As conceived by classical Muslim jurists,ijtihād is the exertion of mental energy in the search for a legal opinion to the extent that the faculties of the jurist become incapable of further effort. In other words, ijtihad is the maximum effort expended by the jurist to master and apply the principles and rules ofuṣūl alfiqh (legal theory) for the purpose of discovering God's law.1 The activity of ijtihad is assumed by many a modern scholar to have ceased about the end of the third/ninth century, with the consent of the Muslim jurists themselves. This process, known as ‘closing the gate of ijtihad’ (in Arabic: ‘insidād bāb al-ijtihād’), was described by Joseph Schacht as follows:

Author's note: I wish to thank Professors Farhat Ziadeh and Nicholas Heer for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

¹⊂Alīb.,Abi⊂Alī al-āmidī,al-Iḥkam fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām, 3 vols. (Cairo,1968),III,204;Google ScholarTāj,al-Dīn al-Subkī,Jam⊂ al-Jawāmic⊂, with the commentary of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī, 2 vols. (Bombay,1970), II,379–381;Google ScholarMuḥammad,b. ⊂Alī al-Shawkānī,Irshād al-Fuḥūl ilā Taḥqīq al-Haqq min ⊂Ilm al-Uṣūl (Cairo,1909), pp.232–233.Google Scholar On the meaning of ‘ijtihad’, seeBravman,M. M.,The Spiritual Background of Early Islam (Leiden.1972), p.189.Google Scholar

²Schacht,J.,An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford,1964), pp.70–71.Google Scholar

³Anderson,J. N. D.,Law Reform in the Muslim World (London,1976), p.7.Google Scholar Such statements on the closure of the gate can be easily multiplied. See, e.g.,Khadduri,M., “From Religious to National Law,” inThompson,J. H. andReischauer,R. D., eds.,Modernization of the Arab World (Toronto,1966), p.41;Google ScholarRahman,F.,Islam (Chicago,1966), pp.77–78;Google ScholarGibb,H. A. R.,Mohammedanism (New York,1962), p.104;Google ScholarTritton,A. S.,Materials on Muslim Education in the Middle Ages (London,1957), p.163;Google ScholarCoulson,N. J.,A History of Islamic Law (Edinburgh,1964), p.81.Google Scholar See also the introduction ofLewis,G. L. to Katib Chelebi'sThe Balance of Truth (London,1957), pp.18–19. For additional citations on this, see notes 6 and 7 below.Google Scholar

⁴Gibb,H. A. R.,Modern Trends in Islam (Chicago,1947), p.13;CrossRefGoogle Scholar idem.,Mohammedanism, p.98.Google Scholar

⁵ SeeWatt,W. M., “The Closing of the Door of lgtihad,”Orientalia Hispanica, I (Leiden,1974),675–678.Google Scholar

⁶Watt,W. M.,Islam and the Integration of Society (Evanston,1961), pp.206–207,242–243;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLiebesny,H., “Stability and Change in Islamic Law,”Middle East Journal,21 (1967), 19;Google ScholarCoulson,,History, pp.80–81;Google ScholarSchacht,,Introduction, p.75;Google ScholarRahman,,Islam, pp.77–78.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf.Ostrorog,C. L.,The Angora Reform (London,1927), p.31;Google ScholarAnderson,,Law Reform, p.7;Google ScholarPellat,C., “Les Etapes de la decadence culturelle dans les pays Arabes d'Orient,” inBrunschvig,R. andvon Grunebaum,G., eds.,Classicisme et declin culturel dans l'histoire de l'lslam (Paris,1957), p.85.Google Scholar

⁸ On the procedure of ijtihad, seeAbu,lshaq al-Shirazi,al-Luma⊂ fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Cairo,1908), pp.83–84;Google ScholarShawkani,,Irshād, p.420;Google ScholarIbn,Habib al-Mawardi,Adab al-Qāḍī, ed.Sarhan,M., 2 vols. (Baghdad,1971), I,535–555;Google ScholarWeis,B., “Interpretation in Islamic Law: The Theory of ljtihad,”The American Journal of Comparative Law,26,2 (Spring,1978),209–210.Google Scholar

⁹ See, e.g.,Shirazi,,Luma⊂, p.4;Google ScholarAmidi,,Iḥkām,1,6;Google ScholarAbu,Hamid al-Ghazali,al-Mustasfā min ⊂Ilm al-Uṣūsl, 2 vols. (Cairo,1907),1,5;Google ScholarShawkani,,Irshād, p.3.Google Scholar

¹⁰Amidi,,Iḥkām,111,222;Google ScholarSa⊂d,al-Din al-Taftazani,H⊂shiya ⊂al⊂ Mukhtaṣar al-Muntahā, 2 vols. (Cairo,1974), II,308;Google ScholarIbn,al-Humam,al-Taḥrīr fī ⊂Ilm al-Uṣūl, with the commentaryal-Taqrīr wal Taḥbīr byIbn,Amir al-Hajj, 3 vols. (Cairo,1898–1899), III,292.Google Scholar

¹¹Rahman,,Islam, p.78.Google Scholar

¹²Unfortunately, Volume 17 of ⊂Abd al-Jabbar'sal-Mughnīfī Abwāb al-Tawḥīd wal-⊂Adl, 20 vols. (Cairo,1962–), which deals with usul al-fiqh has many lacunae, especially in the chapter on ijtihad.Google Scholar

¹³ SeeMuhammad,b. ⊂Ali al-Basri,al-Mu⊂tamad fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, ed.Hamidullah,M. et al. , 2 vols. (Damascus,1964), II,929–931.Google Scholar

¹⁴ibid., II, 930, line 2 and 931, lines 9–10.

¹⁵ibid., II, 932.

¹⁶Shirazi,,Luma⊂, pp.85–86.Google Scholar

¹⁷Ghazali,,Mustasfā,11,350–354;Google ScholarLaoust,H.,Lapolitique de Gazali (Paris,1970), pp.179–180.Google Scholar

¹⁸Ghazali,,Mustasfā,11,353–354.Google Scholar

¹⁹Amidi,,Iḥkām,111,204–205.Google Scholar

²⁰ibid., III, 205–206.

²¹ For the requirements of Baydawi and Isnawi, seeNihāyat al-Sūl fī Sharḥ Minhāj al-Wuṣūl, 3 vols. (Cairo,1899),111,307–313.Google Scholar OnSubki, seeJam⊂,II,382–386, especially p.383.Google Scholar For the requirements ofIbn,al-Humam andIbn,al-Amir, seeTaqrīr,III,292–294.Google Scholar For those of Ansari andIbn,⊂Abd al-Shakur, seeSharḥ Musallam al-Thubūt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 2 vols. (Cairo,1907),1,363–364.Google Scholar

²²lsnawi,,Nihāyat al-Sūl,III,308;Google ScholarIbn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,111,292.Google Scholar

²³ The divisibility of ijtihad was recognized by the great majority of jurists. SeeShawkani,,Irshād, p.237.Google Scholar

²⁴Mawardi,,Adab,1,533 f.;Google ScholarAmidi,,lhkām,111,218.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sha⊂rani defined ‘ahl al-hadith’ as follows: “Byahl al-hadīth is meant that which comprises the traditionalist (ahl al-Sunna) among the juristconsults, even though they may not be tradition experts.” Cited inMakdisi,G., “The Significance of the Schools of Law in Islamic Religious History,”The International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies,10 (1979),4.Google Scholar

²⁶Goldziher,I.,The Zahiris: Their Doctrine and their History, trans.Behn,W. (Leiden,1971), pp.34–36. On the Hashwiyya seeShorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. “Hashwiya.”Google Scholar

²⁷Ibn,al-Nadim,al-Fihrist, ed.Fiügel,G. (Beirut,1964), pp.213,236;Google ScholarGoldziher,,Zahiris, p.35.Google Scholar

²⁸ Quoted inGoldziher,,Zahiris, p.35.Google Scholar

²⁹Abd,al-Rahman Ibn al-Salah,Fatāwā (Beirut,1970), pp.32–33. Relating from Abu lshaq allsfara⊂ini, Ibn al-Salah remarked that “the great majority of scholars believe that the adversaries of qiyas are not qualified to perform ijtihad and may not be entrusted with judgeship; thus, Dawud cannot take part in any ijma⊂.” See also other similar opinions on the Zahiris recorded in thisFatāwā.Google Scholar

³⁰Goldziher,,Zahiris, p.30.Google Scholar

³¹ibid., pp. 156–157.

³²Abu,Hamid al-Ghazali,Iḥyā⊃ ⊂Ulām al-Dīn, 5 vols. (Cairo,1967),1,38.Google Scholar

³³Goldziher,,Zahiris, p.36.Google Scholar

³⁴Ibn,Khatdun,al-Muqaddima (Beirut, n.d.), pp.446–447Google Scholar (Rosenthal's,F. trans. III,5–6).Google Scholar

³⁵Yusuf,Ibn ⊂Abd al-Barr,Jāmi⊂ Bayān al-⊂Ilm (Cairo,1975), p.323.Google Scholar

³⁶ On the fact that they rejected ijtihad, seeGhazali,,Mustasfa,II,387.Google Scholar

³⁷Laoust,,La politique de Gazali, p.180.Google Scholar

³⁸Al-Khatib,al-Baghdadi,al-Faqīh wal-Mutafaqqih, 2 vols. (Beirut,1975),II,72,76–77.Google Scholar

³⁹ SeeMaturidi,,Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, ed.Fathallah,K. (Beirut,1970), pp.10–11,12,14,318,331,378, passim.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cited inHalkin,A. S., “The Hashwiyya,”Journal of the American Oriental Society,54,1(1934),12.Google Scholar

⁴¹Ghazali,,Iḥyā⊃,1,133;Google ScholarTaj,al-Din al-Subki,Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfi⊂yya al-Kubrā, 6 vols. (Cairo,1906),II,287.Google Scholar

⁴²Ibn,⊂Ali Ibn al-Jawzi,al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Mulūk wal-Umam, 9 vols. (?) (Haidarabad,1940),VIII,268.Google Scholar

⁴³Abu,al-Wafa⊃ Ibn ⊂Aqil,Kitāb al-Funūn, ed.Makdisi,G., 2 vols. (Beirut,1970–1971),II,510.Google Scholar See also a similar opinion expressed byMuhammad,b. Ahmad Ibn Rushd,Faṣl al-Maqāl, ed.Hourani,G. F. (Leiden,1959), p.8.Google Scholar

⁴⁴Amidi,,Iḥkām,III,253–254.Google Scholar

⁴⁵Halkin,, “Hashwiyya,” pp.3–20.Google Scholar See the views of Hashwiyya and ahl al-hadith, including Ibn Hanbal, on matters of government in⊂Abd,Allah b. Muhammad al-Nashi⊃ al-Akbar,Masā⊃il al-lmāma wa-Muqtaṭafāt min al-Kitāb al-Awṣat fī al-Maqālāt, ed.van Ess,J. (Beirut-Wiesbaden,1971), pp.65–67.Google Scholar

⁴⁶Makdisi,, “The Significance of the Sunni Schools of Law,” p.6.Google Scholar

⁴⁷Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. “Ahmad Ibn Hanbal,” by I. Goldziher.

⁴⁸ Sound istihsan is the analogical inference of rulings based on sound usul methodology. SeeIbn,Taymiyya, “Mas⊃alat al-Istihsan” inMakdisi,G., ed.,Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb (Massachusetts,1965), pp.454–479.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ SeeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,V,34;Google ScholarHalkin,, “Hashwiyya,” p.27.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ SeeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,1,105,244;11,89,96,126,131.Google Scholar See alsoGoldziher,,Zahiris, p.31.Google Scholar

⁵¹Subki,,Tabaqāt,II,126.Google Scholar Of Ibn al-Mundhir, Subki remarks that “he was a mujtahid that followed no one” (wakāna mujahidan lā yuqallidu aḥadan). Subki also considered Ibn Surayj as the renovator of the fourth/tenth century, seeibid., I, p. 244. Undoubtedly, for later Shafi⊂is, Ibn Surayj was the first great representative of the Shafi⊂i school. He seems to have been the first to reproduce the totality of the Shafi⊂i law, while synthesizing the internal difference of doctrines, e.g., the differences between Shafi⊂i and Muzani. In fact, he composed a work entitledKitāb al-Taqrīb bayna al-Muzanī wal-Shāfi⊂ī(seeIbn,al-Nadim,Fihrist, p.213).Google Scholar

⁵² SeeIbn,al-Nadim, who allots a separate section in his book for the Jariris;Fihrist, p.234 ff.Google Scholar

⁵³Ibn,Abi al-Wafa⊃ al-Qarashi,al-Jawāhir a1-Mudī⊃a fī Ṭabaqāt al-Hanafiyya, 2 vols. (Cairo,1978),I,137–138.Google Scholar

⁵⁴Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,II,303–307. See some of his views in pp.306 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ibid., II, 193–205; for his views see especially pp. 195 ff.

⁵⁶ibid., II, 206–210.

⁵⁷ibid., 11, 112–125. See especially pp. 115f., 118 f. Subki remarked: “As to his deep knowledge of precise concepts and his excellent ability to extract positive law, Muslims agreed that he was unique in (doing) this. No one from the following generations could equal him in his knowledge … He was remembered as a man of good reputation and ijtihad.”

⁵⁸ SeeGoldziher,,Zahiris, p.26.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cited inibid., p. 26. For a different version of this account seeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,II,240.Google Scholar

⁶⁰Ibn,Amir.al-Taqrīr.III,345;Google ScholarIbn,⊂Abidin,al-Rasā⊂il, 2 vols. (Lahore,1976).1,30.Google Scholar

⁶¹ SeeBasri,,Mu⊂tamad,II,934 ff.Google Scholar

⁶²Ibn,⊂Abd al-Barr,Jāmi⊂, pp.384,397.Google Scholar

⁶³Baghdadi,,al-Faqīh,II,66–70;Google ScholarMawardi,,Adab,I,269–273.Google Scholar

⁶⁴Ibn,⊂Abd al-Barr,Jāmi⊂, pp.467–468.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ On the relationship between political theory and political practice in medieval Islam, seeRosenthal,I. J., “The Role of the State in Islam: Theory and Medieval Practice,”Der Islam,50,1(1973),1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶⊂Abd,al-Qahir al-Baghdadi,Uṣūl al-Dīn (Istanbul,1928), p.277. This Baghdadi is not to be confused with al-Khatib al-Baghdadi who died in 463/1070.Google Scholar

⁶⁷⊂Ali,b. Muhammad al-Mawardi,al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭāniyya (Cairo,1960), p.6.Google Scholar See alsoRosenthal,E. I. J.,Political Thought in Medieval Islam (Cambridge,1958). p.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸Mawardi,Aḥkām, p.116.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ibid., p. 66. Cf. my article “Considerations on the Functions and Character of Islamic Legal Theory,” (forthcoming).

⁷⁰Subki,,Ṭabaqār,III,303–305;Google ScholarGibb,H. A. R., “Al-Mawardi's Theory of the Caliphate,” inShaw,B. andPolk,W., eds.,Studies on the Civilization of Islam (Boston,1962), pp.152,164 n. 6, 165 n. 10.Google Scholar

⁷¹Muhammad,al-Juwayni,Ghiyāth al-Umam (Iskandariyya,1979).Google Scholar

⁷²ibid., p. 274.

⁷³ibid., p. 275; this idea is reiterated throughout the book. See, e.g., pp. 271, 282, 283 passim.

⁷⁴ibid., p. 300. Although the last phrase reads: “watakādu hādhihi al-ṣūratu tuwāfqu hādha lizamānin wa⊂ahlihi,” the last three words ought to be read as “hādha al-zamāna wa⊃ahlahu.”

⁷⁵ibid., p. 309.

⁷⁶ See, e.g., the extensive account ofSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,III,249–282.Google Scholar See alsoAbu,al-Fida,Tārīkh, 4 vols. (Qustantiniyah,1870),II,206;Google ScholarIbn,al-Salah,Fatāwā, pp.31–31;Google ScholarShorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. “Taklid,” by J. Schacht.Google Scholar

⁷⁷Juwayni,,Ghiyāth, p.376.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ibid., pp. 397–398.

⁷⁹Ghazali,,Faḍā⊂ih al-Bāṭiniyya, inGoldziher,I., ed.,Streitschrift des Gazali gegen die BatinijjaSekte (Leiden,1956), p.76.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ibid., p. 76.

⁸¹ibid., p. 78.

⁸²Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,111,264.Google Scholar

⁸³ibid., 111, 251, 256.

⁸⁴ibid. III, 264; IV, 124.

⁸⁵Ibn,Khallikan,Wafayāt al-A ⊂yān, ed.Ihsan,⊂Abbas 8 vols. (Beirut,1968–1972),III,168.Google Scholar

⁸⁶Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,III,264.Google Scholar

⁸⁷Abu,al-Fida,Tārīkh,II,206.Google Scholar

⁸⁸Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,III,261–263Google Scholar. Before his death Juwayni is said to have remarked: “(I call upon you) to attest that I abandon any piece of writing that is inconsistent with the (doctrine of the) forefathers.”ibid., 111, 263.

⁸⁹ On the purposes of Subki in writing hisṬabaqāt, particularly his defense of Ash⊂arism, seeMakdisi,G., “Ash⊂ari and Ash⊂arites in Islamic Religious History,”Studia Islamica,17 (1962),56–80.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ghazali,al-Munqidh min al-Ḍalāl, printed with⊂Abd,al-Halim Mahmud'sAbḥāth fī al-Taṣwwuf ⊂an al-lmām al-Ghazālī (Cairo,1965), p.68. In several places throughout his books Ghazali conspicuously speaks as a mujtahid. See for instance hisMustasfā, II, 353, 372; idem,Munqidh, pp. 68, 71, 77, 141–142.Google Scholar

⁹¹Ghazali,,Munqidh, pp.141–142;Google ScholarIḥyā⊃,1,110–111.Google Scholar

⁹²Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,IV,112.Google Scholar

⁹³ibid., IV, 107.

⁹⁴Ghazali,,Mustasfā,II,372.Google Scholar

⁹⁵Ghazali,,Iḥyā⊃,I,63;Google Scholar idem,Munqidh, p.142.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ For these opinions seeShawkani,,Irshād, p.235.Google Scholar

⁹⁷Laoust,H., “La pÉdagogie d'al-Gazali dans le Mustasfa,”Revue des Études Islamique,44 (1976),77–78.Google Scholar

⁹⁸Ibn,⊂Aqil,Funūn,II,649–650.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ibid., II, 606;⊂Abd,al-Rahman b. Shihab Ibn Rajab,al-Dhayl ⊂alā Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābila, ed.Laoust,H. andDahhan,S. (Damascus,1951), pp.189–190.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰Ibn,Rajab,Dhayl, pp.190–194.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹Ibn,⊂Aqil,Funūn,II,602–607,645–647,649–650. See also the introduction of G. Makdisi to this book in Vol. I, xlix-l.Google Scholar

¹⁰² This conviction is expressed in a prophetic report. SeeAbu,al-Fida Ibn Kathir,Nihāyat al-Bidāya wal-Nihāya, 2 vols. (Riyad,1968),I,18.Google Scholar

¹⁰³Schacht,J., “Classicisme, traditionalisme et ankylose dans la loi religieuse de l'lslam,” inBrunschvig,R. andvonGrunebaum,G., eds.,Classicisme et declin culturel dans I'histoire de I'Islam (Paris,1957), p.148.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴Ghazali,,Iḥyā⊂,I,44,III.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See, e.g.,Ibn,⊂Aqil,Funūn,1,126–129,349–350;II,504,524–525,529 n. 463,641–645,745–747 passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Published in 9 vols.(Cairo, 1968?).

¹⁰⁷ See his penetrating research inÉtudes de droit Musulman (Paris,1971).Google Scholar Chehata's results were supplemented and confirmed byMeron's,Y. “The Development of Legal thought in Hanafi Texts,”Studia Islamica,30(1969). The early sources that were used by Chehata and Meron are mentioned in the next two notes.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸Abu,al-Hasan al-Quduri,al-Mukhtaṣar, printed with Ghunaymi'sal-Lubāb fī Sharḥ al-Kitāb (Cairo,1961–1963);Google ScholarShams,al-Din al-Sarakhsi,al-Mabsūt, 30 vols. (Beirut, 197–);Google Scholar⊂Ala⊃,al-Din al-Samarqandi,Tuḥfat al-Fuqahā⊂, 3 vols. (Damascus,1964);Google ScholarAbu,Bakr al-Kasani,Badā⊃i⊂ al-Ṣanā⊃i⊂, 7 vols. (Beirut,1974).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹Muhammad,b. Hasan al-Shaybani,al-Aṣl, 4 vols. (Haidarabad, 1966–1973); Ahmadb. Muhammad al-Tahawi, al-Mukhtaṣar (Cairo,1954);Google ScholarAbu,al-Layth al-Samarqandi,Khizānat al-Fiqh, ed.Nahi,S. D. (Baghdad,1965).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ SeeChehata,,Études, pp.21–22.Google Scholar For a detailed discussion of the developments in the area of legal capacity, seeibid., pp. 93–106: For developments in the area of the wife's maintenance, seeMeron,, “Development of Legal Thought,” pp.74,78–84.Google Scholar

¹¹¹Meron,, “The Development of Legal Thought,” p.74,78–84.Google Scholar

¹¹²Chehata,,Études, pp.98,100,105,166–167;Google ScholarMeron,, “The Development of Legal Thought,” pp.78–84.Google Scholar

¹¹³Chehata,,Études, p.166.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ibid., pp. 105, 170.

¹¹⁵Coulson,,A History of Islamic Law, pp.81,84.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶Professor,G. Makdisi remarked in hisThe Rise of Colleges (Edinburgh,1981), p.290, that he has “not come across any statement to this effect (i.e., the closure) in any document of the Middle Ages…” If this remark was intended to apply to the period up to the end of the fifth/eleventh century, it does not but support our forementioned conclusion. Professor Nicholas Heer has also noted to me that he has not found in classical literature any piece of evidence contrary to my conclusion.eGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁷ This phrase appeared in a discussion inMuhyi,al-Din al-Nawawi,al-Majmū⊂: Sharḥ al-Mudhahhab, 18 vols. (Cairo,1966–1971),I,76.Google Scholar For similar usages seeGhazali,,Mustaṣfā,II,315–316;Google ScholarSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,III,276–277;Google ScholarIbn,⊂Aqil,Funūn,1,92.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸Muhammad,Bakri al-Siddiqi,al-Iqtiṣād fī Bayān Marātib al-Ijtihād (Ms)Princeton,Garrett Collection, Yahuda section 253, fol. 98b.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹Ibn,Kathir,Nihāya,I,30.Google Scholar Another version of the same hadith was translated byGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.85.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ SeeMaid,al-Din Shihab al-Din, andTaqi,al-Din Ibn Taymiyya,al-Musawwada fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Cairo,1964). pp.472,545.Google Scholar

¹²¹Ibn,⊂Aqil,Funūn,1,92–93.Google Scholar

¹²²Ibn,Taymiyya,Musawwada, pp.472,545.Google Scholar

¹²³ In fact, Razi (d. 606/1209) is said to have dealt with this problem. But the paucity of information about his views makes any evaluation of his doctrine impossible. SeeShawkani,,Irshād, p.235.Google Scholar

¹²⁴Amidi,,Iḥkām,III,253–254.Google Scholar

¹²⁵Ibn,al-Hajib,Mukhtaṣar al-Muntahā (Cairo,1908), pp.233–234.Google Scholar

¹²⁶Subki,,Jam⊂ al-Jawāmi⊂,II,398–399.Google Scholar

¹²⁷lsnawi,,Nihāya,III,331,349.Google Scholar

¹²⁸Taftazani,,Hāshiya,II,307.Google Scholar

¹²⁹Ibn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,111,339–340.Google Scholar

¹³⁰Ghazali,,Iḥyā,I,63.Google Scholar

¹³¹ On the ranks of mujtahids and degrees of ijtihad seeMirza,Kazim Beg, “Notice sur la march et les progrÉs de la jurisprudence,”Journal Asiatique15, ser. 4 (011850),181–192,204–214;Google ScholarSiddiqi,,lqriṣād, fols. 98a-98b.Google Scholar

¹³²Ibn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,III,293.Google Scholar

¹³³ibid., III, 346.

¹³⁴ Siddiqi's list includes Qaffal, Ghazali, Ibn ⊂Abd al-Salam, Ibn Daqiq al-⊂ld, Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Taj al-Din al-Subki, and Jalal al-Din al-Suyyuti; seeIqriṣād, fols.99a–99b.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ibid., fol. 98b.

¹³⁶Ibn,⊂Abd al-Shakur,Sharḥ,II,399–400.Google Scholar

¹³⁷Laoust,, “La PÉdagogie,” p.77.Google Scholar

¹³⁸Ibn,Taymiyya,Musawwada, p.546.Google Scholar

¹³⁹Nawawi,,Majm⊂ū,1,71.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰Sartain,E. M.,Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (Cambridge,1975), p.65.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹Siddiqi,,1qtiṣād, fol. 97b.Google Scholar

¹⁴²ibid., fol. 97b.

¹⁴³⊂Abd,al-Hayy al-Laknawi,al-Fawā⊂id al-Bahiyya fi Tarājim al-Hanafiyya (Benares,1967), p.89.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ These misunderstandings can further be illustrated by an anecdote that took place at the time of Ibn ⊂Abd al-Salam. When the latter claimed the right of ijtihad for himself, the Sultan Musa b. Ayyub wrote to him: “If you claim to be a mujtahid you must prove it (in a convincing manner) that befits such a serious claim, in order that you become a head of a fifth school.” Ibn ⊂Abd al-Salam replied: “As to what has been mentioned about ijtihad and the fifth school, (I say that) the usul of religion are not subject to differences (meaning that there is no place for a fifth school) … Differences are only in (matters of) furu⊂.” SeeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,V,93,95.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵Mawardi,,Adab,1,463.Google Scholar See examples inIbn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,III,351Google Scholar andGhazali,,Mustasfā,II,384.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶Ibn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,III,340. Rafi⊂i remarked: “wal-khalqu kal-munajiqīna ⊂alā annahu lā mujiahida al-yawma.”Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷Subki,,Ṭabaqť,V,120.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ibid., I, 106. It must be noted that a mujaddid had to qualify as a mujtahid.

¹⁴⁹Ibn,Kathir,al-Bidāya wal-Nihāya, 14 vols. (Cairo,1932),XIII,250;Google ScholarIbn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,III,340;Google ScholarSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,V.18;Google ScholarAli,S. Rizwan,Izz al-Din al-Sulami (Islamabad,1978?), p.22;Google ScholarIbn,⊂Abd al-Shakur,Sharh,11,399;Google ScholarSuyyuti,,Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara fī Akhbār Miṣr wal-Qāhira, 2 vols. (Cairo,1904),1,141–147.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Cited inShawkani,,lrshād, pp.235–236.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Cited inZarqa,, “Dawr al-ljtihād wa-Majāl al-Tashrī⊂ fī al-Islām,”International Islamic Colloquium Papers (London,1960), p.107.Google Scholar

¹⁵² See n. 154 below.

¹⁵³ See, e.g.,⊂Abd,Allah al-Samhudi,al-⊂Iqd al-Farīd fī Aḥkām al-Taqlþd (MS)Princeton,Garrett Collection, Yahuda Section 5183, fols. 177a, 177b;Google ScholarIbn,al-Amir,Taqrīr,III,340;Google ScholarShawkani,,Irshād, pp.235–236.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Consider the following mujtahids: Subki maintained that the Muslim community had agreed that Ibn Daqiq al-⊂Id was a mujtahid as well as a mujaddid.Ibn,Daqiq “was a mujtahid mutlaq with complete knowledge of legal sciences” (Ṭabaqāt,VI,2,3,6).Google Scholar Ibn alRif⊂a, like Subki, professed that an ijma⊂ had been reached concerning “Ibn Daqiq al-⊂ld and Ibn ⊂Abd al-Salam who reached the rank of ijtihad” (seeSiddiqi,,Iqtiṣāa, fol. 99a). Ya⊂muri described Ibn Daqiq as follows: “He was excellent in deriving rulings from the Sunna and the Quran”Google Scholar (Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,VI,2–3;Google ScholarSuyuti,,Ḥusn,1,143).Google Scholar Dhahabi and Ibn Nubata considered al-Qadi al-Zamalkani a mujtahid: For Dhahabi, Zamalkani was one of the remaining mujtahids and for Ibn Nubata he was a “mujtahid on whose opinion doubt must not be cast” (Subki,,Ṭabaqāt),V,251,252;Google ScholarSuyuti,,Ḥusn,I,145).Google Scholar Subki maintained that Razi was chosen by his successors as the mujtahid and the mujaddid of the sixth/twelfth century (Ṭabaqāt,1,106).Google Scholar Abu Shama was acclaimed as a mujtahid within the Shafi⊂i school (Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,V,61;Google ScholarIbn,Kathir,Bidāya,XIII,250).Google Scholar Ibn ⊂Abd al-Salam openly declared himself a mujtahid within the Shafi⊂i school and his claim for the position did not provoke disavowal (Subki,,Ṭabaqār,V,93,95;Google Scholar see also n. 144 above). Although belonging to the Hanbali school, Ibn Taymiyya did not comply entirely with the Hanbali doctrine: He considered himself a mujtahid fi al-madhhab. In many legal cases (about twenty are known to us) Ibn Tayrniyya has diverged from the doctrines of the four eponyms includingIbn,Hanbal. See hisal-Fagāwa al-Kubrā, 5 vols. (Cairo,1966),III,95–96.Google Scholar See alsoShorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. “Ibn Taymiyya,” byCheneb,M.; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,I⊂lām al-Muwaqqi⊂in ⊂an Rabb al-⊂ālamīn, 4 vols. (Cairo,1969),II,231.Google ScholarCf.,Laoust, “L'influence d'Ibn Taymiyya,” pp.17,20. Taqi al-Din al-Subki, the father of Taj al-Din (theṬabaqāt's author),Google Scholar was universally recognized as a mujtahid. For Taj al-Din he was “the best of mujtahids.” In fact, Taj al-Din enumerates dozens of cases in which his father completely diverged from Shafi⊂i or rulings he had chosen to follow although they were disfavored in the Shafi⊂i school (see hisṬabaqāt,VI.113,147,182–196).Google Scholar Safadi and Suyuti also thought of Taqi al-Din al-Subki as a unique mujtahid (seeSuyuti,,Ḥusn,1,145–146;Google Scholar idem.,al-Taḥadduth bi Ni⊂mat Allāh, ed.Sartain,E. [Cambridge,1975,] p.205).Google Scholar Taj al-Din al-Subki himself is supposed to have said: “Now, I am the mujtahid of the universe; I say this and I need not justify what I say.” A century and a half later, Suyuti maintained that the statement of Subki was never contested (Siddiqi,,Iqtiṣād, fol. 99b;Google ScholarSuyuti,,Ḥusn,1,150).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵Sartain,,Jalāl al-Din,1,63.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶Suyuti,,Taḥadduth, p.205.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ The ranks of mujtahids and the confusion about them misled even modern scholars. See, e.g.,Snouck,Hurgronje,Selected Works, ed.Bousquet,G. andSchacht,J. (Leiden,1957), p.282, who thought that Suyuti claimed for himself the highest degree of ijtihad, thus challenging the schools' eponyms.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸Sartain,,Jalāl al-Din,1,64,65.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Cited inGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,”Muslim World,68,2 (041978),98.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ On this seeSuyuti,,Taḥadduth, pp.193,203;Google ScholarSartain,,Jalāl al-Dīn,1,61;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.98.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹Sartain,,Jalāl al-Din,1,61;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” pp.98–99.Google Scholar

¹⁶² See the chapter that he devoted to the discussion of this issue inTaḥadduth, pp. 215–227.

¹⁶³Ibn,Kathir,Nihāya,1,30.Google Scholar Cf. another version of this hadith inGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.81;Google ScholarSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,1,104.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,I,104;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.81.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,1,105;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.82.Google Scholar Ibn ⊂Asakir, however, preferred Ash⊂ari; seeKhuli,A.,al-Mujaddidūn fī al-Islām, 2 vols. (Cairo,1965),1,13.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶Subki,,Ṭabaqār,1,105;Google ScholarSuyuti,,Taḥadduth, p.221.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ According to the sources that Goldziher used, the Hanbali al-Muqaddisi (d. 600/1203) and the Shafi⊂i Nawawi (d. 676/1277) were designated; seeGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” pp.83–84.Google Scholar However, from the Shafi⊂i viewpoint, Subki chose Razi, favoring him over Rafi⊂i (seeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,I,106).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸Subki,,Ṭabaqāt,I,106;Google Scholar VI, 3;Suyuti,,Taḥadduth, p.220.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹Suyuti,,Taḥadduth, Pp.207,225;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.84.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰Shawkani,,Irshād, p.236;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.82.Google Scholar

¹⁷²Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. “Ahmad al-Sirhindi,” by Sh. Inayatullah.

¹⁷³Khuli,,al-Mujaddidūn, p.1. For further details on mujaddids see pp.12–29.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Up to the fifth/eleventh century mujaddids were only Shafi⊂is (seeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,1,104–106;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” pp.82–83).Google Scholar The only uncertain exception was Ash⊂ari who was claimed by Shafi⊂is as well as Hanafis (seeQarashi,,Jawāhir,II,544–545). From the sixth/twelfth century onward Shafi⊂i mujaddids remained the majority; the Hanbalis produced a few mujaddids and, as far as I know, there were no Hanafi or Maliki candidates for tajdid.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ The fifth/eleventh century tabaqat works seem to have been the earliest works that Subki could find as sources for his biographical dictionary; see hisṬabaqāt,I,114.Google Scholar See alsoHafsi's,I. bibliographical essay “Recherches sur le genre ‘Tabaqat’ dans la littÉrature Arabe,”Arabica,23,3 (1976),8–12,17–18,24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷⁵Laoust,, “La pÉdagogie d'al-Gazali,” p.77.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶Kazem,Beg, “Notice sur la marche,” pp.181–192,204 ff.;Google ScholarIbn,Taymiyya,Musawwada, pp.547–548.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷Ibn,⊂Abidin,Hashiyat Radd al-Muhgar, 8 vols. (Cairo,1966),I,77;Google Scholar idem,Rasāil,1,11–13;Google ScholarSuhrawardy,M., “The Waqf of Moveables”Asiatic Society of Bangal, 7 n.s. (1911), pp.330–331;Google ScholarLaknawi,,Fawā⊂id, pp.89–90.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸Kazem,Beg, “Notice sur la marche,” pp.206–214.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹Nawawi,,Majmū⊂,1,73–74;Google ScholarIbn,Taymiyya,Musawwada, p.549.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰Ibn,⊂Abidin,Ḥāshiya,1,77.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹Ibn,⊂Abidin,Rasā⊃il,I,11.Google Scholar

¹⁸²Suhrawardy,, “The Waqf,” pp.330–331.Google Scholar

¹⁸³Ibn,⊂Abidin,Rasā⊂il,I,12.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ This attitude seems to have started at an earlier period. When dealing with the four law schools as they have become established by the eighth/fourteenth century, the Maliki scholar Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1405) observed that the complexity of the schools' legal doctrines had prevented people from attaining ijtihad and for this reason scholars made it an obligation for all Muslims to follow the established schools through the writings of renowned jurists. “Jurisprudence,” Ibn Khaldun argues, “means this and nothing else. The person who would claim ijtihad nowadays would be frustrated and have no adherents” (Al-Muqaddima, p. 448 [Rosenthal's trans. III, 8–9). Undoubtedly, Ibn Khaldun had independent mujtahids in mind, because it was well known to him, as much as it was well known to all jurists, that a limited mujtahid or a mujtahid within the school, cannot have followers. From the general usages of ijtihad in theMuqaddima, it seems to me that, for Ibn Khaldun, ijtihad exclusively meant the kind of major legal activity undertaken during the first three centuries of Islam. Consider what he has to say elsewhere in hisMuqaddima: “The school doctrine of each eponym became, among his adherents, a scholarly discipline in its own right. They were no longer in a position to apply ijtihad and qiyas. Therefore, they had to make reference to the established principles (al-uṣūl al-muqarrara) of their eponyms, in order to be able to solve (new) problems according to (old) similar ones and disentangle them when they got confused (tanẓīru al-masā⊂ili fil-⊂ilḥaqi Watafrīquhā ⊂inda al-ishtibāhi). A firmly rooted faculty (of knowledge) was required to enable a person to undertake such (analogy) and disentanglement and to apply the school doctrine of his particular eponym to those (processes) according to the best of his ability. This (practice) of faculty is (what is meant) at this time by the science of jurisprudence” (Al-Muqaddima, p.449).Google Scholar The sentence “tanẓīru al-masā⊂ili … ishtibāhi” was translated by Rosenthal as “to analyze problems in their context and disentangle them when they got confused” (see III, 13). For Ibn Khaldun, therefore, ijtihad is the legal activity that leads to the construction of a new school which will eventually attract adherents. Although the processes of unraveling doctrinal problems and applying analogy to new cases within a school are considered part of the Sunni ijtihad methodology, Ibn Khaldun does not see them as related to ijtihad. For him qiyas and ijtihad are much more than these processes. But whether he accepts the Sunni usulist terminology or not, this is nonetheless a limited form of ijtihad. One may find it striking that Ibn Khaldun insists on the inability of jurists to practice ijtihad at a time when he is familiar with the reputation and career of contemporary mujtahids such as Subki and Bulqini (d. 805/1403), both universally acknowledged as mujtahids fi al-madhhab. Seeal-Muqaddima, p.449 (Rosenthal's trans., 111, 12);Google Scholar for Subki and Bulqini seeSubki,,Ṭabaqāt,VI,146–216;Google ScholarSuyuti,,Ḥusn,I,168 f.;Google ScholarGoldziher,, “On al-Suyuti,” p.84. It is then clear that Ibn Khaldun's conception of this question is an excellent example of the general attitude of muqallids towards the issue of the existence of mujtahids. He knew that the eponyms and their equals were extinct; he also knew that the machine of legal interpretation was constantly at work, but he was still puzzled as to how to square these facts with the ever-growing idea of the extinction of mujtahids. It was, therefore, suitable as well as convenient for him to say that contemporary scholars were incapable of ijtihad, implying the extinction of mujtahids, and that the activity of jurists of his time had nothing to do with ijtihad, despite the fact that it entailed the use of analogy and types of legal interpretation.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵⊂Abd,al-Rahman al-Jabarti,⊂Ajā⊃ib al-āthār fi al-Tarājim wal-Akhbār 7 vols. (Cairo,1958–1967),III,41–42.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ibid., 1, 186, 218–219; II, 28.

¹⁸⁷ibid., III, 65–103, especially p. 65.

¹⁸⁸ibid., III, 88. On isiinbāṭ seeIbn,⊂AbidinRasā⊂il,I,31.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹Jabarti,,⊂Aj⊃amacr;ibIII,67.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ SeeShawkani,,al-Qawl al-Mufīd fī Adillat al-Ijtihād wal-Taqlīd (Cairo,1974),Google Scholar passim;Muhammad,b. Isma⊂il al-San⊂ani,Irshād al-Nuqqād ilā Taysīr al-Ijtihād (Beirut,1970),Google Scholar passim;Shah,Wali Allah,⊂lqd al-jīd (Cairo,1965),Google Scholar passim;Jalbani,G. H.,Life of Shah Waliyullah (Delhi,1980), pp.56–57;Google ScholarIbn,⊂Abidin,Rasāil,1,28.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹Chelebi,,Balance, p.129;Google ScholarMandaville,J. E., “Usurious Piety: The Cash of Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire,”International Journal of Middle East Studies10(1979),295–304.Google Scholar

¹⁹²Husayn,b. Iskandar al-Rumi,Risāla fī al-Dukhān (MS)Princeton,Garrett Collection, Yahuda Section 3854, fols. 2b-5a;Google ScholarMuhammad,b. Mustafa al-Khadimi,Risāla fī al-Qahwa wal-Dukhān (MS)Princeton,Garrett Collection, Yahuda Section 3225, fols. 48b-49a.Google Scholar On these subjects seeChelebi,,Balance, Chapters II, III, V, VII, XII, XX; Mandaville, “Usurious Piety.”Google Scholar

¹⁹³The Balance of Truth.

¹⁹⁴Schacht,J., “Early Doctrines on Waqf,” inMÉlange Fuad Köprülü (Istanbul,1953),443.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵Mandaville,, “Usurious Piety,” pp.299–304; Suhrawardy, “The Waqf,” 388 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ See, e.g.. the argument of Bali Effendi inMandaville,, “Usurious Piety,” pp.301–303;Google ScholarChelebi,,Balance, p.129.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷Chelebi,,Balance, p.129.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ See, e.g., the arguments concerning the legality of hashish inRosenthal,F.,The Herb: Hashish versus Medieval Muslim Society (Leiden,1971), pp.105–130.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ See, e.g.,Ibn,⊂Abidin,Rasā⊃il,1,28;Google ScholarIbn,⊂Abd al-Shakur,Sharḥ,II,399;Google ScholarSan⊂ani,,Irshād, pp.2,11–12;Google ScholarSamhudi,,al-⊂Iqd al-Farīd, fol. 177b;Google ScholarKhadimi,,R.fi al-Qahwa, fol. 48b.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰Shawkani,,al-Qawl, p.7.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ibid., pp. 21–24, 31.

²⁰²Shawkani,,al-Badr,I,2.Google Scholar

²⁰³Shawkani,,lrshād, p.236;Google Scholar idem,al-Badr,1,3.Google Scholar