was well known outside al-Shhm to

such an extent that al-Iacuteafadj in al-Whfj declared that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fame outsideal-Shhm was more than his fame in it See al-Iacuteafadj al-Whfj vol 7 p 19

NOTES

204

230 This book was published in 1986231 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Istiqhmah vol 1 p 3232 Ibid pp 6ndash24 Most of the remaining part of the book is devoted to a critique of

al-Rishlah al-Qushairiyyah by al-Qushairj Ibid pp 81ndash473 vol 2 pp 3ndash198 The lastsection of this treatise is devoted to the issue of lsquoaringisbahrsquo (a term that refers to the actof commanding what is good when it is being neglected and forbidding what is badif it is being practised) vol 2 pp 198ndash348

233 Ibn al-Qayyim Asmhrsquo pp 19ndash20234 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 pp 144 145ndash150 Also al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 1

p 64 Al-Iacuteafadj asked him various questions pertaining to Tafsjr and recognised thathe had acquired beneficial knowledge which he had heard from no other scholar norread in any book See al-Iacuteafadj al-Whfj vol 7 pp 20ndash22 Ibn Rajab explained thatbecause of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos extensive knowledge on this subject he was able to crit-icise other interpreters and on occasions refuted some of their opinions SeeIbn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 391 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises include various exampleswhere this scholar criticised the interpreters see for instance Fathwh vol 14pp 48ndash5068ndash69455495 vol 16 pp 18ndash3272ndash73 vol 15 pp 30ndash31 It is worthremembering that Ibn Taymiyyah did not write a complete treatise in interpreting thewhole of the Qurrsquoan See Barakah juhud p 181 When Ibn Taymiyyah was urged todo so by some of his followers he replied that there was no real need for this becausesome Qurrsquoanic verses were either so clear that they required no further interpretationor they had already been adequately explained by other interpreters before himInstead Ibn Taymiyyah agreed to target those verses which were problematic to inter-preters of al-Qurrsquoan who therefore encountered difficulties and disagreed in theirinterpretations of them Ibn Taymiyyah admitted that it was not necessary for himto cover every single verse which may be included in this category as it was possiblefor the readers to understand the remainder by using analogy See Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdjal-lsquoUqud pp 43ndash44 In 1995 an MA thesis was submitted to al-Imhm Universitywhich was an edited version of a treatise entitled (Tafsjr Ayht ashkalat lsquoalh kathir min al-lsquoUlamhrsquo aringatth lh yujad fj ƒhrsquoifah min kutub al-tafsjr fihh alqawl alszligawab bal lh yujad fihh illh mhhuwh khaƒarsquo) (Interpretation of verses were problematic to some of the interpretersto the extent that the correct interpretation of some verses were not found in somecommentaries of al-Qurrsquoan Even worse is the presence of mistakes and inaccuracies)This book was published in 1997

235 This is according to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disciples Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj in al-lsquoUqud p 42 andal-Karmj in al-Kawhkib p 78 Al-Iacuteafadj in his book al-Whf j (vol 7 p 16) quotes atrustworthy person who heard Ibn Taymiyyah declaring that he had studied120 Qurrsquoanic interpretations It appears that there is no conflict between these twonarrations because in Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdjrsquos narration Ibn Taymiyyah stated that he mayhave read about 100 books of tafsjr

236 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 59237 In his biography of Ibn Taymiyyah al-Bazzhr mentioned that he was told that

Ibn Taymiyyah started writing a tafsjr which had it been completed would haveconstituted fifty volumes See al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 23

238 This Tafsjr has been published in ten volumes239 This book lsquoMajmulsquo al-Fathwhrsquo is a collection of various treatises and fathwh by Ibn

Taymiyyah This remarkable work was created by the contemporary Aringanbalj scholarIbn al-Qhsim with the assistance of his son Muhammad In this treatise there are fivevolumes (13ndash17) devoted to the Interpretation of the Qurrsquoan Furthermore variousissues of this science were mentioned in different parts of this treatise

240 Ibn al-Qayyim Asmhrsquo pp 8ndash18241 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 37 and Ibn Rajab in al-Dhayl vol 2 p 404 mention

that this book of Ibn Taymiyyah was in several volumes This book was used by

NOTES

205

several Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Mardhwj in al-Inszlighf and Ibn al-Laaringaringhm in al-Qawhlsquoid See al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 15 Ibn al-Laaringaringhm al-Qawhlsquoid p 45

242 Ibn Taymiyyah Shararing book of purification vol 1 p 59243 Al-Aringasan Introduction to Shararing al-lsquoUmdah book of al-Aringajj vol 1 pp 49ndash50244 For instance see Shararing al-lsquoUmdah The book of Purification pp 62ndash64245 Al-Aringasan Introduction to Shararing al-lsquoUmdah p 54 Most of the parts of Shararing al-lsquoUmdah

by Ibn Taymiyyah have been edited and published and their information is as follows

The book of Purification was edited and submitted as a PhD thesis to the IslamicUniversity of al-Madinah by al-lsquoUƒayshhn in the Academic year 14031983 andwas published by Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn Riyadh in the year 14121991

Part of the book of Iacutealhh was edited by al-Mushayqiaring and published by Dar al-lsquoHszligimah in the year 1997

The book of Fasting was edited by al-Nushayrj and published by Dar al-lsquoHnszlighrjin the year 1996

The book of Aringajj was edited and submitted as a PhD thesis to the University ofal-Imhm Riyadh and was published by Maktabat al-Aringaramjn in the year 1988

246 Al-Aringasan Introduction to Shararing al-lsquoUmdah book of al-Aringajj vol 1 p 67247 Ibid p 5248 The commentary by al-Maqdisj (d 6241227) which was the first known commentary

on al-lsquoUmdah discusses the topics of the original book briefly and the commentary ofIbn lsquoAbd al-Mursquomin (d 7391338) is not known to have survived The firstcommentary (written by al-Maqdisj) has been published several times and the secondcommentary is mentioned by some Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Rajab in his treatiseal-Dhayl vol 2 p 429

249 See for instance Fathwh vol 21 pp 68ndash70 74ndash77 vol 22 pp 95ndash98 100ndash104132ndash134 282 288 327ndash328 342ndash351 370ndash373 vol 23 pp 30ndash33 177ndash187 vol 25pp 41ndash47 49 54ndash55 295ndash297 320ndash328 vol 26 pp 13 14ndash17 97 304ndash305 307vol 27 pp 29ndash35 491ndash494 502ndash504 505ndash511 vol 28 pp 26 179ndash180 181ndash189210ndash213 216 236ndash238 656ndash657 658

250 See for instance Fathwh vol 22 pp 77ndash92 335ndash356 376ndash403 526ndash601 vol 23 pp 5ndash5269ndash84 136ndash173 178ndash209 209ndash218 288ndash309 309ndash327 vol 24 pp 33ndash163223ndash253 vol 25 pp 5ndash41 103ndash114 126ndash202 216ndash259 vol 26 pp 160ndash175 vol 27pp 5ndash19 vol 28 pp 121ndash179 190ndash202

251 Ibn Taymiyyah Public Policy p 11252 Aaringmad in his introduction to Ibn Taymiyyah al-Aringisbah (Public duties in Islam) p 17253 Ibid p 71254 Ibn Aringazm Marhtib pp 19ndash20 Two examples can be given the first is an alleged

consensus which is disputed by Ibn Taymiyyah whereas the second example is provenby Ibn Taymiyyah to have been disputed by Ibn Aringazm himself The first concerns theissue of appointing two rulers to the Muslim Community Ibn Aringazm states that thescholars agreed that it is forbidden to appoint two rulers to the Muslim Community inthe world there being no difference if this was in one place or in different parts Marhtibp 144 Ibn Taymiyyah states that the dispute concerning this point is well knownamongst the mutakallimun He points out that the Karhmiyyah and others adopted theview that it is permissible to do so In addition Ibn Taymiyyah noted that the positionof the leading scholars is that the Muslim Community is either to be in agreement ordisagreement In a state of agreement amongst the Muslim Community the appoint-ment of two rulers is not allowed If however the Muslim Community is divided everypart of the Islamic world appoints only one ruler Thereafter these different parts of theMuslim Community either live in peace with each other or fight each other (for the pur-pose of affirming the concept that there can be no two rulers for the MuslimCommunity at the same time) Ibn Taymiyyah concluded that the advantages of living

NOTES

206

in peace preponderate over warfare which results in serious disadvantages Naqd p 216The second example concerns the issue where a man divorced his wife and did not havewitnesses for that Ibn Aringazm declared that there is no known disagreement amongst thescholars that the divorce is binding Marhtib p 83 Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that IbnAringazm in his book entitled al-Muaringalla preferred the opposing viewpoint to this opinionand denied the existence of a consensus on this point Naqd p 213

255 Ibn Taymiyyah Naqd pp 205ndash206 Ibn Taymiyyah denied the existence of anagreement amongst the scholars concerning the point that whoever contradicts a con-sensus is considered an unbeliever Even al-Nacopycopyhm (d 131748) Ibn Taymiyyahadds was not pronounced an unbeliever although he declared that consensus is nota source of law (ibid p 204)

256 The contribution of every scholar can be identified through the indications left by thewriter of the manuscript If the section starts with the word shaykhunh (our sheikh) thismeans that the following section is written by Ibn Taymiyyah and if the section startswith the words whlid shaykhinh (our shaykhrsquos father) it refers to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos fatherlsquoAbd al-Aringaljm If there is no sign at all at the beginning of a section it means that itis written by al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos grandfather The greater portion of this bookis written by the grandfather and the son

257 Furthermore in different parts of this treatise the writers demonstrate a great abilityto measure issues by the uszligul of the Aringanbalj School and they command an extensiveknowledge of the different narrations of Imhm Aaringmad In the event of contradictionobscurity and ambiguity among these narrations the three scholars and particularlythe grandfather and the son demonstrate a great ability to solve them which occa-sionally results in the criticism of some leading Aringanbalj scholars It is interesting tonote that the opinions of al-Qhpartj Abu Yalsquola were cited in the bulk of the treatisersquosissues It is likely that this is related to Abu Yalsquolarsquos high status in the Aringanbalj Schoolhe was known as the sheikh of the School and was the first Aringanbalj scholar who isknown to have written a complete comprehensive treatise in the science of uszligul al-fiqhAccordingly his views were granted great weight and cited in the sources compiledafter that In al-Musawwadah however the opinions of Abu Yalsquola were primarily citedfor the purpose of study criticism refutation and occasionally for extrapolation

258 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos act of starting with the classification of the two types of analogyindicates the importance of precision when dealing with legal terminology

259 In this book Ibn Taymiyyah as was his custom studied other viewpoints anddetermined the sources upon which they based their opinions Thereafter he clarifiedthe invalidity of these sources and evidences

260 This book also provides an interesting discussion concerning the permissibility offounding an analogy from a ruling claimed to be in opposition to analogy Finally thefact that this book assumes a moderate position towards the issue of analogy isanother point of importance This is because the ˝hhiris oppose analogy while theothers accept it in addition to accepting the possibility of the existence of a conflictbetween text and analogy Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position assumes a middle course as heaccepts analogy and proves that correct analogy cannot be in opposition to text Inthe event that this is found it will necessitate that the conflicting analogy is incorrect

261 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 231262 This is not a rejection by Ibn Taymiyyah of the permissibility of using rarsquoy in legal

ruling See pages 127ndash129 of this work263 See this treatise in Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 9ndash65264 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 106ndash128265 For instance

Qhlsquoidah fi Taszligwjb This essay by Ibn Taymiyyah deals with the issue of whether ornot it is possible for every scholar to determine the correct ruling through the use

NOTES

207

of his own independent reasoning Furthermore if it is not possible and thescholar tries his best to determine the correct ruling but does not is it possiblefor the scholar to commit a sin by rendering an erroneous independent reason-ing Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 203ndash227

Qhlsquoidah fi rsquol-lsquoUlum wa rsquol-llsquotiqhdht Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 129ndash152 Qhlsquoidah fi ajnhs A section on the sources of law without a title Ibn Taymiyyah

Fathwh vol 19 pp 5ndash9 Section dealing with the sufficiency of the message of the Prophet Muhammad

in the law This essay also has no title Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 66ndash76Another similar essay in vol 19 pp 280ndash289

Section concerning the obligation to follow the Qurrsquohn and the sunnah Again thisessay has no title

Section with a similar subject to the last treatise with some other details concerningthe peoplersquos need for the message Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 93ndash105

Section dealing with what is meant by Sharlsquoj knowledge and whether or not itincludes rational evidences Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 228ndash235

Section studying legal terminology and whether they can be understood throughrevelation languages or the custom of the people Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19pp 235ndash260

Section dealing with imitation and contradiction of texts by alleged consensus orthe saying of leading scholars Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 260ndash276

Section dealing with the meaning of the sharlsquoj knowledge (lsquoilm sharlsquoj) IbnTaymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 306ndash311

266 Al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm p 84 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 174ndash175267 Ibid268 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 407

2 A COMPARISON OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OFISLAMIC LAW ACCORDING TO IBN AringANBAL

AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

1 Al-Rhzj al-Maaringszligul vol 1 p 94 The translation of this definition is in Uszligul al-Fiqhal-Islami by al-lsquoAlwhnj p 1

2 Al-lsquoAlwhnj Uszligul p 1 Uszligul al fiqh is similar to uszligul al-qhnun of secular law in thatboth are concerned with the methodology of the law and rules of deduction andinterpretation Kamhli Principles p 6

3 Ibn al-Jawzj al-Manhqib p 244 In the Mashrsquoil of lsquoAbd Allah vol 3 p 1355 there isa narration in which Aaringmad states that Allah mentions the obedience of the Prophetin upwards of thirty (nayyf wa thalhthjn) places in the Qurrsquoan

4 Abu Dawud Mashrsquoil p 276 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 256ndash2575 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 616 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 2447 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 3408 Ibn al-Jawzj Manhqib p 2449 Ibid Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 85

10 Ibn al-Jawzj al-Manhqib p 244 Ibn Badrhn in his book al-Madkhal p 85 mentionsthis methodology as a narration by al-Athram from Aaringmad This however seems tobe inaccurate as Ibn Badrhn clarifies that the reference from which he took thisnarration is al-Manhqib by Ibn al-Jawzj Having referred to the published edition ofal-Manhqib it is clear that Ibn al-Jawzj narrated from al-Athram and then separatelycited al-Athram mentioning his own experience with regard to the methodologyemployed by Aaringmad in legal rulings

NOTES

208

11 Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 612 See the biography of this scholar in the following sources Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2

p 290 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 386 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 41713 Ibn Tamjm Muqaddimah with Ibn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqhƒ vol 2 pp 283ndash28514 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 pp 59ndash64 Ibn Badrhn in his book al-Madkhal

pp 113ndash119 mentions these same general principles and it is clear as is attested to bythe bookrsquos editor that he based his discussion of this issue on Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos discus-sion in Ilsquolhm Also most contemporary writers when they mention Aaringmadrsquos generalprinciples of jurisprudence they rely on the study of Ibn al-Qayyim on this issueFor examples see Mush al-Madkhal p 161 Abu Zahrah Ibn Aringanbal pp 215ndash217al-Hazhymah al-Madkhal p 89 al-Iumlanƒhwj al-Madkhal pp 203ndash204 Ismhlsquojlal-Tashrjlsquo pp 343ndash344 Abu Zahrah Thrjkh pp 491ndash493 Madkur al-Madkhal p 157Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 pp 152ndash156 al-Ddjbhnj al-Madkhal pp 268ndash269al-Darlsquohn al-Madkhal pp 161ndash163 Shalabj al-Madkhal pp 202ndash203 Sharf al-DjnThrjkh p 194Aringasshn al-Madkhal pp 109ndash111 Philips The Evolution of Fiqh pp 85ndash86

15 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 1 p 616 Abu Yalsquola (in his book al-lsquoUddah vol 2 p 582) seems to agree with this view as he

comments on a narration from Aaringmad in which he says lsquoknowledge is found in thewords of the Prophet and then his companions and then their followersrsquo Abu Yalsquolacomments that Aaringmad said this because he felt that most of their opinions are basedon revelation

17 Kamali Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence p 17618 Ibid p 16919 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 pp 145ndash146 al-Iumlufj Shararing al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 820 Abu Zahrah in his treatise Thrjkh al-Tashrjlsquo p 493 concludes that Aaringmadrsquos sources

as mentioned by some Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim go back to thefollowing main sources texts opinions of companions (and possibly opinions ofthe followers) and analogy

21 Al-Shhfilsquoj al-Rishlah p 288 This also has been mentioned by Abu Zahrah Thrjkhp 493 This view however has been criticised by several eminent scholars suchas al-Ghazhlj al-Iumlufj and al-lsquoUmarj See al-Ghazhlj al-Mustaszligfh vol 2 pp 279ndash280al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 p 224 al-lsquoUmarj al-Ijtihhd pp 29ndash33 Having said that it canbe suggested that this word lsquoqiyhsrsquo came through two stages At first it was used as abroad term to include analogy and other sources based on the use of independentreasoning Later it was used solely for the source of analogy

22 For the position of the Aringanbalj scholars with regard to istiszligaringhb see Abu Yalsquolaal-lsquoUddah vol 4 pp 1262ndash1272 al-Mashrsquoil pp 84ndash85 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjdvol 4 pp 251ndash294 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 pp 320ndash324 hl-Taymiyyahal-Musawwadah pp 488ndash490 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 147ndash168 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhalpp 286ndash287

23 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 2 pp 411ndash42524 Ibid vol 1 p 100 vol 2 pp 411ndash41225 Al-Iumlufj Shararing al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 826 Another possible reason why Ibn Qudhmah did not mention analogy among the

agreed upon sources is that there is disagreement among scholars with regard to thenature of analogy is it literal in al-tamthjl (cast in the form of analogy) and metaphoricalin al-shumul (categorical syllogism) or vice versa or literal in both The opinion of themajority of scholars is the last The second opinion is held by Ibn Aringazm The firstopinion is held by two leading scholars namely al-Ghazhlj and Ibn QudhmahFor further details of this disagreement among scholars see Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 9 p 259

27 For the sources indicating that Ibn Taymiyyah implemented the same sources asthose of Ibn Aringanbal see for instance Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 376 378 411

NOTES

209

al-Manszligur Uszligul al-Fiqh vol 2 p 669 al-lsquoUƒayshhn Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah pp 51Mush Ibn Taymiyyah p 165

28 For the sources that labelled Ibn Taymiyyah as Aringanbalj see for instance LaoustNacopyariyyht p 122 Schacht An Introduction pp 63 66 72 81

29 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 380 383 394 411ndash42430 Al-lsquoUƒayshhn Manhaj pp 51ndash7431 Ibid pp 89ndash9132 Al-Manszligur Uszligul al-Fiqh vol 1 pp 190ndash20033 Sulaiman al-Fikr al-Fiqhj p 2234 Ibid35 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 4 p 17036 Ibid vol 20 p 29 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid p 7 Fathwh vol 10 pp 263ndash264

Mukhthrht p 3 Rashrsquoil vol 3 pp 336ndash337 40137 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 22938 Ibid vol 20 p 2939 Ibid vol 20 p 33040 Ibid vol 4 p 16641 Ibid vol 20 pp 229ndash23042 Ibid vol 20 pp 328 331 33243 Ibid vol 20 p 29444 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 294ndash295 See this aringadjth in al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring

vol iii pp 497ndash498 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol iv pp 1345ndash134745 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 29946 Ibid pp 301ndash30247 Ibid vol 20 pp 312ndash31348 Ibid pp 314ndash31549 Ibid vol 20 p 33050 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 23 p 398 vol 4 pp 177ndash17851 Ibid pp 309ndash31052 Ibid p 31053 Ibid54 Ibid pp 316ndash31755 Ibid p 33256 Ibid p 329 This narration is also mentioned by lsquoAbd Allah b Aaringmad in his Mashrsquoil

p 27557 Ibid p 33058 Ibid p 31959 Ibid p 32060 Ibid pp 320ndash32161 This can be seen throughout Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos book al-Qawhlsquoid62 Ibid p 29163 Ibid p 29264 Ibid p 29365 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 966 Ibid vol 11 pp 339ndash34467 Ibid vol 19 p 568 Ibid vol 10 p 473 vol 13 pp 68ndash70 vol 19 pp 271ndash27269 Ibid vol 19 p 770 Ibid vol 20 p 16471 Ibid vol 20 p 57372 Ibid p 58373 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 3 p 285

NOTES

210

74 For further clarification and discussion of this issue see the section entitled lsquoThe useof partalsquojf and mursal aringadjth by Ibn Aringanbalrsquo in Chapter 3 of this work

75 For further details see ibid76 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 35177 Al-Turkj in his book Uszligul Madhhab Aaringmad (p 428) asserts that istiszligaringhb is one of the

various ways through which the sources of law can be implemented Also IbnSalhmah in his book al-Tarsquosjs (vol 2 p 145) states that to consider istiszligaringhb as anindependent source of law exceeds the bounds of what is acceptable (tajhwuz lsquoAcopyjm)as istiszligaringhb in fact is dependent on textual evidences

78 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 11 pp 344ndash34579 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid p 7 Fathwh vol 10 pp 263ndash264 Mukhthrht p 3 Rashrsquoil

vol 3 pp 336ndash337 40180 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 pp 428ndash42981 Abu Zahrah Ibn Taymiyyah pp 379ndash384 al-Manszligur Uszligul vol 1 pp 242ndash24382 For further elaboration on the reasons for the existence of incorrect opinions within

the Aringanbalj School from Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos perspective see the section entitledlsquoIncorrect (ghalaƒ) Rulings in Aringanbalj fiqhrsquo in Chapter 4 of this work

83 Ibn Khuldun al-lsquoIbar vol 1 pp 802ndash803 806 al-Shhj al-Madkhal p 118al-Hazhymah al-Madkhal pp 100ndash101 Ghanhym fi rsquol-Tashrilsquo p 47 al-AringuszligarjThrjkh pp 225ndash226 Shalabj al-Madkhal pp 138ndash139 al-Ibrahjm al-Madkhal p 179Zaydhn al-Madkhal p 126

84 Al-Shhj al-Madkhal p 119 al-Hazhymah al-Madkhal p 101 Ghanhym fi rsquol-Tashrilsquop 49 al-Aringuszligarj Thrjkh p 226 Shalabj al-Madkhal p 141 al-Ibrhhjm al-Madkhal p 179Zaydhn al-Madkhal p 126 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab al-Munjr vol 4 pp 569ndash570

85 Al-Shhj al-Madkhal p 118 al-Hazhymah al-Madkhal p 101 Ghanhym fi rsquol-Tashrilsquop 47 al-Aringuszligarj Thrjkh p 226 Shalabj al-Madkhal p 141 al-Ibrhhjm al-Madkhalp 179 Zaydhn al-Madkhal p 144

86 Muhammad Shiekh al-Islam pp 42ndash4387 For further details on educational life in Cairo in the Baaringrite Mamluk era see Berkley

Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo88 Al-Iacutehliaringiyyah was part of Damascus then it became a separate town after the immi-

gration of al-Maqhdisah to it This town had a huge number of learning centreswhich were affiliated to the four schools of law Some of these centres specialised invarious subjects of knowledge such as Dur al-Qurrsquoan for teaching the science ofQurrsquoan and Dur al-Aringadjth for teaching the science of Aringadjth For more details ofthe history of al-Iacutealiaringiyyah its schools and its scholars see Ibn Iumlulun Thrjkhal-Iacutehliaringiyyah

89 Al-Nulsquoaymj Thrjkh al-Madhris vol 1 p 129 to vol 2 pp 29ndash126 It is worth men-tioning that it has been the custom amongst contemporary writers to refer to this bookby this name and to attribute it to al-Nulsquoaymj This appears to be inaccurate how-ever as al-Nulsquoaymj did not write his own Thrjkh but gave permission to one of his stu-dents to write down this treatise as mentioned in the preface of the book (vol 1 p 3 andalso see the editorrsquos introduction to Thrjkh al-Madhris) Only an abridged form of thesheikhrsquos book was eventually issued The author is anonymous but from the prefaceof the book it appears that he had a Shhfilsquoj background See al-Nulsquoaymj Thrjkhal-Madhris vol 1 p 3

90 For more details on the institutions affiliated to the four schools of law seeal-Nulsquoaymj Thrjkh al-Madhris (Shhfilsquoj vol 1 pp 129ndash472 Aringanafj vol 1 pp 473ndash650Mhlikj vol 2 pp 3ndash28 and Aringanbalj vol 2 pp 29ndash126)

91 In this era great attention was given to libraries within the political circles Forinstance it was reported that king al-Muarsquoyyad collected more than 100000 books inhis own library Ibn Barada al-Nujum vol 9 p 253

NOTES

211

92 For sources on the classification of scholars see hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwdahpp 546ndash550 Ibn al-Salharing Adab pp 21ndash38 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 12 pp 258ndash265Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab vol 4 pp 468ndash471 al-Nawawj al-Majmulsquo vol 1pp 75ndash77

93 Ibn al-Qayyim al-Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 266ndash268 Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos classification of mujtahidshas been used here for several reasons one of which is that he was the student of IbnTaymiyyah and therefore his classification represents the time of Ibn Taymiyyah

94 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud pp 4 2495 This can be supported by the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah himself in his treatise al-Fathwh

(vol 26 p 98) mentions that he wrote a book on aringajj in which he admitted followingand imitating other scholars which he subsequently rejected because it came to hisknowledge that these opinions were in contradiction with the sunnah of the Prophet

96 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2597 Ibid p 12 Ibn al-lsquoImad Shadharht vol 8 p 147 There were various scholars

who agreed with this description of Ibn Taymiyyah as a mujtahid For further detailssee Ibid

98 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2499 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 389 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 144

100 The scholars have differed about the extent of knowledge needed for an absolutemujtahid The scholars have agreed that the absolute mujtahid must be knowledgeableof the Qurrsquoan and its sciences This comprised several points including the abilityto interpret the legal verses of the Qurrsquoan the reasons for their revelation knowingthe abrogating and abrogated verses their general and specific meanings They how-ever disagreed about other details related to this condition such as whether a mujtahidmust have knowledge of the entire Qurrsquoan or not Some were of the opinion that amujtahid needs only to have knowledge of the legal verses while others assert that heshould have knowledge of the meaning of the entire Qurrsquoan They also disagreedover whether he is required to memorise the entire Qurrsquoan or not With regard tothe knowledge of aringadjth this includes several points such as knowing the meanings ofaringadjth their terminology and the authenticity of their chains Hethlain Ifthrsquopp 164ndash169 Also see al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 577ndash584 Ibn Qudhmah Rawpartahvol 2 pp 345ndash349 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 5 pp 1594ndash1600 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhbal-Tamhjd vol 4 pp 390ndash393 al-lsquoUmarj al-Ijtihhd pp 57ndash117

101 This statement will be further elaborated on and supported by examples later on inthis chapter

102 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 3103 Ibid p 7104 Ibid pp 7ndash8105 See the section entitled lsquoThe existence of metaphor within the Arabic Languagersquo in

Chapter 3 of this work106 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 146107 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 2 p 239 Compare this with Schacht who states that Ibn

Taymiyyah did not claim ijtihhd for himself Schacht An Introduction p 72 It seemsthat Ibn Taymiyyah was acting as a muaringtasib upon those who gave legal rulingswithout having the legal tools for ijtihhd They would ask indignantly whether it wasthe government that had placed him as a muaringtasib over them He would retort thatseeing there were muaringtasibs for bakers and food supplies it was only appropriate thatthere be one for the issuing of Fathwh See Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 4 p 272

108 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 26 p 98109 See pp 46ndash47 It should be pointed out here that Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned opinions

in this book which he later on retracted See for instance Kithb al-Iumlahhrah pp 62 7784ndash85 114 221 516

NOTES

212

110 The majority of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos surviving fathwh are products of the final stage inhis career Although some fathwh issued in the middle stage are clearly extant Thismay be observed by the contradictory nature of some of the fathwh found in thetreatises devoted to this field See for instance Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21pp 41ndash43 and compare to Fathwh vol 21 p 35

111 See for instance al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 12 p 259 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1p 479 Al-Mardhwj asserts that the fathwh and treatises of Ibn Taymiyyah testify tothe correctness of the claim that he was an absolute mujtahid

112 Several scholars and writers mention that Ibn Taymiyyah was an absolute dependentmujtahid while some describe him as an affiliated mujtahid See for example al-Shhjal-Madkhal 205 Zaydhn al-Madkhal p 144 Muhfj Taysjr vol 1 p 117

113 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 547 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 12 p 260 al-lsquoAmrjal-Ijtihhd p 176 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 1 p 480

114 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 147ndash148115 Ibid p 436 Ibn Aringamdhn mentions that Abu Yalsquola declared himself to be an

absolute dependent mujtahid See al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 12 p 260116 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 4 p 267117 Little Donald lsquoThe historical and historiographical significance of the detention of

Ibn Taymiyyarsquo p 317

3 RE-LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS IBN TAYMIYYAH AND AringANBALI UIacuteUL

1 Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the sunnah was stronger and clearer before the building ofschools in the Islamic world an activity which started during the fourthndashfifthcenturies See Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 4 p 129 Fathwh vol 35 p 41

2 Ibn Taymiyyah in Fathwh vol 20 p 1863 Ibid vol 32 p 135 In addition on certain issues Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that the

reason for Ibn Hanbalrsquos inaccurate rulings is that he based them upon incorrectaringadjths which he assumed were authentic whereas in fact they were not See IbnTaymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 497

4 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 2295 Ibid vol 34 pp 111ndash1126 For instance see Ibid vol 34 p 1117 Ibid vol 24 pp 50 1048 For examples see al-Musawwadah pp 181 183 188 236 264 268 327 4219 For examples see ibid pp 195

10 For examples see ibid pp 243ndash24411 For examples see ibid pp 9 232 Fathwh vol 20 p 453 Majmulsquoat vol 2 p 41212 For examples of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb see Ibn al-Najjhr

Shararing vol 4 p 673 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 19113 For examples of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of Ibn lsquoAqjl see hl-Taymiyyah

al-Musawwadah pp 201ndash202 Majmulsquoat vol 2 p 412 Fathwh vol 17 pp 59 51314 For examples see al-Musawwadah p 40815 See for examples Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 1 pp 434ndash435 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7

p 270 vol 8 pp 88 200 303 38216 See for example Fathwh vol 22 pp 292 621 vol 23 p 28117 Al-Hmidj al-Iaringkhm vol 1 p 16818 For references to the discussions and disagreements of the scholars on these points

see for example Abd Rahim The concept of ijmhlsquo p 92 al-Ibrhhim al-Madkhalpp 50ndash52 Badrhn Uszligul pp 111ndash113 Zaydhn al-Wajjz pp 179ndash182 Salhmah al-Tarsquosjsvol 1 p 131 al-Turkj Uszligul pp 347ndash348 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 6ndash7 Abu Yarsquolaal-lsquoUddah vol 4 pp 1057ndash1058 Abu lsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 224ndash357

NOTES

213

19 See these narrations in the following sources Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4pp 1059ndash1060 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 315ndash316 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrhvol 6 p 286 lsquoAbd Allah al-Mashrsquoil pp 438ndash439 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3p 247 al-Jurhlsquoj Shararing Mukhtaszligar vol 2 pp 460ndash461 al-Mardhwj al-Taaringbjr part 3vol 1 p 8 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab vol 2 p 213

20 For examples see hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 316 Fathwh vol 23 p 284 AbuYalsquola al-lsquoUddah pp 1060ndash1061 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-lsquoUddah vol 3 p 249

21 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah p 27622 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4 p 106023 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 248ndash24924 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 267ndash268 With Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos clear division of

consensus as a source of law into two types it is surprising that some writers (see forinstance Safiullah Wahhabism p 73) referred to only one of these two types

25 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 316 Al-Turkj in Uszligul al-Imam Aaringmad p 359 thinksthat this understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah to Aaringmadrsquos position is weakened by the factthat the evidences testifying to the authority of consensus are applicable to all time inthe absence of evidence confining this authority to the time of the companions

26 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 31627 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 316 Al-Jurhlsquoj Shararing Mukhtaszligar vol 2 p 46228 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 268 Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that Aaringmad rejects

tacit consensus when it is claimed by those who have no knowledge of the agreementand disagreement of the scholars See Ilsquolhm vol 2 pp 245ndash246

29 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 3 pp 938ndash944 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 p 123 Ibnal-Jawzj al-Manhqib p 244 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 61

30 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 3 p 94131 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb vol 3 p 123 It appears that Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb is following the opinion

of his Sheikh Abu Yalsquola in this issue See al-lsquoUddah vol 3 p 94132 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 pp 34 19633 Ibid vol 7 p 19534 Ibid vol 8 p 11035 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 18 pp 23ndash25 Minhhj vol 4 pp 341ndash34236 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 p 52 As Ibn Taymiyyah observes (Minhhj vol 7 p 223)

this does not mean that there are no weak aringad jth in Aaringmadrsquos narrations within theMusnad According to Ibn Taymiyyah (Minhhj vol 7 p 53) Aaringmad occasionallynarrated weak aringad jths because there are other narrations which corroborate theircorrectness or weakness

37 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 4 p 34138 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 61 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 116 al-Turkj Uszligul

pp 295ndash296 Ibn al-Qayyim (Ilsquolhm vol 1 p 61) asserts that generally speaking theImams agree with Aaringmad in giving precedence to the weak aringadjth over analogy Forexamples of issues where Abu Aringanifah Malik and al-Shhfilsquoj gave precedence to weakaringadjth over the use of analogy see Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 pp 61ndash62

39 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 10 pp 408ndash40940 Ibid this stance of Ibn Taymiyyah has also been cited by some Aringanbalj scholars

such as Ibn Mufliaring in al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 568ndash56941 Al-Madkhalj Taqsim al-Hadith ila szligaaringjaring wa aringasan wa partalsquojf For further details of the grad-

ing of Aringad jth see Azami Studies in Aringad jth Methodology and Literature pp 61ndash6742 The Aringanbalj sources mention that there are two narrations from Ibn Aringanbal on the

use of the mursal aringad jth as a source of law The first is that it is a source of law In thesecond Aaringmad accepts mursal aringadjth if it is supported by the opinion of the majorityof scholars and the apparent meaning of the Qurrsquoanic text Abu Aringanifah and Malikagree with the first narration whereas all other scholars agree with the secondSee Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 131ndash146 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1

NOTES

214

pp 267ndash269 Ibn Badrhn Nuzhat vol 1 pp 267ndash268 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 32p 189 Some Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring in his book UszliguI vol 2 p 636and Ibn al-Najjhr in Shararing al-Kawkab vol 2 p 577 mentions that one of the twonarrations of Aaringmad on this issue is that he rejects the mursal aringadjth

43 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 7 p 435 Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that one type of mursalaringadjth that is definitely acceptable is the mursal aringadjth which is narrated through somany chains of narrators that they could not reasonably have conspired to tell a lieIbn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 13 pp 347ndash348

44 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 2 p 21345 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 3 pp 917ndash920 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 pp 143ndash144hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 251 Ibn Mufliaring Uszligul vol 2 pp 633ndash634

46 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 251ndash252 Ibn Mufliaring in his book Uszligul al-Fiqh vol 2 pp 634ndash635 mentions this criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah to Aringanbaljscholars

47 Al-Ghazhlj al-Mustaszlig fh vol 1 pp 677ndash680 al-Anshrj Fawhtiaring vol 1 pp 270ndash278al-Bukharj Kashf vol 1 pp 61ndash65 Ibn Aringabjb Mukhtaszligar p 11 al-Juwaynj al-Waraqhtp 29 al-Qarhfj Mukhtaszligar Tanqjaring p 43 Shararing Tanqiaring pp 42ndash50 al-Shirhzj al-Lumalsquop 9 al-Zarkashj Salhsil pp 173ndash192 Ibn Juzayy Taqrjb p 73 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Salhmal-Imhm pp 235ndash273 al-Aszligfahhnj Shararing al-Minhhj vol 1 pp 225ndash227 al-Khabbhzjal-Mughnj p 131 al-Sarkhasj Uszligul vol 1 pp 170ndash171 al-Zarkashj al-Baaringr al-Muaringjƒvol 2 pp 178 184ndash189 al-Shhshj Uszligul p 42 For some other works on majhzBG Weiss lsquoMedieval Muslim Discussions of the Origin of Languagersquo Zeitschrift derdeutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft Wiesbaden (1974 125) pp 33ndash41H Loucel lsquoLrsquoOrigine du langage drsquoapregraves les grammairiens arabesrsquo Arabica (1963 10)pp 188ndash208 and pp 253ndash281 Arabica 11 (1964) pp 57ndash72 and pp 157ndash187M Shah lsquoThe Philological Endeavours of the Early Arabic Linguists TheologicalImplications of the tawqif-istilah Antithesis and the majaz Controversy (Parts I andII)rsquo Journal of Quranic Studies 11 (1999) pp 27ndash46 and 21 (2000) pp 44ndash66R Arnaldez Grammaire et theacuteologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue (Paris 1956) W HeinrichslsquoOn the Genesis of the Haqıqa-Majaz Dichotomyrsquo Studia Islamica (198459)pp 111ndash140 W Heinrichs lsquoContacts between scriptural hermeneutics and literarytheory in Islam the case of majazrsquo Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen WissenschaftenMajallat Tarikh al-lsquoUlum al-lsquoArabiya wa lsquol-Islamiyano 7 pp 253ndash284 1992

48 Ibn lsquoAqjl al-Whpartiaring vol 1 p 112 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 1 pp 172ndash174 al-Mashrsquoilp 48 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 1 p 249 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 p 150hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 164ndash170 173 Ibn Mufliaring Uszligul vol 1 p 100al-Jurhlsquoj ShararingMukhtaszligar vol 1 p 163 al-Mardhwj al-Taaringbjr part 1 vol 1 p 341 Ibnal-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab vol 1 pp 149ndash156 191 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 1 p 484 Iacuteafjal-Djn Qawhlsquoid p 36 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal pp 173ndash174

49 Some individuals said that the majority of the scholars divided the language into twoparts See for examples Ibn Mufliaring UszliguI vol 1 p 100 al-Mardhwj al-Taaringbjr part 1vol 1 p 341 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab vol 1 p 191 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 1 p 532Others such as Abu Yalsquola seem to claim the existence of consensus among scholarson this issue hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 170

50 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 7 p 88 vol 20 pp 400ndash401 When Ibn Taymiyyahmakes reference to the Predecessors and their acquaintance with the science of uszligulhe does not mean that they were aware of the details of this science as it later becameunderstood nor as it later became systemised in the treatises pertaining to the principlesof jurisprudence It would appear that he is referring to their practise of issuing fathwhand ijtihhd according to the sources of Islamic law and not to any adoption of thetechnical terms of this science Similarly many rules and regulations of the Arabiclanguage found in reference books are not known by the greater portion of native

NOTES

215

speakers On the whole however these rules and details were derived from the speechof these people

There have been several claims in relation to the identity of the first scholar to writeon the subject of uszligul al-fiqh The Aringanafis claim that Abu Aringanifah Abu Yusuf and Ibnal-Aringasan were the first to write on this subject The Shhfilsquojsrsquo claim that their Imamwas first It appears that the Shhfilsquojsrsquo claim is the correct one for several reasons twoof which are the following First the treatise of al-Shhfilsquoj is extant unlike the allegedtreatises of the three Aringanafj scholars Second some scholars assert that Abu Yusuf andIbn al-Aringasan wrote treatises concerning the issues on which Abu Aringanifah gave rulingswhich were then mistakenly assumed by some Aringanafj scholars to be the books of uszligulThe fact that al-Shhfilsquoj was the first individual to write on this subject does not meanthat scholars prior to him did not use this science See Abu Sulayman al-Fikrpp 60ndash66 Ismhlsquojl Uszligul pp 20ndash30 al-Ibrhhjm al-Madkhal pp 18ndash21

51 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 400ndash40152 Ibid vol 20 pp 403ndash40453 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 84 Fathwh vol 7 p 88 vol 20 p 40354 Ibn Taymiyyah vol 20 p 40255 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 84 Fathwh vol 20 pp 75 402ndash40356 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 7 p 88 vol 20 pp 403ndash40457 Ibid vol 20 p 40458 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 84 Fathwh vol 20 p 40459 Ibid60 Ibn Taymiyyah Iqtiparthrsquo vol 2 p 583 Fathwh vol 20 p 45361 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 2 pp 695ndash706 al-Masarsquoil pp 48ndash49 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb

al-Tamhjd vol 2 p 273 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 p 150 hl-Taymiyyahal-Musawwadah pp 164ndash174 al-Ghazhlj al-Mustaszlig fh vol 1 pp 677ndash680 Ibn MufliaringUszligul vol 1 p 102 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 1 pp 532ndash537 al-Jurhlsquoj Shararing Mukhtaszligar vol 1p 166 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal pp 173ndash186

62 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 2 pp 239ndash240 Ibn Mufliaring Uszligul vol 1 p 103 al-IumlufjShararing vol 1 pp 517ndash518 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 405ndash407 Ibn al-NajjhrShararing al-Kawkab vol 1 p 191

63 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 407ndash40864 Ibid p 40865 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 86 Fathwh vol 20 p 40866 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 87 Fathwh vol 20 pp 408ndash40967 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 40968 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 95 Fathwh vol 20 pp 409ndash41069 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 409ndash41070 Ibid vol 20 p 43171 Ibid p 44972 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 2 p 265 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh p 45173 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Imhn p 84 Fathwh vol 20 p 45174 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 45175 Aaringmad did mention the term lsquometaphorrsquo in his book al-Radd lsquoala al-Jahmiyyah when

he mentioned the use of naaringnu (we) by a single important person instead of anh (I)lsquohhdhh min majhz al-lughahrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah was aware of this statement and relates itin his treatise al-Imhn (p 84) His explanation of this statement has however variedin his Fathwh (vol 20 p 451) he states that Aaringmad did not explain what he meant bythat term and Ibn Taymiyyah offers no explanation of his own in al-Imhn (p 85) hestates that some scholars declare that what Aaringmad meant by the word majhz is thatthe use of lsquowersquo instead of lsquoIrsquo by a single important person is jhrsquoiz (permissible) and notstrictly speaking lsquometaphorrsquo Also Abu Yalsquola in al-Mashrsquoil (p 48) refers to two incidents

NOTES

216

where Aaringmad was reported to refer to the existence of metaphor in the language Itshould be pointed out that whereas Aaringmad is reported to have said lsquohhdhh min majhzal-lughahrsquo in another narration however he uses the phrase lsquohhdhh min jhaz al-lughahrsquoThis last statement supports Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos explanation that what Aaringmad meant isthat these linguistic usages are permitted in the language as literal usage and not as ametaphor

76 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 451ndash452 al-Imhn p 8477 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 452 al-Imhn p 9278 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 184 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 454 al-Imhn p 8579 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 437ndash438 454ndash462 We find that some Aringanbalj

scholars allude briefly to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position on metaphor See for instanceal-Jurhlsquoj Shararing Mukhtaszligar vol 1 pp 164ndash166 al-Mardhwj al-Taaringbjr part 1 vol 1pp 341ndash342

80 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 204ndash211 The scholars of uszligul hold variousopinions on this issue For examples see al-Shhfilsquoj al-Rishlah pp 299ndash303 al-Ghazhljal-Mustaszlig fh vol 2 pp 533ndash587 al-Aszligfahhnj Shararing al-Minhhj vol 2 pp 836ndash840al-Asnawj Nihhyat al-Sursquol vol 4 pp 556ndash573 al-Shirhzj al-Wszligul vol 2 pp 433ndash452al-Zarkashj al-Baaringr vol 6 pp 235ndash264 al-Juwaynj al-Burhhn vol 2 pp 1316ndash1324al-Badkhashj Shararing vol 3 pp 276ndash284 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 602ndash604 Ibn al-NajjhrShararing vol 4 pp 488ndash492 al-Shawkhnj Irshhd pp 434ndash440 Kamali Principlespp 383ndash386 al-lsquoAmrj al-Ijtihhd pp 124ndash163

81 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 359 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 204al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 p 603

82 Al-Ghazhlj al-Mustaszlig f h vol 2 pp 533ndash538 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 20583 Ibid vol 19 p 206 Ibn al-Qayyim (in Zhd al-Malsquohd vol 3 p 233) criticises the

opinion that Allah will exact punishment without any reason at all84 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 5 pp 1540ndash1541 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 pp 307ndash310

Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 356 Iacuteafj al-Djn Qawhlsquoid pp 102ndash10385 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 33ndash36 vol 19 pp 206ndash207 Minhhj vol 5

pp 239ndash240 In Minhhj al-Sunnah Ibn Taymiyyah states that a mujtahid whose inten-tion is to adhere to what the Lawgiver decreed cannot be accused of unbelief (kufr)nor of transgression ( fisq) if he practised independent reasoning and failed toascertain the correct ruling Ibn Taymiyyah attributes this opinion to the majority ofscholars on issues of furulsquo On issues of creed however most of the scholars accusedthe mujtahid who did not determine the correct opinion of unbelief (kufr) or transgres-sion ( fisq) Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that although this opinion was widespread amongstscholars it was not known amongst the companions their followers nor any of theImams He claims the people of innovation (bidalsquo) are responsible for the creation ofthis opinion According to Ibn Taymiyyah their objective in creating such an opinionwas to charge with unbelief anyone who did not agree with their innovations in thefield of creed See Minhhj vol 5 pp 239ndash240

86 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 20787 Ibid88 Ibid89 See Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos discussion of this issue in Minhhj al-Sunnah vol 5

pp 99ndash12590 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj al-Sunnah vol 5 pp 99ndash100 According to Ibn Taymiyyah what

can be understood from the Qurrsquoan and the sunnah with regard to the unbelievers in thisworld is that they are divided into two categories The first are those who knew aboutIslam and rejected it and the second are those who did not hear about Islam IbnTaymiyyah asserts that the texts indicate that those who did not hear about Islam will begiven another chance in the Hereafter See Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 31 pp 308ndash310

NOTES

217

91 Al-Saffhrjnj Lawhmilsquo vol 1 p 4 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 23 p 346 This divisionof the sharjlsquoah into two parts can be found in all of the published Aringanbalj sources onfiqh (which is widely known as al-furulsquo) and its principles (al-uszligul )

92 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 5 pp 87ndash88 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 68 This claim by IbnTaymiyyah is problematic as references to this division can be found in the works ofsome of the predecessors and the Imams such as al-Shhfilsquoj Ibn Abi Aringhtim(d 327937) al-Dhrimj (d 280893) and Ibn Baƒƒah (d 387997) See al-Shathrjal-Tafrjq vol 1 pp 173ndash177

93 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 5 p 88 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 6894 Ibid95 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 5 pp 88ndash89 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 6896 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 5 p 8997 Ibid p 89 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 6898 Ibid p 8999 Ibid pp 89ndash90

100 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 5 p 91 Ibn Kathjr mentions that there are twonarrations regarding the response of Allah to this supplication in the first Allah sayslsquoYesrsquo and in the second He says lsquoI have donersquo Ibn Kathjr Tafsjr vol 1 p 513

101 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 210 Manhhj vol 5 p 91102 Ibid103 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 211 Minhhj vol 4 p 91104 Ibid105 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 4 p 92 Fathwh vol 19 p 212106 Ibn Taymiyyah discussed this point on several occasions See for example Fathwh

vol 5 pp 5ndash12 155ndash156 vol 4 pp 141ndash143 vol 16 pp 439ndash440107 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 3 pp 306ndash307 vol 12 pp 113ndash114108 Ibid p 307 The division of the sharjlsquoah into uszligul and furu lsquo is also discussed briefly by

Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 1 pp 231ndash232109 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 p 331 vol 19 p 280110 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 281 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 p 229 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb

al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 435ndash436111 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 281112 Ibid Also Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 6 pp 411ndash412113 Ibid pp 281ndash283114 When the cause is neither stated nor alluded to in the text then the only way to

identify it is through independent reasoning There are three methods used for this

1 Takhrjj al-manhƒ (extracting the cause) This method is the starting point in aninquiry concerning the identification of the cause The effective cause isextracted by looking at the relevant possible causes The jurist may identify morethan one cause Then he moves to the next stage

2 Tanqjaring al-manhƒ (isolating the cause) The jurist takes into consideration theattributes of the original case and only that attribute which is considered to berelevant (munhsib) is identified as the cause

The difference between these two stages is that in takhrjj al-manhƒ the jurist is dealingwith a situation no cause has been identified whereas in tanqjaring al-manharing more thanone cause has been identified and his task to select the proper cause

3 Taaringqjq al-mamht (ascertaining the present of a cause in individual cases) See Iacuteafial-Djn Qawhlsquoid pp 82ndash83 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 233ndash245 al-Zarkashjal-Baaringr al-Muaringjƒ vol 5 pp 255ndash258 al-Shawkhnj Irshhd pp 363 375ndash376 IbnTaymiyyah Minhhj vol 2 pp 474ndash475 Kamali Principles pp 213ndash214

NOTES

218

115 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 281ndash282 It may appear that it makes nodifference whether a ruling is obtained through the use of the source text or is deter-mined by analogy but in reality it is of great importance For if a ruling is basedupon a text itself it must be adhered to by all scholars This is founded upon the prin-ciple that the text is accepted as the first source of law for all the schools of law Ifhowever the ruling is founded upon analogy it can be rejected by those who do notrecognise analogy as a source of law In the event that it is not rejected completely itcan be criticised as being doubtful or as an incorrect analogy

116 Ibid p 289117 Ibid p 288118 Ibid pp 7ndash8 285ndash289 vol 20 pp 504ndash505 vol 21 p 540 vol 34 p 210119 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 505120 Ibid vol 20 p 505121 Ibid122 Ibid123 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 505124 It appears that the vast majority of Aringanbalj scholars subscribe to this claim Ibn

al-Laaringaringhm the author of al-Qawhlsquoid al-Uszliguliyyah mentions that this opinion was heldby lsquoaszligaringhbunhrsquo (ie our fellow Aringanbalj scholars) and others and he attributed the oppo-site opinion to Ibn Taymiyyah alone See Ibn al-Laaringaringhm al-Qawhlsquoid p 163 Alsoal-Mardhwj conveys this statement of Ibn al-Laaringaringhm without commenting on itSee al-Inszlighf vol 6 p 3 There are various rulings claimed by various Aringanbalj schol-ars to be in opposition to analogy See Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 238Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 4 p 420 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 2 p 351 al-Inszlighf vol 6 p 3Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1 p 357 al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 2 p 186 Ibn al-Qayyimstudies several legal rulings claimed by some scholars such as Abu Yalsquola Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb and Ibn Qudhmah to be in contradiction with analogy in al-Ilsquolhm vol 1pp 472ndash521 vol 2 pp 5ndash37 Ibn al-Qayyim says that in his discussion of this issuehe benefited from what he learned from his sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn al-QayyimIlsquolhm vol 1 p 472

125 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 567ndash568126 Ibid127 Ibid128 Ibid pp 506ndash508129 Ibid p 509130 Ibid131 Ibid132 Ibid pp 509ndash510133 Ibid pp 555ndash583134 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 18135 This opinion is a narration in the Aringanbalj School and was also held by several leading

Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Khiraqj al-Sharjf Abu Jalsquofar Ibn lsquoAqjl and al-ShirhzjFurthermore it was the preferred opinion of Ibn Qudhmah and Ibn Razjn SeeAl-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 172 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 4 p 131 Taszligaringjaring vol 6pp 213ndash214 al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 590 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 pp 213ndash214al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 pp 468ndash470

136 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 18137 Ibid p 19138 Ibid It is important to note that some of the later Aringanbalj sources have mentioned

only this opinion in relation to this issue and have not mentioned the predominantopinion of the Aringanbalj School For instance Ibn al-Najjhr al-Muntaha vol 1 p 231al-Buhutj Shararing vol 2 pp 98ndash99

NOTES

219

139 This is the predominant opinion in the Aringanbalj School according to al-Mardhwj inal-Inszlighf vol 4 p 217 Also this opinion is mentioned by other Aringanbalj scholarssuch as Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar p 252 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 182 Ibnal-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 1158 al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah pp 614ndash615 Ibn al-QayyimAaringkhm vol 1 p 3 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 259 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6pp 448ndash449 Ibn al-Najjhr al-Muntaha and al-Buhutj Shararing vol 2 pp 128ndash129

140 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 19ndash23 Ibn al-Qayyim supports the stance of hissheikh See Ibn al-Qayyim Aaringkhm vol 1 pp 6 9

141 Al-Buhutj al-Rawpart p 477 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshiyat vol 7 p 424 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquovol 6 p 296

142 See al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 357143 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 24ndash26 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion has been cited

by several Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 297 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 10 p 357 Ibn Qhsim Hhshiyat vol 7 p 424 and al-lsquoAnqirj vol 3p 347 In most of these sources Ibn Taymiyyah is cited as asserting that the correctposition of Aaringmad and the former Aringanbalj scholars is that the views of the Arabshave no effect on the permissibility and prohibition of an act He also states that thefirst Aringanbalj scholar who is known to have established this rule is al-KhiraqjAccording to Ibn Taymiyyah this scholar restricted this rule to the consumption ofanimals that eat carrion Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions that al-Khiraqj followed al-Shhfilsquoj in this rule Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos statement contradicts the clear and generalstatement of al-Khiraqj in al-Mukhtaszligar (p 257) where he says lsquowhat the Arabsdescribed as good is considered lawful and what they described as foul is consideredforbiddenrsquo

144 Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 108 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 4ndash5 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 2 pp 245ndash246 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 2 p 82 al-Najjhr al-Muntaha vol 1p 86 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 255 Kashshhf vol 1 p 472 al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1p 190 Ibn lsquoAtjq Nayl p 49 There are some differences within the Aringanbalj Schoolconcerning who is the most deserving to lead the prayer Those individuals who havethe right to lead the prayer are mentioned in the following statement of al-Khiraqj

The best reciter of the Qurrsquoan amongst the congregation leads the prayerIf the followers are as correct as the imam in the recitation of the Qurrsquoanthe most learned of them concerning fiqh leads the prayer If the followersare as knowledgeable as the Imam in relation to fiqh the oldest one amongstthem leads If they are all of the same age the ashraf (the most noble) ofthem leads If they are all on the same level of sharaf (nobility) the individualwho performed the hijrah the earliest leads the prayer

(Al-Khiraqj al-Mukhtaszligar p 51)

As mentioned earlier the Aringanbalj scholars have differed about the correct arrange-ment for selecting the Imam for prayer In addition they have differed about the exactmeaning of the term lsquoashrafrsquo whether it refers to the tribe of the Quraysh or appliesto all people of nobility Ibn Qudhmah al-Mughnj vol 2 p 447 Ibn Mufliaring al-Nukatvol 1 p 109 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 2 p 85 According to both of these opinions theArabs are given precedence over non-Arabs in leading the prayer

145 This aringad jth is narrated by Muslim in his Iacuteaaringjaring (on the section about who is moredeserving to be the Imam) vol I pp 326ndash327 It should be pointed out that in mostnarrations of this aringad jth precedence is given to the older over the younger Muslimvol i pp 326ndash327 Abu Dawud Section on who is more deserving to be theImam vol 1 pp 390ndash391 al-Tirmidhj Section on who is more deserving to be theImam vol 2 pp 458ndash459 Ibn Taymiyyah however in al-Fathwh mentions that whatis meant here is the one who embraced Islam first and not the one older in age This

NOTES

220

view of Ibn Taymiyyah seems to be based on the narration mentioned earlier of thisaringadjth This position is also taken by Ibn Qudhmah who asserts the existence of anarration supporting his opinion in which the Prophet says lsquoIf they are equal inrelation to the emigration then the one who embraced Islam firstrsquo See Ibn Qudhmahal-Mughnj vol 2 p 447

146 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 26147 Ibid p 27148 Ibid Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion asserting that the Arabs have no precedence in

leading the prayer has been mentioned by several leading Aringanbalj scholars such asIbn Mufliaring in al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 5 and al-Mardhwj in al-Inszlighf vol 2 p 246

149 There are two narrations within the Aringanbalj School on the condition of equalitybetween the man and woman in marriage The first narration states that equalitybetween the man and woman is a condition for a marital contract to be binding thisis the opinion of several leading Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Khiraqj and al-ZarkashjThe second narration states that equality is a condition only for the correctness of thecontract This second narration is adopted by several eminent Aringanbalj scholars suchas al-Majd Ibn Mufliaring Ibn Qudhmah and al-Mardhwj Certain other Aringanbaljscholars state that if a woman accepts a man even though he is not equal to her themarriage will be considered valid They based their opinion upon the principle that itis the womanrsquos right to ask for the condition of equality Therefore if she abandonsit the marriage is nevertheless considered legitimate The outcome of this dispute isthat according to the first narration which states that the condition of equality is acondition for the contract of marriage to be binding the aspect of equality is a rightfor the woman and her awliyhrsquo (guardians) Therefore if this condition is absent thevalidity of the contract will be based upon the consent of the woman and her awliyhrsquoHowever according to the second narration the condition of equality is the right ofAllah the woman and her awlayhrsquo The consent of Allah cannot be known andtherefore the contract is invalid Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 pp 18ndash19 IbnQudhmah al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 29 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 28 vol 32pp 56ndash57 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 189 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 105ndash107al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 59ndash62 Ibn rsquoAsbaslar al-Tashjl p 152 al-Najjhral-Muntaha al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 pp 26ndash27

150 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 28ndash29151 Ibid pp 29ndash30152 Ibid p 30153 Ibid pp 30ndash31154 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 450155 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 pp 340ndash341 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing vol 4 p 433156 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 1 pp 341ndash342157 Ibid vol 1 pp 341ndash342158 Al-Turkj Uszligul p 478159 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 11 pp 342ndash343160 Ibid p 345161 Ibid162 Ibid163 Ibid vol 3 p 371164 Ibid vol 13 p 345165 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 pp 101 115ndash116166 Ibid vol 13 pp 96ndash97167 Ibid p 344168 Ibid p 345169 Ibid p 343

NOTES

221

170 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 145171 Ibid172 Ibid173 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 199ndash200174 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 pp 103ndash104175 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 228ndash234176 Ibn Taymiyyah authored a treatise entitled Darrsquo Talsquohrpart al-lsquoAql wa rsquol-Naql which was

devoted to refuting the claim of some of the philosophers that there is sometimes acontradiction between a text and reason They state that when this conflict existslsquoreasonrsquo will be given precedence over the text which should then be reinterpreted orsuspended Ibn Taymiyyah asserts this claim is incorrect as correct reasoning alwaysagrees with correct text The late scholar Muhammad Rashhd Shlim who edited thistreatise obtained his PhD in 1958 from Cambridge University on his work entitledlsquoThe agreement of reason and revelation in Ibn Taimiyarsquo

177 AbuYalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 3 p 724 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 50 hl-Taymiyyahal-Musawwadah p 181 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 2 p 688 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 270

178 Hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 181 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 50 Someof these scholars point out that those who permit the legislation of a ruling whichcannot be practised and also permit the postponement of clarifications of rulingseven though they are needed See Ibn Badrhn Nuzhat vol 2 p 51 and al-Iumlufj Shararingvol 2 p 688

179 Hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 181ndash182180 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 50ndash51181 Ibid p 57182 Ibid pp 58ndash59183 Ibid p 59184 Ibid185 Ibid186 Ibid p 60187 Ibid pp 60ndash61188 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4 pp 1217ndash1218 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4

pp 396ndash398 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 388 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadahp 458 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 656ndash657 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 389

189 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 p 396 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 461 al-IumlufjShararing vol 3 p 656 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 389 Ibn Taymiyyah defines lsquoNecessaryknowledgersquo as lsquoknowledge which is inseparable from a personrsquos soulrsquo Fathwh vol 2pp 76ndash77 vol 4 pp 43ndash44 For a discussion of the definition and limits of lsquoNecessaryknowledgersquo see Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 1 pp 80ndash82 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 1pp 42ndash43 Ibn al-Laaringaringhm al-Mukhtaszligar p 36 al-Juwaynj al-Waraqht p 28 IbnMufliaring Uszligul vol 1 pp 31ndash32 Also see Abrahamov lsquoNecessary knowledge in Islamictheologyrsquo in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies vol 20 no 1 1993 pp 20ndash32 Thisarticle is confined as its author clarifies to the Mulsquotazilte and Ashlsquoarite sources Oneof the definitions mentioned in this article is that of al-Baghdadj (d 4281037) inwhich he defines lsquoNecessary knowledgersquo as lsquooccurring without manrsquos having power toproduce and prove itrsquo

190 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4 pp 1225ndash1226 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 p 399Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 389 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 458ndash459al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 652ndash653 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 389

191 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4 p 1229 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 p 408 IbnQudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 376 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 468 Iacuteafj al-DjnQawhlsquoid p 104 al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 pp 629ndash632 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 389Some scholars such as Ibn Badrhn Nuzhat pp 376ndash377 claim there is an agreementthat a mujtahid is not permitted to imitate another scholar This however is problematic

NOTES

222

as conflicting opinions can be found in various sources of uszligul al-fiqh including someof the references cited earlier It should be pointed out that if what is meant here byagreement is the agreement of the Aringanbalj scholars this will be possible as it doesnot seem that there is a dispute within the School on this issue It is clear also thatscholars agree that when a scholar has reached a conclusion on any matter based onhis own independent reasoning regarding an issue he is not allowed to imitateanother scholar See Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 376

192 Al-Shirhzj al-Lumalsquo p 119 Shararing al-Lumalsquo vol 2 p 1013 The attribution of thisopinion to Ahmad by al-Shirhzj is mentioned by several Aringanbalj scholars See Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 p 409 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 469 IbnBadrhn al-Madkhal p 389 Al-Iumlufj conveys this opinion from al-Hmidj (and not fromal-Shirhzj) See Shararing vol 3 pp 629ndash632 It appears that the majority of Aringanbaljscholars who transmit this opinion from al-Shirhzj did so because he attributed it toAaringmad before al-Hmidj It can be said that al-Hmidj was quoting al-Shirhzjrsquos wordswhen he attributed this opinion to Aaringmad Some Aringanbalj scholars however such asIbn Mufliaring in Uszligul vol 4 p 1516 state that some of the Aringanbalis mention this viewas an opinion in the School

193 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 202194 Ibid pp 202ndash203195 Ibid pp 203ndash204196 Ibid p 204197 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 212ndash213198 Ibid p 213199 Bukhhrj in his Iacuteaaringiaring vol IX pp 289ndash290 Muslim in his Iacuteaaringiaring vol IV pp 1256ndash1257200 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 213ndash214201 Ibid vol 20 pp 215ndash216202 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 2 p 244 Fathwh vol 20 pp 225ndash226 Ibn Taymiyyah

instead mentions that this opinion is attributed to the Aringanafj scholar Muhammad bal-Aringasan See Fathwh vol 19 p 261 It is clear also that several Aringanbalj scholarsreject the attribution of this opinion to Aaringmad See for instance Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 4 pp 409ndash410 hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah p 468 al-Iumlufj Shararingvol 3 p 631 It seems that there are two possible reasons for the attribution of thisopinion to Aaringmad by al-Shirhzj The first is that Abu Aringhmid according to al-Musawwadah (p 468) attributed this opinion to some of the Aringanbaljs The secondpossible reason relates to a statement of Abu Yalsquola in al-lsquoUddah He mentions that AbuAringanjfah and Muhammad [Ibn al-Aringasan] were of the opinion that it is permissible fora scholar to imitate ( yqallid) another scholar Abu Yalsquola states that this opinion wasnarrated by Abu Sufyhn in his Mashrsquoil lsquofrom himrsquo (lsquoanhu) After consulting the books ofAringanbalj Tabaqht (Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht vol 1 p 396 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 3 p 72)we find that one of Aaringmadrsquos students who narrated some Mashrsquoil from him wascalled Abu Sufyhn Abu Sufyhn was a narrator of Aaringmadrsquos opinions and he was notknown to narrate Abu Aringanifahrsquos or Muaringammad b al-Aringasanrsquos Therefore if AbuYalsquola was narrating the opinion of these two scholars rather than that of Aaringmad hewould have expressly referred to the sources of these two scholars The narrator fromAaringmad who was known to ask him about the opinions held by Abu Aringanifah and hisstudent was Ismhlsquojl b al-Shalinjj (d 230) not Abu Sufyhn See Ibn TaymiyyahFathwh vol 34 p 114 Ibn Mufliaring of al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 261 It ought to be notedhowever that Abu Yalsquola in several places of al-lsquoUddah attributes opinions to somescholars based on the authority of Abu Sufyhn al-Sarkhasj al-Aringanafj Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 2 pp 349 591 vol 3 pp 737 766 887 918 969 983 vol 4 pp 11061119 1159 1171 1209 vol 5 pp 1433 1548 Therefore it seems that the attributionof this opinion to Aaringmad is based on a misunderstanding as to which Abu Sufyhn wasmentioned by Abu Yalsquola This assumption can be supported by the following points

NOTES

223

First Abu Sufyhn al-Sarkhasj al-Aringanafj had his own Mashrsquoil Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddahvol 2 p 528 second we find in al-Musawwadah that the aforementioned opinion isnarrated lsquofrom both of themrsquo (lsquoanhumh) This indicates that this opinion is attributedby Abu Sufyhn to Abu Aringanifah and Muhammad Ibn al-Aringasan and not to AaringmadNote that the word (lsquoanhumh) is placed between two brackets like this [ ] which indi-cates according to the editor of the book that this word was not clear at least in oneof the bookrsquos manuscripts

203 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 226204 Ibid p 210205 Ibid p 9206 Ibid pp 224ndash225207 Ibid pp 208ndash209208 Ibid p 209209 Ibid p 222210 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 p 248 vol 35 pp 366ndash367211 Ibid vol 20 p 208212 Ibid pp 211ndash212213 Ibid pp 220ndash226214 Ibid pp 8ndash9215 Ibn Taymiyyah was asked by a questioner whether it was permissible for the followers

of the four schools to pray behind one another He responded that it was permissibleand that this was the practice of the predecessors and the early followers of the fourschools Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that anyone who rejected this would be considered amubtadilsquo (innovator) as his opinion is against the Qurrsquoan sunnah and the consensus ofthe predecessors and imams Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 23 pp 373ndash374

216 Ibid vol 22 pp 254ndash255217 Ibid vol 20 pp 220ndash221218 Ibid vol 22 p 254219 Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah vol 4 pp 1142ndash1151220 Abursquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd vol 3 pp 273ndash277221 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 pp 298ndash300222 Hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 331ndash333223 Ibn Mufliaring Uszligul vol 2 pp 410ndash411224 Ibn al-Laaringaringhm al-Mukhtaszligar p 76225 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab vol 2 p 237226 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 283227 Ibn Qudhmah al-Rawpartah vol 2 p 300228 Hl-Taymiyyah al-Musawwadah pp 332ndash333 Ibn Mufliaring Uszligul vol 2 p 411 It

appears that Ibn lsquoAqjlrsquos opinion was influenced by the view of certain Mhlikj scholarswho subscribe to the same opinion Al-Majd in al-Musawwadah describes this opinionas an attempt to evade the real issue at hand (ibid p 332) Some later Aringanbalj scholarswho came after the time of Ibn Taymiyyah such as al-Jurhlsquoj (Shararing al-Mukhtaszligar vol 2pp 477ndash480) and al-Mardhwj (al-Taaringbjr part 2 vol 1 pp 62ndash67) provided someclarifications of the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah but often failed to clarify theSchoolrsquos position on this issue

229 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 303ndash304230 Ibid p 304 Dutton comments on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos statement regarding this first

category of lsquoamal

However in view of the fact that differences remained between themadhhabs as to how for example the adhhn should be done or whether ornot the basmala should be recited at the beginning of the prayer this claim

NOTES

224

of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos is as lsquoIyhpartrsquos comments on the non-Madinans prefer-ring to follow their own local traditions plainly indicate not wholly correct

(Dutton The Origins of Islamic Law p 36)

231 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 304232 Ibid p 308233 Ibid pp 309ndash310234 Ibid vol 20 p 310235 Ibid pp 310ndash311 For a study and discussion of the authority of Ahl al-Madjnahrsquos

consensus and lsquoamal see al-Qarhfj Shararing Tanqiaring al-Fuszligul p 334 Ibn Juzayy Taqrjbal-Wuszligul p 132 Ibn al-Laaringaringhm al-Mukhtaszligar p 76 al-Sarkhasj Uszligul vol 1 p 314al-Aszligfahhnj Shararing al-Minhhj vol 2 pp 595ndash596 Badshhh Taysjr al-Taaringrjr vol 3pp 244ndash245 al-Juwaynj al-Burhhn vol 1 p 720 For a comprehensive study of thisissue and the difference between aringad jth and sunnah see Dutton The Origins of IslamicLaw the Qurrsquohn the Muwaƒƒarsquo and Madinan lsquoAmal pp 33ndash52 157ndash177

4 RECONSTRUCTION IBN TAYMIYYAH AND AringANBALJ JURISPRUDENCE

1 Ibn lsquoAbd al- Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 2 al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm p 33 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 522 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 31 p 363 Ibn Taymiyyah Iqtiparthrsquo vol 2 p 584 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos insistence on this criterion for

determining whether an act can be considered as an innovation or not is clear Itwould not be correct for the criterion to be whether or not the action was consideredpermissible by some scholars For scholars occasionally hold opinions which arecontrary to the sources of Islamic law

4 Ibn Taymiyyah Minhhj vol 1 p 3065 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 11 pp 345ndash346 Iqtiparth vol 2 p 5946 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 13 pp 67ndash687 Ibid vol 7 p 3928 Ibid vol 10 p 3679 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 184ndash186

10 Safiullah lsquoWahhabism pp 68ndash6911 Safiullah lsquoWahhabism p 6812 Memon Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos Struggle pp 229ndash23013 Ibid p 23014 Ibn Taymiyyah Iqtiparthrsquo vol 2 p 584 Muhammad Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos Struggle p 23115 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 306ndash30716 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Nubuwwht p 15417 It can be determined that most of the innovations mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in

the Aringanbalj School of law pertain to the subject of worship For Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosexplanation of the fact that innovations (bidalsquo) exist in worship more than in any othersubject see Fathwh vol 19 pp 274ndash277

18 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 186ndash187 Ibn Taymiyyah points out that thebeliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah are usually attributed to Aaringmad not because he inventedthem but because he affirmed them during a period of widespread innovation (bidalsquo)See Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 6 pp 214ndash215

19 Ibn Rushd Bidhyat al-Mujtahid vol 1 p 3 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn An Explanation of Riyadhal-Saliheen part 1 p 7 It should be pointed out that although scholars agreed on thestipulation of the intention for acts of worship they differed on whether intention isa condition for the validity of ablution For details see Ibn Rushd Bidhyat al-Mujtahid

NOTES

225

vol 1 pp 3ndash4 Also al-Sadlhn mentions that the scholars differed in three types ofdeeds For details see al-Sadlhn al-Niyyah pp 281ndash291

20 Al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring ArabicndashEnglish vol I p 1 vol III p 105621 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 231 233 23822 Ibid vol 22 p 246 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 9 A group of well-known Aringanbalj scholars

were of the opinion that the utterance of intention in the prayer is recommendedThese included Ibn al-Jawzj and al-Buhutj Ibn Mufliaring al-Mursquoarrikh mentions thisopinion but does not comment on it See Ibn Mufliaring al-Mursquoarrikh al-Mubdilsquo vol 1p 414 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 314 Several Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaringal-Mursquoarrikh in al-Mubdilsquo vol 1 p 414 and al-Buhutj in al-Rawpart p 65 state thatutterance of intention is not a condition for the validity of prayer According to IbnQhsim in his book Aringhshyat vol 1 p 563 this statement means that the utterance ofthe intention of prayer is recommended

23 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 p 22124 Ibid vol 22 pp 218 22325 Ibid vol 22 pp 217ndash246 al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 9 al-Balsquolj al-Ikhtiyhrht p 1126 Al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 9 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 221ndash222 218 223

231 23327 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 245ndash24628 Ibid vol 22 p 221 It should be pointed out that the Aringanbalj scholars agree on the

stipulation of intention for the validity of the prayer See al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1p 52 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 345 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 390al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 2 p 19 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 p 539 Ibn Mufliaringal-Mursquoarrikh al-Mubdilsquo vol 1 p 414 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 106 al-KarmjGhhyat vol 1 p 124 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 313 al-lsquoAnqirjAringhshyat vol 1 p 160Ibn Qhsim Aringhshyat vol 1 p 562 Ibn Rushd Bidayat vol 1 p 132

29 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 p 242 Ibn al-Qayyim in al-Zhd seems to benefit fromhis sheikhrsquos discussion on this issue as we find great similarity between them See Ibnal-Qayyim al-Zhd vol 1 p 201

30 There are various aringadjths that contain this meaning including the aringadjth narrated byMuslim in his Iacuteaaringjaring in the book of janhrsquoiz vol II p 463 Aaringmad in his Musnad vol 2p 297 In addition the practice of the Prophet testifies to this ruling See for instanceal-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring vol ii p 208 and Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol ii pp 461ndash462

31 See the section entitled lsquoIbn Taymiyyahrsquos detentionrsquo in Chapter 1 of this work Someof these un-Islamic practices existed in various eras after the generation of the pred-ecessors For example this was found at the time of the leading Aringanbalj scholar IbnlsquoAqjl whom we find declaring himself free from these practices For further detailssee Makdisi Ibn lsquoAqjl pp 210ndash213

32 This nickname and nasab amongst the Aringanbaljs is used to refer to two leading Aringanbaljscholars the first is al-Aringhficopy lsquoAbd al-Ghanj al-Jamhlsquojlj (541ndash6001146ndash1204) thesecond is lsquoAbd Allah b Aaringmad Ibn Qudhmah (541ndash6201146ndash1224) Most of thetreatises discussing the issue of travelling to visit graves do not indicate to which ofthese two scholars this opinion was attributed The ambiguity in the sources resultedin confusion for some researchers such as the editor of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatiseIqtiparthrsquo al-Iacuteirhƒ al-Mustaqjm who declared in the footnote of his book (vol 2 p 666) thathe could not find anything to clarify this point This problem could be solved by refer-ring to the fatwh of Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue in other treatises where he clearlystates that this opinion is attributed to several scholars Amongst those whom hementions is Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisj and here he adds lsquoIbn Qudhmahrsquo See thefatwh of Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue in the following sources Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 27 p 185 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 333 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 150Moreover some Aringanbalj scholars attributed this opinion to Ibn Qudhmah See forinstance al-Buhutj Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 466

NOTES

226

33 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 pp 27ndash28 185 215 226 Iqtiparthrsquo vol 2 p 666 IbnlsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Iacutehrim p 26 Ibn lsquoAbdus is lsquoAli b lsquoUmar b Aaringmad b lsquoAbdusal-Harhnj a Aringanbalj jurist and preacher of the sixth century (d 5591164) He pro-duced various books including his treatise entitled al-Mudhahhab and also compiled alarge treatise on the interpretation of the Qurrsquoan See Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 1pp 241ndash242 It is interesting that Fakhr al-Djn Ibn Taymiyyah the uncle of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos grandfather and also the uncle of Ibn lsquoAbdus studied during his initialsearch for knowledge under Ibn lsquoAbdus See Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 1 p 241 Thisopinion also appears to have been held by scholars in the tenth century such asal-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 179

34 See note 30 of this chapter35 This tradition is an agreed upon aringadjth narrated by al-Bukhhrj in his Iacuteaaringjaring vol III

p 51 and Muslim in his Iacuteaaringjaring vol II p 699 It should be pointed out that theexception in this aringadjth is of the kind of al-istithnhrsquo al-mufarragh in which the generalterm is not expressed Therefore we find that the scholars who prohibit journeys tothe grave of the Prophet and to minor sanctuaries assert that the intended meaningof this aringadjth is that lsquodo not set out for any place (for worship) except for the threemosquesrsquo In contrast scholars who approve of such pilgrimages argued that the mean-ing of the phrase was lsquodo not set out for any mosque except for the three mosquesrsquoKister Studies XIII pp 174ndash175

36 See these proofs and others cited by Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opponents in the followingsources Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 pp 27ndash28 184ndash189 215ndash219 226 Iqtiparthrsquovol 2 p 666 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Iacutehrim p 26

37 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 pp 334ndash33538 Ibid vol 27 pp 185 188 The chains and contexts of these aringadjths were studied and

criticised by the leading scholar Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos eminentstudents who had great knowledge of aringadjth in his book entitled lsquoal-Iacutehrim al-Munkj Fial-Radd lsquoala al-Subkjrsquo

39 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 p 187 Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Jawhb al-Bhhir (Fathwhvol 27 p 314) asserts that whoever disagrees with this fact is basing his opinion onmere speculation and has no evidence from the sunnah the companions their followersor the Imams In this book he also challenges his opponents to present any recognisedsource written by any of the Imams to support their claim Ibn Taymiyyah suggeststhat his opponents appear to be ignorant about the actual practice of the companionson this issue

40 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Jawhb al-Bhhir p 1141 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 p 22142 Ibid vol 27 pp 221ndash222 There is an interesting discussion of this point by Ibn

Taymiyyah in al-Fathwh where he differentiates between what is prohibited in Islamiclaw for the right of Allah and what is prohibited for the right of the people Accordingto Ibn Taymiyyah the first is invalid whereas the second is invalid if it is not acceptableto the one who was cheated For further details of this point see Ibn TaymiyyahFathwh vol 29 pp 281ndash292

43 For detailed discussion of this point see Fathwh vol 27 pp 216ndash21944 Ibid p 33545 For examples of the various twists of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos answer on this point

see Fathwh vol 27 pp 225ndash31346 Ibid vol 27 pp 182 22547 Ibid vol 30 p 18748 Ibid pp 187ndash18849 Ibid50 Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 133 Ibn Qudhmah al-Mughnj vol 7 p 34651 Ibid p 344

NOTES

227

52 This is evident through Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatise entitled Kithb Iqhmat al-Daljl fi Ibƒhlal-Taaringljl in which he paid particular attention to the problem of aringiyal This book isincluded in al-Fathwh al-Kubrh vol 6 pp 3ndash320

53 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 1754 Ibid vol 6 p 7955 Ibid p 8256 Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb was one of those Aringanbalj scholars who validated some types of aringiyal

See Al-Iumlufj Shararing vol 3 p 21457 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 143 There are several works by Aringanafj jurists dealing with

the subject of aringiyal including the book of al-Shaybhnj Kitab al-Makhhrij fi rsquol-Aringiyal andal-Khaszligszlighf Kithb al-Aringiyal wa rsquol-Makhhrij Schacht An Introduction p 81 Nurbain IbnQayyim p 50

58 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 pp 146ndash14759 Ibid p 148 Schacht states that there are certain differences of degree in the attitudes

of the schools of law towards aringiyal The Aringanafis are the most favourably inclinedAn Introduction p 81

60 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 pp 18 8861 Ibid p 8562 Ibid pp 85 95 All of the four Imams are reported to have declared that their

opinions must be compared to what is in the Qurrsquoan and sunnah See for some reportsin this regard Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 211ndash212

63 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 8664 Ibid pp 95ndash9665 Ibid p 2166 Ibid p 2267 Al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring ArabicndashEnglish vol I p 168 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh pp 162ndash16369 Ibid p 54 Several examples of this point are given by Ibn Taymiyyah See for

instance p 5570 Ibid p 18171 Ibid p 15572 Ibid p 15773 Al-Khiraqj al-Mukhtaszligar p 174 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah p 387 al-Buhutj Shararing

vol 3 pp 41ndash42 al-Rawpart pp 370ndash372 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshyat vol 6 pp 320ndash32174 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid p 13 al-Maqdisj Shararing p 387 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshyat vol 6

pp 320ndash32175 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 161 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 233ndash23476 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 11 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 161 al-Buhutj

Shararing vol 3 p 42 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshyat vol 6 pp 320ndash32177 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid p 12 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 161 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo

vol 5 p 21578 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 234 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 21579 Ibid It is worth mentioning that Ibn al-Bannh in his book al-Muqnilsquo (vol 3 p 922)

supports the opinion invalidating this contract80 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 233ndash23481 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid p 1382 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid pp 12ndash13 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 215 The first point is

mentioned by al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 23483 Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid p 13 I could not find this narration in the published version

of Mashrsquoil Abu Dawud84 Ibid Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that the contract of mutlsquoah is less significant in relation

to the prohibition than the contract of taaringljl He offers ten arguments to support his

NOTES

228

statement two of which are that the contract of mutlsquoah is a repealed law whereas thetaaringljl was never revealed as a law and there was a disagreement amongst thecompanions regarding mutlsquoah whereas there is no disagreement regarding taaringljl Ibnal-Qayyim mentions these aspects and attributes them to his sheikh and he also addstwo other aspects in his book Ighhthat al-Lahfhn vol 1 pp 417ndash422

85 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 27386 The name of this narrator as mentioned in Kubrh vol 6 p 273 is Mush b Muƒayn

Having referred to the books of rijhl such as Lishn al-Mizhn by Ibn Aringajar vol 6pp 153ndash154 al-Khmil by Ibn lsquoAdj vol 8 pp 51ndash53 and al-Icirculsquoafhrsquo by al-lsquoUqailj vol 4pp 163ndash164 the researcher found that the name Muƒayn is incorrect and is a mis-print as the source books of rijhl mention the name as Muƒayr This narrator is knownalso as Mush al-Hilhlj See Ibn Aringajar Lishn al-Mizhn vol 6 p 154 Furthermore it isclear that he was from al-Kufah as we find al-lsquoUqailj (Ibn Aringajar Lishn vol 6 p 154al-lsquoUqailj al-Icirculsquoafhrsquo vol 4 p 163) describes him as Kufj

87 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 273 There are several scholars of the science of rijhlwho agree with Ibn Taymiyyah in his opinion with regard to this narrator and hisnarrations For details see Ibn Aringajar Lishn vol 6 pp 153ndash154

88 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 273 Ibn Malsquojnrsquos description of Mush b Muƒayr as aliar can also be found in Ibn Aringajarrsquos Lishn vol 6 p 153

89 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 273 Ibn Aringajar attributes this statement to Abu Aringhtimas well as to other scholars including al-Nashrsquoj See Ibn Aringajarrsquos Lishn vol 6 p 153

90 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 273 Also Ibn Aringibbhn describes this narrator aslsquoa narrator of unheard-of things and unacknowledged narrations which whoeverhears them knows to be fabricatedrsquo See Ibn Aringajar Lishn vol 6 p 153

91 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 27392 Ibid It is not clear who was this anonymous author to whom Ibn Taymiyyah was

referring Furthermore after consulting some of the reference of the science of rijhlwe did not find any scholars who described this narrator as reliable (thiqah) Aaringmadal-lsquoUqailj and al-Daraquƒnj (IbnAringajar Lishn vol 6 p 154 al-lsquoUqailj al-Icirculsquoafhrsquo vol 4p 163) describe this narrator as weak Aaringmad points out that the narration of Mushb Muƒayr was abandoned by the people (of aringadjth) and al-lsquoUqailj asserts that Mush bMuƒayr was not reliable For some details regarding the relation between the gradingof scholars and its impact upon the grading of aringadjths see Azami Studies in aringadjthmethodology and literature pp 58ndash67

93 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 13 al-Maqdisj Shararing p 38794 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 14 al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 922 al-Zarkshj Shararing

vol 5 pp 230ndash233 al-Maqdisj Shararing p 387 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 4295 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 15 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 23396 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh p 1597 Ibid p 1598 Ibid99 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 255 al-Ruaring p 334

100 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 p 100101 Ibid p 110 vol 26 p 54102 Ibid vol 26 p 54103 Ibid vol 21 pp 62ndash63104 Ibid p 62105 Ibid vol 22 pp 335ndash355106 Ibid p 336107 Ibid vol 21 p 62108 Ibid p 273109 Ibid vol 23 pp 186ndash187

NOTES

229

110 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 23111 For examples see Fathwh vol 21 p 363 622 vol 25 p 268 vol 26 p 244112 This opinion is the most famous opinion in the School It is held by the majority ofAringanbalj scholars See al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 2 p 553 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3p 269

113 See the discussion of the Aringanbalj scholars in relation to this issue in the followingsources Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 81 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah p 148 Ibnal-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 2 p 555 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 227 Ibn Mufliaringal-Furulsquo vol 3 pp 125ndash126 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 2 p 553 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighfvol 3 pp 269ndash270 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 438 al-Rawpart p 172 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararingvol 1 p 411 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 p 122 Ibn Taymiyyah in his book Shararingal-lsquoUmdah (Book of Fasting vol 1 pp 75ndash131) studies this issue in detail and discussesthe evidence cited by the conflicting opinions He concludes that the most correctopinion is the majority opinion of the School that fasting on this day is obligatory

114 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 pp 122ndash123115 Ibid This opinion according to al-Mardhwj is the predominant opinion in theAringanbalj School and is supported by several Aringanbalj scholars In addition they claimthat it is the opinion of Aaringmad Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 269

116 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 p 124 There is some confusion in certain Aringanbaljsources about Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion concerning the fast on the day of doubtSome sources such as al-Fhrsquoiq (al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 270) state that Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opin-ion is that it is permissible to fast on that day Other sources such as al-Zarkashj in hisShararing (vol 2 pp 560ndash561) mention that the preferred opinion of this scholar is thatfasting is recommended Al-Balsquolj in his treatise al-Ikhtyhrht (p 107) mentions that IbnTaymiyyahrsquos final opinion is that fasting is not recommended It appears that this lastopinion is the one most likely to have been adopted by Ibn Taymiyyah as it agreeswith the methodology he usually applied when deciding on a jurisprudential rulinghe would base his opinion on textual evidences or draw an analogy from them In thisissue it is clear that the opinion that fasting on the day of doubt is obligatory orrecommended is not founded upon correct clear evidence On the contrary theevidences appear to support the opinion that the Lawgiver has prohibited fastingduring that time It should be pointed out that Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal in al-Fhrsquoiq followedIbn Taymiyyah and criticises the Aringanbalj scholarsrsquo position basing most of hisargument on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos discussion See Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 3 pp 6ndash11al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 pp 269ndash270

117 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 56118 Al-Khallhl narrated in his book entitled al-Waralsquo various narrations from Aaringmad

dealing with waralsquo119 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 311120 Ibid p 312121 Ibid122 For examples of these narrations see Fathwh vol 29 p 313123 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 315 This aringadjth is narrated by al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring

vol I p 44 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol III p 840124 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 10 p 617125 Ibid vol 20 p 138126 Ibid vol 20 pp 138ndash139127 Ibid vol 10 pp 511ndash514 644 vol 20 p 138128 Ibid vol 20 p 138129 Ibid130 Ibid pp 315ndash316131 Ibid p 318132 Ibid vol 29 p 320

NOTES

230

133 Ibid pp 320ndash321134 Ibid pp 322ndash323135 Ibid vol 4 p 168 vol 11 p 137 vol 24 pp 50ndash52136 Ibid vol 27 p 304 Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that all of the schools of law have opin-

ions that are not opinions of the Imams of these schools Furthermore these opinionsin most cases are not consistent with the general principles of the Imams Ibid Ibnal-Qayyim agrees with his sheikh and asserts that most of the opinions attributed tothe Imams are in fact in opposition to the true opinions of these Imams See Ibnal-Qhsim Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 18

137 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 10 p 367138 Ibn Taymiyyah Majmulsquo vol 2 p 412 Ibn al-Qayyim agrees with his sheikh in this

point and clarifies that Abu Yalsquola abandoned most of his opinions in his treatiseal-Muaringarrar See Ibn al-Qayyim Aaringkhm vol 1 p 279

139 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ikhtiyhrht p 7140 Ibid vol 24 p 50141 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid pp 132ndash133142 Ibn al-Qayyim (in his book al-Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 298ndash299) relates the existence of some

incorrect opinions within Islamic schools of law including the Aringanbalj School to thefact that there are various opinions of the Imams which were abandoned by them infavour of new opinions The scholars of the Schools however continued to attributethese opinions to the Imams

143 For example when Ibn Taymiyyah discusses the issue of whether it is allowed to paythe value of an item as zakht instead of paying the thing itself Ibn Taymiyyahmentions that there are various conflicting narrations from Aaringmad on this issue IbnTaymiyyah asserts that there are two approaches amongst the Aringanbalj scholars indetermining the exact position of Aaringmad The first party acknowledge and accept thevarious opinions and assert that they are dealing with different issues The secondparty insist that these conflicting opinions are conflicting narrations from Aaringmad Itis clear that Ibn Taymiyyah supports the first approach Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 25 pp 82ndash83 For other examples mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah see IbnTaymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid p 64 Fathwh vol 21 pp 139ndash140 Also additional examplescan be obtained in the treatises of Ibn al-Qayyim See for instance Aaringkhm vol 2pp 800ndash801 In this last example Ibn al-Qayyim supports the opinion of his sheikhIbid pp 801ndash805

144 Ibn Taymiyyah Kubrh vol 6 p 11145 This point can be illustrated by the issue of what type of aringajj the Prophet performed

For details see Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid p 69 Ibn al-Qayyim cites his sheikhsorting out this problem resulting from the misunderstanding of some terms in thearingadjths dealing with this issue See Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 2 pp 118ndash122

146 An example of this is mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah through the narration of hisstudent Ibn al-Qayyim in Aaringkhm Ahl al-Dhimmah vol 2 pp 623 626ndash627

147 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 497148 For instance see Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht pp 43ndash44149 Ibid vol 20 pp 227ndash228150 Ibid vol 20 pp 228ndash231151 This ruling is in conformity with the predominant opinion of the Aringanbalj School It

is important to note that there is a narration from Imam Aaringmad that mentions thatpraying in a cemetery is only disliked and not prohibited In addition Aringanbaljscholars disagreed as to whether the prayer of a person in a cemetery is correct or notIbn Qudhmah (al-lsquoUmdah p 69) Ibn Mufliaring (al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 371) and al-Mardhwj(al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 489) in addition to others assert that the correct ruling in the Schoolis that the prayer is incorrect Other Aringanbalj scholars suggest that if the individualconcerned is aware of the prohibition of performing the prayer in the cemetery his

NOTES

231

prayer is incorrect If he is ignorant of the prohibition his prayer will be consideredvalid Others were of the opinion that the prayer in a cemetery is prohibited but theyvalidated it when it occurred Others permitted praying at cemeteries when necessarySee Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 371ndash372 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 489 IbnTaymiyyah mentions that certain jurists thought that the reason for the prayer beingreprehensible in a cemetery is that the ground of the cemetery might be contami-nated by the buried bodies Therefore these scholars differentiate between new andold cemeteries and state that it is allowed in the first and not in the second IbnTaymiyyah criticises this opinion clarifying that the texts contain unambiguous indi-cations of the fact that the prohibition of prayer in cemeteries is based on the dangerthat it can lead to polytheism See Ibn Taymiyyah Iqtiparthlsquo vol 2 pp 672ndash676 Fathwhvol 21 pp 321ndash323

152 Several Aringanbalj scholars were of this opinion and al-Mardhwj states that it is thecorrect opinion in the School Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 374ndash375 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 1 p 490 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 97 Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1p 54 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 155 al-Karmj Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 p 115al-Buhutj al-Rawpart p 63 Kashshhf vol 1 p 294 al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1p 155 al-Shaybhnj Nayl vol 1 p 128

153 Al-Balsquolj Ikhtiyhrht p 44 This opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah is also mentioned by someAringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring who preferred this opinion (al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 375)and al-Mardhwj in his book al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 490 and al-Buhutj in his treatise Kashshhfvol 1 p 294

154 For further details of this point see al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 136 al-Majd al-Muaringarrarvol 1 p 139 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 467 al-Nukat with al-Muaringarrar vol 1pp 139ndash142 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 pp 148ndash149 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1pp 405ndash407 al-Rawpart pp 158ndash159

155 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 pp 63ndash65 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 467 al-Nukatwith al-Muaringarrar vol 1 pp 139ndash140 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 149

156 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 468ndash473 al-Nukat with al-Muaringarrar vol 1pp 139ndash140

157 Al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah pp 611ndash612 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 4 p 211 al-BuhutjShararing vol 2 p 125 al-Rawpart p 224 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 2 p 14

158 For further details on this point see al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 612 al-Majdal-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 182 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 253 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighfvol 4 pp 212ndash213 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 32 pp 15ndash61 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 2pp 125ndash126 al-Rawpart p 224 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 2 pp 13ndash14

159 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 4 p 212160 In Dhi al-Qilsquodah 6628 the Prophet led a group of about 1400ndash1500 men intending

to perform the pilgrimage at Makkah but he was prevented from doing so After aseries of negotiations a truce was drawn up at Hudaybiyah (a place near the city ofMakkah) Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 3 pp 286ndash355 The History of al-Iumlabarj vol IIIpp 67ndash71 Rahman A Chronology p 23

161 Scholars disagree on the actual time period of the truce of the Hudaybiyah Whereassome scholars state that it was for ten years others assert that it was for four years andothers say three years See Ibn Rushid Bidayat vol 2 p 464

162 Al-Yahya Ibn Qudhmah p 210 Furrukh Ali in his article entitled lsquoAl-Hudaybiya analternative versionrsquo suggests that what happened in that event is that in the year 6628the Prophet and the Muslims with him at al-Hudaybiyah instead of being forced toreturn to Medinah and then return in the following year to perform lsquoUmra wereactually allowed to make it in 6 AH Furthermore Ali maintains that the period oftruce was not for ten years as is the standard view but only for the three days of thelsquoUmra Watt strongly disagrees with this opinion and refutes Alirsquos claim on whichhis previous opinion is based that lsquo the Prophetrsquos action at al-Hudaybiya fell short of

NOTES

232

the standards of honour valour and adherence to principles that one would expectfrom a Prophet of God imbued with a divine missionrsquo For more details on this pointsee W Watt lsquoThe Expedition of al-Hudaybiya Reconsideredrsquo in Hamdard Islamicusvol VIII No1 Spring 1985

163 See footnote 158164 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 4 p 212165 Ibn al-Qayyim Aaringkhm vol 2 p 477166 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 140 Ikhtiyhrht p 315 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 4

pp 212ndash213167 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 pp 145ndash146 It is important to point out that Ibn

Taymiyyah is of the opinion that either signatory to the contract of truce has the rightto dissolve it after notifying the other party See Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 140

168 For further details of these conditions and others see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tranpp 167ndash172 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnjlsquo vol 3 pp 880ndash898 al-Majd al-Muaringarrarvol 2 pp 15ndash19 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 169ndash193 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8pp 50ndash112 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 32 pp 15ndash61 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3pp 13ndash27 al-Rawpart pp 363ndash366 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 3 pp 68ndash78

169 For further details of this point see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 167ndash172 IbnQudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 386ndash387 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 899ndash901 al-Majdal-Muaringarrar vol 2 pp 23ndash27 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 211ndash227 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 154ndash205 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 32 pp 15ndash61 al-BuhutjShararing vol 3 pp 39ndash46 al-Rawpart pp 370ndash372 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 3 pp 86ndash93

170 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 175 The majority of Aringanbalj sources do notmention the rulings on the stipulation of these conditions by the wife in the maritalcontract Some sources do however comment upon the stipulations of the wife in theevent that they were not fulfilled They state that she has no right to ask for the disso-lution of the contract except in one specific condition if she stipulated that her hus-band must be a free man and later discovered that he was in fact a slave It isinteresting to note that amongst those scholars who held this opinion was al-Majd thegrandfather of Ibn Taymiyyah In addition it is noteworthy that the majority of Aringan-balj sources only concentrate on the rulings related to the conditions stipulated by thehusband They mention that there are two opinions amongst the Aringanbalj scholarswith regard to this issue The first states that if the conditions stipulated by thehusband are not fulfilled he assumes the right to accept the marriage or dissolve itThe second opinion is that the husband has no right to cancel the contract ofmarriage Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 24 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 219ndash220al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 168 Taszligaringjaring vol 5 p 220 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 46

171 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 p 175 This is also supported by a narration fromImam Aaringmad in which he clarifies that the two parties have the right to dissolve thecontract of marriage if their conditions are not fulfilled See Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 29 p 135 al-Qawhlsquoid p 132

172 This is narrated by several scholars of Aringhdjth such as al-Tirmidhj in his Sunan Bookof Sales vol 3 p 534 Abu Dawud in his Sunan Book of Sales vol 2 p 490 IbnMhjah in his Sunan vol 2 p 737 al-Nashrsquoj in his Sunan Book of Sales vol 7 p 289

173 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 p 529174 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 20 pp 529ndash530 542ndash543 vol 29 pp 22 24ndash26 31

47ndash51 Tafsjr Hyht vol 2 pp 689ndash703 Also Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position with regard tothis issue is mentioned by Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 4 p 22

175 Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 4 p 288 al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 100 al-lsquoUddah p 282 al-Rawpartp 325 Aringhshjyat vol 5 p 564

176 Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 pp 370ndash371177 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUddah p 282178 Ibn Qudhmah al-Mughnj vol 7 p 608

NOTES

233

179 Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 4 p 290180 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7 pp 100ndash101181 Al-Buhutj al-Rawpart p 325182 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshjyat vol 5 p 564183 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 4 p 622184 See Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos discussion of this issue in Fathwh vol 31 pp 212ndash253185 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 101186 Ibid Ibn Kathjr in al-Bidhyah mentions some details of the confrontation between the

judge Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal and other Aringanbalj scholars among whom was the chiefjudge of the Aringanbalj School Jamhl al-Djn al-Mardhwj Ibn Kathjr says that this eventtook place in the year 7571356 when several meetings were held to discuss thejudgement of Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal The Aringanbalj scholars asserted that what is in theAringanbalj jurisprudence is that an endowment can be replaced with another one in astate of necessity and if an endowment becomes unfruitful and nothing is yieldedfrom it but not where it is merely anticipated that greater benefit will arise from thenew endowment Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 272

187 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 101188 Ibid Having searched in al-Furulsquo by Ibn Mufliaring the researcher finds that this scholar

refers to his sheikhrsquos opinion (al-Furulsquo vol 4 pp 622ndash623) without expressing anyindication of his alleged agreement with Jamhl al-Djn al-Mardhwjrsquos criticism of IbnQhpartj al-Jabal

189 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 101 In his book al-Inszlighf al-Mardhwj asserts that thesescholars followed Ibn Taymiyyah in relation to this issue Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7p 101

190 See for instance al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 101 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 4 pp 622ndash623191 Iacutehliaring Mashrsquoil vol 3 p 60 Abu Dawud Mashrsquoil p 227 al-Khiraqj Aringhshjyat p 208

tran p 219 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 1051 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 638al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 pp 68ndash70 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 9 p 469 Ibn al-NajjhrMuntahh vol 2 p 261 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 279 al-Shaybhnj Nayl vol 2 p 318

192 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 14 p 85 al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 3 pp 51 52 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 9 p 469

193 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 14 p 85 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 9 p 469194 Ibn Taymiyyah cites a aringhdjth in which the Prophet is reported to have said lsquowhosoever

kills his slave we will kill himrsquo This aringhdjth is related by Abu Dawud in his Sunan in theBook of Diyht vol 4 pp 652ndash654 al-Nashrsquoj Sunan vol 8 pp 20ndash21 and al-Tirmidhjvol 4 p 26

195 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 14 pp 85ndash86 al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 3 p 51196 Ibid p 86 al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 3 p 51197 Ibid198 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 14 p 86 al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 3 pp 51ndash52199 Ibid al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 4 p 52200 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 14 p 87 al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr vol 3 p 52 This aringadjth is

narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan vol 4 p 667 al-Nashrsquoj Sunan vol 8 p 19 andIbn Mhjah Sunan vol 2 p 895

201 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 9 p 469202 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 235ndash236 Shararing Book of Iumlahhrah (purification)

p 474 The same criterion is also mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ilsquolhm vol 1pp 337ndash338 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 169 and al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 45It should be pointed out that some Aringanbalj scholars mention this same rule but theycontradict it in various legal issues See for instance Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1p 280 Ibn Mufliaring al-Muarrikh al-Mubdilsquo vol 1 p 269

203 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 236

NOTES

234

204 See for example al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring the Book of Drinks vol vii pp 338 339ndash340vol viii pp 503ndash508 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol iii pp 923ndash924 1095 1100 1107

205 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 228206 Ibid vol 10 p 229207 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol iii pp 1107ndash1109208 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 236209 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 229 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 p 387210 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 229 Ibn Taymiyyah differentiates between aringashjshah

and henbane (hyoscyamus niger) on the basis that the first is desirable and sought afteras in the case of khamr whereas this is not true with regard to hyoscyamus niger Seeal-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 438ndash439

211 For details concerning the minimum and maximum period of menstruation men-tioned by Aringanbalj scholars see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 29ndash31 Ibn Qudhmahal-lsquoUmdah pp 54ndash55 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 pp 279ndash280 al-Majdal-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 24 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 267ndash268 al-Zarkashj Shararingvol 1 pp 406ndash410 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 358 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 108Ibn Qhsim Aringhshjyat vol 1 pp 374ndash375

212 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 237ndash238 Shararing Book of Iumlahhrah pp 474ndash476213 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 241214 Ibid Al-Zarkashj mentions that the textual evidences cited by the Aringanbalj scholars as

proofs for the existence of a minimum period of menstruation are either plain but notauthentic or authentic but not plain Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 p 408

215 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 241216 Ibid 239ndash240 This opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the period of postnatal

bleeding also opposes the predominant opinion within the Aringanbalj School whichfixes a certain period for it For details see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 31 IbnQudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 57ndash58 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 pp 289 al-Majdal-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 27 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 282 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1pp 383ndash384 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 116 al-Rawpart p 49 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshjyatvol 1 pp 402ndash404

217 For further details of this point see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 53ndash54 IbnQudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 101ndash103 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 pp 428ndash437al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 pp 129ndash133 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 54ndash67al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 2 pp 314ndash347 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 pp 274ndash283 al-Rawpartpp 109ndash110 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 1 pp 271ndash281

218 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 243219 This aringhdjth is narrated by several scholars See al-Bayhaqj al-Sunan al-Kubrh vol 3

p 137 al-Dhraquƒnj vol 1 p 387 The barid is four farsakh and the farsakh is threemiles Therefore four barids are equal to 48 miles See al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 2pp 137ndash140 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 2 pp 318ndash319

220 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos criticism of the chain of this aringadjth can be further supported by IbnAringajarrsquos statement that this aringhdjth is weak He bases his ruling on the fact that one ofthe narrators of this hhdjth was matruk and another narrator was weak in his narrationsfrom Ahl al-Aringijhz Ibn Aringajar asserts that this aringhdjth is in fact a statement made by IbnlsquoAbbhs Ibn Aringajar al-Talkhjs vol 2 p 46

221 Ibn Taymiyyah Majmulsquo vol 2 p 247222 Ibid pp 243ndash245 Fathwh vol 19 p 243223 Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 189ndash192 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 406ndash408 Ibn

al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 952ndash953 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 44 Ibn Mufliaringal-Furulsquo vol 5 p 343 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 355ndash361 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighfvol 8 p 382 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 107 al-Rawpart pp 388ndash389 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararingvol 3 pp 136ndash138

NOTES

235

224 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 392ndash393225 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 153ndash154 Ibn Mufliaring (al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 345ndash346)

al-Balsquolj in Ikhtiyhrht p 73 and al-Mardhwj (al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 393) narrate this opinionof Ibn Taymiyyah

226 For further details on this point see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 224ndash226 IbnQudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 521ndash526 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 1068ndash1073al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 pp 148ndash150 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 pp 39ndash43al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 pp 126ndash136 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 pp 119ndash120al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 pp 298ndash300

227 Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 224 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 pp 39ndash40al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 pp 119ndash120

228 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 255ndash256229 Ibid vol 19 p 256230 See this definition in al-Mohideb Criminal Procedures p 99231 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 4 p 133 vol 34 pp 206ndash207232 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Tafsjr vol 1 p 107233 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 280ndash285 vol 22 pp 331ndash333234 Al-Maymhn al-Qawhlsquoid pp 152ndash153 Ibn Taymiyyah states that if anyone claims that

a rule is correct without basing the rule on text or consensus his claim will be rejectedIbn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 75

235 Ibn Taymiyyah refers to this rule on numerous occasions See for instance Fathwhvol 21 p 25 This rule is also mentioned and attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah in severalAringanbalj sources such as al-Balsquolj in al-Ikhtiyhrht p 73 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1pp 267ndash268 and al-Salsquodj Iumlarjq p 147

236 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 pp 27 28ndash29237 For additional examples of issues that can be included under this rule used by Ibn

Taymiyyah see Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 pp 235ndash259 Other examples arealso mentioned by Ibn Mufliaring in al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 268

238 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 25239 Al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar pp 13ndash14 Note that Ibn Taymiyyah once held the opinion that

water is divided into three types See Ibn Taymiyyah Shararing al-lsquoUmdah Book ofIumlahhrah (purification) pp 71ndash81 84

240 For further details see al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 20 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdahpp 22ndash26 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 192 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 2Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 72ndash96 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 p 114 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 21ndash22 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 pp 10ndash16 al-Rawpart vol 1 pp 13ndash14al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 1 p 15

241 There are four views among Aringanbalj scholars as to the classification of water (1) Themajority of Aringanbalj scholars were of the aforementioned opinion stating that water isclassified into ƒahur (absolute pure water) ƒhhir (pure water) and najis (impure water)(2) Some Aringanbalj scholars classified water into two types (a) Iumlhhir (b) Najis and theyfurther divided the ƒhhir into two types (a) ƒhhir and ƒahur (b) ƒhhir not ƒahur It appearsthat there is no real difference between this opinion and the one preceding it (3) IbnTaymiyyah asserts that water can be classified into only two types (a) ƒahur (b) najis(4) The Aringanbalj scholar Ibn Razjn was of the opinion that there are four types of water(a) ƒahur (b) ƒhhir (c) najis (d) mashkuk fih (doubtful) See al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 22

242 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 25243 Ibid244 Ibid p 28245 Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran pp 28ndash29 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 40ndash41 Ibn

al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 pp 268ndash270 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 pp 12ndash13Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 158ndash159 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 pp 391ndash392

NOTES

236

al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 179ndash184 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 pp 60ndash61 al-Rawpartvol 1 pp 30ndash32 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 1 pp 59ndash63

246 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 242 vol 21 p 173247 Ibid vol 21 p 175248 Ibid vol 21 p 173 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on this issue is mentioned in the treatises

of a group of Aringanbalj scholars such as al-Mardhwj in his treatise al-Inszlighf vol 1pp 179 182 Al-Mardhwj (al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 183) and al-Zarkashj (Shararing vol 1 p 392)mention Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion with regard to the issue of the excessively torn Khufa person should wipe over the remaining part of the khuf and wash the area uncov-ered by the tear Al-Zarkashj comments on this view and states that it is in disorderSee al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 p 392

249 See these two opinions in Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 pp 5ndash6 Ibn Mufliaringal-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 168ndash169 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 45ndash50

250 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 pp 7ndash21251 Ibid pp 8ndash9252 Ibid p 10253 Ibid pp 12ndash13254 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 29 pp 5ndash21 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion has been cited by

several Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 169 and al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 8 p 45

255 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 25 pp 106ndash113 al-Salsquodj al-Mukhthrht p 60 Ibnal-Laaringaringhm al-Qawhlsquoid p 126

256 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 10 p 363 For other examples of rules used byIbn Taymiyyah which had various ramifications for Aringanbalj jurisprudence see Ibnal-Laaringaringhm al-Qawhlsquoid pp 197ndash198

257 This rule has been mentioned by some Aringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquovol 1 p 293 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 398ndash400 Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1p 43 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 p 120 al-Rawpart p 52 Kashshhf vol 1 p 226 al-HajjhwjZhd with al-Shararing by Ibn lsquoUthaymjn vol 2 pp 22ndash23

258 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 33259 Ibid al-Balsquolj Mukhtaszligar p 35260 Ibid261 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 57ndash58 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion is narrated by someAringanbalj scholars such as Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 293 It interesting to note thatIbn Munjja (d 6951296) who was one of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos teachers in fiqh clarifiesthat the Aringanbalj rule permitting postponement of the prayer for the purpose of fulfill-ing a condition of the prayer is problematic in two respects first this rule was not men-tioned by any Aringanbalj scholar before it was articulated by the leading Aringanbalj scholarIbn Qudhmah On the contrary it was known that Aringanbalj scholars did not permit thisdelay except where the individual intends to combine two prayers Second this generalpermission might excuse the individual who deliberately delayed the prayer until beforethe end of the time According to this rule it would be allowed for him to postpone theprayer until he fulfils its conditions without taking into consideration that he is the onewho is responsible for this delay The criticism of this Aringanbalj rule has also been men-tioned by Ibn lsquoUbaydhn See al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 399ndash400

262 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qawhlsquoid p 128263 Ibid p 131264 Ibid p 150265 Ibid p 131266 Ibid p 137267 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 31 pp 47ndash48 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos clarification is also

mentioned by several Aringanbalj scholars See for instance al-Balsquolj Ikhtiyhrht p 176

NOTES

237

al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 7 p 56 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 4 pp 600ndash601 al-Aringajjhwjal-Iqnhlsquo vol 3 pp 11ndash12

268 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 8269 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 1141ndash1142 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 101

al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 pp 378ndash383 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 pp 229ndash230al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 358

270 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 230 al-Balsquolj al-Ikhtiyhrht p 299 For another exampleof a narration attributed incorrectly by the leading Aringanbalj scholars to Aaringmadaccording to Ibn Taymiyyah see al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 124ndash125

271 Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 6 pp 378ndash381 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 10 p 230272 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 pp 139ndash140 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 50ndash51273 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 140 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 51 For other

examples see Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 p 338 406 438 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighfvol 9 pp 124ndash125 Ibn Taymiyyah occasionally agrees with the correctness of certainnarrations but then asserts that something else is commonly known from Ibn AringanbalFor an example see al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 9 p 28

274 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 211275 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 211276 Ibid277 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 pp 233ndash235278 Al-Khiraqj Mukhtaszligar tran p 168 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah p 364 Ibn al-Bannh

al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 887ndash888 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 15 16 Ibn Mufliaringal-Furulsquo vol 5 p 172 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 79ndash80 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8p 55 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 p 14 al-Rawpart p 363 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 3 pp 70ndash71

279 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 55280 Al-Bukhhrj Iacuteaaringjaring vol vii pp 51ndash52281 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 32 pp 24ndash25282 Ibid pp 23 25283 Ibid pp 25ndash26 28284 Ibid p 23

5 THE LEGACY THE INFLUENCE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH ON AringANBALJ JURISTS

1 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 147 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 395 This scholarrsquosrelationship with the different sectors of society can be seen clearly through the studyof his life from various sources such as al-Ilsquolhm by al-Bazzhr and Dhayl by Ibn Rajabvol 2 pp 387ndash408

2 Al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm p 31 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 4083 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 111 Ibn Kathjr mentions that this Amjr was

inseparable from Ibn Taymiyyah4 Ibid vol 14 p 272 Ibn Kathjr describes this Amjr as lsquoone of the most devoted

students of Ibn Taymiyyah (min akbar aszligaringhb al-sheikh taqj al-d jn)rsquo5 Ibid vol 14 p 2296 Ibid p 2147 Al-Karmj al-Kawhkib pp 133 134ndash135 Chamberlain remarks lsquoA great teacher

might just as well work with students in jail as did Ibn Taymiyyah in AlexandriarsquoChamberlain Knowledge p 78

8 Some sources mention that al-Dhahabj compiled a treatise entitled al-Qabbhn in whichhe gathered the names of the disciples of Ibn Taymiyyah See al-Sakhhwj al-Ilsquolhnp 307 Other scholars assert that no attempt has been made to gather all of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos students See for instance al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm p 31

NOTES

238

9 Al-Bazzhr al-Alsquolhm p 3110 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd pp 65ndash73 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 pp 264ndash268 397ndash399

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar pp 112ndash114 and al-Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar p 6811 See the biography of this scholar in Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 434ndash435 Ibn Mufliaring

al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 215 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 227 al-Aringusaynj Dhuyulvol 4 p 122

12 Al-Durar vol 1 p 1613 The theological tendency of al-Iumlufj is problematic Several scholars such as

al-Dhahabj Ibn Rajab and al-Buƒj were of the opinion that he was a shjlsquoj Somecontemporary scholars such as al-Turkj and Zayd assert that he was a Sunni Seeal-Dhahabj Dhuyul al-lsquoIbar vol 4 p 44 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 368ndash370al-Turkj in his introduction to Shararing al-Rawpartah vol 1 pp 33ndash38 Zayd al-Maszliglaaringahpp 74ndash88 al-Buƒj Icircawhbiƒ pp 202ndash206

14 Several scholars have affirmed that the creed as explained by this scholar is very clearin comparison with other methods See for instance Ibn Aringhmid Rishlah pp 12ndash14al-Whsiƒj al-Tadhkirah Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 393 and Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 125

15 Ibn Taymiyyah in the narration of al-Bazzhr unveils the reason for the considerableattention he attached to the science of creed He saw a state of confusion amongst themajority of people caused by various incorrect opinions circulated by the scholarswho were described by him as lsquothe people of innovationrsquo He saw it as his duty todevote most of his efforts to correcting the mistakes emanating from the contributionsof the scholars to this field See al-Bazzhr al-Ilsquolhm pp 35ndash37

16 Al-Raaringmhnj preface to Dalsquowah by Aaringmad pp 19ndash2017 Ibid p 25 Some contemporary writers seem to suggest that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb was

the one who later successfully put Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos ideas into practice See SafiullahWahhhbism p 80 Woodward asserts that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb was a reformer whoturned Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos theology into political action far more successfully than IbnTaymiyyah had been able to do Martin Defenders of Reason p 126

18 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 128 Dhuyul al-lsquoIbar vol 4 p 7219 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 pp 120ndash12120 Another scholar who was subjected to detention due to his support of Ibn Taymiyyah

was the leading scholar of Aringad jth al-Mizzj He was imprisoned and then was releasedby Ibn Taymiyyah himself See Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 41

21 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 448 At some stages Ibn al-Qayyim did not mentionwhether his fatwh was in agreement with that of his sheikh Nevertheless he facedsevere opposition from his contemporaries For an example of this see Ibn Kathjral-Bidhyah vol 14 p 233 Ibn Kathjr was also detained for issuing fathwh which agreedwith the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah See Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 399 Someof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos students such as lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn (Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos brother)accepted imprisonment with their sheikh in order to serve him See Ibn Kathjral-Bidhyah vol 14 p 135

22 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 93 For another example see Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 8723 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 245 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 436ndash439 Ibn

Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 360 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd pp 62ndash6424 Ibid vol 8 p 227 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 434ndash435 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1

p 21525 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 1 p 2526 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 132 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 393 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht

vol 8 p 37627 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 24728 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd pp 169ndash17029 Ibid p 87

NOTES

239

30 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 pp 361ndash36231 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 127 The means by which this influence was

transferred to these students were Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos lectures treatises and fathwh Thetreatises and fathwh were written by his students One of them was Ibn Rushayq whoworked for him as a secretary On some occasions Ibn Taymiyyah used to ask him toread his manuscripts For this reason he was known for being very well acquaintedwith Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos works Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 247 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdjal-Uqud p 27

32 Ibn al-lsquoImhd narrates a statement from al-Dhahabj in Shadharht vol 8 p 247concerning the events of the year 7451344 the year in which al-Aringarhnj died whichcan provide an answer to this question He mentions that this scholar studied withhim and under him Also Ibn al-lsquoImhd mentions the death of al-Harhnj amongst theevents of the year 7451344 This means that when Ibn Taymiyyah died al-Aringarhnjwas 26 years old and was living in Damascus and seeking knowledge in this city withhis sheikh and companion al-Dhahabj Therefore it is unlikely that this scholar didnot study under Ibn Taymiyyah lsquoAbd al-Aringamjd in the introduction ofal-Musawwadah p 3 This can be further supported by the fact that one of al-Aringarhnjrsquosmost important works was his compilation of a clean copy of (bayyaparta) al-MusawwadahIbn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 1 p 178 It can be noted throughout al-Musawwadah thatwhen he categorises the opinions of these three scholars al-Aringarhnj identifies theopinion of Ibn Taymiyyah by starting the sentences with the term shaykhunh (oursheikh) This affirms that he was one of his disciples

33 This can be evidenced through the numerous Aringanbalj scholars and schools thatexisted in this city at the time of Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Nulsquoaymj mentions in his booklsquoal-Dhris fi Thrjkh al-Madhrisrsquo the various schools including the Aringanbalj scholarsand madhris present in Damascus from the fifth to the eighth Islamic century IbnIumlulun mentions in his book lsquoIlsquolhm al-Warhrsquo some aspects of the educational life ofDamascus

34 This scholar was known as Ibn al-Qayyim or Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah because hisfather was the Qayyim (superintendent) of the school known as lsquoal-Jawziyyahrsquo SeeIbn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 252

35 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 38536 Abu Zayd al-Taqrjb p 14537 See the biography of this scholar in the following al-Dhahabj Dhuyul al-lsquoIbar vol 4

pp 126ndash127 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 pp 236ndash23738 Abu Zayd al-Taqrjb pp 47ndash4839 Ibn Rajab (Dhayl vol 2 p 449) describes those who studied under Ibn al-Qayyim as

being great in number (khalqun kathjr)40 These two books have been published several times41 In another study of Ibn al-Qayyim Sharaf al-Djn declares that Ibn al-Qayyim was aAringanbalj scholar but was not a fanatic follower of this School instead he followedwhat he thought to be the right opinion based upon his own ijtihhd Sharaf al-Djn Ibnal-Qayyim p 99

42 Abu Zayd Ibn al-Qayyim p 4443 Nurbain Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos Reformation p 9444 Al-Aringusaynj Dhuyul al-lsquoIbar vol 4 p 15545 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 448 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 385 Ibn Shaƒj

Mukhtaszligar p 6846 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 117 202 Sharaf al-Djn Ibn al-Qayyim p 73 Abu

Zayd al-Taqrjb pp 110 140 This is problematic as Ibn Rajab (in his book al-Dhaylvol 2 p 448) mentions that Ibn al-Qayyim was imprisoned in a separate cell in thecitadel of Damascus This imprisonment lasted for two-and-a-half years

NOTES

240

47 See for instance Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 1 pp 71 264 319 324 375 499 vol 5p 730 Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 223 264 295

48 See for instance Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 1 p 407 Ilsquolhm vol 4 p 20349 Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 147ndash14850 See for instance Ilsquolhm vol 4 pp 203 219 226 264 272 295 319 32251 The benefit Ibn al-Qayyim derived from Ibn Taymiyyah is acknowledged in various

places see for instance Zhd al-Malsquohd vol 2 pp 21 22 118ndash122 127 141 148ndash150209ndash210 231 333 vol 5 pp 811ndash816 In addition he cites the words and opinionsof his sheikh in various places in his book Ighhthat al-Lahfhn for instance see vol 1pp 410 412 417ndash422 469ndash470 501 508ndash509 550ndash555 vol 2 pp 8ndash9 48 55 6274 123 133 152 Also he cites and quotes his sheikh in other treatises such as AaringkhmAhl al-Dhimmah vol 1 pp 51ndash54 189 280 281ndash282 286ndash290 342 360 380 vol 2pp 462ndash467 474 481ndash482 492 495 541ndash543 567ndash568 570 571 578ndash580582ndash583 592ndash593 593ndash594 594ndash596 601ndash602 626ndash627 629 677ndash707 800ndash801816ndash818 831 833ndash865 865ndash870 Ibn al-Qayyim benefited from his sheikh duringthe writing of a large part of his book al-Ilsquolhm There is clearly a great similaritybetween the comments made by Ibn al-Qayyim in this book and the opinions of IbnTaymiyyah Ibn al-Qayyim himself acknowledges that he benefited from his sheikh agreat deal This can be evidenced through his discussion concerning the conflictbetween analogy and text that commences at vol 1 p 472 Here he states that thefollowing section is based on what he learnt from his sheikh The citation appears tocontinue up to vol 2 p 365 where he again states that he acquired the informationmentioned on the issue in question from Ibn Taymiyyah There are many other sec-tions displaying a noticeable similarity between Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos and Ibn al-Qayyimrsquosopinions concerning various issues for example the consensus of Ahl al-Madjnahvol 2 pp 412ndash430 stipulation of purity for the performing of ƒawhf vol 3 pp 19ndash39the triple divorce vol 3 pp 40ndash54 the marriage of al-taaringl jl vol 3 pp 54ndash66 hisdiscussion of legal devices (aringiyal ) vol 3 pp 224ndash502

52 See for examples Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 55353 Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 2 pp 21 2254 See for examples Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 1 p 434 vol 3 p 3755 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 3 pp 358ndash359 In support of his opinion on this issue Ibn

al-Qayyim cites the words of Ibn Taymiyyah Ibid p 36056 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 1 pp 337ndash403 vol 2 p 4857 Ibid vol 3 p 7758 Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 2 pp 209ndash21059 Ibid vol 2 p 14160 Ibid vol 1 p 44061 Ibid vol 2 p 8862 Ibid p 59363 Ibid vol 5 p 41564 Ibid vol 1 pp 136ndash13765 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 3 p 9666 Ibid vol 4 pp 144ndash14567 Ibid p 14468 See for instance Ighhthat vol 2 p 55 Aaringkhm vol 2 pp 831ndash870 Zhd vol 1 p 311

vol 2 pp 118ndash122 127 148ndash15069 See for instance Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 1 pp 276 438 464 465 47270 Ibid vol 5 pp 155 21571 Ibid p 73072 Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 4 p 33473 Ibn al-Qayyim al-Nuniyyah vol 2 pp 72ndash73

NOTES

241

74 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 448 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 25375 Abu Zayd Ibn Qayyim pp 83ndash8576 Ibn Aringajar al-Durar vol 4 p 2177 Ibid pp 44ndash45 Ibn al-Qayyim in Ilsquolhm al-Muwaqqilsquo jn declares that he frequently

found issues where the right opinion was not in conformity with the position of theAringanbalj School He did not hesitate to declare the other opinions as being correctIbn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm al-Muwaqqilsquojn vol 4 p 225

78 See for instance Zhd vol 2 p 19379 Ibn al-Qayyim Zhd vol 5 p 67380 Sharaf al-Djn Ibn al-Qayyim pp 90ndash93 Abu Zayd Ibn Qayyim pp 91ndash9381 Al-Naaringlawj Ibn Qayyim pp 25ndash2882 Abu Zayd Ibn Qayyim pp 36ndash37 8983 Ibn Rajab Dhayl vol 2 p 449 Ibn Kathjr al-Bidhyah vol 14 p 20384 Abu Zayd al-Taqrjb pp 138ndash15185 See for example Ibn al-Qayyim Ilsquolhm vol 2 pp 149ndash15186 See for example footnote no 5187 Abu Zayd Taqrjb p 988 Ibn al-Qayyim upheld his sheikhrsquos knowledge by conveying his sheikhrsquos various opinions

and by supporting most of his sheikhrsquos opinions in many instances providingadditional evidences

89 See for instance Zhd al-Malsquohd vol 2 pp 21 22 118ndash122 127 141 148ndash150209ndash210 231 333 and al-Ilsquolhm vol 1 pp 137 520 vol 2 pp 5 8 9

90 Al-Shawkhnj al-Badr vol 2 pp 144ndash14591 Ibn Aringajar Taqrjcopy p 15 Ibn Nhszligir al-Radd p 23192 Al-Salsquodj Iumlarjq p 30393 There are different narrations concerning this scholarrsquos date of birth For details see

Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 520 There is also a disagreement about his age uponhis death Only some scholars such as Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 8 p 341 and IbnMufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 520 say that Ibn Mufliaringrsquos age when he died was bipartlsquo wakhamsun (ie between 53 and 59 years old)

94 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 pp 518ndash51995 Ibid p 51996 Ibid97 Ibid p 518 al-Jawhar p 11298 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 51899 Ibid p 520 al-Jawhar p 113

100 Ibid101 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 519102 Ibid p 385103 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar p 114104 Al-Mardhwj mentions this statement in the introduction to Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 22105 Ibn Mufliaring for instance mentions Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises Shararing al-lsquoUmdah in

al-Furulsquo (vol 1 pp 87 118 154 222) Iqtiparthrsquo (vol 2 p 440) Minhhj (vol 3 p 138) al-Ajwibahal-Maszligriyyah (vol 1 p 460) al-Iacutehrim al-Maslul (vol 1 p 576) al-Fathwh al-Miszligriyyah(vol 2 p 603)

106 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 206 vol 2 p 185 On some issues Ibn Mufliaringdraws an analogy from rulings issued by his sheikh to other similar cases See forinstance al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 543

107 For examples of opinions toward which Ibn Taymiyyah appears to have a leaning seeal-Furulsquo vol 1 p 246 For examples of opinions in regard to which Ibn Mufliaringmentions that his sheikh has reservations or hesitate see al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 591 vol 6p 395

NOTES

242

108 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 315 651109 There are other signs of the importance Ibn Mufliaring attached to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos

opinions On several occasions Ibn Mufliaring mentions that his sheikhrsquos opinionconcerning certain issues will be mentioned in a coming section or chapter he alsooccasionally points out that he has already mentioned his sheikhrsquos opinion in aprevious section or chapter For the first type see al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 339 vol 3 pp 125226 and for the second type the same source vol 3 pp 137 145

110 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 128ndash129 139 458 vol 2 pp 311 498ndash500111 Ibid vol 3 p 7112 Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing vol 4 p 250113 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 244 258 306 547 577 587 vol 2 pp 118 130

155 249 287 445 537 619 vol 3 pp 4 50 65 66 vol 4 pp 38 162 187 202411 435 474 vol 5 pp 154 187 205 215 293 491 506 vol 6 pp 68 76 256313 550 599 Also Ibn Mufliaring mentions various ruling derivations (takhrjjht) drawnby Ibn Taymiyyah See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 217 239 308 474 492 660vol 6 p 498

114 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 134 139 208 vol 4 pp 64 97 137 138 160404 406 vol 5 p 363 vol 6 pp 287 455 499 527

115 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 3 p 112116 Ibid vol 2 p 440117 Ibid vol 1 p 587118 Ibid vol 4 p 138119 Ibid p 265120 See for instance al-Mardhwjrsquos criticism of Ibn Mufliaring in Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo (vol 1 p 547)

He mentions in al-Furulsquo (vol 1 pp 547ndash548) the existence of two narrations withinthe Aringanbalj School regarding a jurisprudential issue which are both based upon thewords of Ibn Taymiyyah

121 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 130 210 273122 See for instance for claiming consensus al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 128 255 vol 2 pp 264

273 305 443 vol 3 pp 227 289 vol 4 pp 51 289 538 vol 5 p 418 432 vol 6pp 106 159 273 303 423 492 533 and for the claim that some rulings are theopinions of the Predecessors al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 651ndash652 666

123 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 4 pp 285ndash286124 Ibid vol 1 p 430 vol 3 pp 24 123ndash124 167ndash168 vol 5 pp 162 367125 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 251ndash252 445ndash446 On several occasions Ibn

Taymiyyah insists that his opinions which were in opposition to the opinions ofleading Aringanbalj scholars were in fact the opinions of Aaringmad and the early Aringanbaljscholars See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 p 304 vol 3 p 301

126 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 467127 Ibid pp 101 118 547 584 vol 2 pp 160 264 265 273 305 311 312ndash313 vol 3

pp 107ndash108128 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 224 266 375 428 442 vol 2 pp 58 89 91 277

437ndash438 vol 3 pp 390 492 vol 5 pp 11 304 515 vol 6 p 55 On one occasionIbn Mufliaring prefers the opinion held by Ibn Taymiyyah to that of Aaringmad as he seesthe evidence to be in support of his sheikh Al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 320 In some cases IbnMufliaring mentions some evidence which can back his sheikh but does not disclose hisown opinions See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 640 Sometimes Ibn Mufliaringmentions some scholars who hold similar opinions to his sheikh al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 606vol 6 pp 120 480

129 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 314 592 602 vol 3 pp 204ndash205 Ibn Mufliaringmentions that he could not find the legal evidence for one narration preferred by IbnTaymiyyah Al-Furulsquo vol 6 p 588

NOTES

243

130 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 402ndash403 vol 6 p 340 vol 4 p 92131 Ibid vol 2 pp 118 440 al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 115132 Ibid vol 1 pp 198 vol 6 pp 491 570133 Ibid vol 2 pp 314ndash315 602 vol 4 p 285 vol 6 p 508 Ibn Mufliaring asserts that the

apparent meaning of some texts supports the opinion of his sheikhrsquos opponents butin some of these issues it seems that there is a clear contradiction in the words of IbnMufliaring See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 2 pp 314ndash315

134 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 460135 Ibid vol 5 p 506136 Ibid vol 2 p 592137 Ibid vol 1 p 123138 Ibid vol 2 pp 651ndash652139 An example is an issue mentioned by al-Mardhwj in al-Inszlighf Ibn Abi al-Majd one of

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos disciples narrated that the opinion of his sheikh on the issue ofthe reversal of khullsquo (divorce at the instance of the wife) is that it is permissible toreverse the khullsquo and the compensation paid for it because this contract takes thestatus of the contract of sale which can be legally reversed Al-Mardhwjmentions thatit is narrated that Ibn Mufliaring said to Ibn Abi al-Majd while the two scholars wheredebating this issue lsquoyour narration of this opinion from our sheikh is wrongrsquoAl-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 395

140 See for instance al-Furulsquo vol 3 p 50141 An example is the issue of the importance of the eve of the middle of Shalsquobhn Ibn

Mufliaringmentions (al-Furulsquo vol 3 p 118) that Ibn Taymiyyah holds the opinion that thiseve has a special virtue ( fapartjlah) according to what is narrated from Aaringmad and oth-ers When referring to source works of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions (such as al-Ikhtyhrhtp 65 Fathwh vol 23 p 131) one finds that the opinion mentioned by Ibn Mufliaring isin fact only a part of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion The remainder of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinion states that gathering in mosques for this prayer is an innovation (bidlsquoah)

142 Al-Sakhhwj al-Icircawrsquo vol 11 p 32 al-Zaraklj al-Alsquolhm vol 2 p 37143 The Sultan of the time was al-Ashraf Barsibhj who was in power from the year

8251422 till his death in the year 8411437 The era of this Sultan was a time ofpolitical stability See al-Nujum vol 14 p 242 Khiƒaƒ vol 2 p 188

144 Al-Sakhhwj al-Icircawrsquo vol 11 p 32 al-lsquoUlaymj al-Dur vol 2 pp 679ndash680 al-ShaƒjMukhtaszligar p 74

145 Al-Sakhhwj al-Icircawrsquo vol 11 p 32 Shadharht vol 9 p 505146 Al-Sakhhwj al-Icircawrsquo vol 11 p 32147 Ibid148 Al-Jurhlsquoj Ghhyat p 56b149 Ibid p 61b150 Ibid p 137a151 Ibid p 71a152 Ibid pp 187b 222a153 Ibid p 155a154 Ibid pp 41andashb155 Ibid pp 79a 209a156 Al-Thaqafj Muszligƒalaaringht p 205157 Al-Jurhlsquoj Ghhyat p 2a158 See for instance Ghhyat pp 148b 186a159 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar p 62 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 p 91160 Al-Jurhlsquoj Ghhyat pp 40b161 Ibid p 77a

NOTES

244

162 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar p 99163 Al-Thaqafj Muszligtalaaringht p 207164 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar p 100165 Most of the biographical accounts written about al-Mardhwj mention that he

compiled the book lsquoTaszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo rsquo After searching in various indices of manuscriptswe found that one index mentions the existence of a work by this scholar concerningal-Furulsquo This book is entitled lsquoMukhtaszligar al-Furulsquo rsquo and a copy exists in a library inIraq It appears that these two works are two different treatises This can be furthersupported by the statement of al-Sakhhwj (al-Icircawrsquo vol 5 p 226) that al-Mardhwjmade a summary of al-Furulsquo and also made additions to it

166 See for instance al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 38 43 67 77 79 81 292 vol 3 pp 177 179vol 4 pp 44 221 234 235 463

167 Ibid vol 1 p 399168 Ibid p 57 vol 2 p 39169 Ibid pp 54ndash55170 Ibid vol 3 p 235171 Ibid vol 9 p 317172 Ibid vol 3 p 270173 Ibid vol 11 p 117174 Ibid vol 1 pp 16ndash17175 Ibid p 18176 Ibid vol 2 p 181 vol 4 pp 52 57 66 vol 8 p 449 vol 10 p 383177 Ibid vol 7 p 475178 Ibid vol 8 p 64179 Ibid vol 2 p 189180 Ibid p 234 vol 8 pp 40 66 90 108 110 125 126 137 271 319 410 436181 See for instance ibid vol 7 p 306 Al-Mardhwj sometimes cites and agrees with the

criticism made by some Aringanbalj scholars of some of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos pronouncementsin the field of aringad jth See for instance ibid vol 2 p 78

182 See for instance ibid vol 1 p 84 vol 4 p 80 vol 371 vol 8 pp 3ndash4 315183 See for instance ibid vol 3 pp 182 234 269 387 vol 4 pp 397 405 vol 5 pp 68

130 484 vol 6 pp 46 112 vol 7 pp 68 88 101 vol 9 p 202 vol 10 pp 171 244vol 11 p 18 On some issues al-Mardhwj cites some Aringanbalj scholars who assert thatthe ruling found within the School is in fact related to an issue other than that statedby Ibn Taymiyyah See for instance ibid vol 5 p 237

184 See for instance ibid vol 4 pp 462 463 469 vol 5 pp 264 276 404 vol 9 pp 71268 vol 10 pp 201 241 370 In some of these issues where Ibn Taymiyyah claimsthe existence of consensus al-Mardhwj cities statements asserting the existence ofdisputes among scholars See for instance ibid vol 5 p 261

185 See for instance ibid vol 1 p 376 vol 9 p 341 Some of these opinions are knownin the Aringanbalj School as opinions and not as narrations from Aaringmad See forexample ibid vol 9 p 202

186 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 47 59 60 82 87 114 128 155 vol 3 pp 22 434vol 4 pp 351 461 vol 5 pp 34 271 339 372 375 425 vol 6 pp 36 37 202 vol 7pp 31 117 137 370 vol 8 pp 10 64 160 387 vol 9 p 145 vol 10 pp 327 371vol 11 pp 125 221

187 Ibid vol 1 p 405188 Ibid p 423189 Ibid p 8 vol 5 pp 420 425 471 vol 7 p 446 vol 8 p 101190 Ibid vol 5 p 483 vol 6 p 179 vol 7 pp 156 231 349 423 vol 8 pp 69 80 120

201 255 289 362 vol 9 pp 5 483 vol 10 p 7 154 vol 11 p 323

NOTES

245

191 See for instance ibid vol 5 pp 149 203 216 234 261 271 324 420 426ndash427vol 6 p 82 vol 8 p 153 vol 10 pp 34 327 vol 12 p 62

192 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 357 359 vol 2 pp 74 88 212 231 247 362 vol 3pp 39 301 315 vol 4 pp 31 38 107 189 327 378 vol 5 pp 32 76 130 255282 324 327 332 vol 7 pp 209 306 vol 8 pp 137 154 329 vol 10 pp 67 140vol 12 pp 151 197

193 See for instance ibid vol 2 pp 47 290 567 vol 3 pp 218 286 vol 4 pp 185 339373 398 459 vol 5 pp 204 322 324 373 440 vol 6 pp 117 132 219 376ndash377vol 7 pp 45 78 155 354 vol 8 pp 330 441 vol 10 pp 3 404 vol 11 pp 12 231vol 12 p 9

194 Ibid vol 1 p 405195 Ibid vol 2 p 47196 Ibid p 44 vol 8 p 6197 Ibid p 567198 Ibid vol 5 p 255199 Ibid vol 4 p 38200 Ibid vol 5 p 274 Al-Mardhwj occasionally cites rules in the Aringanbalj School that

support the position of Ibn Taymiyyah See for instance al-Inszlighf vol 5 pp 274 324He also cites some similar rulings within the School to support rulings held by IbnTaymiyyah See for example ibid vol 5 p 277

201 See for instance ibid vol 6 p 84 vol 8 p 58202 See for instance ibid vol 7 p 49 vol 9 p 107 As an aside in his book entitled

lsquoShararing al-Taaringrjrrsquo al-Mardhwj studied the position of Ibn Mufliaring that it is not permissi-ble for a mufti to answer a question at length if he can make the answer shorterAl-Mardhwj comments upon Ibn Mufliaringrsquos statement saying that this utterance isproblematic for it is well known that scholars would give answers which covered morethan the point in question The end result is that an answer may be comprised of onevolume or more He mentioned the example of Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn al-Najjhr Shararingal-Kawkab al-Munjr vol 4 pp 596ndash597 Al-Mardhwj also studied two statementsregarding the existence of mujtahjds The first is al-Nawawjrsquos statement which saysthat there were no mujtahids in his time nor in many eras before The second statementis made by al-Rhfilsquoj in which he states that the people of his time appear to agree thatthere was no absolute mujtahid during his era Al-Mardhwj comments that there werein fact some scholars who reached the status of mujtahid and again gives IbnTaymiyyah as an example Ibn al-Najjhr Shararing al-Kawkab al-Munjr vol 4 pp 569ndash570

203 See for instance al-Inshf vol 3 pp 149 301 315 495 vol 4 p 185 vol 5 p 274vol 9 p 491

204 See for instance ibid vol 2 p 234 vol 4 pp 149 160 367 vol 5 pp 368 373vol 6 pp 43 326 vol 7 pp 326 475 vol 8 pp 40 45 58 66 90 108 109ndash110125 126 137 161 200 218 249 298 303 319 325 382 436 vol 10 pp 355 356357 398 vol 11 pp 156 vol 12 pp 38 122 122ndash123 145

205 Ibid vol 1 pp 401ndash402206 Ibid vol 5 p 327207 Ibid vol 7 p 53208 Ibid vol 8 p 198 On some issues al-Mardhwj mentions that several Aringanbalj

scholars assert that the opinion claimed by Ibn Taymiyyah to be that of Aaringmad is infact an old opinion which was later retracted by Aaringmad See for instance ibid vol 2p 558

209 See for instance ibid vol 2 p 280 vol 4 p 209 vol 8 p 362 vol 9 p 442210 Ibid vol 1 pp 186 199 201 vol 2 p 451 vol 7 p 61 In some issues al-Mardhwj

does not label Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos ruling as incorrect but he asserts that it is in oppositionto the apparent meaning of many statements issued by Aringanbalj scholars See for

NOTES

246

instance al-Inszlighf vol 4 p 464 Also al-Mardhwj cites Ibn Mufliaring in various issueswhere it seems that he has some reservations or criticism of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosopinions See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 110 441 vol 2 p 230 vol 3 pp 179 257302 453 vol 4 pp 66ndash67

211 Ibid vol 2 p 78 vol 5 p 261212 Ibid vol 6 p 41213 Ibid vol 1 pp 355 357 361 383 vol 3 pp 299 300 332 432 434 vol 4 pp 57

217 301 vol 5 pp 23 33 125 168 210 238 281 344 440 vol 6 pp 13 29 30 4493 twice 94 vol 7 pp 9 10 11 12 21 22 23 25 101 112 116 133 134 311 323348 352 405 vol 8 pp 45 122 152 213 248 271 318 347 354 424 448 vol 9pp 55 64 95 150 233 316 334 371 383 395 406 469 vol 10 pp 67 140 150 154199 285 295 312 342 357 408 vol 11 pp 165 237 271 vol 12 pp 108 122 211

214 Ibid vol 7 p 303215 Ibid p 415216 Ibid vol 1 pp 389ndash390 vol 2 pp 263 365 vol 3 pp 65 85 vol 4 p 295217 Ibid vol 1 pp 389ndash390 vol 2 p 263218 Ibid vol 2 p 192219 Ibid vol 10 p 168220 Ibid vol 8 p 317 vol 11 p 385221 Ibid vol 1 pp 62 88 215222 Ibid p 109 vol 8 p 90223 Ibid vol 3 p 114224 Ibid pp 86 389 vol 7 p 66225 Ibid vol 7 p 304226 Ibid pp 25 26 vol 8 pp 25 218 371227 Ibid vol 10 pp 177 241228 Ibid vol 1 p 14229 Ibid p 441 vol 3 p 273 vol 5 pp 16 80230 Ibid vol 7 p 46231 Ibid vol 2 p 229232 Ibid vol 1 p 409233 Ibid p 92 vol 3 pp 270 303 447 vol 4 pp 29 89 348 356 374 vol 4 pp 415

473 vol 5 pp 69 80 154 167 205 215 269 327 vol 6 pp 146 155 168 286 vol8 p 46 Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal in his book al-Fhrsquoiq adopts the opinions of his sheikh invarious issues See for instance ibid vol 1 p 397 vol 2 p 289 vol 3 pp 179 286294 303 312 vol 4 pp 295 302 374 vol 5 pp 34 210 249 438 vol 6 pp 255414 vol 8 p 46

234 Ibid vol 1 p 24235 Ibid vol 5 p 47236 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Jawhar p 100237 Consult the biography of al-Aringajjhwj in the following sources Ibn Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar

pp 93ndash94 al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 124ndash125 al-Kawhkib al-Shrsquoirah vol 3 pp 215ndash216al-Zaraklj al-Alsquolhm vol 8 p 267 Ibn al-lsquoImhd Shadharht vol 10 p 472

238 For the citation of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions by this scholar in his book al-Iqnhlsquo seethe tables at the end of this section

239 See for instance al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 77ndash78 103 111 169240 Ibid vol 2 p 397 vol 3 p 5241 Ibid vol 1 p 32242 Ibid p 42243 Al-Aringajjhwj ibid vol 1 pp 2ndash3244 Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 410 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 3245 See for instance al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 160 231 233 237 398

NOTES

247

246 See for instance ibid vol 1 p 20 Cf al-Balsquolj al-Ikhtiyhrht p 10 Several Aringanbaljscholars attribute this ruling to Ibn Taymiyyah rather than to the Aringanbalj School seefor instance al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 121 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 75Another example can be found in al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 24 Cf Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 18 pp 263ndash264 vol 20 pp 358ndash359 vol 22 pp 218ndash219 221 228 230 231232 235ndash242 245 246

247 See for instance al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 59 95 Also see Kashshhf vol 1 p 287248 Ibid vol 1 p 303 vol 2 pp 24 39 48 vol 3 p 167249 See for instance ibid vol 2 p 54 vol 3 p 163250 Ibid vol 1 pp 4 19 79 vol 3 p 11251 Ibid pp 74 398 vol 2 p 92 vol 3 pp 11 35252 Ibid vol 2 pp 48 301 vol 3 pp 34ndash35 232253 Ibid vol 1 p 111254 Ibid p 149 vol 2 p 76255 Ibid p 160256 Ibid p 334 vol 2 p 209257 Ibid pp 199 396 vol 2 pp 44 47 201 202 204258 Ibid vol 2 p 55 vol 3 pp 190 229259 Ibid vol 1 pp 232 346260 Ibid pp 19 24 55 205261 Ibid p 303262 Ibid p 149263 Ibid p 55 It is clear that the reason for this is that al-Iqnhlsquo is based primarily on

al-Mardhwjlsquos works264 It ought to be noted that in some rulings al-Aringajjhwj adopts Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos

opinion without explicit reference to him See for example al-Buhutj Kashshhfvol 1 p 87

265 An example is the issue of the divisions of water for the purpose of ablutional-Aringajjhwj is of the opinion that water is divided into three types Al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnjlsquovol 1 p 97 This opinion agrees with the stance of the predominant opinion in theAringanbalj School For further details of this point see al-Khiraqj al-Mukhtaszligar tranp 20 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 22ndash26 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 192al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 2 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 72ndash96 al-ZarkashjShararing vol 1 p 114 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 21ndash22 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1pp 10ndash16 al-Rawpart vol 1 pp 13ndash14 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 1 p 15 This contradictsthe opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 25 al-BalsquoljMukhtaszligar pp 13ndash14 For other examples see al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 3ndash8 1216 17 30 32 40 52 57 65 72 87 89 97 165 179 184 192 308 321 323 395Some of these opinions are considered to be innovations by Ibn Taymiyyah Seeal-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 16 179

266 Al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 pp 2ndash3267 See al-Karmjrsquos introduction to his book Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 3ndash4268 Abu Zayd al-Madkhal vol 2 p 787269 See for the biography of this scholar al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 113ndash116 al-Kawhkib

al-Shrsquoirah vol 2 p 112 Ibn Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar pp 91ndash92270 Al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 141ndash142 Ibn Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar pp 96ndash97271 See for the biography of this scholar al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 141ndash142 al-Zaraklj

al-Alsquolhm vol 6 p 233 Ibn Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar pp 96ndash97272 For instance Ibn al-Najjhr like al-Aringajjhwj agrees with the widely recognised opinion

within the Aringanbalj School of law that water is divided into three types for ablutionSee Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1 pp 11ndash12 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 pp 10ndash19 Forother examples where opinions disagreeing with Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position are held by

NOTES

248

this scholar see Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1 pp 16 17 19 22 23 39 41 54 86101 102 108 162 184 216 237 247 248 vol 2 pp 82ndash83 94 144 342 al-BuhutjShararing vol 1 pp 20 23 24 38 43 44 60 108 116 120 124 142 155 213 255275 294 361ndash362 405ndash406 438 Again some of these opinions are considered tobe innovations by Ibn Taymiyyah See Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh with al-Buhutj Shararingvol 1 pp 33 49 459

273 Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1 p 9 al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1 p 7274 Ibid275 Ibn al-Najjhr Muntahh vol 1 p 9 al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 7ndash8276 This is further supported by the fact that in the science of the general principles of

jurisprudence we notice various references to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions made by thisscholar The main reason behind this is that this scholarrsquos book Shararing al-Kawkabal-Munjr is in fact based on al-Mardhwjrsquos work lsquoTaaringrjr al-Manqul rsquo Taaringrjr al-Manqulis also based on the work of Ibn Mufliaring entitled lsquoKithb fi Uszligul al-Fiqhrsquo For furtherclarifications of the history of this book see Ibn Badrhn al-Madkhal p 461 AbuZayd al-Madkhal vol 2 pp 950 953ndash954 As clarified in this chapter there is largepresence of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions in the works of both Ibn Mufliaring and al-Mardhwj Some of the quotations of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions used by Ibn al-Najjhrare clearly stated to have been taken from Ibn Mufliaring See for instance Ibn al-NajjhrShararing al-Kawkab vol 4 pp 95 96 250 The opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah have beencited by Ibn al-Najjhr in Shararing al-Kawkab al-Munjr For example in volume 4 he citedIbn Taymiyyah in the following pages 95 96 222 223 225 250 264 291 413 414532 543 570 575 577 597 613 625 651 673

277 See for instance Ibn al-Najjhr Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh vol 1 pp 177 231 240 245ndash246294 315 317 320 344 274 693 715ndash715 752

278 See for instance Ibn al-Najjhr Malsquounat vol 1 pp 201 224279 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 223 250 409 715ndash716280 Ibid pp 281ndash282 432ndash433 772281 Ibid pp 387 432ndash433282 Ibid pp 199 326283 Ibid pp 204 294 344 413284 Ibid pp 177 183 199 201 203 204 205 208 223 224 237 240 245ndash246 247

249 250 281ndash282 315 326 344 378 382 409 492 502 587 608 693 701 711769 772

285 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 223 281 294 306 316 318 320 357 358 364374 387 413 432 686 715ndash716 752

286 It is interesting to note that Ibn al-Najjhr in the first volume of Malsquounat ul j al-Nuhhdoes not refer to any of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos books except in four places where he citesShararing al-lsquoUmdah See Ibn al-Najjhr Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh vol 1 pp 183 245 357 680On three of these occasions (pp 183 245 357) he mentioned this book throughthe narration of either Ibn Mufliaring or al-Mardhwj In the same volume (p 316)Ibn al-Najjhr refers only once to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatise al-Ikhtiyhrht On thisoccasion also this reference is in fact based on the narration of al-Mardhwj

287 See for instance Ibn al-Najjhr Malsquounat vol 1 pp 281 432 715288 Ibid vol 1 p 608289 Ibid p 318290 For the biography of this scholar see al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 189ndash190 Ibn Shaƒj

Mukhtaszligar p 108 al-Zaraklj al-Alsquolhm vol 8 p 88291 Al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot p 191 Ibn Shaƒj Mukhtaszligar pp 108ndash109292 Ibid p 109293 The book compiled by al-Karmj is entitled lsquoal-Kawhkib al-Durriyyah fi manhqib

al-Mujtahid Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo This book has been published several times It is evident

NOTES

249

that this scholar commanded a particular knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionsand preferences for we find him identifying some of his opinions which were cited bysome Aringanbalj scholars without attributing them to Ibn Taymiyyah See for instanceKashshhf vol 1 pp 75 110 187 Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 465

294 Al-Karmj states clearly in his introduction to Ghhyat al-Muntahh that whenever he usesthe term lsquoal-Sheikhrsquo he means Ibn Taymiyyah Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 p 5 Notethat when al-Buhutj attributes opinions to Ibn Taymiyyah he adds to al-Sheikhthe nickname Taqj al-Djn

295 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 75 110 187 Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 465296 See for instance al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 2 pp 61 121297 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 19 29ndash30 172 183 270 277 279 Kashshjf vol 1

pp 24 67298 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 201 279 287 Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 113

180 254 301 386 404 459 vol 2 pp 11 52 82 101 190 245 291 305 Also insome issues the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah were cited in opposition to the opinionsof the Imam Aaringmad For example see al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1 p 92

299 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 256 294 Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 29ndash30 177300 For example of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos explanations of Aringanbalj statements see al-Buhutj

ShararingMuntahh vol 1 pp 13 19ndash20 26 27 37 Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 p 357 vol 2pp 299ndash300 For examples of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos classifications of Aringanbalj opinionssee Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 269 489 509

301 See for instance al-Buhutj Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 425 Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1pp 331 332 357 453

302 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 p 173 Also on some issues al-Karmj mentionsscholars supporting the position taken by Ibn Taymiyyah See for example Ghhyatal-Muntahh vol 2 p 31 In some cases al-Karmj placed conditions on the acceptanceof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinion See for example Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 493ndash494

303 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 35 54 67304 Ibid p 413305 Ibid pp 183 506 The editor of Ghhyat al-Muntahh also identifies some unattributed

opinions as being from Ikhtiyhrht See for example vol 1 pp 29ndash30306 Kashshhf vol 1 p 149 In other places of his treatises al-Karmj cites without

specifying the source Ibn Mufliaring narrating some of the opinions of Ibn TaymiyyahSee Kashshhf vol 1 pp 120 149 437 Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 p 473

307 Al-Ghizzj al-Nalsquot pp 210ndash213 al-Zaraklj al-Alsquolhm vol 8 p 249 Ibn ShaƒjMukhtaszligar p 115

308 Each of these works has been published several times309 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 75 110 187 Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 465310 Note that when al-Buhutj attributes opinions to Ibn Taymiyyah he adds the

nickname lsquoTaqj al-Djnrsquo to lsquoal-sheikhrsquo311 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 35 54 67312 See for instance ibid vol 1 p 413313 Al-Buhutj ibid vol 1 pp 176 183 232 244 270 294 299 506314 Ibid p 149 Sometimes al-Buhutj cites Ibn Mufliaring without mentioning the source

see for instance ibid vol 1 pp 120 149 437315 Al-Buhutj ibid vol 1 p 212316 Ibid pp 201 279 287 In some issues the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah oppose

Aaringmad himself For example see al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1 p 92317 See for instance Kashshhf vol 1 pp 256 294318 See for instance al-Buhutj Shararing Muntahh vol 1 p 425319 For explanations given by Ibn Taymiyyah of Aringanbalj statements see footnote 300320 Al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 pp 159 232 359

NOTES

250

321 See for instance ibid vol 1 pp 24 67322 Al-Buhutj ibid vol 1 p 173323 See for instance al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 3 p 513324 Al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 71325 Ibid vol 1 p 54326 Ibid p 158327 Ibid p 222328 Ibid p 470329 See for instance al-Buhutj Shararing al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 61ndash62 vol 2 pp 427 511330 Al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 35331 For examples see the following al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 17 and compare to Kashshhf vol 1

p 67 and for an example where al-Karmj gives preference to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinionin clear disagreement with al-Aringajjhwj in Muntahh See al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 p 404

332 See for example al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 pp 6ndash10 17 19 al-Buhutj al-Rawpart p 21Kashshhf vol 1 p 65 314 ShararingMuntahh vol 1 pp 274 459 Al-Karmj holds that it ispermissible to set out on a journey to visit graves Al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 p 277 It isclear that this opinion is in agreement with the position taken by AbuMuhammad IbnQudhmah At the same time it is in opposition to the position of Ibn Taymiyyah whodeclares this practice to be an innovation only invented by some later scholars See thesection entitled lsquoinnovation in Aringanbalj fiqhrsquo in Chapter 4 of this work

333 See for example the ruling concerning stroking the wall of the Prophetrsquos room(tamassuaring bi al-aringujrah) al-Rawpart p 213 and the duration of a truce in al-Rawpart p 224the terms used to ratify the contract of marriage also in al-Rawpart pp 362ndash363 andthe types of water in al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 pp 6ndash10

334 Al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 35335 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid p 14336 See al-Karmjrsquos introduction to his treatise entitled Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 1 pp 4ndash5

and al-Buhutj in Kashshhf al-Qinhlsquo vol 1 p 10 and in al-Rawpart p 9337 There is a disagreement amongst some contemporary scholars regarding the extent

of ignorance and polytheism that existed at the time of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Forfurther details see al-lsquoUbud lsquoAqidat al-Sheikh vol 1 pp 37ndash105

338 There are several treatises dealing with the personal educational and political life ofIbn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb See for instance al-Mukhthr Thrjkh pp 35ndash57 Icircahjr al-Dalsquowah al-Wahhhbiyyah al-Freih The Historical Background of the Emergence of MuhammadIbn Abd al-Wahhhb and his Movement and Nasri Ibn Abd al-Wahhhbrsquos Philosophy of Society

339 There are various references that mention the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah upon IbnlsquoAbd al-Wahhhb See for instance Nicholson A History pp 463 465 umlalas lsquoAszligr p 21Icircahjr al-Dalsquowah pp 44ndash45 (in this book the writer refers to several scholars whostate that Ibn Taymiyyah influenced Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb) Safiullah Wahhhbsimpp 69ndash70 Fazlur Rahman Islam pp 114 196ndash201 Makdisi Ibn lsquoAqil p 209Lambton State and Government p 151 Kucukcan Some Reflections pp 68ndash69 KuttyMuhammad Ibn lsquoAbdul Wahhhb pp 43ndash44 47ndash48 lsquoAbd al-Aringamjd Tajdjd p 99 Somewriters appear to suggest that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb used the widespread influence ofIbn Taymiyyah rather than that he was influenced by him Safiullah Wahhhbism p 67

340 Nasri Ibn lsquoAbdul Wahhhbrsquos Philosophy p 11341 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid p 14342 An example of this is that the editors of the book of purification by Ibn lsquoAbd

al-Wahhhb one of whom is the contemporary scholar Sheikh Iacutehliaring al-Aƒram writethat amongst the reasons affirming that this book was compiled by Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb is that it is in complete agreement with this scholarrsquos way of writing Onecharacteristic feature is the repeated citation and quotation of the opinions of IbnTaymiyyah See the introduction to the book of al-Iumlahhrah by Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb

NOTES

251

343 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid p 14344 Ibid pp 3ndash4345 For further details of Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhbrsquos opinions regarding these issues and

others see Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Kithb al-Tawhjd al-lsquoUbud lsquoAqjdat al-Sheikh Muhammadb lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb vol 1 pp 247ndash687 vol 2

346 Martin Defenders p 127347 See for instance Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid pp 5 8ndash10 11348 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Iumlahhb Kithb al-ahhrah p 7349 Ibid pp 22ndash23350 Ibid p 33351 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Arbalsquo Qawhlsquoid p 14352 Esposito Woman pp 104ndash105353 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Kithb al-Iumlahhrah p 13 Mukhtaszligar pp 26 74 204 225 342354 Schacht remarks lsquoFrom the eighthfourteenth century onwards the Aringanbalj school

declined and seemed on the verge of extinction when the puritanical movement ofthe Wahhhbis of the twelftheighteenth century and especially the Wahhhbj revivalin the present century gave it a new lease of life The religious founder of this move-ment Muhammad Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb (d 12011787) was influenced by the worksof Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo Schacht An Introduction 66 The study and analysis of some of thetreatises of the following two selected Aringanbalj scholars al-Salsquodj and Ibn lsquoUthaymjnproves the growing influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on contemporary Aringanbalj scholarsMoreover we find that the Aringanbalj scholars in al-Durar al-Najdiyyah cited IbnTaymiyyahrsquos jurisprudential opinions on many issues see al-Durar al-Najdiyyah vol 4pp 11 12 24 twice 31 34 thrice 37 38 thrice 39 53 68 70 twice 94 99 100 114143 144 160 161 166 167 169 172 173 181 183 186 187 188 190 194 196197 199 241 252 254 259 twice 264 281 307 309 312 315 316 twice 317 318twice 336 344 351 357 359 360 365 366 370ndash371 373 378 385 390 391twice 392 397 406 407 408 415 423 425 twice 427 434 436 vol 5 pp 8 1724 40 44 50 54 57 68 82 84 99 102 108 135 145 160 162 174 204 210212 215 238 259 260 twice 161 275 276 twice 277 twice 283 284 294 twice295 299 301 309 310 312 314 thrice 316 317 334 335 352 twice 353 354 355356 357 364 373 376 384 385 395 397 twice 398 401 403 414 vol 6 pp 525 30 31 35 36 46 twice 53 55 twice 56 59 67 80 104 106 108 109 122 124twice 125 twice 126 129 132 135 136 137 140 141 twice 142 144 149 150157 159 171 180 181 182 twice 184 186 twice 188ndash190 194 twice 195 197 205twice 206 thrice 207 208 210 thrice 248 250 253 258 259 260 261 263 273274 twice 278 284 285 292 293ndash294 306 308 310 312 320 twice 322 twice324 325 333 336 337 338 347 349 358 370 371 twice 371 372 382 384 385390 391 392 394 twice 395 twice 399 twice 409 418 419 426 427 428 430459 vol 8 pp 174 179 182183 187 189 213 219 221 224 241 244 246 317336 340 345 361 365 377 442 450 473 484 485 487 489 vol 9 pp 90 115117 124 138 159 162 165 189 191 209 232 twice 234 246 248 255 294 305twice 311 322 401ndash402 vol 10 p 17 twice 19 63 69 70 71 73 81 88 93 118twice 119 144 164ndash167 167ndash168 169 175ndash177 178 179ndash180 181 189 192 194232 twice 233 249 twice 331 354ndash355 356 357 360ndash375 376 377 378 380 381386 393 401 403

355 Al-Mohideb Criminal p 22356 Al-Iumlurafj Thrjkh p 138357 For example Aringhshiyat al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo is taught in the sharjlsquoah faculties affiliated with

the Imam University This treatise is written by the contemporary Aringanbalj scholarIbn al-Qhsim (13921972) who states (Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 164) that Islam andthe Muslim world since the time of Ibn Taymiyyah up to his era had not been

NOTES

252

granted a scholar more knowledgeable than Ibn Taymiyyah in the texts reason andthe disputes amongst the scholars He mentions that the title lsquoal-sheikhrsquo was initiallyassociated with Ibn Qudhmah until the appearance of Ibn Taymiyyah Now this titlehas become more associated with Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn al-Qhsim also admits that inmost cases he prefers the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah as these opinions according tohim are based upon correct evidences He stresses however that Ibn Taymiyyah wasnot infallible (Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 164) This scholar who also gathered the fathwh of IbnTaymiyyah mentions (Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 9) that the treatises of Ibn Taymiyyah andIbn al-Qayyim provided some of the sources on which he based his Aringhshiyat In thefootnotes of this book Ibn al-Qhsim cites various opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah whichdisagree with the opinion or the predominant opinion of the Aringanbalj School Forexamples see vol 1 pp 59 63 73 76 79 82 88 89 96ndash97 99 110 113 127 131139 151 159 174 183 187 192 217 219 231 233 236 241

358 See for instance Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Kithb al-Iumlahhrah p 2 where he cites Shararingal-lsquoUmdah and Ikhtiyhrht p 9

359 Al-lsquoUbud lsquoAqidat vol 1 pp 206 217360 See for instance Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Kithb al-Iumlahhrah p 6361 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb mentions a vast number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions in his

treatise entitled lsquoMukhtaszligar al-Inszlighf wa al-Shararing al-Kabjrrsquo which runs to around800 pages It is clear however that Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb cites these opinions from theoriginal work al-Inszlighf For details of this point see the table at the end of this section

362 Tarjamat with al-Ikhtiyhrht p 305 al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 14 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1p 18

363 Tarjamat with al-Ikhtiyhrht p 305 al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh pp 25ndash26 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1pp 83ndash84

364 Al-Salsquodj was behind the founding of the Waƒaniyyah library in the city of lsquoUnazahwhich contains a large number of sources and references Later on this librarybecame a place where al-Salsquodjrsquos students studied under his supervision Seeal-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 18 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 pp 23ndash24

365 Tarjamat with al-Ikhtiyhrht p 306 al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 18 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1pp 24ndash25

366 Al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 18 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 p 24367 Although this book critically studies the book al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo by al-Buhutj in

particular it is clear as al-Salsquodj also points out in al-Mukhthrht pp 3ndash4 that thecorrections made by him can be applied to the other Aringanbalj sources as some of theseopinions can be found in them

368 Quoted by al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 p 89369 Quoted by al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 29370 Quoted by al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 p 94371 Al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 59 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 p 75 This is also asserted by one of

al-Salsquodjrsquos students See Tarjamat with al-Ikhtiyhrht p 306372 Al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 p 50373 Al-Salsquodj Iumlarjq al-Wuszligul p 3374 Ibid375 Quoted by al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 30376 Ibid377 Quoted by al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 30 Al-Salsquodj has a poem in which he praises Ibn

Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and their scholarly heritage See al-Salsquodj al-Fathwhpp 673ndash675

378 See for instance al-Salsquodj al-Fathwh pp 241ndash242 286 329 472ndash474 476ndash478 512379 See for instance al-Salsquodj ibid p 517380 Al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 8

NOTES

253

381 This is also mentioned by al-Iumlayyhr in his book Fiqh al-Sheikh Ibn Salsquod j vol 1 p 100382 Al-Salsquodj Iumlarjq p 4383 This published treatise is entitled Iumlarjq al-Wuszligul ila al-lsquoIlm al-Marsquomul384 This is mentioned by Ibn lsquoUthaymjn Al-Badrhnj lsquoUlamhrsquouna p 8 Al-Iumlayyhr reached

the same conclusion after he studied the fiqh of al-Salsquodj He clarifies that during thefirst stage of his scholarly life al-Salsquodj confined himself to the Aringanbalj School of lawLater on and especially after his extensive study of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah andhis student Ibn al-Qayyim he resorted to the evidences of the sharjlsquoah rather than theopinions of the Aringanbalj School of law Nevertheless when there is no clear evidencein support of any of the conflicting opinions al-Salsquodj imitates Aaringmadrsquos opinionAl-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 1 pp 90 96 113

385 Al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 2 p 200386 On some occasions al-Salsquodj mentions the opinions of the Aringanbalj School and Ibn

Taymiyyah without making a preference For instance see al-Salsquodj al-Qawhlsquoidpp 146ndash147

387 For instance al-Sarsquodj al-Qawhlsquoid pp 146ndash147 al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh vol 2 p 246388 For instance al-Salsquodj al-Muhkthrht pp 60ndash61 In some of these issues al-Salsquodj

mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah supports his opinions with a large number of evidencesHe argues that whosoever encounters them would have no option but to follow IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinions Al-Salsquodj al-Muhkthrht pp 108ndash109

389 Al-Salsquodj al-Fathwh p 286390 Ibid pp 528 570 598 On one of these issues al-Salsquodj mentions that precaution

should be employed to avoid the disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and theAringanbalj scholars Ibid p 528

391 Ibid pp 155 576 On one of these issues al-Salsquodj is not sure if he shouldadopt the way of precaution or to support the opinion hold by Ibn Taymiyyah Ibidp 155

392 Ibid p 144393 Ibid p 183394 Ibid p 295395 This can be seen clearly in al-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah where al-Salsquodj clearly attributes

only some of the opinions to Ibn Taymiyyah396 In this treatise which is entitled al-Muhkthrht al-Jaliyyah min al-Mashrsquoil al-Fiqhiyyah

al-Salsquodj critically studies al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo by al-Buhutj which is a commentary on Zhdal-Mustaqnilsquo by al-Aringajjhwj Al-Salsquodj states that he chose this book for study because itwas the most ubiquitous book amongst the students of his time These corrections asal-Salsquodj asserts can be also applied to other Aringanbalj treatises where similar incorrectopinions are found Al-Salsquodj al-Mukhthrht pp 3ndash4

397 Al-Salsquodj Bahjat p 134398 This scholar has left a large number of treatises around 40 of which have been

published For further details of the treatises of this scholar see Tarjamat pp 307ndash308al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh pp 43ndash58

399 For examples see Tarjamat pp 306ndash307 al-lsquoAbbhd al-Sheikh p 35ndash37 al-IumlayyhrFiqh vol 1 pp 51ndash68

400 A biography of Ibn lsquoUthaymjn has been written by al-Iumlayyhr who is one of hisstudents and is a professor at al-Imam University See al-Iumlayyhr Fiqh al-Sheikh IbnSalsquodj vol 1 p 63 Another biography can be found in Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrsquos work entitledlsquoal-Khilhf bayn al-lsquoUlamhrsquo asbhbuhu wa mauqifuna minhursquo (Differences of opinionsamongst the scholars their causes and our position towards them) English editionpp 6ndash8

401 For an example see Ibn lsquoUthaymjnrsquos explanation of the term lsquoal-lsquoUmum al-Malsquonawjrsquowhich is used by Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 126

NOTES

254

402 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 7 p 284403 Ibid vol 1 pp 302 357 vol 7 pp 45 70 vol 8 pp 100 289 374 394404 Ibid pp 291ndash292 vol 5 p 258 vol 7 p 519405 Ibid vol 8 p 63406 Ibid vol 7 pp 484ndash485407 Ibid vol 8 p 114408 Ibid p 222409 Ibid p 53410 Ibid p 265411 Ibid vol 7 p 91412 Ibid vol 8 p 83 187 189413 Ibid pp 195 215 vol 8 p 418414 Ibid vol 8 pp 37ndash38415 Ibid pp 203 234 vol 7 p 53 vol 8 p 400416 Ibid vol 7 p 91417 See for instance al-Shararing vol 3 p 538 vol 7 p 506418 See for instance ibid vol 7 p 9 375419 See for instance ibid vol 7 p 10 vol 8 pp 189 366420 Ibid vol 8 pp 232ndash233421 Ibid vol 7 pp 193ndash194422 Ibid vol 2 p 157 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn states that when a mujtahid cannot reach a conclusion

on an issue he must not issue a fatwh and it is permissible for him to imitate anotherscholar out of necessity Ibn lsquoUthaymjn Mujmulsquo vol 4 p 81

423 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 7 p 300424 Ibid vol 2 pp 39ndash40 51ndash52 132ndash135 235 285 vol 3 pp 296 469 494 510 517

vol 7 pp 79 153 174ndash175 150 327 vol 8 pp 63 152 168 174 206 236 260284 304 404ndash405 447

425 Ibid vol 2 p 34426 Ibid vol 2 p 158427 See for instance ibid vol 3 p 471 vol 8 p 133428 See for instance ibid vol 7 p 79429 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn ibid vol 2 p 52 60 vol 3 p 323430 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Khilhf p 6431 Ibid pp 6ndash7432 Ibid p 7433 Ibid p 7434 Eight volumes of al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo by Ibn lsquoUthaymjn have been published since

1994 Seven volumes concern jurisprudential issues related to worship and as aconsequence most of the issues cited by the researcher relate to this topic

435 See the section entitled lsquoRules used by Ibn Taymiyyah and certain aspects of theirimplications for Aringanbalj jurisprudencersquo in Chapter 4 of this work

436 Ibid437 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 44438 Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 2 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 189 Ibn Mufliaring

al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 84 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 55ndash56 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1pp 129ndash130 Ibn Mufliaring al-Mursquoarrikh al-Mubdilsquo vol 1 p 52 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquovol 1 p 8 al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 p 10 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 36 al-lsquoAnqirjAringhshiyat vol 1 p 24 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 89

439 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 21 p 32440 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 32441 Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 11 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 p 199 Ibn Mufliaring

al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 125 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 117ndash118 al-Zarkashj Shararing

NOTES

255

vol 1 p 166 Ibn Mufliaring al- Mursquoarrikh al-Mubdilsquo vol 1 p 99 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquovol 1 p 19 al-Karmj Ghhyat vol 1 p 21 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 72 al-rsquoAnqirjAringhshiyat vol 1 p 42 Ibn Qhsim Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 150

442 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ikhtiyhrht p 10 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 125 al-ZarkashjShararing vol 1 p 166 al-Aringajjhwj al-Iqnhlsquo vol 1 p 19 al-Buhutj Kashshhf vol 1 p 72Ibn Qhsim Aringhshiyat vol 1 p 151 These scholars state that the opinion that the siwhkis permitted for a fasting person in the afternoon is acopyhar All of these scholars wereeither students of Ibn Taymiyyah or came after his era and most of them refer to IbnTaymiyyahrsquos opinion regarding this issue

443 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 pp 122ndash124444 According to another view in the School the utterance can be audible Ibn lsquoUthaymjn

asserts that this opinion is even weaker than that the utterance is recommended andthe worshipper says it silently Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 159

445 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 22 pp 218 223446 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 159447 Al-Khiraqj al-Mukhtaszligar tran pp 28ndash29 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 40ndash41 Ibn

al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 1 pp 268ndash270 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 pp 12ndash13 IbnMufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 158ndash159 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 pp 391ndash392al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 179ndash184 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 1 pp 60ndash61 al-Rawpartvol 1 pp 30ndash32 al-lsquoAnqirj Shararing vol 1 pp 59ndash63

448 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 19 p 242 vol 21 p 173 al-Ikhtiyhrht p 14449 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 pp 190ndash192450 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 pp 182ndash183 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 1 p 13 al-Zarkashj

states that this opinion has been specified by Aaringmad and the Aringanbalj scholars assertit authoritatively to the extent that al-Majd mentions it as an agreed upon rulingAl-Zarkashj Shararing vol 1 p 395

451 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 13452 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 208453 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 pp 260ndash261 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 2 pp 222ndash223 348454 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 27 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 1 p 261455 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 275456 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 1 p 260457 Ibid vol 1 p 260458 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing 308459 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 2 pp 355ndash356460 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 28461 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 1 p 410462 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 5 p 482463 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 151 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 5 p 482464 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 6 pp 89ndash90465 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 299466 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 108467 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 6 pp 380ndash381468 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 3 p 302469 Ibn Taymiyyah Ikhtiyhrht p 108470 Ibn lsquoUthaymjn al-Shararing vol 6 pp 395ndash396 For further examples of issues in al-Shararing

al-Mumtilsquo where Ibn lsquoUthaymjn refers to Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos opinions and agrees withhim see vol 1 pp 88ndash89 216ndash218 226 323 382 402 410 vol 2 23 27 34 113117 128 147 153 157 158 160 165 192 192ndash193 204 315 vol 3 pp 11 53 61339 392 468 520 534 536 vol 5 pp 208 258 479 vol 7 pp 77 80ndash81 89 91188ndash189 260 396 456 485 502 vol 8 pp 53 369 391 418

471 See al-Durar al-Najdiyyah vol 8 pp 188ndash190

NOTES

256

6 A CASE OF CONFLICT THE INTENDED TRIPLE DIVORCE REVISITED

1 The fatwh of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the triple divorce as a single pronouncementand the stated number having no effect resulted in his interrogation See Ibn lsquoAbdal-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 324 al-Karmj al-Kawhkib p 145

2 This issue was of great interest to Ibn Taymiyyah This is evident from his thoroughstudy and discussion of this matter Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj mentions that Ibn Taymiyyahwrote approximately twenty volumes concerning the issues of divorce and thedissolution of marriage and other related points See Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-lsquoUqud p 38

3 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 370 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 448ndash449al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 371ndash381 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 pp 123ndash126 al-Rawpartpp 394ndash395 There are some types of divorce which are a source of disagreementamongst the scholars in relation to whether they are sunni or bidlsquoj An example is adivorce which takes place during the wifersquos period of purity after sexual intercoursehas occurred resulting in known pregnancy Ibn Taymiyyah however maintainsthat this disagreement amongst the scholars is fruitless Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwhvol 33 p 7

4 In the revocable divorce the husband can return to his wife without the need to enterinto a new contract of marriage This is because the two parties are still considered bylaw as husband and wife In the irrevocable divorce they are considered to be completestrangers to one another and in order to return to a state of marriage there is a needfor the following First if the irrevocable divorce was the result of one pronouncementof divorce followed by its complete waiting period without retraction from the hus-band a new contract of marriage is required This means that the husband will beconsidered as a complete stranger whose proposal can be accepted or rejectedSecond if the irrevocable divorce was a result of a triple repudiation a return to thestate of marriage is not allowed except if the wife was to marry another man and thendivorce him This is dependent upon the condition that the second marriage was notperformed solely in order to make the wife eligible to return to her former husband

5 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 4536 Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 373 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr pp 211ndash218 al-Mardhwj

al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 451ndash452 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 371ndash372 Ibn al-Bannhal-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 959ndash960 al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 411 al-Majd al-Muaringarrarvol 2 p 51 al-Buhutj al-Rawpart p 394

7 Most of the Aringanbalj sources mention two narrations from Ibn Aringanbal regarding theruling on triple divorce See for example Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 373 Ibnal-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 959ndash960 al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 411 Other sourcesmention more than this number such as al-Muaringarrar by al-Majd vol 2 p 51 andal-Furulsquo by Ibn Mufliaring vol 5 pp 371ndash372 who mention the existence of threenarrations and al-Mardhwj in al-Inszlighf vol 8 pp 451ndash452 and Ibn al-Mubarrid inSayr al-Aringhth pp 211ndash218 who say that there are four narrations from Aaringmadregarding this issue It appears that this discrepancy is based on the various methodsof classification adopted by some of these scholars rather than a contradictionbetween narrations related from Aaringmad For an example see the narrations on thisissue mentioned by al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 373

8 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 411ndash412 al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 p 51 al-ZarkashjShararing vol 5 p 373 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr p 211 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 451Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 371 al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah p 411 al-Buhutj al-Rawpartp 394 Ibn Mufliaringmentions that this was the position of most of the Aringanbalj scholarsand al-Mardhwj labels it as the predominant opinion in the School adopted by thevast majority of Aringanbalj scholars Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 371 al-Mardhwjal-Inszlighf vol 8 p 451

NOTES

257

9 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 70ndash71 72ndash73 76ndash8110 Ibid vol 33 p 8711 Ibid12 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 453 Abu Yalsquola Riwhyatayn vol 2 p 145

Ibn Qudhmah al-Khf j vol 2 p 785 al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 138 al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 371Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 959 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 pp 136ndash138 This is thegeneral ruling concerning this issue It should be noted that according to the Aringanbaljscholars if the triple divorce is pronounced triply in one word (ie thalhthan) the rulingdiffers depending on whether the woman is madkhulan biha (the marriage has beenconsummated) or not If the divorcee is not madkhulan biha she will be considereddivorced by a first divorce and then if they agree to marry again they will havetwo divorces left but if the divorcee is madkhulan biha she will be divorced thriceAl-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 9 pp 22ndash25

13 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 p 814 Ibid pp 7ndash815 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol 2 p 759 Aaringmad al-Musnad vol 4 p 31416 Aaringmad al-Musnad vol 4 p 123 Aaringmad Shhkir stated that this aringadjth is authentic For

a counter-argument by the opponents of Ibn Taymiyyah to these textual evidencessee Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 14ndash15 al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 pp 373ndash376Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr pp 123ndash141

17 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 12ndash1318 Ibid pp 17ndash18 2419 Ibid p 2420 Ibid p 2521 Ibid pp 15ndash1622 Ibid p 1623 Ibid pp 16ndash1724 Muslim Iacuteaaringjaring vol 2 pp 769ndash77325 Bukhari Iacuteaaringjaring Arabic and English edition vol VII p 13626 Al-Bukharj Iacuteaaringjaring Arabic and English edition vol VII p 135 173ndash174 MuslimIacuteaaringjaring vol 2 pp 778ndash779

27 Al-Zarkashj Shararing vol 5 p 37328 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 p 7729 Ibid pp 77ndash7830 Ibid pp 38ndash4031 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 453 Abu Yalsquola Riwhyatayn vol 2 p 145 Ibn

Qudhmah al-Khf j vol 2 p 785 al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 138 al-Furulsquo vol 5 p 371 Ibnal-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 p 959 al-Buhutj Shararing vol 3 pp 136ndash138

32 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 p 833 lsquoAbd Allah Mashrsquoil vol 3 pp 1109ndash1110 Abu Dawud Mashrsquoil p 173 Iacutehliaring Mashrsquoil

vol 1 p 441 vol 3 p 220 It is clear that in these narrations Ibn Aringanbal differenti-ates between whether the divorcee is madkhulan biha or not if the form of triple divorcewas by the use of one word (thalhthan) In a similar manner he earlier clarifiedthe statement of the Aringanbalj scholars that explains the origin of the existence of thisdifferentiation in the School

34 Al-Khiraqj al-Mukhtaszligar p 185 Al-Khiraqjrsquos statement appears to suggest that in theAringanbalj School triple divorce is regarded as a Sunni type of divorce without a refer-ence to any other opinion within the School regarding this type of divorce as a bidlsquo j(innovation) This statement could be al-Khiraqjrsquos own opinion or may be due to thefact that al-Khiraqj intended that his book be a summary of Aringanbalj jurisprudenceas he mentioned in the introduction of his Mukhtaszligar English translation p 19

35 Ibn al-Bannh al-Muqnilsquo vol 3 pp 959ndash960 966 969 970ndash971 972ndash973 974ndash975Ibn al-Bannh mentions the same stance of the Aringanbalj School in which there is a

NOTES

258

differentiation between a madkhulan bihh divorcee (where the marriage has beenconsummated) and a divorcee who was not madkhulan bihh

36 Ibn Qudhmah al-lsquoUmdah pp 411 419ndash42037 Al-Maqdisj al-lsquoUddah with al-lsquoUmdah pp 411 419ndash42038 Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar vol 2 pp 51 5639 This scholar was a jurist teacher judge and a mufti and became the sheikh of the

School He commanded an extensive knowledge of Aringanbalj jurisprudence and histreatises in this science have become reliable references in the School See Ibnal-Mubarrid al-Jawhar pp 99ndash101 For further details about this scholar and hisknowledge see the section entitled lsquoal-Mardhwjrsquo in Chapter 5 of this work

40 Ibn Mufliaring al-Maqszligad vol 2 pp 517ndash520 For further details about this scholar andhis knowledge see the section entitled lsquoIbn Mufliaringrsquo in Chapter 5 of this work

41 Al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 45342 Ibid pp 453ndash45443 Ibn Mufliaring al-Furulsquo vol 5 pp 371ndash372 It is important to note that Ibn Mufliaring like

al-Mardhwj mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah attributes this opinion to his grandfatheral-Majd as well

44 Ibn al-Mubarrid asserts that it is incorrect to claim that the opinion that triple divorcetakes the effect of a single divorce was a narration from Aaringmad Rather it is anopinion attributed to the School by some scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim and IbnMufliaring Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr al-Aringhth p 111

45 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh v33 p 8746 Ibid47 Ibid p 3548 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 48449 Ibid pp 438ndash43950 Ibid p 43651 Ibn Qudhmah al-Mughnj vol 10 pp 96ndash97 al-Shirhzj al-Muhadhdhab vol 4

pp 287ndash288 al-Malsquoallimj al-Aringukm al-Mashrulsquo pp 9ndash10 Ibn Aringazm al-Muaringallavol 10 pp 203ndash211 al-Dusuqj Hhshiyat 2 pp 361ndash362 al-Shawkhnj Nayl vol 8pp 19ndash20

52 Abaringhth Hayrsquoat vol 1 p 39253 Al-Marwazj Ikhtilhf al-Fuqahhrsquo p 134 It should be pointed out that al-Marwazj

restricts the consensus of scholars to the triple divorce of a madkhulan biha divorceeonly (where the marriage has been consummated)

54 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 478 Abaringhth Hayrsquoat vol 1 p 39255 Ibn al-lsquoArabj Aaringkhm vol 1 pp 190ndash191 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 478 Abaringhth

Hayrsquoat vol 1 p 39256 Abaringhth Hayrsquoat vol 1 p 39257 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr al-Aringhth p 107 Abaringhth Hayrsquoat vol 1 p 39258 Ibn lsquoAbd al-Barr al-Khfj vol 2 pp 572ndash573 al-Dusuqj Aringhshiyat 2 p 362 It should

be pointed out that there is an opinion in Mhlikj jurisprudence also which differentiatesbetween a madkhulan biha divorcee (where the marriage has been consummated) anda divorcee who was not madkhulan biha See al-Azharj Jawhhir vol 1 pp 338ndash339al-Zurqhnj Shararing vol 4 p 83

59 Ibn Aringajar Fataring vol 11 p 27860 Ibn Aringajar al-Haythamj Tuaring fat al-Muaringthj vol 8 p 83 al-Ramlj Nihhyat al-Muaringthj

vol 7 p 861 Ibn Aringajar al-Haythamj Tuaringfat al-Muaringthj vol 8 p 8362 Al-Dusuqj Hhshiyat vol 2 p 36263 Note however that Ibn al-Mubarrid states that Ibn al-Mundhirrsquo statement regarding

this issue is not explicit Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr al-Aringhth p 77 Ibn al-Qayyim cites Ibnal-Mundhir narrating the existence of a dispute amongst the scholars on this issue

NOTES

259

Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 pp 435ndash436 This confusion seems to stem from whatappear to be conflicting statements made by Ibn al-Mundhir in al-Ijmhlsquo pp 113 114115 and al-Ishrhf vol 1 pp 143ndash144

64 Al-Sarkhasj al-Mabsuƒ vol 6 p 5765 Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim both mention this accusation and attribute it to

lsquosome scholarsrsquo Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 30ndash34 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthatvol 1 p 474 Ibn al-Qayyim asserts that some of the scholars who claimed a consensuson this issue did so as a last resort because of the weakness of their other proofs Ibnal-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 474

66 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 p 9167 Ibid vol 33 p 9368 Ibid p 83 This text of Ibn Mughjth is also cited by Ibn al-Qayyim in his Ighhthat

vol 1 p 482 al-Mardhwj al-Inszlighf vol 8 p 455 Ibn Aringajar Fataring vol 11 p 278Al-Shawkhnj Nayl vol 8 p 20

69 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 83ndash8470 Ibid vol 33 p 8371 Ibid p 8 See also Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 pp 435 482 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr

al-Aringhth p 15772 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 30ndash3173 Ibid vol 33 p 9174 Ibid pp 32ndash3375 Ibn Aringazm al-Muaringalla vol 10 p 20476 Ibn Rushd Bidayat p vol 2 p 7277 Al-Nawawj Shararing Muslim vol 4 p 7078 Ibn Qudhmah mentions the scholarsrsquo disagreement on a triple divorce pronounced by

one word (ie anti ƒhliq thalhthan) Al-Mughnj vol 10 pp 96ndash97 He also mentions theexistence of disagreement on triple divorce which is carried out in separate words inthe case of a wife whose husband has not consummated the marriage Ibn Qudhmahal-Mughnj vol 10 pp 298ndash301

79 Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 p 48280 Ibid vol 1 p 48381 Ibid p 48482 Ibid p 48483 Ibn al-Qayyim states that the consensus cited by the opposition is based upon their

ignorance of the existence of a dispute amongst the scholars He made a surveysupported by twenty proofs in which he proved that the ruling of triple divorce hadbeen the subject of disagreement amongst scholars since the time of the companionsup to his time Ibn al-Qayyim Ighhthat vol 1 pp 478ndash487

84 Ibn Aringajar Fataring vol 11 pp 277ndash27885 Al-Shawkhnj Nayl vol 8 pp 19ndash2086 Ibn Bhz Fathwh al-Iumlalhq pp 79ndash8187 Abaringhth Hayrsquoat vol 1 pp 385ndash40788 Examples are Ibn Aringajar al-Haythamj al-Subkj and Ibn Jamhlsquoah See Tuaringfat

al-Muaringthj vol 8 pp 83ndash8489 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 pp 93ndash9490 Ibid p 1791 Ibid pp 17ndash18 2492 Ibn Taymiyyah al-Nubuwwht p 23193 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 33 p 2994 Muslim Iacuteaaringjh Book of al-Aqpartiyah vol III p 93095 Ibn Taymiyyah Fathwh vol 27 p 30196 Ibid vol 33 pp 40ndash42

NOTES

260

97 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr al-Aringhth p 15798 Ibid pp 112 155 This scholar compiled various treatises in defence of Ibn

Taymiyyahrsquos opinion on the triple divorce Ibn al-Mubarrid al-Jawhar pp 174ndash17599 This scholar was detained because he issued fathwh in agreement with those of Ibn

Taymiyyah in relation to the issue of triple divorce Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr p 122100 Ibn al-Mubarrid Sayr p 157 It is interesting that Ibn al-Mubarrid in his book Sayr

al-Aringhth does not choose between the conflicting opinions with regard to this issue Heasserts that he only compiled this book to grant equity to both parties of jurists Ibnal-Mubarrid Sayr pp 219ndash220

101 Al-Mulsquoalamj al-Aringukm al-Mashrulsquo p 13 al-Biƒhr Aringayht pp 59ndash60 al-Ghandural-Iumlalhq p 243

102 Al-Ghandur al-Iumlalhq p 243103 Ibn Mhnilsquo Aringhshiyat Ghhyat al-Muntahh vol 3 p 122104 Al-Ddjbhnj al-Madkhal p 275105 Al-Salsquodj al-Mukhthrht pp 108ndash109 Al-Salsquodj states that whosoever studies the

discussion of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding this issue has no option but to follow his opinionHe explains that this is because of the reliability and variety of the evidence cited byhim and at the same time the weakness of the opinions cited by his opponents

106 It should be pointed out that Ibn Bhz agrees with Ibn Taymiyyah concerning divorcingtriply in one sentence (ie anti ƒhliqun thalhthan) He justifies his agreement with theopinion of Ibn Taymiyyah by mentioning evidence cited by him and also because itis a source of ease for the people Ibn Bhz agrees with the opinion of the AringanbaljSchool with regard to divorcing triply by three separate sentences connected byconjunction or without the use of conjunction if the repetition was not intended asa confirmation of the occurrence of divorce He explains that he disagrees with IbnTaymiyyah on this point as he believes that the evidence cited by him only refer tothe triple divorce uttered in one sentence and not in more than one For further detailsof this point see the fathwh issued by Ibn Bhz on the issue of divorce gathered andedited by al-Iumlayyhr one of his students under the title lsquoFathwh al-Iumlalhqrsquo pp 73ndash113This stance of Ibn Bhz is in fact in opposition to the opinion of the previous mufti ofSaudi Arabia the late Muhammad Ibn Ibrahjm In addition it is also in oppositionto the decision taken on 12111393H by the majority of the Body of SeniorScholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia This decision appears in Abaringhth Hayrsquoatvol 1 pp 408ndash415

NOTES

261

Arabic references

Abh al-Khayl Sulaymhn Muqadimah f j rsquol-Fiqh 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1997Al-lsquoAbhdj F j Thrjkh al-Ayyubiyyin wa rsquol-Mamhlik Dhr al-Nahpartah al-lsquoArabiyyah Beirut 1995lsquoAbd al-Aringamjd Muaringsin Tajdjd al-Fikr al-Islhmj al-Malsquohad al-lsquoHlamj li rsquol-Fikr al-Islhmj

1st Ed 1996lsquoAbd al-Qhdir lsquoAlj Nacopyrah lsquoHmmah f j Thrjkh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-Aringadjthah Cairo 1965

Abd Rahim Rahimin lsquoThe concept of Ijmhlsquo in Islamic law A comparative studyrsquo inHamadred Islamicus vol XVII Summer 1994 no 2 pp 91ndash103

AbuDhwud Sunan 2nd Ed Mausulsquoat al-Sunnah Dhr al-Dalsquowah and Dhr Suaringnun 1992Abu Zahrah Muaringammad Ibn Taymiyyah Dhr al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj Cairo 1974Abu Zahrah Muaringammad Mhlik 2nd Ed Dhr al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj ndAbu Zahrah Muaringammad Thrjkh al-Madhhhib al-Islhmiyyah Dhr al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj nd and

another edition by the same publishing house in the year 1989Abu Zayd Bakr al-Taqrjb li Fiqh Ibn al-Qayyim Maƒhbilsquo Dhr al-Hilhl Riyadh ndAl-lsquoAk Khalid al-Uszligul al-fikriyyah li rsquol-Manhhij al-Salafiyyah lsquoinda sheikh al-Islhm 1st Ed

al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut 1995lsquoAlj Muhammad Khuƒaƒ al-Shhm Dhr al-lsquoIlm li rsquol-Malayyin 2nd Ed Beirut 1969lsquoAlj Muhammad Tarjamat sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 3rd Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj

Beirut 1978Al-Hmidj lsquoAlj al-Iaringkhm f j Uszligul al-Aaringkhm 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoImiyyah Beirut 1985Al-lsquoAmrj Nhdiyah al-Ijtihhd f j rsquol-Islhm 3rd Ed Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut 1986Al-lsquoAmrj Nhdiyah Ijtihhd al-Rasul 4th Ed Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut 1987Al-lsquoAnqirj lsquoAbd Allah Aringhshiyat al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo Dhr Ibn al-Jawzj Saudi Arabia ndAl-Aszligfahhnj Aaringmad Aringilyat al-Awliyhrsquo wa Iumlabaqht al-Aszligfiyhrsquo Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquollmiyyah

Beirut ndAl-Aszligfahhnj Maaringmud Shararing al-Minhhj li rsquol-Bayparthwj f j lsquoIlm al-Uszligul edited by al-Namlah

Maktabat al-Rushd Riyadh 1st Ed 1410Al-Ashqar lsquoUmar Thrjkh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 3rd Ed Maktabat al-Falharing Kuwait 1991Al-Asnawj lsquoAbd al-Raaringjm Iumlabaqht 1st Ed edited by al-Jaburj Maƒbalsquoat al-Irshhd

Baghdad 1970Al-Azharj Iacutehliaring Jawhhir al-Ikljl al-Maktbah al-Thaqhfiyyah Beirut ndBadrhn Badrhn al-Sharjlsquoah al-Islhmiyyah Mursquoassasat shabhb al-Jhmilsquoah Alexandria ndAl-Badrhnj Fahad and al-Barhk Fahad lsquoUlamhrsquounh 2nd Ed Mursquoassasat al-Juraysj 1410

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Baghawj lsquoAbd Allah Juzrsquo f j Mashrsquoil lsquoan Abi lsquoAbd Allah Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal 1st Ed Dhral-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1407H

Al-Balsquolj lsquoAlj al-Mukhtaszligar f j Uszligul al-Fiqh lsquoalh Madhhab al-Imhm Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal edited byBaqa Jhmilsquoat Umm al-Qura 1980

Al-Balsquolj lsquoAlj al-Qawhlsquoid 1st Ed Dhr al-Aringadjth Cairo 1994Al-Balsquoqubj Muhammad Shararing al-lsquoIbhdht al-Khams edited by al-lsquoUbaykhn 1st Ed

Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn 1995Barakah Ibrhhjm Ibn Taymiyyah wa juhuduh f j rsquol-Tafsjr al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut 1984Al-Bayhaqj Aaringmad al-Sunan al-Kubra edited by lsquoAƒa Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquolmiyyah Beirut 1st

Ed 1994Al-Biƒhr Muhammad Aringayht Sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 3rd Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj

Beirut 1986Al-Buhutj Manszligur Kashshhf al-Qinhlsquo lsquoan matn al-Iqnh lsquo lsquoHlam al-Kutub Beirut ndAl-Buhutj Manszligur al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo 1st Ed Dhr al-Bayhn al-Iumlhrsquoif Saudi Arabia 1990Al-Buhutj Manszligur Shararing Muntahh al-Irhdht Dhr al-Fikr ndAl-Bukhhrj lsquoAbd al-lsquoAzjz Kashf al-Asrhr al-Iacuteadaf Pakistan ndAl-Bukhhrj Iacuteafj al-Djn al-Qawl al-Jal j 1st Ed Maktabat ljnah Egypt ndAl-Buƒj Muaringammad Icircawhbiƒ al-Maszliglaaringah f j rsquol-Sharjlsquoah al-Islamiyyah al-Maktabah

al-Amawiyyah Damascus 1st Ed 1966Al-Dhrquƒnj lsquoAlj Sunan al-Dhrquƒnj edited by al-Madanj Dhr al-Maaringhsin li rsquol-Iumlibhlsquoah

Cairo 1966Al-Dawudj Iumlabaqht al-Mufasirjn Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah 1st Ed Beirut 1983Al-Ddjbhnj lsquoAbd al-Majid al-Madkhal ilh Dirhsat al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Jhmilsquoat Qar

yunis Libya 1994Al-Dhahabj Muaringammad Dhayl al-lsquoIbar f j khabar man ghabar edited Zaghlul Dhr al-Kutub

al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Dhahabj Muaringammad Dhayl Tadhkirat al-Huffhcopy Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Dhahabj Muaringammad al-lsquoIbar f j khabar man ghabar edited Zaghlul Dhr al-Kutub

al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Dhahabj Muaringammad Siyar Alsquolhm al-Nubalhrsquo 1st Ed edited by several researchers

under the supervision of al-Arnarsquowuƒ Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut 1982Al-Dhahabj Muaringammad Tadhkirat al-Aringuffhcopy Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Dhahabj Muaringammad Thalhthat Tarhjim Nafjsah [part of Dhayl Thrjkh al-Islhm] edited by

al-lsquoAjmj 1st Ed Dhr Ibn al-Athjr Kuwait 1995Dimashqiyyah lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-Maqhlht al-Saniyah 1st Ed Dhr al-Muslim Riyadh 1998Al-Drlsquohn lsquoAbd Allah al-Madkhal li al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Maktabat al-Tawbah Riyadh

1993Al-Dusuqj Muaringammad and Amjnah al-Jhbir Muqadimah f j Dirhsat al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st

Ed Dhr al-Thaqhfah Qatar 1990Al-Farhrsquo Ibn Abi Yalsquola Kithb al-Tamhm edited by al-Iumlayyhr and al-Madd Allah 1st Ed

Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1414HAl-Farrhrsquo Abu Yalsquola Kithb al-Riwhyatayn wa rsquol-wajhayn (al-Mashrsquoil al- al-Fiqhiyyah) edited by

al-Lharingim 1st Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1985Al-Farrhrsquo Abu Yalsquola Kithb al-Riwhyatayn wa rsquol-wajhayn (al-Mashrsquoil al-Uszliguliyyah) edited by

al-Lharingim 1st Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1985Al-Farrhrsquo Abu Yalsquola al-lsquoUddah f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Mubhrakj 2nd Ed ndAl-Faryawhrsquoj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah wa juhuduh f j al-aringadjth wa

lsquoUlumih 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1996

BIBLIOGRAPHY

263

Ghanhrsquoim Muaringammad F j al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Hidhyah ndAl-Ghandur Aaringmad al-Iumlalhq f j al-Sharjlsquoah al-Islamiyyah wa rsquol-Qhnun 1st Ed Dhr

al-Malsquohrif Cairo 1967Al-Ghazhlj Abu Aringhmid al-Mustaszlig fh Dhr al-Arqam Beirut ndAl-Aringadjthj Khadijah Abu Aringayyhn al-Naaringwj 1st Ed Maktabat al-Nahpartah Baghdad

1966Al-Aringhj Shsj al-˝hhirah al-Istishrhqiyyah wa atharuha f j al-Dirhsht al-Islhmiyyah 1st Ed

Markaz Dirasht al-lsquoHlam al-Islhmj Malta 1991Al-Aringajjhwj Musa al-Iqnhlsquo f j fiqh al-Imhm Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal Maktabat al-Riyadh al-Aringadjthah Saudi Arabia nd

Al-Hamadhhnj al-Buldhn edited by al-Hhdj 1st Ed lsquoHlam al-Kutub Beirut 1996Al-Aringamawj Yaqut Mulsquojam al-Buldhn edited by al-Jindj Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquolmiyyah Beirut

1st Ed 1990Aringhmid lsquoAbd Allah Rishlah edited by al-Shaybhnj 1st Ed Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah

Kuwait 1988Aringarbj Muaringammad Ibn Taymiyyah wa Mawqifuh min ahm al-Firaq wa rsquol-Diyhnht f j lsquoAszligrih 1st

Ed lsquoHlam al-Kutub Beirut 1987Harrhs Muaringammad Ibn Taymiyyah al-Salaf j 2nd Ed Maktabat al-szligaaringhbah Iumlanƒa Egypt

1405Al-Hhshimj lsquoAbd al-Munlsquoim Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr Ibn Kathjr Beirut 1993Aringasshn Aringusain al-Madkhal li Dirhsat al-Fiqh al-Islhmj Maktabat al-Mutanabbrsquo Cairo ndAl-Haythamj Aaringmad Taaringfat al-Muaringthj bi Shararing al-Minhhj Dhr Iaringyhrsquo al-Turhth al-lsquoArabj

ndAl-Hazhymih Muaringammad and Muszligtafh Najjb al-Madkhal ilh Dirhsat al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st

Ed Dhr lsquoAmar Jordan 1991Al-Hilhlj Saljm Ibn Taymiyyah al-Muftara lsquoAlayyh 1st Ed al-Maktabah al-Islhmjyyah

Amman 1984Al-Aringuszligarj Aaringmad Thrjkh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Jjl Beirut 1991Al-Husaynj Dhayl al-lsquoIbar f j khabar man ghabar edited Zaghlul Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah

Beirut ndAl-Aringusaynj Dhayl Tadhkirat al-Huffhcopy Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Aringushhnj lsquoAbd Allah Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah f j al-Darsquowah 1st Ed Markaz al-Dirasht wa

rsquol-Ilsquolhm Dhr Ashbilya Riyadh 1996Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj al-Iacutehrm al-Munkj f j rsquol-Radd lsquoalh al-Subkj edited by al-Anszlighrj Ismhlsquojl 1st

Ed Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah Cairo ndIbn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj Muaringammad Manhqib al-Arsquoimmah al-Arbalsquoah 1st Ed Dhr al-Muarsquoyyad

Riyadh 1416Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj Muaringammad al-lsquoUqud al-Duriyyah Maktabat al-Muarsquoyyad Riyadh ndIbn Abu Yalsquola Iumlabaqht al-Aringanhbilah Dhr al-Malsquorifah Beirut ndIbn al-lsquoArabj Muaringammad Aaringkhm al-Qurrsquoan edited by Alj Muhammad al-Byjhwj Dhr

al-Malsquorifah Beirut ndIbn Asbasalhr Muaringammad al-Tashjl f j al-Fiqh edited by al-Iumlayyhr and al-Madd Allah

1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1414Ibn al-Athjr lsquoAlj al-Khmil f j al-Thrjkh Dhr Iacutehdir Beirut 1966Ibn lsquoAtjq Salsquod Nayl al-Murhd bi nacopym matn al-Zhd Dhr al-Hidhyah Riyadh ndIbn Badrhn lsquoAbd al-Qhdir al-Madkhal ilh Madhhab al-Imhm Aaringmad 3rd Ed Mursquoassasat

al-Rishlah Beirut 1985Ibn Badrhn lsquoAbd al-Qhdir Nuzhat al-Khhƒir al-lsquoHƒir 1st Ed Dhr al-Aringadjth Beirut 1991

BIBLIOGRAPHY

264

Ibn al-Bannh al-Aringasan al-Muqnilsquo f j Shararing Mukhtaszligar al-Khiraqj 2nd Ed Maktabat al-Rushd Riyadh 1994

Ibn Barada Yusuf al-Manhal al-Iacutehf j edited by Muhammad Amjn al-Hayrsquoah al-Miszligriyyahli al-Kithb 1984

Ibn Barada Yusuf al-Nujum al-Zhhirah f j Muluk Miszligr wa rsquol-Qhhirah wazhrat al-ThaqafahEgypt nd

Ibn al-Farrhrsquo Muaringammad Kithb al-Tamhm 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoAszligimah Riyadh 1414Ibn Aringabjb Iumlhhir Mukhtaszligar al-Manhr Maktabat al-Imhm al-Shhfilsquoj Riyadh 2nd Ed 1410IbnAringajar Taqrjcopy edited by al-Shaybhnj 1st Ed Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah Kuwait 1988IbnAringajar Aaringmad al-Durar al-Khminah f j alsquoyhn al-Mirsquoah al-Thhminah edited by Muhammad

Jhd al-Aringaq Dhr al-Kutub al-Aringadjthah Cairo ndIbn Aringajar Aaringmad Lishn al-Mizhn 1st Ed Dhr al-Fikr Beirut 1987IbnAringajar Aaringmad Tahdhjb al-Tahdhjb Dhr Iacutehdir Beirut copy of the first edition of Dhrsquoirat

al-Malsquohrif India 1325Ibn Aringajar Aaringmad Talkhjs al-Aringabjr f j Takhrjj Aaringhdjth al-Rhfilsquoj al-Kabjr edited by al-Madanj

al-Madjnah al-Munawwarah 1964IbnAringhmid al-Aringasan Tahdhjb al-Ajwibah edited by al-Samarhrsquoj lsquoHlam al-Kutub Beirut 1988Ibn Aringanbal lsquoAbd Allah Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad 1st Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut 1981IbnAringanbal lsquoAbd Allah Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad 1st Ed Maktabat al-Dhr Madjnah Saudi

1986Ibn Aringanbal Iacutehliaring Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoLmiyyah India

1988Ibn Aringazm lsquoAlj Marhtib al-Ijmhlsquo 3rd Ed Dhr al-Hfhq al-Jadjdah Beirut 1982Ibn Aringazm lsquoAlj al-Muaringalla Maƒbalsquoat al-Imhm Cairo ndIbn al-Jawzj al-Muntapartam f j Thrjkh al-Muluk wa rsquol-Umam edited by Muhammad and

Muszligtafa lsquoAƒa 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut 1992Ibn Juzayy Muaringammad Taqrjb al-Wuszligul ilh ilm al-Uszligul edited by Farkus Dhr al-Turhth

al-Islhmj Algeria 1st Ed 1990Ibn Kathjr Tafsjr al-Qurrsquoan al-lsquoAcopyjm al-Maktabah al-Tijhriyyah Makkah 1992Ibn Khuldun al-lsquoIbar wa diwhn al-Mubtadarsquo wa rsquol-Khabar 3rd Ed Maktabat al-Madrasah

wa Dhr al-Kutub al-Lubnhnj Beirut 1967Ibn Mhjah Sunan 2nd Ed Mausulsquoat al-Sunnah Dhr al-Dalsquowah and Dhr Suaringnun 1992Ibn Manszligur Isaringhq Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad wa Isaringhq Ibn Rahawayh edited by al-Mazyad 1st

Ed Maƒbalsquoat al-Madanj Cairo 1994Ibn Mufliaring al-Muarsquorrikh Ibrhhjm al-Mubdilsquo f j Shararing al-Muqnilsquo al-Maktab al-Islhmj

Beirut 1980Ibn Mufliaring Muaringammad al-Furulsquo 4th Ed lsquoHlam al-Kutub 1985Ibn Mufliaring Muaringammad Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Sadaringhn Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn

Riyadh 1st Ed 1999Ibn al-Mundhir Muaringammad al-Ijmhlsquo edited by Aringanjf 2nd Ed Maktabat al-Furqhn

lsquoAjmhn and Maktabat Makkah Rarsquos al-Khaymah UAE 1999Ibn al-Mundhir Muaringammad al-Ishrhf lsquoalh Madhhhib Ahl al-lsquoIlm edited by al-Bhrudj

al-Maktabah al-Tijhriyyah Makkah ndIbn Nhszligir Muaringammad al-Radd al-whfir edited by al-Shawjsh 1st Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj

Beirut 1980Ibn Qhsim Aringhshiyat al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo 2nd Ed 1403Ibn al-Qayyim Asmhrsquo muallafht sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 4th Ed Dhr al-Kithb al-Jadjd

1983

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Ruaring 1st Ed edited by al-Iacuteabhbƒj Dhr al-Aringadjth Cairo 1994Ibn al-Qayyim Muaringammad Aaringkhm Ahl al-Dhimmah edited by al-Iacutehliaring 3rd Ed Dhr

al-lsquoLim li rsquol-Malayyjn Beirut 1983Ibn al-Qayyim Muaringammad Ighhthat al-Lahfhn f j Maszlighyd al-Shayƒhn 2nd Ed al-Maktab

al-Islhmj Beirut 1989Ibn al-Qayyim Muaringammad Ilsquolhm al-Muaqqilsquojn lsquoan rab al-lsquoAlamjn Maktabat Ibn

Taymiyyah Cairo ndIbn al-Qayyim Muaringammad al-Khfiyah al-Shhfiyah lsquoal-Nuniyyahrsquo published with its

commentary Tawpartjaring al-Maqhszligid by Ibn lsquoI-sa 3rd Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut 1986Ibn al-Qayyim Muaringammad al-Iumluruq al-Aringukmiyyah f j al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquojyyah Dhr Iaringiyhrsquo

al-lsquoUlum Beirut ndIbn al-Qayyim Muaringammad Zhd al-Malsquohd f j hadi khayr al-lsquoIbhd 15th Ed Mursquoassasat

al-Rishlah Beirut 1987Ibn Qudhmah Muaringammad al-Khf j edited by Zuhayr al-Shhwjsh 5th Ed al-Maktab

al-Islhmj Beirut 1988Ibn Qudhmah Muaringammad al-Mughnj edited by al-Saiyyd Khaƒƒhb and Shdiq 1st Ed

Dhr al-Aringadjth Cairo 1995Ibn Qudhmah Muaringammad al-Muqnilsquo Maktabat al-Riyadh al-Aringadjthah Riyadh 1980Ibn Qudhmah Muaringammad al-lsquoUmdah ndIbn Rajab al-Dhayl lsquoalh Iumlabaqht al-Aringanhbilah Dhr al-Malsquorifah Beirut ndIbn Rajab Iumlabaqht al-Aringanhbilah Dhr al-Malsquorifah Beirut ndIbn al-Iacutealharing Adab al-Mufti wa rsquol-Mustaftj published with Fathwh wa Rashrsquol Ibn al-Iacutealharing

edited by Qallsquoajj Dhr al-Malsquorifah Beirut 1st Ed 1986Ibn Shaƒj Muaringammad Mukhtaszligar Iumlabaqht al-Aringanhbilah 1st Ed Dhr al-Kithb al-lsquoArabj

Beirut 1986Ibn Taymiyyah lsquoAbd al-Salhm al-Muaringarrar 2nd Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1984Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Arbalsquoun Aringadjthan edited by al-Sirawhn 1st Ed Dhr al-Qalam

Beirut 1986Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Dhrrsquo talsquohrupart al-lsquoAql wa al-Naql edited by A lsquoAbd al- Raaringmhn 1st

Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut 1997Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Fathwh al-lsquoIrhqiyyah edited by A al-Muftj Maƒbalsquoat al-Jharingipart

Baghdad 1988Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Fathwh al-Kubra edited by lsquoAƒa Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah

Beirut nd In this thesis refered to as lsquoKubrarsquoIbn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Imhn edited al-Shawjsh 4th Ed al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut

1993Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Istiqhmah edited by Rashhd Shlim 1st Ed Jhmilsquoat al-Imhm

Muhammad Ibn Salsquoud al-Islhmiyyah Riyadh 1983Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Jawhb al-Bhhir f j zuwwhr al-Maqhbir edited by al-Shabrhwj 1st

Ed Dhr al-Jjl Beirut 1997Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Iqtiparthrsquo al-Iacuteirhƒ al-Mustaqjm edited by al-lsquoAqjl 1st Ed 1404Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Majmulsquo al-Fathwh edited by al-Qhsim Abd al-Raaringmhn and his

son Muhammad Dhr lsquoHlam al-Kutub Riyadh 1991 In this thesis refered to as lsquoFathwhrsquoIbn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Majmulsquoat al-Rashrsquoil wa rsquol-Mashrsquoil Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah

Beirut ndIbn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Minhhj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah 1st Ed Jhmilsquoat al-Imhm

Muhammad Ibn Salsquoud al-Islhmiyyah Riyadh 1986Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Naqd al-Manƒiq Maktabat al-Sunnah al-Muaringamadiyyah Cairo nd

BIBLIOGRAPHY

266

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Nubuwht edited by Muhammad lsquoAwhd Dhr al-Kithb al-lsquoArabjBeirut 1991

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Qawhlsquoid al-Nuraniyyah al-Fiqhiyyah edited by Shhhjn 1st EdDhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut 1994

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Raf lsquo al-Malhm lsquoAn al-Arsquoimmah al-Alsquolhm published with al-Inszlighf byal-Mardhwj edited by al-Faqj 2nd Ed Mursquoassasat al-Thrjkh al-lsquoArabj Beirut nd

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Shararing al-lsquoUmdah f j al-Fiqh part of Kithb al-Iacutealhh edited by al-Mushayqiaring 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1997

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Shararing al-lsquoUmdah f j al-Fiqh Kithb al-Aringajj edited by al-Aringasan 1stEd Maktabat al-Aringaramayn Riyadh 1988

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Shararing al-lsquoUmdah f j al-Fiqh Kithb al-Iacuteiyhm edited by al-Nushairj 1stEd Dhr al-Anszlighrj Jeddah 1996

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Shararing al-lsquoUmdah f j al-Fiqh Kithb al-Iumlahhrah edited by al-lsquoUƒayshhn 1st Ed Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn Riyadh 1412

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquojyyah f j iszliglharing al-Rhlsquoj wa rsquol-Ralsquoiyyah edited by al-Aringarsthnj 1st Ed Dhr al-Jjl Beirut 1993

Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Tafsjr Ayht ashkalat lsquoalh kathjr min al-lsquoUlamhrsquo a published MA thesisedited by al-Khaljfah 1st Ed Maktabat al-Rushd Riyadh 1997

Ibn Iumlulun Muaringammad Ilsquolhm al-Wara edited by Muhammad Dahmhn Wazhrat al-Thaqhfah wa rsquol-Irshhd al-Qawmj Damascus 1964

Ibn Iumlulun Muaringammad al-Qalhrsquoid al-Jawhariyyah f j Thrjkh al-Shliaringiyyah 2nd Ed MaƒbulsquohtMajmalsquo al-Lughah al-lsquoArabiyyah nd

Ibn lsquoUthaymjn Muaringammad al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo lsquoalh Zhd al-Mustaqnilsquo edited by Abhal-Khayl and al-Mushayqiaring 3rd Ed Mulsquoassasat Ashm Riyadh in a series started 1994

Al-Ibrhhjm Mush al-Madkhal ilh Uszligul al-Fiqh 1st Ed Dhr lsquoAmar Amman Jordan 1989Al-Ismhlsquojl Muaringammad Aringhshiyat Mukhtaszligar al-Imhm Abi al-Qhsim al-Khiraqj 1st Ed

Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1988Ismhlsquojl Shalsquobhn al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 2nd Ed Maktabat al-Nahpartah al-Miszligriyyah 1985Al-Jurhlsquoj Abu Bakr ShararingMukhtaszligar Uszligul al-Fiqh min awwalih ilh mashrsquoil al-Khabar edited by

al-Qhydj unpublished MA thesis al-Jhmilsquoah al-Islamiyyah al-Madjnah 1407Al-Jurjhnj lsquoAbd Allah al-Khmil f j partulsquoafhrsquo al-Rijhl edited by lsquoAbd al-Mawjud and

Mulsquoawwapart Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut 1st Ed 1997Al-Juwaynj lsquoAbd al-Malik al-Burhhn f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Dhjb 1st Ed published

on the expense of the Amir of Qatar 1399Al-Juwaynj lsquoAbd al-Malik al-Talkhjszlig f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Nibhlj and al-lsquoAmrj 1st

Ed Dhr al-Bashhrsquor al-Islhmiyyah Beirut 1996Al-Juwanyj lsquoAbd al-Malik al-Waraqht Maktabat al-Imhm al-Shhfilsquoj Riyadh 2nd Ed

1410Kaaringhlah lsquoUmar Mulsquojam al-Mualif jn maƒbalsquoat al-Taraqj Damascus 1959Al-Karmj Marlsquoj Ghhyat al-Muntahh 2nd Ed al-Mursquoasasah al-Salsquoidiyyah Riyadh ndAl-Karmj Marlsquoj al-Kawhkib al-Duriyyah f j manhqib al-Mujtahid Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr

al-Gharb al-Islhmj Beirut 1986Al-Katbj Muaringammad Fawht al-Whfjyyht edited by Iaringshn lsquoAbbhs Dhr Iacutehdir BeirutAl-Khabhzj lsquoUmar al-Mughnj f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by Baqa 1st Ed Jhmilsquoat Umm

al-Qura 1403Khallhf lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Khulhszligat Thrjkh al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj Dhr al-Anszlighr Cairo ndAl-Khallhl Aaringmad Aaringkhm Ahl al-Milal 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut 1994

BIBLIOGRAPHY

267

Al-Khallhl Aaringmad Kithb al-Waralsquo Dhr al-Kithb al-lsquoArabj Beirut 1988Al-Khallhl Aaringmad Kithb al-Wuquf edited by al-Zayd 1st Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif

Riyadh 1989Khayhƒ Fawziyyah al-Ahdhf al-Tarbawiyyah al-Sulukiyyah lsquoinda sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah

1st Ed Maktabat al-Manhrah Makkah 1987Al-Khiraqj lsquoUmar Mukhtaszligar 1st Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1988Al-Khupartarj bik Muaringammad Thrjkh al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj

Beirut 1992Al-Kulwadhhnj Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Intiszlighr f j al-Mashrsquoil al-Kibhr edited by al-lsquoUmayr and

others 1st Ed Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn 1993Al-Kulwadhhnj Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb al-Tamhjd f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Ibrhhjm and Abu

lsquoAmshah 1st Ed Dhr al-Madanj 1985Louast Nacopyariyyht sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah f j al-Siyhsah wa rsquol-Ijtimhlsquo 1st Ed Dhr al-

Anszlighr Cairo 1977Al-Madkhalj Rabjlsquo Taqsjm al-Aringadjth ilh Iacuteaaringjaring wa aringasan wa partalsquo jf Maktabat Dhr al-Salhm

Riyadh 1st Ed 1411Madkur Muaringammad al-Ijtihhd f j al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Nahpartah al-lsquoArabiyyah

Cairo 1984Madkur Muaringammad al-Madkhal li al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 2nd Ed Dhr al-Kithb al-Aringadjth

Cairo 1996Al-Maaringmud lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al-Ashhlsquoirah 1st Ed Maktabat

al-Rushd Riyadh 1995Maaringmud Aaringmad Ishhm f j Thrjkh al-Madhhab al-Aringanbalj 1st Ed Dhr Qutaybah Beirut

1990Al-Majd al-Muaringarrar f j rsquol-Fiqh 2nd Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1984Al-Manszligur Iacutehliaring Ibn Taymiyyah wa Uszligul al-Fiqh 2nd Ed 1985Al-Maqdisj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-lsquoUddah Shararing al-lsquoUmdah ndAl-Maqdisj Ibn Qudhmah Rawpartat al-Nhcopyir 1st Ed Dhr al-Aringadjth Beirut 1991Al-Mardhwj lsquoAlj al-Inszlighf edited by al-Faqj 2nd Ed Mursquoassasat al-Thrjkh al-lsquoArabj

Beirut ndAl-Mardhwj lsquoAlj al-Taaringbjr bi Shararing al-Taaringrjr f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by three PhD students

al-Jibrjn al-Qarnj and al-Sarrharing Jhmilsquoat al-Imhm Muaringammad Ibn Saud submitted tothe Imam University in the academic years 1414 1415 1416 H

Al-Mardhwj lsquoAlj al-Tanqjaring al-Mushbilsquo 2nd Ed al-Maƒbalsquoah al-Salafiyyah Cairo 1406Al-Mardhwj lsquoAlj Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo 4th Ed lsquoHlam al-Kutub 1985Al-Marwazj Muaringammad Ikhtilhf al-Fuqahhrsquo edited by al-Samarrhrsquoj 2nd Ed lsquoHlam

al-Kutub Beirut 1986Al-Maymhn Nhszligir al-Qawhlsquoid wa rsquol-Icirchwhbiƒ al-Fiqhiyyah lsquoInd Ibn Taymiyyah f j Kithbay

al-Iumlahhrah wa rsquol-Iacutealhh published MA Umm al-Qura University Makkah 1996Muhfj Aaringmad Taysjr al-Fiqh al-Jhmilsquo li al-Ikhtiyhrht al-Fiqhiyyah li Sheikh al-Islhm Ibn

Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr Ibn al-Jawzj al-Dammhm Saudi 1993Al-Mubarkfurj Tuaringfat al-Aaringwadhj edited by lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn lsquoUthmhn 2nd Ed ndMuhammad Salsquod Sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr al-Liwhrsquo Riyadh 1987Al-Mukhthr Iacutealharing al-Djn Thrjkh al-Mamlakah al-lsquoArabiyyah al-Salsquoudiyyah Dhr Maktabat

al-Aringayht ndAl-Munajjid Iacutealharing al-Djn introduction of the first volume of Siyar Alsquolhm al-Nubalhrsquo

Malsquohad al-Makhƒuƒht al-lsquoArabiyyah Cairo ndMush Khmil al-Madkhal ilh al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st Ed Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut 1989

BIBLIOGRAPHY

268

Mush Muaringammad Ibn Taymiyyah 2nd Ed al-lsquoAszligr al-aringadjth Beirut 1988Musa Muaringammad Muaringhpartarht f j Thrjkh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 2nd Ed 1410Al-Naaringlhwj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah 1st Ed Dhr al-Fikr al-Mulsquoaszligir

Beirut 1991Al-Naaringlhwj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr al-Fikr al-Mulsquohszligir Beirut 1986Al-Najjhr Muaringammad Shararing al-Kawkab al-Munjr 1st Ed University of Umm al-Qurh

1987Al-Nashrsquoj Sunan 2nd Ed Mausulsquoat al-Sunnah Dhr al-Dalsquowah and Dhr Suaringnun 1992Al-Nashrhtj Aringamzah Farghali lsquoAbd al-Aringafjz and Mustafa lsquoAbd al-Aringamid al-Imhm

al-Zhhid Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal Wakhlat al-Ahrhm ndAl-Nawawj Muaringiyy al-Djn al-Majmulsquo edited by al-Muƒjlsquoj Maktabat al-Irshhd JaddahAl-Nawawj Muaringiyy al-Djn Mukhtaszligar Iumlabaqht al-Fuqahhrsquo 1st Ed Dhr al-Fikr 1995Al-Nawawj Muaringiyy al-Djn Shararing IacuteaaringjaringMuslim Dhr al-Rayyhn li al-Turhth 1st Ed Cairo

1987Al-Nulsquoaymj lsquoAbd al-Qhdir al-Dhris f j Thrjkh al-Madhris edited by al-Aringasanj maƒbalsquoat

al-Taraqj Damascus 1948Al-Qarhfj Aaringmad Shararing Tanqjaring al-Fuszligul edited by Salsquod Maktabht al-Kulliyyht

al-Azhariyyah Cairo ndAl-Qaƒƒhn Mannhlsquo Thrjkh al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 1st Ed Maktabat al-Malsquohrif Riyadh 1992Al-Ramlj Muaringammad Nihhyat al-Muaringthj ilh Shararing al-Minhhj Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoIlmiyyah

Beirut 1993Al-Rhzj Muaringammad al-Maaringszligul f j lsquoIlm al-Uszligul edited by al-lsquoAlwhnj 1st Ed 1979Al-Salsquodj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Bahjat Qulub al-Abrhr al-Rirsquohsah al-lsquoHmmah li al-Buaringuth wa

rsquol-Ifthrsquo 1405Al-Salsquodj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-Mukhthrht al-Jaliyyah min al-Mashrsquoil al-Fiqhiyyah al-Mursquoassasah

al-Salsquoidiyyah Riyadh ndAl-Salsquodj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-Qawhlsquoid wa rsquol-Uszligul al-Jhmilsquoah 1st Ed Dhr Ramadj

Dammhm Saudi Arabia 1996Al-Salsquodj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Iumlarjq al-Wuszligul ilh al-lsquoLim al-Marsquomul al-Mursquoassasah

al-Salsquoidiyyah Riyadh ndAl-Sadlhn al-Niyah wa atharha f j al-Aaringkhm 2nd Ed Dhr lsquoHlam al-Kutub Riyadh 1993Al-Iacuteafadj al-Whf j bi al-Wafiyyht edited by Iaringshn lsquoAbbhs 2nd Ed Franz 1982Al-Saffhrjnj Muaringammad Lawhmilsquo al-Anwhr al-Bahiyyah al-Maktab al-Islhmj Beirut Dar

al-Khhnj Riyadh 3rd Ed 1991Iacuteafj al-Djn al-Qawl al-Jalj f j tarjamat al-Sheikh Taqj al-Djn Ibn Taymiyyah al-Aringanbalj Maktabat

Ljnah Egypt ndIacuteafj al-Djn lsquoAbd al-Mursquomin Qawhlsquoid al-Uszligul wa malsquohqid al-Fuszligul edited by al-Aringakamj 1st

Ed Jhmilsquoat Umm al-Qura 1988Al-Shhj Shawqj al-Madkhal li Dirasat al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Maktabat al-Nahpartah

al-Miszligriyyah Cairo 1989Al-Sakhhwj Muaringammad al-Icircawrsquo al-Lhmilsquo li Ahl al-Qarn al-Thsilsquo Dhr Maktabat

al-Hayht Beirut ndAl-Sakhhwj Muaringammad al-Ilsquolhn bi al-Tawbjkh li man dhamm al-Thrjkh edited by Franz

Runthal Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquolmiyyah Beirut ndSalhmah Muszligtafa al-Tarsquosjs f j Uszligul al-Fiqh 1st Ed Maktabat Khalid Bayt lsquoAqabah ndAl-Sarkhasj Muaringammad al-Mabsuƒ Dhr al-Fikr Beirut 1989Al-Sarkhasj Muaringammad Uszligul al-Sarkhasj edited by al-Afghhnj Dhr al-Kithb al-lsquoArabj

Cairo 1372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

Shalabj Muaringammad al-Madkhal f j al-Talsquorjf bi al-Fiqh al-Islhmj Dhr al-Nahpartah al-lsquoArabiyyah Beirut 1985

Al-Shanqjƒj Sayyid Dirhsht Ilsquolhmiyyah f j fikr Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Dhr al-Muslim Riyadh1996

Sharaf al-Djn lsquoAbd al-lsquoAcopyjm Thrjkh al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj 4th Ed Jhmilsquoat Qar yunisBenghazj Labia 1993

Al-Shhshj Aaringmad Uszligul al-Shhshj Dhr al-Kithb al-lsquoArabj Beirut 1982Al-Shathrj Salsquod al-Tafrjq bayn al-Uszligul wa rsquol-Furulsquo 1st Ed Dhr al-Muslim Riyadh 1997Al-Shawkhnj Muaringammad al-Badr al-Iumlhlilsquo bi Maaringhsin man balsquod al-Qarn al-Shbilsquo 1st Ed

Maƒbalsquoat al-Salsquohdah Egypt 1348Al-Shawkhnj Muaringammad Irshhd al-Fuaringul ilh taaringqjq lsquolim al-Uszligul 1st Ed Mursquoassasat

al-Kutub al-Thaqhfiyyah Beirut 1992Al-Shawkhnj Muaringammad Nayl al-Awƒhr Shararing Muntaqa al-Akhbhr Maktabat al-Qhhirah

Cairo 1978Al-Shaybhnj lsquoAbd al-Qhdir Nayl al-Mhrsquorib f j Daljl al-Iumlhlib edited by al-Ashqar Maktabat

al-Falharing Kuwait 1st Ed 1983Al-Shaybhnj Muaringammad Awrhq Majmulsquoah min Aringayht Sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed

Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah Kuwait 1989Al-Shaybhnj Muaringammad Majmulsquoat Mualafht sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed Markaz

al-Makhƒuƒht Kuwait 1993Al-Shaybhnj Muaringammad qiƒlsquoah min maktub Ibn Marj 1st Ed Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah

Kuwait 1988Al-Shayshnj H al-Hhficopy Shams al-Djn al-Dhahabj 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoIlmiyyah

Beirut 1990Al-Shibl lsquoAlj al-Thabt 1st Ed Dhr al-Waƒan Riyadh 1417Al-Shirhzj Ibrhhjm al-Lumalsquo f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by al-Aringalabj Dhr al-Nadwah

al-Islamiyyah 1988Al-Shirhzj Ibrhhjm al-Muhadhdhab f j Fiqh al-Imhm al-Shhfilsquoj edited by Muhammad

al-Zuaringaylj Dhr al-Qalam 1st Ed Damascus 1996Shukrj Murhd Daflsquo al-Shubah al-Ghawiyyah lsquoAn sheikh al-Islhm Ibn Taymiyyah 1st Ed 1994Al-Shurj al-Aringhwj f j takhrij Aaringhdjth Majmulsquo al-Fathwj 1st Ed Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah

Beirut 1995Al-Sijisthnj Sulyamhn Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad Dhr al-Malsquorifah Beirut ndAl-Subkj lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Iumlabaqht al-Shhfilsquoiyyah al-Kubrh edited by al-Iumlunharingj and al-Aringulu

2nd Ed Hajar li al-Iumlibalsquoah 1992Sulaymhn al-Fikr al-Fiqhj lsquoInda Ibn Taymiyyah PhD thesis at the University of Cairo 1978Al-Suyutj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Dhayl Tadhkirat al-Aringuffhcopy Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoLmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Suyuƒj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn Aringusn al-Muaringhpartarah f j Thrjkh Miszligr wa rsquol-Qhhirah edited by

Ibrahim 1st Ed Dhr Iaringyhrsquo al-Kutub al-lsquoArabiyyah Cairo 1968Al-Iumlabarj Muhammad Ikhtilhf al-Fuqahhrsquo Dhr al-Kutub al-lsquoIlmiyyah Beirut ndAl-Iumlablhwj Maaringmud Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min falsafat Ibn Rushd 1st Ed Maƒbalsquoat

al-Amhnah Cairo 1989Al-Taftazhnj Salsquod al-Djn Shararing al-Talwjaring lsquoalh al-Tawpartjaring Maktabat Iacuteabjaring Cairo ndIumlalas Muaringammad lsquoAszligr al-Inbilsquohth Dhr al-Andalus Beirut 1963Al-Iumlanƒhwj Maaringmud al-Madkhal ilh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Maktabat Wahbah

Cairo 1987Al-Thaqafj Shlim Mafhtjaring al-Fiqh al-Aringanbalj 1st Ed Al-Ahrhm Cairo 1978

BIBLIOGRAPHY

270

Al-Thaqafj Shlim Muszligƒalaaringht al-Fiqh al-Aringanbalj 2nd Ed Dhr al-Naszligr li al-Iumlibhlsquoahal-Islhmiyyah Cairo 1981

Al-Tirmidhj Sunan 2nd Ed Mausulsquoat al-Sunnah Dhr al-Dalsquowah and Dhr Suaringnun 1992Al-Iumlufj Sulaymhn ShararingMukhtaszligar al-Rawpartah 1st Ed Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut 1987Al-Iumlurayfj Nhszligir Thrjkh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Sharikat al-lsquoUbaykhn Riyadh 1987Al-Turkj lsquoAbd Allah Uszligul Madhhab al-Imhm Aaringmad 3rd Ed Mursquoassasat al-Rishlah Beirut

1990Al-lsquoUlaymj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-Dur al-Munapartpartad f j Dhikr Aszligaringhb al-Imhm Aaringmad edited by

al-lsquoUthaymjn 1st Ed Maktabat al-Tawbah Riyadh 1992Al-lsquoUlaymj lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn al-Nalsquot al-Akmal edited by lsquoAbd al-Aringamjd 2nd Ed lsquoHlam al-

Kutub Beirut 1984Al-lsquoUqaylj Muaringammad Kithb al-Icirculsquoafhrsquo al-Kabjr edited by Qallsquoajj Dhr al-bhz Makkah

1st Ed ndAl-lsquoUƒayshhn Salsquoud Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah f j al-Fiqh unpublished PhD thesis submitted to

the University of al-Madjnah 1985Al-Whsiƒj al-Tadhkirah edited by al-Faryawhrsquoj 1st Ed Dhr al-lsquoHszligimah Riyadh 1994Al-Zaraklj Khayr al-Djn al-Alsquolhm 3rd Ed ndAl-Zarkashj Muaringammad al-Baaringr al-Muaringjƒ f j Uszligul al-Fiqh edited by Abu Ghuddah 2nd

Ed Wazhrat al-Awqhf wa rsquol-Shursquoun al-Islhmiyyah 1992Al-Zarkashj Muaringammad Salhsil al-Dhahab edited by al-Shanqjƒj 1st Ed 1990Al-Zarkashj Muaringammad Shararing al-Zarkashj 1st Ed Maktabat al-lsquoUbaykhn Riyadh 1991Al-Zarqhrsquo Muszligƒafh al-Fiqh al-Islhmj 1st Ed Dhr al-Qalam Damascus 1995Zayd Muszligƒafh al-Maszliglaaringah f j al-Tashrjlsquo al-Islhmj wa Najm al-Djn al-Iumluf j 2nd Ed Dhr

al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj 1964Zaydhn lsquoAbd al-Karjm al-Madkhal li Dirhsat al-Sharjlsquoah al-Islhmiyyah 11th Ed Mursquoassasat

al-Risalah Beirut 1990Al-Zurqhnj lsquoAbd al-Bhqj Shararing al-Zurqhnj lsquoalhMukhtaszligar sjdj Khaljl Dhr al-Fikr al-lsquoArabj nd

English references

Abd Rahim Rahimin lsquoThe concept of Ijmhlsquo in Islamic law a comparative studyrsquo Hamadred

Islamicus vol XVII Summer 1994 no 2 pp 91ndash103Abrahamopv lsquoNecessary knowledge in Islamic theologyrsquo British Journal of Middle Eastern

Studies vol 20 no 1 1993 p 20ndash32Alhomaid Abdullah Authority of the Text and the Limits of Religious Toleration in Islamic Political

Thought The Case of Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah a dissertation presented to the faculty of thegraduate school University of Southern California 1996

Al-lsquoAlwani Taha Uszligul al-Fiqh al-Islamj 1st Ed the international institute of Islamicthought Virginia 1990

Amital-Preiss RA Mongols and Mamluks Cambridge University Press Cambridge 1995Arnaldez R Grammaire et theacuteologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue Paris 1956Ashtor E A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages Collins London 1976Ayalon David lsquoSome remarks on the Economic decline of the Mamluk Sultanatersquo

pp 108ndash124 in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam vol 16 1993Azami Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature 2nd Ed American Trust publications

Indianapolis IN 1992

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Berkey J The Transmission of Knowledge In Medieval Cairo Princeton University PressPrinceton NJ 1992

Bosworth CE lsquoThe Qurrsquoanic Prophet Shulsquoaib and Ibn Taymiyyarsquos Epistle concerninghimrsquo pp 425ndash440 Medieval Arabic Culture and Administration Variorum Reprints London1982

Burton John An introduction to the Aringadjth Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh 1994Chamberlain M Knowledge And Social Practice In Medieval Damascus 1190ndash1350 Cambridge

University Press Cambridge 1994Dutton Yasin The Origins of Islamic Law the Qurrsquoan the Muwaƒƒarsquo and the Madinan lsquoAmal 1st

Ed Curzon press Surrey UK 1999Esposito John Woman in Muslim family law 1st Ed Syracuse University Press Syracuse

NY 1982Al-Freih The Historical Background of the Emergence of Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab and his

Movement unpublished PhD thesis University of California Los Angeles 1990Hallaq Wael Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians Clarendon press Oxford 1993Haque lsquoAhmad Ibn Hanbal the saint-scholar of Baghdadrsquo p 68 Hamadard Islamicus

vol VIII November 3 Autumn 1985Heinrichs W lsquoContacts between scriptural hermeneutics and literary theory in Islam the

case of majazrsquo Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen WissenschaftenMajallat Tarikh al-lsquoUlum al-lsquoArabiya wa lsquol-Islamiya no 7 pp 253ndash284 1992

Heinrichs W lsquoOn the Genesis of the Haqıqa-Majaz Dichotomyrsquo Studia Islamica vol 591984 pp 111ndash140

Holt PM The Age of the Crusades Longman London 1986Ibn Khallikan Biographical Dictionary trans by Slane Librairie Du Liban Beirut 1970Ibn Rushd Muhammad Bidhyat al-Mujtahid trans by Nyazee 1st Ed the centre for

Muslim contribution to civilisation Garent Publishing Limited Reading 1994ndash1996Ibn Taymiyya Public Duties in Islam trans Holland Islamic Foundation Leicester UK

1982Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad Ibn Taymiyya on Public and Private Law in Islam trans by Farrukh

1st Ed Khayat Beirut 1966Irwin Robert The Middle East in the Middle Ages Southern Ciliinois University Press

Carbondale 1986Islahi A Economic Concepts of Ibn Tayimiyah The Islamic Foundation Leicester UK 1988Jokisch B lsquoIjtihad in Ibn Taymiyyarsquos fatawarsquo in Islamic Law Theory and Practice edited by

Gleave R and Kermeli E IB Tauris Publishers London 1996Kamali Muhammad Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence Islamic Texts Society Cambridge

1991Khalid Anas The lsquoMukhtaszligarrsquo of Al-Khiraqi A Tenth century work on Islamic Jurisprudence

unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University of New York October 1992Khan Qamarudin The Political Thought of Ibn Taymiyya 2nd Ed Adam publisher and

distributors Delhi 1992Kucukcan Talip lsquoSome reflections on the Wahhabiyyahrsquo in Hamadred Islamicus vol XVIII

Summer 1995 no 2 pp 67ndash82Kutty Bilal lsquoMuhammad Ibn lsquoAbdul Wahhab and his reform movementrsquo in Hamadred

Islamicus vol XX AprilndashJune 1997 no 2 p 43Lambton Ann State and Government in Medieval Islamic Political theory Oxford University

Press Oxford 1981Lane-Poole Stanley The Mohammadan Dynasties Khayats Beirut 1966

BIBLIOGRAPHY

272

Little Donald lsquoThe Historical and historiographical significance of the detention of IbnTaymiyyarsquo in The International Journal of Middle East Studies vol 4 1973 pp 311ndash327

Loucel H lsquoLrsquoOrigine du langage drsquoapregraves les grammairiens arabesrsquo Arabica 10 1963 pp 188ndash208 and pp 253ndash81 Arabica 11 1964 pp 57ndash72 and pp 157ndash187

Makdisi George Ibn lsquoAqil Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh 1997Makdisi George lsquoIbn Taymiyyarsquos autograph manuscript on Istihsan material for the

study of Islamic legal thoughtrsquo Arabic and Islamic studies in honour of HAR Gibb 1965pp 446ndash479

Makdisi George The Rise of Colleges Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh 1981Martin Richard and Woodward with Atmaja others Defenders of Reason in Islam Oneworld

publications Oxford 1997Melchert Christopher The Formation of the Sunni Schools of Law 9thndash10th centuries CE Brill

Leiden New York 1997Memon Ibn Taymiyyarsquos Struggle against Popular Religion Mouton the Hague Paris 1976Al-Mohideb AbdulRahman Criminal Procedures relevant to crimes of killing in the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University of Glasgow June 1996Mughni Syafiq Hanbali Movement in Baghdad from Abu Muhammad al-Barahari to Abu Jalsquofar

al-Hhshimj unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University of California LosAngeles 1990

Nasri Hani Ibn Abd al-Wahhabrsquos Philosophy of Society An Alternative to the Tribal Mentalityunpublished PhD thesis Fordham University Bronx NY 1978

Netton Ian A Popular Dictionary of Islam 1st Ed Curzon Press Ltd London UK1992

Netton Ian Allah Transcendent Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of Islamic Philosophy Theology

and Cosmology 1st Ed Routledge London and New York 1989Nimrdo Hurvitz Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and the formation of Islamic orthodoxy unpublished PhD

thesis submitted to the University of Princeton 1994Philips Abu Ameenah The Evolution of Fiqh 3rd Ed International Islamic publishing

house Riyadh 1995Ridgeon Lioyd Nothing but the Truth unpublished PhD thesis Leeds University 1996Safiullah M lsquoWahhabism a conceptual relationship between Muhammad Ibn lsquoAbdul

Wahhab and Taqiyy al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyarsquo in Hamadard Islamicus vol X no 1Spring 1987 pp 67ndash83

Schacht Joseph An Introduction to Islamic law Oxford University Press Oxford 1994Al-Shhfilsquoj Muhammad al-Shhfilsquojrsquos Rishla trans Khadduri 2nd Ed the Islamic texts

society Cambridge MA 1987Shah M lsquoThe philological endeavours of the early Arabic linguists theological implica-

tions of the tawqıf-istilah antithesis and the majaz controversy (parts I and II)rsquo Journal of

Quranic Studies vol 1 no 1 1999 pp 27ndash46 and vol 2 no 1 2000 pp 44ndash66Sourdel D Medieval Islam Routledge and Kegan Paul London 1983Al-Tabari The History of al-Tabari (Thrjkh al-Rusul wa rsquol-Muluk) trans and published by

State University of New York Press Albany 1985The Encyclopaedia of Islam new edition Brill Leiden Luzac and Co London

1961ndash1971Watt WM Islamic Philosophy and Theology Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh 1962Watt WM lsquoThe expedition of al-Hudaybiya reconsideredrsquo in Hamadard Islamicus vol VIII

no 1 Spring 1985

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Weeramantry CG Islamic Jurisprudence An International Perspective Macmillan Basingstoke1988

Weiss BG lsquoMedieval muslim Discussions of the origin of languagersquo Zeitschrift derdeutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft Wiesbaden vol 125 1974 pp 33ndash41

Al-Yahya Nasser Ibn Qudamahrsquos methodology and his approach to certain aspects of the Islamic law

of international relations in the Aringanbalj juristic tradition unpublished PhD thesis submitted tothe University of Manchester 1992

Yusuf Aremu The Theory of Istihsan unpublished PhD thesis the University of MacGillCanada 1992

BIBLIOGRAPHY

274

INDEX

Abbasid caliphate 14 50 192 n4lsquoAbd Allah 162ndash163 195 n51lsquoAbd al-lsquoAziz King of Saudi Arabia 160ablution nullification when a man touches

a women 126 sand 120 water120ndash121 123 248 nn265 272

Abu Hszligim 9Abu Bakr Caliph 81 182Abu Dawud 32 68 102Abu Aringanifah 41 68 88 90 91 99 189

193 n14 214 n42Abu Aringayyhn 22 52Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb 54 58 68 78 89 101

126 132 Ibn Aringanbal sources of law35ndash36 38 on nikharing al-taaringljl 103presumption of continuity istiszligaringhb 36

Abu rsquol-Mawhhib 101Abu Shalsquor 142 148Abu Iumlhlib narrations from Ibn Aringanbal 12

Abu Thawr 43Abu lsquoUbayd 43Abu Yalsquola 12 13 54 56 58 63 68 78

89 101 126 132 162 207 n257209 n16 223 n202 critique by IbnTaymiyyah 56ndash57 duration of truce111 incorrect attributions of narrationsto Ibn Aringanbal 108ndash109 on nikhhal-taaringljl 102ndash103 use of mursal aringadjthby Ibn Aringanbal 61 on weak aringadjth 59

Abu Yusuf 88 90 193 n14 Ibn Aringanbalrsquos education under 5ndash6 7

Abu Zahrah Muaringammad on IbnTaymiyyahrsquos sources of law 39

adultery 70 71Aaringkhm al-Niumlsh (Ibn Aringanbal) 10Ahl al-Aringadjth School 5 6 27 42ndash43 44

47 54

Ahl al-Kalhm 48 69Ahl al-Madjnah consensus of 89ndash91 189

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos view 41ndash43 44Ahl al-Rarsquoy 5 6 42 44 use of aringiyal 99lsquoAla al-Ashhar 143lsquoAli Caliph 81 104 174 182lsquoAlim al-Djn 130Al-lsquoAllhf Abu al-Hudhayl 68Al-Hmidj 57analogy 28 188 207 n260 Ibn Aringanbalrsquos

position on 32ndash33 34 35 as IbnTaymiyyahrsquos source of law 46 47 kinds73 207 n258 as source of law 37 38209 n26 and textual rulings 72ndash76

lsquoHqilah 118ndash119Arabic language 215 n50 divisions of

187 evidence for metaphor in 64ndash67lsquomajority of scholarsrsquo subscribing todivision of 62ndash63 metaphor in 62216 n75 and uszligul al-fiqh 61ndash62

Arabs enslavement 76 exemption frompoll tax 76ndash77 precedence in Imamate77 221 n148 racial superiority 77ndash78rulings specific to 76ndash78 188 rulings tobe dependent on likes and dislikes of77 220 n143

Al-Ardabilj 130Al-Aszligfahhnj Aaringmad 6Al-Ashhlsquoirah 68Asmhrsquo mursquoallafht Ibn Taymiyyah

(Ibn al-Qayyim) 132Al-Athram 11 32 37 208 n10 on

general principles of Ibn Aringanbalrsquosjurisprudence 33ndash34

Avicenna (Ibn Sjnh) 29Al-Awzhlsquoj 42ndash43Aybeg 14Ayyub Najm al-Djn King 13ndash14

275

Baaringrite Mamluks 13ndash14 197 n91Baibars 22Al-Bhjj 181Al-Balsquolibikj 130Al-Balqjnj 142Al-Baqjllhnj 68Al-Bazzhr 18 24 93Al-Birzhlj 52 204 n224boots (khuffayn) wiping 121Al-Buhutj 77 156 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos

influence on 156ndash158Al-Bukhhrj 61

cemeteries prayer in 110ndash111 231 n151travelling to visit 96ndash98 226 n32227 n35

companions of Prophet companionsrsquoopinions as source of law for IbnAringanbal 33ndash34 35ndash36 47 differencesof opinion 70 disapproval of aringiyal 99100 Aringanbalrsquos types of opinions of 47rulings issued by 183 on use of rarsquoy81ndash82

complementary benefits (aringhjiyht) 79consensus (ijmalsquo) 27 35 206 n254

207 n255 definition 57ndash58 istiqrhrsquoj 47as a source of law 48 as source of lawand Ibn Aringanbal 58ndash59 types 186ndash187

consensus of Ahl al-Madjnah 189 andAringanbalj sources 89ndash90 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos clarification 90ndash91

contracts of co-partnership 74ndash75 forfield lease with profit sharing (muzhralsquoah)75 ratification 121ndash122 validity of123ndash124

co-partnership (muparthrabah) 74ndash75corruption 174

Daljl al-Iumlhlib (al-Karmj) 155 156Darrsquo Talsquohrpart al-lsquoAql wa lsquol-Naql

(Ibn Taymiyyah) 222 n176Al-Dhahabj 12 129 136 202 n197

admiration for Ibn Taymiyyah 21ndash22on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos harshness indealing with contemporaries 23on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos scholarly ranking51ndash52 on number of Ibn Taymiyyahrsquostreatises 24

divorce 118 233 n170 fathwh 20reversal of 244 n139 revocable257 n4 types in Islamic law 171257 n3 see also triple divorce

education of Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal 4ndash7of Ibn Taymiyyah 16ndash17 in IbnTaymiyyahrsquos era 50

endowment (waqf ) 113ndash114enslavement of Arabs 76exile of Ibn Taymiyyah 19explicit consensus 37 48 58ndash59 100

Faparthrsquoil al-Iacuteaaringhbah (Ibn Aringanbal) 10al-Fhrsquoiq (Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal) 151fanaticism 89 in taqlid era 29Al-Fhrisj Salmhn 77fasting on day of doubt 104 122

230 n116fathwh Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos 2 24 26 51ndash52

53 130 213 n110Al-Fathwh al-Miszligriyyah (Ibn

Taymiyyah) 151Al-Fathwh al-Salsquodiyyah (al-Salsquodj) 162

165 164Al-Fataring al-Rabbhnj (al-Bannh) 195 n53Fhƒimah bint Qays 175Fi al-Ashhar 143fiqh Ibn Aringanbalrsquos treatises 10 Ibn

Taymiyyahrsquos treatises 25ndash27forward purchase (baylsquo al-salam) 113Al-Furulsquo (Ibn Mufliaring) 111 140ndash141

146 178 influence of Ibn Taymiyyah 142ndash144

Al-Futuaringj 158

Ghhyat al-Maƒlab (al-Jurhlsquoj) 143Ghhyat al-Muntahh (al-Karmj) 155Al-Ghazhlj Abu Aringhmid 29 38 68Ghengis Khan 14

aringadjth 3 categories 60 contradictionsbetween scholars opinions and authentic aringadjth 28ndash29 Ibn Aringanbalrsquosbasic principles 33ndash34 Ibn Aringanbalrsquosengagement in study of 6 leadingscholars 8 Prophetrsquos 33 as source of law 47 al-whhj (feeble) 60 weakaringadjth as Ibn Aringanbalrsquos source of law59ndash61 187aringajj ibn Aringanbal 6ndash7 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos

works on 53 212 n95Al-Hajjhwj 13 77 156 biographical

details 151 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence151ndash153

Al-Aringakam lsquoAbd al-Raaringmhn b 102Al-Aringamawiyyah (Ibn Taymiyyah) 18

INDEX

276

Al-Aringanafj al-Bukhhrj 20Aringanbalj School of law 4 196 n87

corrections of misunderstandings ofother schools 102ndash103 disagreementregarding nikhh al-taaringljl 102ndash103general principles 31 32ndash33 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos critical study 56ndash57 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos influences 130ndash131169ndash170 186ndash189 190ndash191 incorrectrulings 190 incorrect rulings existence108ndash115 innovation in 92ndash96narrations of Ibn Aringanbal 125narrations of Ibn Aringanbal proved to beincorrect 126ndash128 narrations proved tobe attributed incorrectly to Ibn Aringanbal125ndash126 position on triple divorce172ndash173 and precaution 105reference to Ibn Aringanbal generalprinciples 33ndash38 role of IbnTaymiyyah in development of 26 31189ndash190 rules 119ndash120 rules refutedby Ibn Taymiyyah 122ndash124 rules usedby Ibn Taymiyyah 120ndash121 spread of13 terminology of 115ndash116 190

Al-Harhnj see Ibn NajjaringAringarb 101Al-Aringasan 174aringashjshah 116Aringhshiyat al-Rawpart al-Murbi (Ibn al-Qhsim)

252 n357aringjlah see aringiyalhire contract 113 increasing

rent in 98Al-Aringisbah (Ibn Taymiyyah) 27al-Aringiszlignj 142aringiyal 189 228 n59 definition 98

evolution 98ndash99 prohibition 100ndash103use 99ndash100

Hulegu 14Hushaym 6 194 n23

Ibn lsquoAbbhs on triple divorce 173179ndash180 182

Ibn lsquoAbd al-Barr 181Ibn lsquoAbd al-Ghanj 28 130Ibn lsquoAbd al-Hhdj 24 52 93 admiration

for Ibn Taymiyyah 20ndash21Ibn lsquoAbdus 96Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb Muhammad 9 13

158 169 191 252 n354 biographicaldetails 158ndash159 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosinfluence on 159ndash161

Ibn Abj Hubayrah 126Ibn Abj Kathjr 5Ibn Abu Yalsquola 34 37 38 126Ibn lsquoAqjl 54 90 101 132Ibn al-lsquoArabj 181Ibn al-Athjr 14Ibn lsquoAwf 182Ibn Badran 89Ibn al-Bannh 126 195 n53 on triple

divorce 177Ibn Bhz 163 167Ibn Daqjq al-lsquoJd 21Ibn al-Farrh Abu lsquol-Husayn Muhammad

b Muhammad see Ibn Abu YalsquolaIbn Aringajar 23 134 135Ibn Aringajar al-Haythamj 181Ibn Aringamdhn 88 112Ibn Aringhmid 11 21 96Ibn Aringanbal Abk lsquoAbd Allah Aaringmad b

Muaringammad 2 3 91 101 attributionof incorrect rulings 108ndash115 basicprinciples of jurisprudence 3132ndash35 biographical details 4comparison with Ibn Taymiyyah54ndash55 186 critique by Ibn Taymiyyah56 deviation of followers 93disapproval of al-Kawsajrsquos Mashrsquoil11 education 48ndash49 and IbnTaymiyyah on sources of law 48ndash49Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos praise for 41 44lack of writings on jurisprudence125ndash126 narrations 125 narrationsproved by Ibn Taymiyyah to beincorrect 126ndash128 narrations proved tobe attributed incorrectly to 125ndash126rejection of Mulsquotazilj doctrine 23ndash25scholarsrsquo commendations 8 sourcesof law 209 n20 traditionalist(muaringaddith) or jurist 23ndash25 186treatises 23ndash25 23ndash25 use of weakaringadjth 59ndash61 187

Ibn Hhni 32Ibn al-Aringarjrj 130Ibn Aringazm 206 n254 critique by Ibn

Taymiyyah 27Ibn al-Humhm 142Ibn al-Jawzj 6 37Ibn Kathjr 129 135Ibn al-Madjnj 8 61Ibn Malsquojn Yaaringyh 8Ibn Makhluf 19Ibn Maslsquoud 182

INDEX

277

Ibn al-Mubarrid 137Ibn Mufliaring Muaringammad 89 111 114

129 146 154 243 nn109 128246 n202 biographical details 136ndash137Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on 137ndash140141ndash142 on triple divorce 178

Ibn Mughjth 182Ibn al-Mundhir Muaringammad 181Ibn Munjja 237 n261Ibn al-Musallam 136Ibn Najjaring 130 131 240 n32Ibn al-Najjhr 89 156 158 biographical

details 153 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influenceon 153ndash154 155

Ibn Qhpartj al-Jabal 130 151 sale ofendowment 114

Ibn al-Qayyim 9ndash10 12 25 37112 114 129 130 151 161 191allegation as emulator of IbnTaymiyyah 134ndash135 biographicaldetails 131ndash132 classification ofscholars 50ndash51 detentions andpersecutions 134 on Ibn Aringanbalrsquossources of law 34ndash35 on IbnTaymiyyahrsquos claim about Aringanbaljscholars position on triple divorce180ndash181 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influences132ndash136 169 241 n51 on IbnTaymiyyahrsquos scholarly ranking 54influence on al-Salsquodj 162 164

Ibn al-Qayyim Burhhn al-Djn 114Ibn Qudhmah Muaringammad 25 68 89

126 146 151 209 n26 226 n32 onanalogy 38 classification of maszliglaaringah78ndash79 on triple divorce 177

Ibn Qundus 142Ibn Rhhawiyh 11Ibn Rajab 23 30 135 146 181Ibn Saljm 163Ibn Tamjm 37 on Ibn Aringanbalrsquos sources

of law 34Ibn Taymiyyah lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm 16 17 28

207 n256Ibn Taymiyyah Aaringmad b lsquoAbd al-Aringaljm

252 n357 adoption of new criticalstudy method 108 attitudes towardsother Islamic schools of law 41ndash45attitudes towards the AringanbaljSchool 41 43ndash45 categorisation of jurisprudential issues of 143comparison with Ibn Aringanbal 48ndash4954ndash55 186 corrections and

clarifications made to Aringanbalj fiqh192 criticism of Aringanbalj scholars56ndash57 91 critique by Aringanbaljs 53death 30 detentions and persecutions129ndash130 186 education 129ndash130 eraof 129ndash130 influences 129ndash130influences on Aringanbalj scholars 2 3130ndash131 169ndash170 186ndash189 190ndash191interpretations of Ibn Aringanbalrsquos weakaringadjth 22ndash23 level of knowledge 2opponents of 22ndash23 as politicalreformer 17 reason for name199 n120 relationship with his rulers189ndash190 role in development ofAringanbalj School of law 189ndash190 2631 189ndash190 scholarly ranking 51ndash54186 sources of law 45ndash47 sources oflaw in his own treatises 45ndash47 students129 130 support and praise 20ndash22treatises 163 treatises number 24204 nn222ndash224 treatises on fiqh25ndash27 treatises on uszligul al-figh 27ndash30

Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Majd 25 28 57 7889 126 146 on triple divorce 177178 180 182 185

Ibn al-Tin 181Ibn Tumart 18Ibn lsquoUthaymjn Muaringammad b Iacutehliaring

biographical details 165 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos influence on 165ndash168

Ipartharing al-Dilhlah f j lsquoUmum al-Rishlah li lsquol-Thaqalayn (Ibn Taymiyyah)29ndash30

ijtihhd 52 212 n107al-rsquoIlal 12Ilsquolhm al-Muwaqqirsquojn lsquoan Rabb al-lsquoAlamjn

(Ibn al-Qayyim) 50 132 136 161al-lsquoIlm 12imams 231 n142 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos and

Ibn al-Qayyimrsquos position towards 133obligation to follow opinions of 86ndash8788 permission for aringiyal 99

imitation 93 160 188ndash189 and mujtahids84 85 87 188 222 n191 Sharlsquojrulings on 84ndash89

independent reasoning 85ndash86 187196 n86 217 n85 218 n114deficiency in 92 in taqlid era 160 fortriple divorce 183ndash184

innovations 151 160 189 225 n17definition 93 in Aringanbalj fiqh 92ndash9395ndash98 types 94

INDEX

278

Al-Inszlighf (al-Mardhwj) 145 148 149ndash151152 161 178

intention acts of worship 95ndash96 in aringiyal100 prayer 226 n22

interdiction (aringajr) 127Al-Intiszlighr (Abu rsquol-Khaƒƒhb) 110intoxicantsintoxication 116 125

prohibition of 72 73 wine consumption 71

Al-Iqnhlsquo (al-Hajjhwj) 151ndash153 158 160lsquoIsh Muhannh b 19Isaringhq 43Islam treatise on origin and

development 10Islamic economy 27Islamic law classification 50ndash51

comparison of basic principles 31 4080ndash82 corrections of misunderstandingsof other schools by Aringanbalj scholars89ndash91 development 192 n4 meaningof rarsquoy in 80ndash82 postponement ofclarification of rulings 82ndash84 rulingsspecific to Arabs 76ndash78 188 sources oflaw comparative study 48ndash49

Islamic law sources analogy as 28209 n26 comparative study of IbnAringanbalrsquos and Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos 48ndash49Aringanbali scholars on Ibn Aringanbalrsquossources 33ndash38 Ibn Aringanbalrsquos 32ndash3345ndash47 209 n20 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos39ndash40 maszliglaaringah (benefit) 78ndash80 188mursal aringadjth 214 n42 text 219 n115tracing Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources in hisown works 45ndash47

Islamic schools of law 13 192 n4appeal for tolerance amongst 30Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos attitude towards 41ndash45

istiqrhrsquoj consensus 47Istiszligaringhb 36 37ndash38 211 n77 as Ibn

Taymiyyahrsquos source of law 47ittibalsquo 32Iyhpart Qhdj 8

Al-Jahmiyyah 68 69al-Jhmilsquo 12Jawhbht al-Qurrsquoan (Ibn Aringanbal) 10Al-Jawhb al-Bhhir (Ibn Taymiyyah) 97Al-Jubbhrsquoj Abu lsquoAlj 68Al-Jubbhrsquoj Abu Hhshim 68Al-Jurhlsquoj Abu Bakr education 141ndash142

Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on 142ndash144

jurisprudence classification of IbnTaymiyyahrsquos works 53 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquoscontribution 1 115ndash119 31 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos treatises 24 terminology ofAringanbalj school 115ndash119 190

Al-Khfi (Ibn Qudhmah) 110Al-Karmj Marlsquoj 152 biographical

details 155 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influenceon 155 156

Al-Kawsaj narrations from Ibn Aringanbal 11

Khaljl al-Ashraf 14 63Al-Khallhl 5 11 12 critique by Ibn

Taymiyyah 56 editing of AaringmadrsquosMashrsquoil 12

khamr 72 73 125 definition 116Al-Khaƒƒhb lsquoUmar b 81Al-Khawhrij 48Al-Khiraqj 77 126 220 n143 critique

by Ibn Taymiyyah 56 on triple divorce 177

khullsquo 118 127 233 n170Al-Kinhnj lsquoIzz al-Djn 142Al-Kishlsquoj 63Al-Kiumlthb (Sjbawayh) 52ndash53Kiumlthb al-Istiqhmah (Ibn Taymiyyah) 25Kiumlthb al-Iacutealhh (Ibn Aringanbal) 10Kiumlthb al-Tamhjd (lsquoAbu rsquol-Khatthb) 35

luxurious benefits (kamhliyht) 79

Malsquohrij al-Wuszligul (Ibn Taymiyyah) 29Mabaringath al-Ijtihhd wa lsquol-Khilhf (Ibn lsquoAbd

al-Wahhhb) 161Al-Maaringalj al-Jalhl 142Malsquojn Yaaringyh b 7Majmulsquo al-Fathwh (Ibn Taymiyyah) 25

205 n239Malik 7 41 42 44 88 90 91Mhlikj School 42 43 44ndash45Mamluks 197 n90 198 n101 199 n110Al-Marsquomun Caliph 7ndash8Al-Manbijj Naszligr 22 202 n177Al-Mansur on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources

of law 39Al-Manƒiq (Ibn Taymiyyah) 199 n114Al-Maqdisj AbuMuhammad on

cemetery visit 96 critique by Ibn Taymiyyah 97

Al-Maqdisj Bahhrsquo al-Djn 206 n248 ontriple divorce 177

INDEX

279

Al-Maqdisj al-Aringhfiz lsquoAbd al-Ghanj226 n32

Al-Maqdisj Sharaf al-Djn 16 17malsquoqul al-naszligszlig 36Marhtib al-Ijmhlsquo (Ibn Hazm) 27Al-Mardhwj Jamhl al-Djn 77 112 114

126 136 152 154 199 n117234 n186 biographical details 145Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos influence on 145ndash148149ndash151 on triple divorce 178

Al-Marisj Bishr 67marriage consent of women 126ndash127

delay in acceptance 125ndash126dissolution (khullsquo) 118 127 233 n170legitimacy 112ndash113 221 n149ratification 122 see also njkharing al-taaringljl

Al-Marwazj Abu Bakr 181 259 n53Mashrsquoil al-Imhm Aaringmad 11ndash13 editing by

al-Khallhl 12 on triple divorce 177maszliglaaringah (benefit) definition 79 as source

of law 78ndash80 93 188Malsquounat ulj al-Nuhh (Ibn al-Najjhr)

154 155 249 n286Al-Maymunj narrations from Ibn Aringanbal 12

menstruation (aringaypart) 117 235 n216metaphor 62 187 216 n75 evidence

for existence in Arabic language64ndash67

Minhhj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (IbnTaymiyyah) 24ndash25 156 161

Al-Mizzj 52 136Mongols 14 198 n104 influence in

spread of Islamic doctrine 94Mulsquohwiyah 104Muhammad Prophet 10 70 76 acts of

worship 95 dislike of al-partab 77 onduration of truce 112 emigration toMadinah 118 encouragement to visitcemeteries 96 importance of aringadjth of33 universality of mission 29validation of triple divorce 176

Al-Muaringarrar (al-Majd) 110 177mujtahids 4 50 199 n117 217 n85

246 n202 absolute independent50ndash51 52 53ndash54 212 n100 affiliated51 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos praise for41ndash45 and imitation of another scholar 84 85 87 188 222 n191interpretations of correctness and error on the part of 67ndash69restricted 51

Al-Mukaringthrht al-Jaliyyah min al-Mashrsquoilal-Fiqhiyyah (al-Salsquodj) 162 165

Mukhtaszligar (al-Khiraqj) 177Mukhtaszligar al-Furulsquo 245 n165Mukhtaszligar al-Inszlighf (Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb)

161 177Al-Muntahh (Ibn al-Najjhr) 153 158 160muqalids 51Al-Muqnilsquo (Ibn Qudhmah) 110mursal aringadjth as source of law 214 n42Al-Musawwadah fj Usul al-Fiumlqh 28

207 n256Al-musnad (Ibn Aringanbal) 10Al-Muszligƒaliq enslavement 76Al-Mutawakil Caliph 8mutawhtir 48Muƒayr Mush b 102Mulsquotazilah 69Mulsquotazilj doctrine 7ndash8Al-Muwaƒƒa (Malik) 7 42 44 91

Al-Najdj lsquoAbd Allah b Ibrhhim 159Naqd Marhtib al-Ijmhlsquo (Ibn Taymiyyah) 27Al-Nashrsquoj 9lsquoAl-Naszligiaringah al-Dhahabjyyah ilh Ibn Taymiyyahrsquo

(Golden Advice to Ibn Taymiyyah orAn Advice from al-Dhahabj to IbnTaymiyyah) 22

Al-Nhsikh warsquol-Mansukh (Ibn Aringanbal) 10Al-Nhszligir Sultan 15 17ndash18 19 20naszligszlig see textnjkharing al-taaringljl 101 176 177 182 189

228 n84 Ibn Aringanbal reprehension of101ndash102 see also marriage

piety (waralsquo) 105ndash107 189ndash190poll tax (jizyah) Arabs exemption 76ndash77prayer in a cemetery 110ndash111

231 n151 intention 95 226 n22postponement 123 237 n261 right tolead 77 220 n144

precaution (iaringtiyhƒ) 103ndash105 189ndash190definition 103 and Aringanbalj School oflaw 105 use in purification 105

prohibitions 174purification use of precaution (iaringtiyhƒ)

105 see also ablution

Qhlsquoidah fj Tawaaringaringud al-Millah wa Talsquoaddudal-Sharhrsquoi (Ibn Taymiyyah) 30

Al-Qawhlsquoid al-Nurhniyyah (Ibn Taymiyyah)26ndash27

INDEX

280

Al-Qawhlsquoid wa al-Uszligul al-Jhmilsquoah wa lsquol-Furuqwa lsquol-Taqhsim al-Badilsquoah al-Nhfilsquoah(al-Salsquodj) 162

qiyhs bi al-ghhrsquo al-fhriq (isolating the cause) 73

Qurrsquoan 190 Ibn Aringanbalrsquos source of law34 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos interpretation 25205 n234 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos source oflaw 46 and metaphor 66ndash67Mulsquotazilite concept of created 7prohibition of aringiyal 100 as source oflaw 29 49

Quraysh tribe 78Quƒuz Sultan 14

racial superiority Arabs 77ndash78Al-Radd lsquoAla al-Jahmiyyah (Ibn Aringanbal) 10

216 n75Raflsquo al-Malhm lsquoan al-Arsquoimmah al-Alsquolhm (Ibn

Taymiyyah) 28ndash29Ramaparthn beginning of 70ndash71 104 122Al-Rawpartah (Ibn Qudhmah) 36 38Al-Rawpart al-Murbilsquo (al-Buhutj) 157al-rarsquoy 81 use of 188Al-Rhzj Abu Bakr 181Al-Rhzj Abu Aringhtim 102Al-Rhzj Muhammad b Muqhtil 182Al-Rilsquohyah (Ibn Aringamdhn) 110Rifhlsquoah divorce 175Al-Rishlah (al-Shhfilsquoj) 37Rishlah fj lsquol-Qiyhs (Ibn Taymiyyah) 28Rukhnah 179

Al-Salsquodj 135 167 191 254 n384biographical details 161ndash162 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos influence on 162ndash165 169

Al-Iacuteafadj 23Al-Sakhhwj 142sale of endowment 113ndash114 of

non-existent item 113Iacutehliaring Abu rsquol-Fapartl 11 12 narrations from

Ibn Aringanbal 11ndash12Al-Iacuteanlsquohnj lsquoAbd al-Razzhq 7 praise for

Ibn Aringanbal 8sand ablution (Tayammum) 120scholars classification 50ndash51 disputes

concerning furulsquo and uszligul 68ndash69 IbnTaymiyyahrsquos and Ibn al-Qayyimrsquosposition towards 133 rulings onimitation of scholars 84ndash89

Al-Shhfilsquoj 6ndash7 37 41 43 68 91220 n143 and Arabic language 63

exercise of precaution 104 praise forIbn Aringanbal 8

Shhfilsquoj School 129 postponement ofprayer 123 utterance of intention forprayer 95

Al-Shhmj Muhannh b Yaaringyh narrationsfrom Ibn Aringanbal 12

Al-Shararing al-Mumtilsquo lsquoAla Zhd al-Mustaqnilsquo(Ibn lsquoUthaymjn) 165 167 168

Shararing al-Taaringrjr (al-Mardhwj) 246 n202Shararing al-lsquoUmdah (Ibn Taymiyyah) 25ndash26

53 151 156 157sharjlsquoah 29 31 divisions into uszligul and furulsquo

69ndash72 187Al-Sharjf Abu Jalsquofar 101Al-Shawkhnj 23Al-Shirhzj 223 n192 on imitation of

scholars 85Al-Shshhdhakunj 8Sjbawayh 22 63 critique by Ibn

Taymiyyah 52Sihhat Usul Madhhab Ahl al-Madjnah (The

Correctness of the Principles of theMadjnah School of Law) (IbnTaymiyyah) 41

silver use by males 111Al-Siyhsah al-Sharlsquoiyyah (Ibn

Taymiyyah) 27slaves killing of 114ndash115society strata 14ndash15Al-Subkj 22 181Al-Sulhmiyyah Ibn Sheikh 114Sulaymhn on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sources of

law 39ndash40Sunnah 12 190 as Ibn Aringanbal source of

law 34 as Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos source oflaw 45ndash46 as source of law 29 49

Al-Surj Bishr 99Al-Suyutj 13

Thlsquoat al-Rasul (Ibn Aringanbal) 10ƒabaqht 3 130Al-Tabarj Ibn Jarjr 8tacit consensus 37 59 100 187

214 n28tadljs 59 193 n22Al-Tafsjr al-Kabjr (Ibn Taymiyyah) 25Al-Iumlahhrah (Ibn lsquoAbd al-Wahhhb) 161takbjr 95 123Al-Talsquoljq (Abu Yalsquola) 110Talsquoljq lsquoAlh al-Muaringarrar (Ibn Taymiyyah) 25Al-Tamhjd 38

INDEX

281

Al-Tanqjh (al-Mardhwj) 152taqlid era 15ndash16 50Iumlarjq al-Wuszligul (al-Salsquodj) 162tashahud 123Taszligaringjaring al-Furulsquo (al-Mardhwj) 145 152

245 n165teachers of Ibn Aringanbal 5ndash7 of Ibn

Taymiyyah 16text (naszligszlig) 35ndash36 187ndash188 222 n176

comprehension and its contradiction tocorrect analogy 72ndash76 implications of36 intended meaning of lsquoauthorrsquo 124source of law 219 n115

Al-Thawrj Sufyhn 11 44 68Al-Tirmidhj 60 61travel (safar) 117ndash118triple divorce 2 3 171 185 258 n12

261 n106 concept 172 consequencesof affirming the validity 176ndash177disagreement amongst Aringanbaljscholars regarding 177ndash181 AringanbaljSchool position on 172ndash173 IbnAringanbaljrsquos position on 177 178ndash179Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos position on legal effect173ndash175 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos rebuttal ofexistence of a consensus amongstscholars on 181ndash183 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquosrebuttal of opponents evidence175ndash177 legal effects 173 need forindependent reasoning 183ndash184

truce (hudnah) duration 111ndash112Al-Iumlufj 38 129Turhnshhh 14

lsquoUbhdah 174Al-lsquoUddah (Abu Yalsquola) 35 38Al-lsquoUddah Shararing al-lsquoUmdah (al-Maqdisj)

177 206 n248

lsquoUmad al-Adillah (Ibn lsquoAqjl) 110lsquoUmar Caliph 71 76 87 104 119

173 174 175 on triple divorce 182ndash183

Al-lsquoUmdah (Ibn Qudhmah) commentaries25 26 177 206 n248

Al-lsquoUqud (al-Hhdj) 21uszligul al-fiqh 208 n2 and Arabic language

61ndash62 definition 31 Ibn Aringanbalrsquostreatises 10 Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos treatises27ndash30

Uszligul al-fiqh (Ibn Mufliaring) 89 137216 n50

Al-lsquoUƒayshhn on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos sourcesof law 39

lsquoUwaymir divorce 175 176lsquoUyaynah Sufyhn 6

virginity 127

Wakjlsquo praise for Ibn Aringanbal 8Al-Whsiƒj 203 n197Al-Whsiƒiyyah (Ibn Taymiyyah) 19water classification 120ndash121 236 n241

248 n265Al-Whthiq Caliph 8wine consumption 71work types 75worship acts of 225 n17 225 n19

intention 95ndash96

Zhd al-Malsquohd fi hadi khair al-lsquoIbhd(Ibn al-Qayyim) 132 136

Al-˝hhir Sultan 14 15Al-Zamlikhnj 23 on Ibn Taymiyyahrsquos

scholarly ranking 52Al-Zarkashj 125Al-Zubayr 182

INDEX

282

Annual subscription packages

We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions topackages of eBooks in certain subject areas These areavailable to libraries or to individuals

For more information please contactwebmasterebookstandfcouk

Wersquore continually developing the eBook concept sokeep up to date by visiting the website

eBooks ndash at wwweBookstoretandfcouk

A library at your fingertips

eBooks are electronic versions of printed books You canstore them on your PClaptop or browse them online

They have advantages for anyone needing rapid accessto a wide variety of published copyright information

eBooks can help your research by enabling you tobookmark chapters annotate text and use instant searchesto find specific words or phrases Several eBook files wouldfit on even a small laptop or PDA

NEW Save money by eSubscribing cheap online accessto any eBook for as long as you need it

wwweBookstoretandfcouk

BOOK COVER

HALF-TITLE

SERIES-TITLE

TITLE

COPYRIGHT

CONTENTS

TABLES

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


INTRODUCTION

1 IBN HANBAL AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

2 A COMPARISON OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC LAW ACCORDING TO IBN HANBAL AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

3 RE-LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS Ibn Taymiyyah and Hanbali usul

4 RECONSTRUCTION Ibn Taymiyyah and Hanbali jurisprudence

5 THE LEGACY The influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Hanbali jurists

6 A CASE OF CONFLICT The intended triple divorce revisited

CONCLUSIONS

NOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

THE AringANBALI SCHOOL OF LAW AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

The Aringanbal j School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah offers a valuable account of thedevelopment of Aringanbalite jurisprudence placing the theoretical and conceptualparameters of this tradition within the grasp of the interested reader

This book studies the vibrant yet controversial interaction between IbnTaymiyyah and the Aringanbalj School of law to assess the extent to which thisrelationship was a conflict or reconciliation and provides a detailed exploration ofthe following issues

The strength of contributions made to this School by earlier paragonsassociated with Aaringmad Ibn Aringanbal

The contextual constructs which shaped the traditionrsquos development The methodology and literature synonyms within the classical School The manner in which Ibn Taymiyyah engaged with the Aringanbalj tradition The impact of his thought upon the later expression of the Schoolrsquos legal

doctrines and its theoretical principles The contribution made by this School in general to the synthesis of Islamic law

The Aringanbal j School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah is a vital reference work for thosewith interests in Islamic law the history of the Aringanbalite tradition and itsprincipal luminaries

Abdul Hakim I Al-Matroudi is a visiting senior lecturer in ArabicDepartment of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East SOASHis research interests include Islamic law Aringanbalj law and Ibn Taymiyyah





Rasheed El-Enany

THE AringANBALI-




Hussein Abdul-Raof


IBN TAYMIYYAH


















CONTENTS


Introduction 1




Introduction 4














v


Introduction 31













Introduction 56







correct analogy 72










Introduction 92


CONTENTS

vi








Introduction 129


Conclusion 169


Introduction 171





Conclusions 186


CONTENTS

vii

TABLES

















ix

TABLES

x








xi

PREFACE



xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



xv




VowelsShort

a

u

i

Longj

h

u

iyy final form j

uww final form u

Diphoongsaw

ay

INTRODUCTION








1













INTRODUCTION

2








INTRODUCTION

3

1



Introduction




4












5










6













7













8











9











10








11












12













13









14












15










16


17








ndashd143









18










19










20







21









22









Introduction



23












24













25











26










27









28








29








30

2


AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

Introduction





31













32
















33















34












35


















36












37







38













Qurrsquoan Sunnah


39














40












41












42









43











44













45










46









47












48







rank


49














50











51





52











53







54




55

3



Introduction





56




and others16








57










58











59












60











61












62













63










64












65







66










67









68











69










70










71










72












73











74











75










76











77










78










79












80












81












82










83











84








85











86









87










88











89













90







91

4

RECONSTRUCTION


Introduction






92







JURISPRUDENCE

93










JURISPRUDENCE

94







JURISPRUDENCE

95











JURISPRUDENCE

96











JURISPRUDENCE

97












JURISPRUDENCE

98










JURISPRUDENCE

99










JURISPRUDENCE

100









JURISPRUDENCE

101









JURISPRUDENCE

102









JURISPRUDENCE

103








JURISPRUDENCE

104








JURISPRUDENCE

105









JURISPRUDENCE

106










JURISPRUDENCE

107






JURISPRUDENCE

108








JURISPRUDENCE

109









JURISPRUDENCE

110














JURISPRUDENCE

111










JURISPRUDENCE

112









JURISPRUDENCE

113











JURISPRUDENCE

114









JURISPRUDENCE

115












JURISPRUDENCE

116









JURISPRUDENCE

117












JURISPRUDENCE

118










JURISPRUDENCE

119












JURISPRUDENCE

120











JURISPRUDENCE

121











JURISPRUDENCE

122











JURISPRUDENCE

123








JURISPRUDENCE

124











JURISPRUDENCE

125










JURISPRUDENCE

126









JURISPRUDENCE

127



JURISPRUDENCE

128

5

THE LEGACY


Introduction







129








130










131









132





133










134







135






136


Volume 1 57 61 62 71 131 136 199 222 237 264 276 304 311 316 319 324360 375 378 407 434 439 440 448 456 464 465 472 480 495 499505 518 520


606 658 673 717 730 749 781 783 807 809 811 823 833




295 319 322 334












137








138








139




140






141

Table 3 Continued













142
















143










144




10a 12b 26a 29a 34b 41a 41b 43a 142b






As a judge164










145







146










147









148










Table 8 Continued








Table 8 Continued













151












152









153























154


177 183 199 201 203 204 205 208 223 224 231 237 240 245 246 247 249 250281 282 294 306 315 316 317 318 320 326 344 357 364 374 378 382 387 409413 432 433 492 502 587 608 680 686 693 701 711 715 716 752 769 772


Al-Karmj (d 10331623)








155









156












157


25 52 138 210 294


















158












159










160




161

















162








163









164







165


15 27 41 46 60 69 108 109 114 115 116 118 119 126 twice 127











166









167

























Conclusion





169









170

6

A CASE OF CONFLICT


Introduction










171

















172













173










174















175









176














177









178









179








180













181













182










183









184





185

186

CONCLUSIONS














CONCLUSIONS

187







CONCLUSIONS

188







CONCLUSIONS

189







CONCLUSIONS

190




CONCLUSIONS

191

NOTES

INTRODUCTION







192











NOTES

193
















NOTES

194

















NOTES

195












NOTES

196






NOTES

197














NOTES

198
















NOTES

199













NOTES

200

















168 Ibid169 Ibid

NOTES

201















NOTES

202










NOTES

203









NOTES

204












NOTES

205














NOTES

206











NOTES

207













AND IBN TAYMIYYAH






NOTES

208













NOTES

209







NOTES

210
















NOTES

211















NOTES

212


















NOTES

213


















NOTES

214









NOTES

215








NOTES

216













NOTES

217














NOTES

218








NOTES

219











NOTES

220






NOTES

221










NOTES

222





NOTES

223









NOTES

224













NOTES

225











NOTES

226












NOTES

227



















NOTES

228













NOTES

229








NOTES

230













NOTES

231













NOTES

232














NOTES

233
















NOTES

234















NOTES

235
















NOTES

236













NOTES

237

















NOTES

238

















NOTES

239












NOTES

240







NOTES

241













NOTES

242
















NOTES

243











NOTES

244












201 255 289 362 vol 9 pp 5 483 vol 10 p 7 154 vol 11 p 323

NOTES

245














NOTES

246










NOTES

247










NOTES

248






249 250 281ndash282 315 326 344 378 382 409 492 502 587 608 693 701 711769 772






NOTES

249


















NOTES

250












NOTES

251







NOTES

252















NOTES

253


















NOTES

254












NOTES

255












NOTES

256










NOTES

257












NOTES

258


















NOTES

259













NOTES

260









NOTES

261

Arabic references











262

BIBLIOGRAPHY




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

263




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

264



















1983

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265






















BIBLIOGRAPHY

266






















BIBLIOGRAPHY

267





















BIBLIOGRAPHY

268



















Cairo 1372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

270











English references









BIBLIOGRAPHY

271























BIBLIOGRAPHY

272























no 1 Spring 1985

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273






BIBLIOGRAPHY

274

INDEX












47 54











275























Al-Futuaringj 158






INDEX

276


















INDEX

277
























INDEX

278






























INDEX

279

































INDEX

280
































INDEX

281









177 206 n248









virginity 127



intention 95ndash96




INDEX

282












BOOK COVER

HALF-TITLE

SERIES-TITLE

TITLE

COPYRIGHT

CONTENTS

TABLES

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


INTRODUCTION







CONCLUSIONS

NOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX





Rasheed El-Enany

THE AringANBALI-




Hussein Abdul-Raof


IBN TAYMIYYAH


















CONTENTS


Introduction 1




Introduction 4














v


Introduction 31













Introduction 56







correct analogy 72










Introduction 92


CONTENTS

vi








Introduction 129


Conclusion 169


Introduction 171





Conclusions 186


CONTENTS

vii

TABLES

















ix

TABLES

x








xi

PREFACE



xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



xv




VowelsShort

a

u

i

Longj

h

u

iyy final form j

uww final form u

Diphoongsaw

ay

INTRODUCTION








1













INTRODUCTION

2








INTRODUCTION

3

1



Introduction




4












5










6













7













8











9











10








11












12













13









14












15










16


17








ndashd143









18










19










20







21









22









Introduction



23












24













25











26










27









28








29








30

2


AND IBN TAYMIYYAH

Introduction





31













32
















33















34












35


















36












37







38













Qurrsquoan Sunnah


39














40












41












42









43











44













45










46









47












48







rank


49














50











51





52











53







54




55

3



Introduction





56




and others16








57










58











59












60











61












62













63










64












65







66










67









68











69










70










71










72












73











74











75










76











77










78










79












80












81












82










83











84








85











86









87










88











89













90







91

4

RECONSTRUCTION


Introduction






92







JURISPRUDENCE

93










JURISPRUDENCE

94







JURISPRUDENCE

95











JURISPRUDENCE

96











JURISPRUDENCE

97












JURISPRUDENCE

98










JURISPRUDENCE

99










JURISPRUDENCE

100









JURISPRUDENCE

101









JURISPRUDENCE

102









JURISPRUDENCE

103








JURISPRUDENCE

104








JURISPRUDENCE

105









JURISPRUDENCE

106










JURISPRUDENCE

107






JURISPRUDENCE

108








JURISPRUDENCE

109









JURISPRUDENCE

110














JURISPRUDENCE

111










JURISPRUDENCE

112









JURISPRUDENCE

113











JURISPRUDENCE

114









JURISPRUDENCE

115












JURISPRUDENCE

116









JURISPRUDENCE

117












JURISPRUDENCE

118










JURISPRUDENCE

119












JURISPRUDENCE

120











JURISPRUDENCE

121











JURISPRUDENCE

122











JURISPRUDENCE

123








JURISPRUDENCE

124











JURISPRUDENCE

125










JURISPRUDENCE

126









JURISPRUDENCE

127



JURISPRUDENCE

128

5

THE LEGACY


Introduction







129








130










131









132





133










134







135






136


Volume 1 57 61 62 71 131 136 199 222 237 264 276 304 311 316 319 324360 375 378 407 434 439 440 448 456 464 465 472 480 495 499505 518 520


606 658 673 717 730 749 781 783 807 809 811 823 833




295 319 322 334












137








138








139




140






141

Table 3 Continued













142
















143










144




10a 12b 26a 29a 34b 41a 41b 43a 142b






As a judge164










145







146










147









148










Table 8 Continued








Table 8 Continued













151












152









153























154


177 183 199 201 203 204 205 208 223 224 231 237 240 245 246 247 249 250281 282 294 306 315 316 317 318 320 326 344 357 364 374 378 382 387 409413 432 433 492 502 587 608 680 686 693 701 711 715 716 752 769 772


Al-Karmj (d 10331623)








155









156












157


25 52 138 210 294


















158












159










160




161

















162








163









164







165


15 27 41 46 60 69 108 109 114 115 116 118 119 126 twice 127











166









167

























Conclusion





169









170

6

A CASE OF CONFLICT


Introduction










171

















172













173










174















175









176














177









178









179








180













181













182










183









184





185

186

CONCLUSIONS














CONCLUSIONS

187







CONCLUSIONS

188







CONCLUSIONS

189







CONCLUSIONS

190




CONCLUSIONS

191

NOTES

INTRODUCTION







192











NOTES

193
















NOTES

194

















NOTES

195












NOTES

196






NOTES

197














NOTES

198
















NOTES

199













NOTES

200

















168 Ibid169 Ibid

NOTES

201















NOTES

202










NOTES

203









NOTES

204












NOTES

205














NOTES

206











NOTES

207













AND IBN TAYMIYYAH






NOTES

208













NOTES

209







NOTES

210
















NOTES

211















NOTES

212


















NOTES

213


















NOTES

214









NOTES

215








NOTES

216













NOTES

217














NOTES

218








NOTES

219











NOTES

220






NOTES

221










NOTES

222





NOTES

223









NOTES

224













NOTES

225











NOTES

226












NOTES

227



















NOTES

228













NOTES

229








NOTES

230













NOTES

231













NOTES

232














NOTES

233
















NOTES

234















NOTES

235
















NOTES

236













NOTES

237

















NOTES

238

















NOTES

239












NOTES

240







NOTES

241













NOTES

242
















NOTES

243











NOTES

244












201 255 289 362 vol 9 pp 5 483 vol 10 p 7 154 vol 11 p 323

NOTES

245














NOTES

246










NOTES

247










NOTES

248






249 250 281ndash282 315 326 344 378 382 409 492 502 587 608 693 701 711769 772






NOTES

249


















NOTES

250












NOTES

251







NOTES

252















NOTES

253


















NOTES

254












NOTES

255












NOTES

256










NOTES

257












NOTES

258


















NOTES

259













NOTES

260









NOTES

261

Arabic references











262

BIBLIOGRAPHY




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

263




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

264



















1983

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265






















BIBLIOGRAPHY

266






















BIBLIOGRAPHY

267





















BIBLIOGRAPHY

268



















Cairo 1372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269




















BIBLIOGRAPHY

270











English references









BIBLIOGRAPHY

271























BIBLIOGRAPHY

272























no 1 Spring 1985

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273






BIBLIOGRAPHY

274

INDEX












47 54











275























Al-Futuaringj 158






INDEX

276


















INDEX

277
























INDEX

278






























INDEX

279

































INDEX

280
































INDEX

281









177 206 n248









virginity 127



intention 95ndash96




INDEX

282












BOOK COVER

HALF-TITLE

SERIES-TITLE

TITLE

COPYRIGHT

CONTENTS

TABLES

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


INTRODUCTION







CONCLUSIONS

NOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

the hanbali school of law and ibn taymiyyah: conflict or

Documents