Salafism Revived: Nuʿmān al-Alūsī and the Trial of Two Aḥmads

8/10/2019 Salafism Revived: Numn al-Als and the Trial of Two Amads

1/49

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/157006008X424959

Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97

Salafism Revived: Numn al-Als andthe Trial of Two Amads

Basheer M. Nafi*Oxfordshire

Abstract

In 1298/1881, the Iraqi scholar Numn al-Als published hisJal al-aynaynf mukamat al-Amadayn, one of the most astute tracts to be written in defenseof the fourteenth-century anbal scholar, Ibn Taymiyya. is article attemptsto read into the significance ofJal al-aynaynby studying the life and educationalenvironment of its author, the subject matter of the book, the format in whichit appeared, and the circumstances of its publishing. ere is little doubt thatJal al-aynaynis a founding text in the emergence of modern Salafiyya in major

Arab urban centers. Considering the contribution of the Wahhb movement tothe revival of Salaf Islam, one of the aims of this article is to look into the variantexpressions of modern Salafiyya. An important aspect of the impact of Numnal-Alss work is related to the way he treated his subject matter, reconstitutingthe legacy of Ibn Taymiyya in the Muslims imagination of their traditions. eother, was the publishing ofJal al-aynaynin print. In the following decades,the ecology of Islamic culture would be transformed at a dramatic pace. But twothings would not lose their value for the Salaf circles of modern Islam, thereferential position of Ibn Taymiyya and the power of the printing-press.

KeywordsNumn al-Als, the al-Alss of Baghdad, Salafiyya, Salafism, neo-Salafiyya,Salaf Islam, Salafs of Damascus, Salafs of Cairo, the Wahhb movement, Wah-hbism, Islamic Reform, Islamic Reformism, Islamic Reformist thought, Islamictheology,kalm, Amad Ibn Taymiyya,Jal al-aynayn f mukamat al-Amadayn,Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Muammad Rashd Ri, Ottoman intellectualhistory, print media

* Authors note: I am deeply grateful to John O. Voll and Stefan Reichmuth for readingand commenting on an earlier version of this article.


2/49

50 B.M. Nafi / Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97

Muammad Rashd Ri (1865-1935), disciple of Muammad Ab-duh (1849-1905) and one of the most prominent figures of the modern

Islamic reform movement, wrote that his first positive impression ofthe fourteenth-century Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyya was formedby Numn al-Alss Jal al-aynayn f mukamat al-Amadayn(lit. Clearance of the Eyes in Trying the Two Amads).1 One of themost astute tracts to be written in defense of the fourteenth-centuryanbal scholar, Jal al-aynayn was published at Cairo in 1298

AH/1881,2sixteen years before Ris arrival in Egypt. Ris accountof the influence that Jal al-aynayn exercised on him is significant

in more than one way. First, despite their increasing number andrising confidence, the nineteenth century was still a difficult time forthose Muslim ulamidentifying with Ibn Taymiyya, especially in theOttoman realm and North Africa. Most of the reformist ulamwereattracted, in one form or another, to the Salaf school of thought,epitomized by Ibn Taymiyya and elaborated in his writings. But therevival of Ibn Taymiyyas legacy evoked the attending controversiesthat overshadowed his vocation, reflected in acute disagreementsbetween him and a number of leading ulam and Sufi shaykhs ofhis time. Ri himself confirms that his earlier knowledge of IbnTaymiyya came from works of his opponents.3

Second, references to Ibn Taymiyya and the Salaf school of thoughtfeatured very prominently in the discourse of the Najd reformistMuammad b. Abd al-Wahhb (1703-92) and his successors. As theSaudi-Wahhb movement began to expand outside of its birthplace,confronting the Ottoman authorities in the Arabian Peninsula, Syriaand Iraq, the Wahhb movement was widely vilified by Ottoman

statesmen and ulam. Although almost none of the Salaf-reformistsof the Arab-Islamic major urban centers could entirely accept Wahhbideas and practices, identification with Ibn Taymiyya would frequentlyfeed accusations of Wahhb attitudes and elicit condemnation from

1) Muammad Rashd Ri, al-Manr wa-l-azhar(Cairo: Mabaat al-Manr, 1353 AH),179.2) Numn Khayr al-Dn al-Als, Jal al-aynayn f mukamat al-Amadayn (Cairo:Blq Press, 1298 AH).3) Albert Hourani,Arabic ought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939(London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1962), 226.


3/49

51B.M. Nafi / Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97

the dominant scholarly circles. Such accusations against shaykh Alal-Suwayd (1749-1821) and his close friend Sulaymn the Young,

the wl of Baghdad (r. 1807-1810), led to the overthrow andmurder of the wl and the exile of the shaykh to Syria.4 Salaf-oriented ulamof late nineteenth-century Damascus, such as hiral-Jazir (1852-1920) and Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim (1866-1914), werealso denigrated by traditional opponents as Wahhbs.5MuammadAbduh, too, did not escape the charge of Wahhbism when hedefended Ibn Taymiyya during a 1905 visit to Tunisia.6

e appearance of such a conspicuous defense of Ibn Taymiyya

should, therefore, be seen as a major development in modern Islamicthought. It is true that the book was published in the relatively liberalCairo of the late nineteenth century; yet, Ibn Taymiyya could nothave fared any better in the city of al-Azhar, the bastion of Sunnitraditions, than in Ottoman Baghdad. In the following pages, thisarticle will attempt to read into the significance of Jal al-aynaynby studying the life and educational environment of its author, thesubject matter of the book, the format in which it appeared, andthe circumstances of its publication. ere is little doubt that Jalal-aynayn is a founding text in the emergence of modern Salafiyya(neo-Salafiyya as it is usually called) in major Arab urban centers.Considering that the Wahhb movement made a major contributionto the revival of Salaf Islam since the second half of the eighteenthcentury, one of the aims of this article is to look into the variantexpressions of modern Salafiyya.

4) Basheer M. Nafi, Abu al-ana al-Alusi: An Alim, Ottoman Mufti and Exegete ofthe Quran, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 34 (2002): 470; Butrus Abu-Manneh, Salafiyya and the Rise of the Khlidiyya in Baghdad in the Early NineteenthCentury, Die Welt des Islams, 43, 3 (2003): 357.5) David Dean Commins, Islamic Reform: Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 101ff.6)Muammad al-hir b. Ashr, A-laysa al-ub bi-qarb (Tunis: al-Dr al-Tnisiyyali-l-Nashr, 1967), 249; Arnold H. Green, e Tunisian Ulama: 1873-1915(Leiden: Brill,1978), 183ff.; Basheer M. Nafi, Tahir ibn Ashur: e Career and ought of a ModernReformist Alim, with Special Reference to His Work of Tafsir,Journal of Quranic Studies,7, 1 (2005): 9.


4/49


Heir to the Alss Legacy

Numn Khayr al-Dn al-Als (1836-99) was born in Baghdad to oneof the most eminent Sunni families of ulam.7e Alss, who hadbeen established in Baghdad since the mid-eighteenth century, wereregarded as a Sharfian family of the usayn line. After a period ofturbulent relations with the newly asserted Ottoman authorities inBaghdad, Numns father, Ab al-an Shihb al-Dn (1802-54),rose to the prestigious position of the anaf muft of Baghdad in1835. e grand Als, as Ab an is known, lost his post in1847, after disagreement with another Ottoman wl of Baghdad.

e family is believed to have been originally Shfi but con-verted to the anaf madhhab, the official madhhabof the state, inorder to have easier access to the Ottoman ulam institution. Abal-an received his education in the vibrant learning circlesof Mamluk Baghdad at the hands of traditional, Sufi and Salaf-oriented ulam. While Ab al-an seems to have concealed hisSalaf leanings during his mufship of Baghdad, his convictions becamemore apparent after removal from his post.8 His journey from

the dominant, traditional viewpoint to the Salaf perspective isbest illustrated in the changing discourse of his seminal exegesisof the Qurn Ru al-man f tafsr al-Qurn al-azm wa-l-sabal-mathn.9

Numn was the third of Ab al-ans five sons, all of whomfollowed in the footsteps of their ancestors, occupying several postsin the fields of Islamic teaching and Ottoman judiciary, althoughnone of the brothers enjoyed the scholarly recognition which Numn

7) For a brief biography of Numn al-Als, see Abd al-Razzq al-Bayr, Hiliyat al-basharf trkh al-qarn al-thlith ashar(Damascus: al-Majma al-Ilm al-Arab, 1961-63),vol. 3, 1571-4; Mamd Shukr al-Als, al-Misk al-adhfar(Baghdad: Mabaat al-Adab,1930), 51; Ysuf Sarks,Mujam al-mabt al-arabiyya wa-l-muarraba(Cairo: Maktabatal-aqfa al-Dniyya, n. d.), vol. 1, columns 7 and 8; Khayr al-Dn al-Zirikl, al-Alm(Beirut: Dr al-Ilm li-l-Malyn, 1989), vol. 8, 42.8) e classical account of the life of Ab al-an is Abbs al-Azzw, Dhikr Abal-an al-Als(Baghdad: Sharikat al-Tijra wa-l-iba, 1958). For an extensive studyof his life and works, see Nafi, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 465-94.9) e first edition of Ab al-ans Ru al-man f tafsr al-Qurn al-azm wa-l-sabal-mathnwas published in Cairo by Blq Press (1889-93), supervised by his son Numn.A recent edition was published by Dr Iiy al-Turth al-Arab, Beirut, 1985.


5/49


rose to. Two, at least, of Numns brothers showed a strong Suficommitment and pursued a traditional ulam career, testifying to

the enduring power of Sufism and traditional Islam in late Ottomanculture.10Numn himself was only fourteen years of age when Abal-an died, which means that his study with his father lastedfor a short period of time. In the last few years of his life, Abal-an could not conceal his resentment towards the Ottomanauthorities, but none of his sons would manifest similar attitudes,at least not in public. For the Alss to preserve their status as aleading family of ulam, it was necessary to maintain good relations

with the state and its representatives.Numns other known teacher was Muammad Amn al-Wi(1808-58), described plainly in historical biographies as a Salaflim.11Al-Wi, a student of Ab al-an and closely associated

with him, was the preacher at the Abd al-Qdir al- Jln mosque,the second most important mosque of Baghdad along with that of

Ab anfa. When the wlof Baghdad, Najb Pasha (r. 1842-9),faced an uprising by the people of Baghdad in 1847, protestinghis decision to increase taxes levied from the provinces artisans,

he accused the muft Ab al-an, and his friend and discipleal-Wi, of instigating the protest. Ab al-an was dismissedfrom mufship and al-Wi was exiled to the southern city ofBasra.12Al-Wi was one of the leading authorities of his time onanaf jurisprudence, earning the epithet: Ab Ysuf the Second,in reference to Ab anfas renowned student.13 Yet, a combina-tion of commitment to the anaf madhhab and Salaf attitudes

were not unprecedented in modern Islamic culture. Both Mulla Al

al-Qr al-Haraw (d. 1014/ 1606) and Muammad ayt al-Sind

10) For biographies of several generations of the Alss, see Muammad Bahjat al-Athar,Alm al-Irq(Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Salafiyya, 1345 AH).11) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 59; Khall Mardam Bek,Ayn al-qarn al-thlith ashar(Beirut:Lajnat al-Turth al-Arab, 1971), 183.12) Nafi, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 479.13) Muaf Nr al-Dn al-Wi, al-Raw al-azhar f tarjim al-Sayyid Jafr (Mosul: Mabaatal-Ittid, 1948), 85-89; Al Al al-Dn al-Als, al-Durr al-muntathir f rijl al-qarnal-thn ashar wa-l-thlith ashar, ed. Jaml al-Dn al-Als and Abdallh al-Jubr (Baghdad:Wizrat al-aqfa wa-l-Irshd, 11967), 92; Amad Taymr,Alm al-Fikr al-islam al-adth(Cairo: Lajnat Nashr al-Muallaft al-Taymriyya, 1967).


6/49


(d. 1163/ 1750) were anaf ulam with expressed Salaf views.14During the early period of his life, Numn showed no indications

to doubt his commitment to the traditional Ottoman ulaminstitu-tion, main attributes of which were adherence to the anaf madhhaband Sufi inclinations. ere is no doubt that he was aware of thelater development of Ab al-ans Salaf position, but he wasalso conscious of the fathers fall from grace and subsequent lossof the muftship. As the son of a leading ulam family, strugglingto recover after the demise and passing of its grand figure, Numnopted for the safety of an official career, and was thus to accept a

judgeship in several Iraqi towns. A treatise he wrote earlier in hislife, al-Iba f man al-nis min al-kitba (lit. e Correctness inPreventing Women from Writing),15 reflects a highly conservativemode of thinking of a conformist lim.

ere is strong evidence that from the mid-nineteenth century,at least, the al-Alss were engaged in a conventional family rival-ry with the Jlns, descendants of the great anbal and Sufischolar Abd al-Qdir al-Jln (470/1077-561/1166), and guardiansof the social and educational complex of his shrine/mosque andits awqf.16 It also seems that Najb Pashas strong ties with the

Jlns contributed to his decision to remove Ab al-an fromthe muftship of Baghdad. In 1879, Ab al-Hud al-ayyd(1850-1909), a Syrian Sufi of the Rifiyya arqabecame a privateteacher and confidant of Sultan Abd al-amd II, marking thestart of a very influential career in the Ottoman capital.17 Fromthe time of his arrival in Istanbul, al-ayyd worked assiduously

14) Basheer M. Nafi, A Teacher of Ibn Abd al-Wahhb: Muammad ayt al-Sind andthe Revival of Ab al-adths Methodology, Islamic Law and Society, 13, 2 (2006):208-41.15) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 60.16) Abbs al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq bayn itillayn(Baghdad: Sharikat al-Tijra wa-l-iba, 1951-55), vol. 7: 16, 83, vol. 8: 85-96; al-Azzw, Dhikr Ab al-an, 27; Alal-Ward, Lamat ijtimiyya min trkh al-Irq al-adth (Baghdad: Mabaat al-Irshd,1971), vol. 2: 146; Nafi, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 481.17) On al-ayyd, see Butrus Abu-Manneh, Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhudaal-Sayyadi,Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979): 131-53. For a revisionist view, see omasEich, e Forgotten SalafAb l-Hud a-ayyd, Die Welt des Islams, 43, 1 (2003):61-87.


7/49


to strengthen the position of the Rifiyya arqa, establishing a networkof supporters, followers and sycophants.18For the traditional competi-

tion in Sunni Iraq between the Rifiyya and Jlniyya uruq, a commoncause attracted the Alss to al-ayyd. Numn, his nephew MamdShukr (1273/1856-1342/1924),19 a later eminent figure in ArabSalaf circles, and other members of the Als family, became involved

with al- ayyd and his effort to promote the Rifiyya in Baghdad.20ere are strong indications that the association between al-ayydand Numn and Mamd Shukr continued for a short period oftime, during which the two Alss seem not to have made a firm

commitment to the Rifiyya arqa. Some of the evidence can bederived from the biographical history of Mamd Shukr.Like his uncle, Mamd Shukr leaned towards taawwufearlier in

his ulamcareer. Sometime in the late 1880s, he wrote a commentaryon a poem by al-ayyd praising the renowned Sufi and eponymof the Rifiyya arqa, Amad al-Rif. In his commentary, al-Asrral-ilhiyya, Mamd Shukr accepted the notion of esoteric knowledge,but rejected the doctrine of wadat al-wujd, attributed to IbnArab.21Mamd Shukrs work was received with enthusiasm andappreciation by al-ayyd; but not long afterwards, this relationship

would suffer irreparable damage. A view of the evolving situationis provided in an exchange of correspondence between MamdShukr and al-ayyd, published by M. Bahjat al-Athar, a closestudent and biographer of Mamd Shukr.22

In what appears to be the first letter that al-ayyd wrote toMamd Shukr, al-ayyd expresses gratitude for the seconds finecomments on his poem, seems hopeful that Mamd Shukr would

join the Rifiyya arqa, and voices disappointment at the new

18) For the Rifiyya activities in Baghdad, see Louis Massignon, Les saints Musulmansenterrs Bagdad, Revue de lhistoire des Religions, LVIII (1908): 329-38, esp. 337f.19)For a brief biography, see al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 241-86; Taymr, Alm al-Fikr,311-19. But his most detailed biography is in Muammad Bahjat al-Athar, MamdShukr al-Als wa-ruh al-lughawiyya(Cairo: Mahad al-Dirst al-Arabiyya, 1958),47-124.20) Eich, e Forgotten Salafi, 72-5.21)Mamd Shukr al-Als, al-Asrr al-ilhiyya shar al al-qada al-rifiyya(Cairo:al-Mabaa al-Khayriyya, 1305 AH), 41 and 61; al-Athar,Mamd Shukr, 76ff.22) Al-Athar,Mamd Shukr, 79-82.


8/49


direction taken by Numn al-Als. Considering that NumnsJalal-aynaynappeared in 1881, and that al-ayyds letter followed the

publication of al-Asrr al-ilhiyya in 1888/9, it is most likely thatMamd Shukrs contacts with al-ayyd started after his unclehad broken off his own, apparently upon the insistence of some ofal-ayyds associates in Baghdad. But these contacts seem to havebeen tenuous from the very beginning. Mamd Shukrs responsesto al-ayyd reveal the firsts rejection of an invitation to join theRifiyya arqa, and demonstrate Mamd Shukrs doubts over theexcesses of the Rifiyya followers. A year later, Mamd Shukr

finalized the writing of Fat al-mannn tatimmat minhj al-tassradd ul al-ikhwn, a refutation of Dawd b. Sulaymn b. Jirjis(1816-82).23 e book, which was published at Bombay in 1309/1892, was originally an incomplete manuscript, drafted by Abdal-Laf b. Abd al-Ramn (1810-76), grandson of Muammad b.Abd al-Wahhb.24 By undertaking this project, Mamd Shukr

was obviously putting an end to al-ayyds hope that the youngerAls might join the Rifiyya.

But if Numn al-Alss association with al-ayyd and theRifiyya was short and uncertain, it is certain that he, like hisfather, was initiated into the NaqshbandiyyaKhlidiyya arqa,25

with which many of the reformist and Salaf-oriented Damasceneand Baghdd ulam were affiliated. In Jal al-aynayn, al-Alsmakes frequent references to Khlid al-Naqshband (1776-1826),

23) Al-Athar,Mamd Shukr, 83. On Ibn Jirjis, see David Commins, e Wahhabi Missionand Saudi Arabia(London: Tauris, 2006), 58-61; Itzchak Weismann, e Naqshbandiyya-

Khalidiyya and the Salafi Challenge in Iraq,Journal of the History of Sufism, 4 (2003):229-40.24)On Abd al-Laf b. Abd al-Ramn, see Abd al-Ramn l al-Shaykh, Mashhrulam najd wa-ghayruhum(Riy: Dr al-Yamma, n. d.), 93-121. At least two moreWahhb responses to Ibn Jirjis were to follow, including one by Abdallh b. Abd al-RamnAb Buayn (d. 1282/1865) and another by Amad b. Ibrhm b. sa (d. 1329/1911).(ibid., 237 and 263).25) Abd al-ayy al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris(Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm, 1986), vol.2, 672. On the Naqshbandiyya-Khlidiyya, see Albert Hourani, Sufism and ModernIslam: Mawlana Khalid and the Naqshbandiyya Order, (1976), repr. In Albert Hourani,e Emergence of the Modern Middle East(London: Macmillan, 1981), 75-89; ItzchakWeismann, e Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi Tradition(London: Routledge, 2007), 85ff.


9/49


the celebrated founder of this sub-arqa, especially his views onmajor issues of Islamic theology.

In 1295/1878, Numn al-Als took an abrupt decision to quithis job as a judge. It is not clear why he made such a decision,and whether he was looking for a more important position or waspassing a period of intellectual crisis. He left Baghdad for Cairo,

where he planned to get his fathers exegesis of the Qurn printed,and from there he continued to Makka to perform the ajj.26Whilein Cairo, he came across Fat al-bayn, a commentary on the Qurn

written by the Salaf scholar and ruler of the Indian State of Bhopal,

iddq asan Khn (d. 1889),27

and was profoundly impressed byit. In Makka, a certain Amad b. s al-Najd provided him withother works by iddq asan Khn. It thus happened that upon hisreturn to Baghdad, Numn initiated correspondence with the Indianscholar. e ensuing relationship with iddq asan Khn seemsto have played a substantive role in effecting a major intellectualshift in the life of Numn al-Als. M. Bahjat al-Athar wrote thatNumn had already been working onJal al-aynaynwhen he begancorresponding with iddq asan Khn.28is could have been thecase; but since Numn finished the writing of his book in Rabal-khar 1297/March 1880,29 two years after encountering iddqasan Khns works, there exists a possibility that Numn wrote

Jal al-aynayn, or at least a large part of it, under the influenceof iddq asan Khn.

26) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 60. Cf. al-Als, al-Misk al-adhfar, 51; Taymr,Alm al-fikr,308. While al-Athar states that Numn went to Cairo, then to Makka, al-Als and

Taymr indicate that the ajjcame first.27) On him, see Saeedullah, e Life and Works of Muhammad Siddiq Hasan Khan, Nawwabof Bhopal(Lahore: Ashraf, 1973); Barbara Daly Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India:Deoband, 1860-1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 269ff.28) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 61. If we take the EgyptHijaz journey as the beginning ofNumns embrace of the Salaf outlook, we should not lay great emphasis on Eichs remark(e Forgotten Salafi, 74) that the break between the Alss and the amdian regimeoccurred in the mid-1890s, when the Sultan changed his policy to integrating the Jlns.By writingJal al-aynayn, Numn was definitely aware that the book would not endearhim to the Sufi-oriented men of the amdian regime, for the regime had already embarkedon a policy of propagating the anaf madhhaband taawwufas a kind of its ideology.Selim Deringil, e Well-Protected Domains(London: Tauris, 1999), 44-92.29) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 360.


10/49


Intellectual shifts in the life of historical figures are not particularlyeasy to explain. Even when the person concerned had left an account

of his own experience, history might have a judgment of its own.30at Numn al-Als was born and raised in an environment per-vaded with Salaf ideas is not in any doubt. But given the dominantforces of Ottoman culture, Salafism was not a practical choice foran lim of a notable family. It is true that by the late nineteenthcentury, the Saudi-Wahhb movement was no longer seen as a threatto the Ottoman system,31but hostility to Salaf Islam was inherentin the traditional ulaminstitution, and was not only the function

of the Wahhb-Saudi challenge. Numns acquaintance with iddqasan Khn and his works, therefore, provided both intellectualimpetus as well as social backing. If so eminent a personality andruler-prince as iddq asan Khn could embrace the Salaf choice,

why not the son of Ab al-an al-Als?A year after the publication of the Jal al-aynayn, sponsored by

iddq asan Khn, Numn dispatched his son Al Al al-Dn(1861-1922) to Bhopal, acknowledging the support of iddq asanKhn and strengthening the familys ties with him.32is, however,did not mean a break with the Ottoman regime. In 1300/1882,Numn al-Als was on the move again. is time, his travel wouldtake him to Istanbul, where he lobbied for the restoration of theMurjn School (and its waqf), from which his father had beendeposed, to the family. He spent two years in the Ottoman capital,meeting with ulam and statesmen. At the orders of Sultan Abdal-amd II he returned to Baghdad with the school safe underhis control, appointed the head of its teachers. His position at the

Murjn School was later inherited by his son, Al Al al-Dn, andhis nephew Mamd Shukr.33Whether al-ayyd played any role

30) See, for example, an analysis of the conversion of Ab mid al-Ghazl (1058/450-1111/505) as described in his al-Munqidh min al-all, ed. Samih Dughaym (Beirut: Dral-Fikr al-Lubnn, 1993), in W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and eology(Edin-burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962), 114-22.31) Madawi al-Rashid,A History of Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002), 23ff.32) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 73.33) Al-Athar,Mamd Shukr, 59; al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 61 and 74.


11/49


in restoring the school to the Alss, is not very clear. Whateverthe case, the Alss belonging to the Ottoman regime reached an

unprecedented height when the governor of Baghdad Nmq Pasha(r. 1899-1902), son of the eminent Ottoman statesman and thinkerNmq Kemal, married tika, Numns daughter, perhaps just beforethe passing of her father.34

Numn went to Istanbul via Damascus, where he stopped for awhile. is visit to the thriving Syrian city left a long-lasting impacton its emerging Salaf circle of ulam, members of which wouldhenceforth maintain contacts with Numn well until his death. e

significance of the Damascus sojourn arises from the fact that itcame a year after the publication of Jal al-aynayn. According to amuch later report by the Damascene al-aqiq journal, quoted byal-Athar, Numns activities in Damascus included holding lessonson shiyat radd al-mutr al al-durr al-mukhtr of Ibn bidn(1198/1784-1252/1836).35Although published in 1910-13, duringthe Ottoman second constitutional period, al-aqiq followed atraditional, anti-Salaf line,36 which might raise doubts about thereliability of its report. However, it is hard to imagine, in the highly

34) Al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 131-46. Eich (e Forgotten Salafi, 74, note 56.)describes Nmq Pashas marriage to tika al-Als as an indication of the familys shiftingloyalty from Abd al-amd II to the Young Turks. Nmq Pashas father, the late-Ottomaninfluential thinker Nmq Kemal Pasha, was a Young Ottoman. While the Young Ottomanswere tolerated by Abd al-amds regime, the Young Turks proved to be the downfall ofthe Sultan and his rule. See, for example, erif Mardin, e Genesis of Young Ottomanought(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), esp. 58, note 106, and 59. It isnot clear, however, whether Nmq Pasha, the son, was a Young Turk. See, for example,

Ernest Edmondson Ramsaur, JR., e Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957); Feroz Ahmad, e Young Turks(Oxford:e Clarendon Press, 1969); M. kr Haniolu, e Young Turks in Opposition(NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1995).35) Al-Athar,Alm al-Irq, 64. Ibn bidn is Muammad Amn b. Muammad alal-Dn. He was born and educated in Damascus, as well as in Cairo, emerging as one ofthe most renowned anaf jurists of the nineteenth-century Ottoman world. e workthat is known simply as shiyatIbn bidn, is in fact shiyat radd al-mutr al al-durral-mukhtrshar tanwr al-abr, which is a gloss and commentary on al-Durr al-mukhtrof Al al-Dn al-askaf. e first five volumes of the shiyawere published in Cairo,Blq Press, 1272, 1286 and 1299 AH; vol. 6 in 1323 AH. See Sarks,Mujam al-mabt,vol. 1, columns 150-54; al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 6, 42.36) Commins, Islamic Reform, 118-22.


12/49


charged atmosphere of early twentieth-century Damascus, that awriter could have invented such a story when other contemporaries

of the event were still alive. It does seem that by dedicating histeaching sessions to commenting on Ibn bidns work, a majorsource of anaf fiqh in the nineteenth-century Ottoman realm,Numn al-Als sought to affirm his obligation to the anaf schoolof law, and show that his Salafism did not mean the diminishingof his attachment to the madhhabs traditions. In fact, evidence ofNumns interest in anaf fiqh is not limited to the Damascuslectures. In Jal al-anayn, he displays a formidable knowledge of

traditionalfiqhand its sources, and repeatedly declares his adherenceto the anaf madhhab.37

e Book

Jal al-aynaynappeared from the beginning in a printed form, whichwas an important factor in its enduring influence and relatively rapidcirculation. By the late nineteenth century, printing had become

an established tool of publication in the Arab mashriq, from Cairoto Baghdad. After the short-lived printing press of the Napoleonicexpedition, a new printing house was opened in Blq in 1822,run by a team of workers who received their training in Milan.38

Although the Blq Press was transferred to private ownership in1862, it was returned to state control in 1880. Serving governmentand private needs, the Blq Press made an immense contributionto the cultural renaissance in nineteenth-century Egypt and the

Arab speaking region. It published al-Waqi al-miriyya, the firstEgyptian official gazette, military manuals, works translated fromEuropean languages, selected works of the Islamic heritage, andmodern books of all fields of knowledge.

37) According to Muammad Bahjat al-Athar (Mamd Shukr al-Als wa-ruhal-lughawiyya[Cairo: Mahad al-Dirst al-Arabiyya, 1958], 42), Numn al-Als wrotean abridgment of Ibn al-Jawzs biography of Amad b. anbal, indicating his admirationof the anbal madhhab.38)Timothy Mitchell, Colonizing Egypt(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),133f.; J. Jomier, Bl, EI 2, I, 1299.


13/49


Print had a decisive impact on the communicability of the writtenword, but at the same time it unified the format in which writing

was produced, altering the nature of authority embedded in, andevinced by, the text. Describing the fundamental changes broughtabout by the print, Messick wrote,

In comparison with the physical and conceptual openness of manuscripts,printed texts were to be related to in a new manner. Copying, of course,would be completely eliminated; reading would no longer be an open-endedprocess that required and invited corrective intervention and elucidatingcomment. While printed texts were more physically distanced from andconceptually independent of equally newly constituted readers, they alsocontained a new authority, a new truth value, enhanced by the definitivenessof the technology.39

e uniformity created by the print culture seemed to obliterate theuniqueness of the manuscript as a free and highly characteristic spaceof flowing, interconnected text, commentary and marginal glosses. Yet,the transformation from the characteristic to the standardized was

not abrupt. Well until the early twentieth century, and in some caseseven beyond, Muslim scholars of traditional educational backgroundsmanipulated the print format to stress the genealogical meaningand scope of their text. Jal al-aynayn, in its Blq edition, is anexample of texts printed during that transitional period.

e book begins with a title page, followed by a table of contentsthat occupies pages two to seven. Although the table of contentsis an invention of the print culture, it is used in Numns book notonly as an index of chapters or sections of the book.Jal al-aynaynstable of contents is in fact an exhaustive, long list of subtitles andexplanatory notes, elaborating every significant evolution of the text.For example, it contains five entries for a single page, indicating thebiographies of five different ulam included in the text. Since thebook was conceived of as an organic unit, the implicit scheme ofclassification reflected in the table of contents of modern printed

39)Brinkley Messick, e Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a MuslimSociety(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 126f.


14/49


tracts was almost absent, or seems not to have been recognized bythe author. Additional explanatory titles, highlighting an important

part of the text, appear frequently on the margin of the books pages.Following the table of contents, there exists a new part, dedicatedto a series of praises and eulogies, some in the form of classical

Arabic poetry, in appreciation of the book and its author. While almost all of the eulogies were written by ulam or

literary figures from Baghdad, one of them is attributed to a certainusayn b. Musin al-Sab al-Khazraj al-Anr, who was of Yemenorigin but working as a teacher of Qurn and adthin al-Sikandar

mosque of Bhopal.40

usayn al-Anr was obviously an associateof iddq asan Khn, and was intimately informed of the devel-oping relationship between the Indian prince/scholar and Numnal-Als. In his article, al-Anr writes first of his admiration ofJalal-aynayn, then proceeds to describe how the relations between iddqasan Khn and Numn al-Als were established. According toal-Anr, Numn al-Als sent to iddq asan Khn in 1296/1879asking for his ijza, a request that was promptly answered. Al-Anr

then lists the full text of the ijza, granted by iddq asan Khnto Numn al-Als, and discloses that once Numn finalized thewriting of his book, he dispatched a copy of Jal al-aynayn in itsmanuscript form to iddq asan Khn, requesting his financialsupport for its printing in Cairo.

e exposition of this course of correspondence is the first stratagemadopted by Numn al-Als to emphasize his ideational connections

with iddq asan Khn, as well as the intellectual underpinningsof the book. Yet, Numns implicit messages do not end here. Animportant feature of Jal al-aynayn is that it is not really made ofone single text, but rather of three. While each page of the bookis occupied mainly by the text of Jal al-aynayn, on the marginsof the page there exist two other different texts: the first is al-Qawlal-jal f tarjamat al-Shaykh Taq al-Dn ibn Taymiyya al-anbalofaf al-Dn al-Bukhr, followed by iddq asan Khnsal-Intiqd

40) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 2-8.


15/49


al-raj f shar al-itiqd al-a.41As such, Jal al-aynaynappearslike a multifaceted project, not a single monograph.

Little is known about al-Bukhr.42 A anaf scholar of adthof a central Asian origin, who travelled to the Arab mashriq in apilgrimage journey, al-Bukhr visited Yemen and Egypt, where hebecame acquainted with circles of adth scholars of the Mizjjfamily and with Murta al-Zabd. Eventually, al-Bukhr was tosettle in the Palestinian city of Nablus, where he also died duringa plague epidemic in 1200/1786. His arrival to the Arab mashriqcoincided with the outbreak of the Saudi-Wahhb movement and

the intensifying debate about Salaf Islam and the legacy of IbnTaymiyya. His laudatory biography of Ibn Taymiyya is the onlyknown work he authored, comprising a powerful, but not unprece-dented, defense of Ibn Taymiyyas position on the attributes of God.

Al-Bukhrs admiration of Ibn Taymiyya would have been welcomedin the Wahhb dominated Najd at the time; his choice to residein Nablus, therefore, might have been an indication of his wishnot to be associated with the Wahhb vision of Islam. For severalcenturies, the Nablus region was a stronghold of anbal ulam,

where Salaf and pro-Ibn Taymiyya views were respected, even as

41) af al-Dn al-Bukhr, al-Qawl al-jal f tarjamat al-Shaykh Taq al-Dn ibn Taymiyyaal-anbal, on the margin of al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 2-140. iddq asan Khn, al-Intiqdal-raj f shar al-itiqd al-a, on the margin of ibid., 141-360.42) Abd al-Ramn al-Jabart, Ajib al-thr f l-tarjim wa-l-akhbr, ed. Abd al-RamA. Abd al-Ram (Cairo: Dr al-Kutub, 1997-8), vol. 2, 188f. (I am indebted to StefanReichmuth for drawing my attention to this source). See, also Umar Ri Kala,Mujam

al-muallifn(Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth, 1957), vol. 5, 20; Sarks,Mujam al-mabt,vol. 1, column 537; Isml al-Baghdd, al-maknn(Istanbul: n. p., 1951-55), vol.2, column 248. Al-Baghdd, however, does not specify al-Bukhrs date of death.Surprisingly, Muammad b. Abd al-ayy al-Laknaw, al-Fawid al-bahiyya f tarjimal-anafiyya(Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Islm, n. d.), the writing of which was concludedin 1874, makes no mention of al-Bukhr. e fact that al-Luknaw wrote his book inHaydarabad, India, may have been the reason, for al-Bukhr became more famous in theArab countries than in India. af al-Dn al-Bukhr should be differentiated from Alal-Dn Muammad b. Muammad al-Ajam al-Bukhr (779-841), who died in Damascusand is reported to have pronounced that whoever called Ibn Taymiyya the Shaykh ofIslam is an unbeliever (kfir). For a response to Al al-Dn al-Bukhr, see Ibn Niral-Dn al-Dimashq, al-Radd al-kfir, ed. Zuhayr al-Shwsh (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm,1991); and on him, see al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 7, 46f.


16/49


Sufism came to dominate anbal circles. Yet, anbal ulam ofNablus, as the majority of Syrian anbals, were not particularly

known of their support of the Wahhb mission. 43Although several semi-biographical works in favor of Ibn Tay-

miyya were written in the fourteenth century, just after his passing,al-Bukhrs al-Qawl al-jal is certainly one of very few such worksto be undertaken in the following centuries. Another later biographyof Ibn Taymiyya is that of Mar b. Ysuf al-Karm (d. 1033/1624),44an eminent anbal scholar at al-Azhar, who originated from theNablus region. If Numn al-Als was looking for a recent influential

biography of Ibn Taymiyya to be included in his book, al-Karmswork was certainly the best known and scholarly recognized. Optingfor al-Bukhrs al-Qawl al-jal was most likely a deliberate act toserve two purposes. First, like Numn al-Als, al-Bukhr was amongthe few anaf ulam to have taken the side of Ibn Taymiyya;hence, the inclusion of his work in theJal al-aynaynproject woulddemonstrate that Numn al-Als was not the only anaf limto uphold Ibn Taymiyyas views against the traditional views of themadhhabs. Second, al-Bukhr is specifically concerned with IbnTaymiyyas theological convictions, a theme that is comparativelyless elaborate in al-Karms work.

iddq asan Khns al-Intiqd al-rajadds another perspective totheJal al-aynaynproject. Since the authority of iddq asan Khn

was invoked from the very first pages of the book, one suspects thatin this case Numn al-Als was fundamentally interested in whatiddq asan Khn had to say in his treatise. In fact, al-Intiqd al-rajis not an independent work of its own, but rather a commentary

on a treatise on Islamic beliefs written by the influential eighteenth-

43) Cf. John O. Voll, e Non-Wahhabi Hanbalis of Eighteenth-Century Syria, DerIslam, 49 (1972): 277-91.44) Muammad Amn al-Muibb, Khulat al-athar f ayn al-qarn al-d ashar (Beirut:Maktabat Khayyat, n. d.), vol. 4, 358; Muammad Jaml al-Sha,Mukhtaar abaqtal-anbila(Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Arab, 1986), 108-11; al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 7,203. For his biography of Ibn Taymiyya, see Mar Ysuf al-Karm, al-Kawkib al-durriyyaf manqib al-mujtahid ibn Taymiyya, ed. Najm Abd al-Ramn Khalaf (Beirut: Dral-Gharb al-Islm, 1986).


17/49


century Indian reformer Wal-Allh Dihlaw (1114/1703-1176/62).45For questions of theology occupy a central place inJal al-aynayn,

and the inclusion of iddq asan Khns treatise would help toconvey a broader vision of Salaf Islam, augmenting the one presentedin al-Bukhrs treatise.

Finally, being an intellectual trial of the two Amads, Amadb. Taymiyya and Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, as to the validity ofthe latters opinion of the first and some of the most controversialarguments attributed to the fourteenth-century anbal scholar,Jalal-aynayn embodies a reference to Numn al-Alss authority as

a former judge. For a judge is assumed, and required, to upholdjustice, it is objectivity and fairness that al-Als wishes to promise inadjudicating the issues under discussion. It is, therefore, warranted tointroduce the entangled dispute of the two protagonists of Numnal-Alss work.

Al-Haytam on Ibn Taymiyya

Amad b. ajar al-Haytam (909/1504-975/1567) was born in thevillage of Ab al-Haytam of the Egyptian western province.46 Hisfamily seems to have been connected to learned circles, since follow-ing the passing of his father, he came under the patronage of twoeminent Shfi ulamof the time. After a period of study at Amadal-Badaw mosque of Tanta, he moved to al-Azhar, where he joined

45) Syed Habibul Haq Nadvi, Islamic Resurgent Movements in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent

(Durban: Academia, 1986); J. M. S. Baljon, Religion and ought of Shah Wali Allah(Leiden: Brill, 1986); afaru l-Islm Khn, al-Imm Wal Allh al-Dihlaw (New Delhi:Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, 1996).46) Abdallh b. ijz al-Sharqw, al-Tufa al-bahiyya f abaqt al-Shfiiyya, ms. 149,Trkh, Institute of the Arab Manuscripts, e Arab League, Cairo, plates 204-5; Muyal-Dn Abd al-Qdir al-Aydars, al-Nr al-sfir an akhbr al-qarn al-hir(Cairo: n. p.,n. d.), 287-92; Abd al-Hayy b. al-Imd al-anbal, Shadhart al-dhahab f akhbr mandhahab(Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth al-Arab, n. d.), vol. 4, 370ff.; Muammad b. Alal-Shawkn, al-Badr al-li bi-masin man bad al-qarn al-tsi(Cairo: Mabaat al-Sada,1348 AH), vol. 1, 109; al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 1, 337-40; Najm al-Dn al-Ghazz,al-Kawkib al-sira bi-ayn al-mia al-shira, ed. Jibrl Sulaymn Jabbr (Beirut: Dral-fq al-Jadda, 1979), vol. 3, 111ff.; al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 1, 234. Only al-Ghazzmentions his date of birth as 911 AH/ 1506.


18/49


some of the most senior Shfi scholars offiqh, adthand theology,including Zakariyy al-Anr (described by his contemporaries as

shaykh al-islm, 826/1423-926/1520),47and Abd al-aqq al-Sunb(842/1438- 931/1525).48In the highly elaborate index of his teachersand ijzt,49 al-Haytam writes of his affiliation with several Sufiarqas, such as the Qdiriyya and Shdhiliyya, asserts his belief inthe Sufi ritual of khirqawearing (the assuming of Sufi mantle), anddisplays a remarkable knowledge of the Sufi chains of authority.Emerging as a noted Shfi jurist, licensed for fatw-giving sincehe was twenty years of age, al-Haytam could have spent the rest of

his career at al-Azhar; but an unhappy incident of scholarly rivalryand jealousy drove him to leave Cairo for the city of Makka. Hehad visited Makka for the ajjand sojourning at the Grand Mosque(the Makkan aram) more than once, but when he arrived therein 940/1534, it was to stay for good. In the Makka of the earlyOttoman period, al-Haytam would soon be recognized as one ofthe most renowned Shfi jurists of his time, whose opinion wassought by Shfi Muslims from as far afield as India. Among hisachievements in fiqh is a gloss (shar) of al-Minhj,50 al-Nawaws

widely usedprcis(mukhtaar) of Shfifiqh, as well as a four-volumecollection of fatws, covering issues related to all departments ofIslamic law.51

Yet, al-Haytam was not only a jurist. An limwith strong attach-ments to Islamic traditions, he became a standard-bearer of Sunnism,in a time when the Sunni-Shii disputation was reaching a highpoint against a background of Ottoman-Safavid conflict and Sunni-Shii frictions in Mughal India. Following on a long line of Sunni

responses to the Shii version of history and vision of Islam, al-Haytam wrote two treatises upholding Sunni beliefs and historical

47) Al-Shawkn, al-Badr al-li, vol. 1, 252; al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 1, 457ff.48) Al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 2, 1000.49) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Masnd al-Haytham, ms. 2014 Trkh, Institute ofArab Manuscripts, e Arab League, Cairo.50) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Tufat al-muhtaj li-shar al-minhj(Cairo: Blq Press,1290AH), 3 vols.51) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-kubr al-fiqhiyya(Cairo: Maktabat wa-Mabaatal-Mashhad al-usayn, n. d.), 4 vols.


19/49


narrative.52According to al-Haytam, his Tahr al-jinn wa-l-lisn,a defense of the first Umayyad Caliph Muwiya b. Ab Sufyn

(r. 41/661-60/680), was written upon the request of the MughalSultan Humyn (r. 1530-40 and 1555-6).53 What is significantin al-Haytams discussion of the events and characters of the firstIslamic civil war, the founding moment in the Sunni-Shii split, ishis heavy reliance on adth, while avoiding historical investigationand its relevant sources. In fact, al-Haytams expertise in adth

was so highly regarded that he was also recognized as a adthscholar. His contribution to adth learning includes a gloss (shar)

on the forty adthof al-Nawaw (631/1233-676/1277), al-Arbanal-nawawiyya,54 in addition to a collection of fatws,55 which islargely adth-based responses to inquiries covering different aspectsof Islamic knowledge, not only fiqh.

In contrast to his teacher Zakariyy al-Anr, and his felloweminent Shfi Abd al-Wahhb al-Sharn (898/1493-973/1565),al-Haytam is not listed among the prominent Sufis of the time.56Nor is he noted as an expert in the Islamic legal theory (ulal-fiqh).57Yet, he did write on Islamic legal theory, the fundamentalsof religion (Islamic theology, or kalm), and Sufism. In Kitbal-taarruf fi l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf,58a brief work by any measure,

52) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-awiq al-muriqa fi l-radd al ahl al-bida wa-l-zandaqa, followed by Tahr al-jinn wa-l-lisn(Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhira, n. d.).53) Al-Haytam, Tahr al-jinn wa-l-lisn, 3.54) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Fat al-mubn f shar al-arban(Cairo: al-Mabaaal-Maymaniyya, 1307 AH).55)

Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya (Cairo: Maktabat al-alab,1989).56) For the position that al-Anr and al-Sharn occupied among the Sufi ulam, seeAbd al-Raf al-Munw, al-Kawkib al-durriyya f tarjim al-sda al-fiyya, ed. Abdal-amd li amdn (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li-l-Turth, n. d.), vol. 4, 52-5and 69-75, repectively.57) See, for example, the modern historical biographies of scholars of ul al-fiqhin AbdallhMuaf al-Margh, al-Fat al-mubn f abaqt al-uliyyn (Cairo: Abd al-amd anafPress, n. d.), 3 vols. Al-Margh, however, lists (vol. 3, 84-5) al-Haytams Shfi colleagueand contemporary, Shams al-Dn al-Raml (919/1513-1004/1596), among the scholarsof ul.58) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf fi l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, ms. 597,Marif, Dr al-Kutub, Cairo.


20/49


al-Haytam adheres to the Shfi legal theory as formulated by thegreat masters of the middle Islamic period, identifying the four major

sources of law as the Qurn, the Prophetic sunna, consensus (ijm),analogical reason (qiys), and juridical preference (istisn). Whenhe speaks of ijtihd and taqld, he recounts the classical definitionof both, without stating his own inclination.59 eologically, hedeclares his commitment to the Ashar dogma, as developed by late

Ashar scholars, opting for a middle position on the thorny issue ofGods attributes, manifested in the approval of moderate allegoricalinterpretation (tawl) of the corporeal attributes.60 On the other

hand, the purpose of taawwuf, for al-Haytam, is purifying theouter, in order (for man) to achieve purification of the inner, andrealize the ultimate perfections.61His way of Sufism is that of Abal-Qsim al-Junayd (the sober, claimed founder of the Sufi path,d. 298/910); all that might be imagined as unionism (ittid) andimmanentism (ull) in the writings of the late Sufis, such as IbnArab (560/1165-638/1240) and Ibn al-Fri (576/1181-632/1235),should be understood in light of their specific (esoteric) discourse

and terminology, for, in reality, they are totally innocent of theaccusations thrown at them.is vision of Islam lends itself to a traditional, sixteenth-century

ulam outlook. By the standards of learning in late medieval andearly modern Islamic circles, al-Haytam was certainly a formidable

jurist. But he was also a conformist lim, a great believer in thereceived wisdom, and the validity of Sunni Islam as it evolved throughthe ages. Like the great majority of the ulam class of his time,he strongly upheld the Sunni version of history, unquestionablyembraced the Ashar-Mturd theology, saw no way to improveon the achievements of the classical legal theorists, and sincerelyfollowed on the path of the Sufis. In a sense, he was an orthodoxlim, opposed to socio-moral excesses, not a few of which werecommon in populist Sufi circles, and was thus profoundly committed

59) Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf fi l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 23f.60) Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf fi l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 25.61) Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf fi l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 32.


21/49


to the high values of religion.62However, he was also an apologistof Ibn Arab, not an advocate of wadat al-wujd in its literal

conception, whatever that conception could be, but a believer inIbn Arabs piety, in his contribution to Islam, and the import ofhis experience.

In al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, al-Haytam responds to all kinds ofquestions that fall beyond the established departments of fiqh, elab-orating on matters of theology, language, and legal theory. A widerange of issues that he discusses is of a Sufi nature. He is clearin affirming that Ibn Arab and Ibn al-Fri, and those who fol-

lowed in their footsteps, are a group of chosen saints (akhyrmuqqarabn), a status that is reflected in the testimonies of a numberof the most eminent scholars of Islam;63 Ibn al-Arabs and Ibnal-Fris knowledge, and their rejection of this world, are indicatorsof their blamelessness of what they are accused of; those who de-nounced them had no experience of the sciences of revelation ( ulmal-kashf);64 the paths to God are as numerous as the lives of Godscreations, and to find the real (al-aqq), one has to read works,such as al-Iiy of al-Ghazl, the Risla of al-Qushayr (Abdal-Karm, 376/986-465/1072), Awrif al-marif of al-Suhraward(Shihb al-Dn Umar, 539/1145-632/1234) and Qt al-qulb of

Ab lib al-Makk (Muammad b. Al al-rith, d. 386/996);65the highest status, as asserted by al-Ghazl, is that of the Prophets,the knowing saints (al-awliy al-rifn), the learned ulam, and therighteous people, respectively, since those who possess the esotericknowledge (ilm al-bin) are better than those who know the rulesand categories of Islamic sciences;66 there are differences between

62) See, for example, Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Zawjir an iqtirf al-kabir(Cairo:al-Mabaa al-Maymaniyya, 1331 AH), 2 vols.63) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 50, 335f.64) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 52f., 81, 313f., 331f.65) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 77. For a study of al-Qushayrs Risla, see RichardHartmann, al-Kuschairis Darstellung des Sufitums (Berlin: Mayer & Mller, 1914). Onal-Suhrawrd, see Henry Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, tr. L. Sherrad (London:Kegan Paul, 1993), 289ff. On Ab lib al-Makk, see Umar Ri Kala, Mujamal-muallifn(Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth, 1957), vol. 11, 27f.; al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 6,274.66) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 128f., 309.


22/49


the shara and the reality (aqqa): the shara is the origin, whilethe aqqa is the branch and the ultimate station of shara, and

the shara is the knowledge of the apparent, while the aqqa isthe knowledge of the hidden.67

is, however, does not mean that al-Haytams embrace of theSufi path is without reservations. His admiration of Ibn Arab, forexample, does not preclude him from stating his belief in the apostasyof the Pharaoh of Moses (Firawn), a position that contradicts theone associated with Ibn Arab, nor does he see fit for commonpeople to read the books of Ibn Arab and Ibn al-Fri.68

It was also in al-Fatwa al-adthiyya that al-Haytams view ofIbn Taymiyya was articulated. Responding to a question regardingIbn Taymiyyas disagreement with later Sufis, al-Haytam launchedone of the most vitriolic attacks on the fourteenth-century anbalever recorded in the annals of middle Islamic polemics. Ibn Taymiyya,he says, is a God-beaten and blinded man, as was pronounced bygreat scholars of his time, including Ab al-asan al-Subk (Taqal-Dn Muammad, 704/1305-744/1344) and his son (Tj al-DnAl, 722/1322-756/1354), al-Izz b. Jama (Abd al-Azz, 694/1294-767/1366), and other Shfi, Mlik and anaf ulam; IbnTaymiyyas objection was not limited to the later Sufis, but alsoto such venerated companions as Umar b. al-Khab (d. 23/644)and Al b. Ab lib (d. 40/660); his opinions are worthless, andhe should be judged as an innovator, ignorant, extremist, deviated,and a cause of deviation. Al-Haytams reading into Ibn Taymiyyasopposition to late Sufis focuses on Ibn Taymiyyas identification of theSufi intellectual underpinnings with the philosophy of cosmology as

propounded by Ibn Sn (370/980-428/1037): From Ibn Taymiyyasperspective, the Sufi explanation of the state of revelation is similarto Ibn Sns construction of a Cosmological Self, or the ActiveReason, with which human selves are connected. Influences ofthis cosmological design, from Ibn Taymiyyas perspective, can betraced in works of al-Ghazl, Ibn Arab, and Ibn Sabn (613 or614/1217 or 1218-668 or 669/1269 or 1271), a belief with which

67) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 311.68) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 289, 291, 296f.


23/49


they stand in contradiction to the Sunni beliefs; although al-Ghazlcame ultimately to reject the philosophers.

Al-Haytam does not challenge the validity of Ibn Taymiyyasanalysis; but to illustrate the gravity of his attitude to taawwuf,al-Haytam mentions that he also rejected many other Sufis, includingal-allj (244/857-309/922) and Ab al-asan al-Shdhil (ca. 593/1196-656/1258). Ibn Taymiyyas sweeping attack on the companionsand Sufis, al-Haytam points out, led (an anonymous) former followerof his to denounce him because he put Umar b. al-Khab andAl b. Ab lib at error. Al-Haytam goes on to list Ibn Taymiyyas

constant disagreement with the Sunni consensus on issues rangingfrom divorce (alq), the circumambulation (awf) of a menstrualwoman around the Kaba, ritual purity (ahra), to endowment(waqf), as well as for saying that a dissenter from the consensusis neither an apostate nor a sinner. Ibn Taymiyya was further acorporealist, who believed that God was spatially confined, thatthe Qurn was contingent, that the world, as a kind (naw), waseternal, and that the Prophet had no power to aid mans supplicationto God. In response to another question concerning the eponymof the anbal school, Amad b. anbal (164/780-241/855), al-Haytam refuted accusations that Ibn anbal held views on theattributes of God that contradicted the Sunni beliefs, and blamedIbn Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim (691/1292-751/1350)for suggesting otherwise.69

It is certainly tempting to explain al-Haytams attack on IbnTaymiyya in simple, straightforward terms: notwithstanding a fewqualifications, al-Haytam was a strong believer in taawwufin general

and that of Ibn Arab in particular, as well as a committed Ashar.e two questions that were put to him were both related to lateSufism, that was dominated by Ibn Arabs ideas, and fundamentalsof the Ashar kalm. Asharism aside, Muslim disagreements on IbnArab and wadat al-wujd, from the thirteenth century onward, hadalways been riddled with ill-feeling and bitterness. Yet, true as it is,this specific background does not provide a sufficient explanation forthe acute and uninhibited censure pervading al-Haytams account

69) Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 114-7, 203f.


24/49


of Ibn Taymiyya and his legacy, given that it was al-Haytam whowrote a whole treatise warning Muslims against rushing to judge

other Muslims belief.70Al-Haytam does not even put himself forwardas an extreme adherent to Ibn Arab.

It seems, in light of al-Haytams long indictment of Ibn Taymiyyaand what is described as his deviation from the consensus of theSunni schools of law, that by the sixteenth century, Ibn Taymiyyasideas came to be viewed as entirely subversive to the established Sunnischeme of things, rather than a mere singular, or even a strange kindof ijtihd. For the Islamic world of learning had already been ordered,

and Ibn Taymiyya seemed to represent a serious challenge to thisorder. Hence, al-Haytams emphasis on Ibn Taymiyyas dissent fromthe consensus, that is, from the order grounded in, and symbolized by,consensus. It is to confronting this outlook, dispelling its constituents,and invalidating its logic, that Numn al-Als set himself a task.

e Eyes Clearing

Made of a series of interconnected and overlapping essays, of bio-graphies, invocations, commentaries, arguments and counter-argu-ments,Jal al-aynaynevolves into a long, intricate discourse. Al-Alsbegins his work by stating that it was the reading of al-Haytamsremarks on Ibn Taymiyya that made him embark on the writingof his book, with the aim of verifying the disputed issues raisedby al-Haytam. He also notes that al-Haytams views might createconfusion among students of Islam, acknowledging perhaps the in-fluence that al-Haytams works still exercised in Islamic learningcircles, four centuries after his passing.71After giving a brief, literalaccount of al-Haytams critique of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Als turnsto presenting the fourteenth-century scholar, quoting a plethoraof laudatory biographies of him, written by a range of differentulam, amongst whom are al-Dhahab (673/1274-748/1347), IbnKathr (700/1300-774/1373), al-Suy (849/1445-911/1505), Ibn

70) Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Ilm f Qawi al-Islm, ms 28, Tawd, e ArabManuscript Institute, e Arab League, Cairo.71) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 2f.


25/49


al-Ward (Umar, 689 or 691/1290 or 1292-749/1349), and Ibnajar al-Asqaln (773/1372-852/1449).72 Using a similar tone of

reverence, he outlines short biographical passages of a number ofleading ulam who were critical of Ibn Taymiyya, such as Taqal-Dn and Tj al-Dn al-Subk, al-Izz b. Jama, and Kamal al-Dnal-Zamlakn (666 or 667/1267 or 1268-727/1327),73all of whomhad been mentioned by al-Haytam. He then, maintaining respectand appreciation, introduces Ibn ajar al-Haytam.

Aiming to illustrate the learned lineage of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Alsdiscusses the life and achievements of a few of his renowned ances-

tors and relatives; and to highlight his invaluable legacy, he listsa number of Ibn Taymiyyas most prominent students and theirachievements, as well as other later ulaminfluenced by his ideas.74

What is interesting in the latter group is that while it encompassesulam such as Al al-Qr al-Haraw (d. 1014/1606), Ibrhmal-Krn (1025/1616-1101/1689), Muammad b. Al al-Shawkn(ca. 1173/1760-1255/1839), Al al-Suwayd, Ab al-an al-Als,

Wal-Allh Dihlaw, and iddq asan Khn, it does not includeMuammad b. Abd al-Wahhb. Given the erudition of al-Als,and the inconceivably missable reputation of Ibn Abd al-Wahhb,the exclusion of the Najd controversial reformist from the latefollowers of Ibn Taymiyya appears like a declaration of intent byal-Als, rather than a measure of political precaution. Since the

Wahhb-Saudi question was by the late nineteenth century no longera political issue that could preclude the mere mention of Ibn Abdal-Wahhb in an intellectual context, al-Als seems to be keen notto identify with the Wahhb legacy. e other possibility, of course,

72) For al-Dhahabs view, see Shams al-Dn Muammad al-Dhahab, Tadhkirat al-uff(Haydarabad: Dirat al-Marif al-Uthmniyya, 1980, vol. 4, 1496ff.; for al-Asqalnsview, see Amad b. ajar al-Asqaln, al-Durar al-Kmina fi ayn al-mia al-thmina,ed. Muammad S. Jad al-Haqq (Cairo: Umm al-Qur, n. d.), vol. 1, 154-70; for al-Wardsview, see Umar ibn al-Ward, Trkh Ibn al-Ward(al-Najaf: al-Mabaa al-aydariyya,1969), vol. 2, 406-13; for Ibn Kathrs view, see Ab al-Fid b. Kathr, al-Bidya wa-l-nihya(Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1967), vol. 14, 135-40.73) For the opposition to Ibn Taymiyya, and his leading ulamopponents, see ShermanA. Jackson, Ibn Taymiyya on Trial in Damascus,Journal of Semitic Studies, 39: 1 (Spring1994), 41-85, esp. 43-9.74) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 20-32.


26/49


is that al-Als did not regard Ibn Abd al-Wahhb as a student ofIbn Taymiyya, although he never made that suggestion in explicit

terms.e first issue of al-Haytams allegations that al-Als deals with

is Ibn Taymiyyas belief (aqda), especially his attitude towards theProphets companions (aba). e central point of al-Alss responseis that Ibn Taymiyya upheld the Sunni belief (aqdat ahl al-sunna) asit was elaborated in the third and the fourth hijrcenturies. QuotingIbn Taymiyya on the companions, al-Als affirms that like all earlygrand pronouncers on the Sunni belief, Ibn Taymiyya venerated

the companions, held them higher than all following generationsof Islam, and declared his allegiance to them; but he also did notview them as infallible, implying that disagreement with the CaliphsUmar and Al on specific questions is not a blameworthy matter.75

Adhering to mainstream Sunnism, Ibn Taymiyya believed in theexistence of saints (awliy), those who follow on the righteous wayof the Prophet, as well as in the possibility of Gods bestowing onsome of them the power to act in an extraordinary or miraculousmanner (karma). is does not mean that Ibn Taymiyyas criticalviews of Sufis, such as al-allj, Ibn Arab, al-Shdhil, and al-Tilimsn (610/1213-690/1291), were unique or unfounded. Afterdocumenting the claim that al-Shdhil informed his disciples ofinvoking his own name in their supplication to God (which isunacceptable from the point of view of orthodox Islam),76 al-Alsembarks on a delicate, thorough, and elaborate reconstruction ofthe various understandings of the principle of wadat al-wujd.

According to Ibn Taymiyya, and obviously approved by al-Als,

the whole debate about Sufi unionism boils down to a single issue:at Allh is not His creation, not a part of His creation, and notan attribute of his creation. Rather, He is, in His sacred Self, theonly one of His kind, and transcendent.77

Al-Als intimates that he himself is not a denouncer of IbnArab, although he prohibits the reading of Ibn Arabs books which

75) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 37f.76) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 42.77) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 59.


27/49


convey an apparent discord with the shara. Despite admitting thecomplexity involved in judging Sufi utterances, such as those of Ibn

Arab, by the strict rules of the shara, al-Als impresses upon hisreader the conviction that the Sufis, like all Muslims, should be heldaccountable to their pronouncements. e bottom line, however, isthat the Sufi discourse cannot be broken down into the permissibleand impermissible categories of the jurists.

Al-Als, therefore, employs a different strategy in explaining IbnTaymiyyas position, suggesting that since Muslim scholars had al-

ways held different and opposing views about the validity of the

esoteric Sufi discourse, Ibn Taymiyyas position was fully legitimate.Ibn Arab was condemned by many a great ulam, including Sadal-Dn al-Taftazn (d. 792/1390), Al al-Dn al-Bukhr, Ibn ajaral-Asqaln, al-Maqqar (986/1577-1041/1632), and Ibn Daqq al-Id(625/1228-702/1302); while Jall al-Dn al-Suy, Ibn bidn, and

Ab al-an al-Als trusted his sainthood (wilya), they prohibitedthe reading of his works.78Al-allj was denounced as an apostateby people no less than Ab Abd al-Ramn al-Sulam (325/937-

412/1021), al-Qushayr (376/986- 465/1072), as well as Ibn ajaral-Asqaln. Even al-Munw (Abd al-Raf, 952/1545-1031/1621),the eminent Shfi historian of Sufism, accepted the fact that IbnArab, Jall al-Dn al-Rm (604/1207-672/1273), Ibn Sabn, andal-Tilimsn were subjects of intense disagreement.79 Referring toIbn Taymiyya, al-Als establishes the discursive relatedness betweenesoteric Sufism and the philosophy of Ibn Sn, and pays tributeto al-Ghazls refutation of the philosophers.80

78) See, for example, Jall al-Dn al-Suy, Tanb al-ghab bi-tabriat Ibn Arab, ed.Muammad Ibrhm Salm (Cairo: Dr al-Ilm wa-l-aqfa, 1995), 43.79) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 43-53. On the long-drawn controversy over Ibn Arab andhis Sufi vision, see Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: eMaking of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1999), esp. 87-111 where Knysh discusses Ibn Taymiyyas critique of Ibn Arab.80) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 73f. For al-Ghazls refutation of the philosophers, see Abmid Muammad al-Ghazl, Tahfut al-falsifa, ed. Majid Fakhri and Maurice Bouyges(Beirut: Dr al-Mashriq, 1990); W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and eology(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962), 114-8; Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy,179-86.


28/49


e bulk of Jal al-aynayn is dedicated to the discussion of IbnTaymiyyasfiqhand the theology, with special emphasis on the issues

raised by al-Haytam. Here, the tone and idiom of al-Als becomemore specific and entrenched in the Islamic traditions. WhereasIslamic Sufi culture never developed exact rules, fiqh and theologyacquired a relatively defined set of terms and concepts, and cameto be approached in light of countless instances of precedents andideal types. Hence, al-Alss strategy of refutation is subsequentlyaltered. In response to al-Haytams objection that Ibn Taymiyyadissented from the communitys consensus on a number of juridical

issues, al-Als begins by outlining his vision of ijtihd and taqld,setting thereby the referential framework against which he believedIbn Taymiyya should be judged. Drawing on a wide range of classicalIslamic views, including that of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Arab,al-Als writes that the termsfaqh(jurist) and mujtahid(practitionerof ijtihd) are synonymous. Ijtihd, according to al-Als, could bepartial, since not all jurists are competent in all branches of fiqh;but no age should be free of the existence of a mujtahid; and evena mistaken ijtihd is to be rewarded by God.81Although it is clearthat he does not absolutely condemn the madhhab-based taqld, heis unhesitant in standing on the side of ijtihd, and is particularlycritical of those who demand strict adherence to the madhhab, ordisallow a follower of a certain school of law from embracing anopinion of another school.82

Al-Alss ultimate aim, nonetheless, is to assert that Ibn Taymiyyasdisputedfatws had either been the choices of other preceding scholars,even of companions of the Prophet, or that they are simply legitimate

issues of ijtihd. On more than one occasion, he pronounces hisagreement with Ibn Taymiyyas opinion, while still confirming his owncommitment to the anaf school of law. Dealing with al-Haytamsaccusations one by one, al-Als does neither deny that Ibn Taymiyya

81) Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 103-9. On the development and meaning of the juridicconcepts of ijtihd and taqld, see Wael B. Hallaq, A History of Islamic Legal eories(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 117-23; Mohammad Hashim Kamali,Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge: e Islamic Texts Society, 1991),366-94.82) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 110-13.


29/49


subscribed to what he was accused of, nor does he concede a singlepoint to Ibn Taymiyyas detractors. For example: Al-Haytam accuses

Ibn Taymiyya of stating that one who determinately neglected the[obligatory, ritual] prayer is not required to redo it [once he decidedto re-commit himself to praying].83Al-Als responds that this wasalso the position taken by Ibn Arab in his al-Futat al-makkiyya,as well as that of Ibn anbal, who regarded premeditated desertionof prayer as apostasy, and an apostate was not required to pray inthe first place. Al-Haytam attributes to Ibn Taymiyya that he con-sidered it permissible for menstrual women to perform circumam-

bulation (awf) of the Kaba without incurring a penalty (kaffra).84

Al-Als argues that this is also a reported opinion of Ab anfa (d.150/767), as well as that of al-Shfi (150/767-204/820). He doesnot even refrain from defending Ibn Taymiyya on one of his mostcontroversial fatws: that a mans declaration of divorce (alq), ina thrice-declaration form on one single occasion, should be deemedas a single divorce.85is fatw, al-Als maintains, is based on theopinion of companions such as Ibn Abbs and Ikrima; it is also theposition taken by the anaf Ibn bidn; and was equally approvedby al-Shawkn and Ab al-an al-Als. At any rate, Numnal-Als concludes, whatever the Muslim differences on this issue

were, it is clearly a matter of ijtihd.It thus follows that Ibn Taymiyya did not dissent from the

Muslim consensus, as was claimed by al-Haytam. But what aboutIbn Taymiyyas fatw that a dissenter from consensus does neithercommit an act of unbelief nor a grave sin? Al-Als retorts: howcould dissention from the consensus be categorized as unbelief when

denial of the consensus as a source of law was not regarded assuch.86Consensus, al-Als adds, was the subject of great differences

83) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 140.84) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 143.85) Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 144. For a discussion of this fatw, see Abdul Hakim I.al-Matrudi, e Hanbali School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah(London: Routledg, 2006),171-85.86) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 159f. Al-Als indicates Ab Zara as the author of a com-mentary ofJam al-jawmi of Tj al-Dn al-Subk, which means that he lived after 354/756.But no jurist of the name Ab Zara could be identified in the latest of the historical


30/49


between the ulam, where Ibn Arab himself held that the onlyvalid consensus was that of the absolutely documented one of the

companions. Although Ibn Taymiyya believed that consensus ofthe ulam was legally binding, he could not envisage that such asituation would have materialized.

e largest part of Jal al-aynayn by far is dedicated to thediscussion of Ibn Taymiyyas theology, specifically his conceptionof Gods attributes, and of the Prophet. Muslim debates on theattributes of God and the position of the Prophet had been intenseand long-drawn, laying the foundations for the differentiation of a

large number of factions. Ibn Taymiyyas advocacy of what came tobe known as the Salaf way, was ferociously attacked by contemporary

Ashar and Sufi-oriented ulam. In fact, al-Haytams censure of IbnTaymiyyas theological views did not offer any original perspective, but

was rather entirely reliant on fourteenth-century polemics. Addressingthe disputed issues of the speech (kalm) of God and nature of theQurn, al-Als lays the foundation of his response by assembling anoverview of the Muslim theological terrain, delineating the cardinal

differences between the Sunni and Mutazil dogmas, between Amadb. anbal and his opponents, and between Ab al-asan al-Ashar(260/875-324/939) and the late Ashar theologians.87He admits that,by and large, Sunni Muslims agreed that contingents (awdith)do not exist in the divine Self.88 But if so, then how is it possibleto explain Ibn Taymiyyas belief, as well as that of the majorityof other proponents of the Salaf way since Ibn anbal, that theQurn is not created, but is the speech of God, and that God is

biographies of Shfi ulam . See, for example, Abdallh b. Hijz al-Sharqw, al-Tufaal-bahiyya f abaqt al-Shfiiyya, ms. 149, Trkh, Institute of the Arab Manuscript,e Arab League, Cairo. e opinion attributed to Ab Zara on consensus, however, iscommon within the Shfi madhhab, and seems to be derived from the wide scholarlydisagreement on the validity of consensus as a source of law, and on the possibility of itsoccurrence. Al Hasab-Allh, Ul al-tashr al-islm (Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1959),141-6.87) On the late Ashars, see Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, 267-72; George Makdisi,Ashari and Asharites in Islamic Religious History, Studia Islamica, 17 (1962): 35-80, and 18 (1963): 19-39; M. Montgomery Watt, Ashariyya, EI 2, I, 696.88) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 161.


31/49


eternally speaking? Does that mean that the Qurn (as the speechof God) is as eternal as God Himself, which would logically imply

a polytheistic position?Al-Als, conscious of al-Haythams Ashar convictions, emphasizes

that both the Salaf and Ashar schools rejected the Mutazil doctrinethat the Qurn is created, and both subscribed to the belief in theQurn as the speech of God. Yet, concerned with polytheistic andimmanentist implications of this doctrine, late Ashars proposed thatthe Qurn is a divine speech not in a literal sense, but as a mentalspeech (kalm nafs).89 It thus follows that neither mans recitation

of the Qurn can be identified with the divine speech, nor canthe Qurn be seen as eternal. On the other hand, informed by thenecessities of monotheism and transcendentalization, the prevalentSalaf doctrine asserted that God is eternally speaking, if He willsand whenever He wills, and He speaks in a heard voice; the speechas a kind is eternal, but the form it took is not so. 90

e bases of the Salaf objections to the Ashar proposition of themental speech are essentially textual, rather than rational, assertingthat a large number of Qurnic verses and Prophetic adths areincisively clear in describing the Qurn as the speech of God, against

which Muslims are not free to resort to allegorical interpretationsof all kinds (tawl).91Although he places himself on the Salaf sideof the debate, al-Alss approach to this part of the dispute is notto broaden the past theological discussions, but rather to show howvariant the Ashar views had been. According to al-Als, Ab al-asan al-Ashar himself fully embraced Ibn anbals position onthe nature of the Qurn,92which makes the claim that the origin of

the concept of mental speech is in al-Ashars works, a mere illusion.He adds that among those who held that the Qurn is the speech

89) On mental speech, see Bernard Weiss, Exotericism and Objectivity in Islamic Juris-prudence, Nicholas Heler (ed.), Islamic Law and Jurisprudence(Seattle: University ofWashington Press, 1990), 53-71, esp. 53ff.90) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 163.91) For the Salaf view, see Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Shif al-all (Beirut: Dr al-Marifa,n. d.).92) e allusion here is to Ab al-asan Al al-Ashar, al-Ibna an ul al-diyna, ed.F. H. Mamd (Cairo: Dr al-Anr, 1977), vol. 2, 20f.


32/49


of God, and that the speech is an eternal divine attribute, was themost eminent of all Ashar theologians, al-Jurjn (d. 816/1413).

Would Ibn Taymiyyas defense of the speech of God doctrine,then, turn him into an advocate of the eternity of the world, asal-Haytam alleged? Did Ibn Taymiyya harbor immanentist attitudessimilar to those of the unionists, his arch nemesis? According to al-

Als, no Muslim scholar ever subscribed to the eternity-of-the-worldbelief, not even Ibn Arab.93 In terms of its appearance, Muslimsbelieve that the world is certainly contingent; only in terms ofbeing part of Gods knowledge, the world can be eternal. And this

was the position of Ibn Taymiyya, who not only stated that in thebeginning ere was God and nothing else,94 but also declaredthe apostasy of Ibn Sn and his disciples for expressing views thatimplied a belief in the eternity of the world. Similarly, while onemight charge some anbal ulam, such as Ab Yal al-Farr(380/990-458/1066), of verging on corporealism,95 Ibn Taymiyya

was neither a corporealist nor an anthropomorphist. Al-Als couldnot deny that Ibn Taymiyya said that God is on the throne, but

following on the footsteps of Ibrhm al-Krn, he recalls the Islamicestablished rule that entailment of a doctrine is not a doctrine;hence, one cannot commit Ibn Taymiyya to what might be entailedfrom his belief in the throne, but had never been stated by him.96

Referring to his father Ab al-an, Numn al-Als contends,the Salaf belief is based on tanzh, tafwd, and tasdq, that is,transcendentalization, delegation to God in ambiguous matters, andtrust in the book of God; the way of the salaf(the early generationsof Muslims), therefore, is not the way of allegorical interpretation,

which may lead to tal (divestation, or stripping away, impairingdivine attributes). Sincerely, however, al-Als reveals that his fatherdid accept a certain degree of tawl, indicating the complexity and

93) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 206.94) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 208.95) For a response to Ab Yal by another anbal, see Abd al-Ramn b. al-Jawz, Daf shubah al-tashbh, ed. Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfqiyya,n. d.), 26-30, 37-40, 49-61, 79-82, andpassim.96) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 208-25.


33/49


tenacity of the Muslim debate on the divine attributes.97To concludethis section, therefore, al-Als resorts to long quotations from Ibn

Taymiyya, from earlier Muslim scholars, such as al-Shfi, Ibn anbaland al-Ashar, as well as from later scholars, such as the great Sufiand anbal scholar, Abd al-Qdir al-Jln (471/1078-561/1166),and Ibrhm al-Krn, all attest to the validity of the Salaf beliefand its belonging to the mainstream of Sunni Islam.

Al-Als adopts a similar approach to justify Ibn Taymiyyas allegedbelief in the annihilation of Hell (fan al-nr), illustrating howdifferent earlier Islamic views really were. However, only here al-Als

seems to yield to Ibn Taymiyyas opponents. Accurately summarizingthe prevalent Sunni view, al-Als writes that e inhabitants of Hellare the unbelievers. e deviating believers, those who committedgrave sins, are not to be immortalized in Hell, contrary to the Mutazilview.98 He then follows by asserting that the correct opinion isthat both Heaven and Hell are remaining, with their good and evilinhabitants, and that the variant view attributed to Ibn Taymiyya ismost likely derived from an unverifiable report.99 Yet, even if it isproven that Ibn Taymiyya was inclined to such a view, it is not amatter of unbelief, for the same understanding had been expressedby a large number of eminent Muslims.100

While Numn al-Alss work ends with a discussion of minorquestions of divorce and ritual ablution, it is the Muslim perceptionsof the Prophet that constitute the last major issue of the book. Indeed,Ibn Taymiyya on the Prophet had been constantly, and perhapsstill is, evoking the most emotional controversies, especially the issuesrelated to the infallibility of the Prophet, the Prophets intercession

97) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 228.98) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 265.99) e issue of the annihilation of Hell continued to be debated well into the earlymodern period. See, for example, a response to Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim inMuammad b. Isml al-ann (Ibn al-Amr, 1099/1688-1182/1768), Raf al-astrli-ibl adillat al-qiln bi-fan al-nr, ed. Muammad Nir al-Dn al-Albn (Beirut:al-Maktab al-Islm, 1984). In his introduction to the book (ibid.5-23), al-Albn, a wellknown proponent of Ibn Taymiyya, discusses the whole issue of annihilation of Hell,and produces new evidence to the effect that Ibn Taymiyyas real position is that of theimmortality of Hell.100) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 266.


34/49


on behalf of the believers, and visitation of the Prophets tomb. Infact, all three issues were recalled in al-Haytams indictment of Ibn

Taymiyya. Although infallibility of the Prophets of God had beena subject of detailed debate by Muslim scholars, al-Als explains,all Muslims agree that the Prophets are infallible in terms of theirconveyance of the message of God. e question is whether theyare infallible in terms of other aspects of life, whether this kind ofinfallibility is derived from textual evidence or arrived at rationally,

whether it concerns small or grave errors, and whether it meansimmunity from approving an error or committing it.

By arraying various opinions of a number of past Muslim theo-logians of different schools, al-Als underlines the specificity ofthe debates nature. His aim is not only to show the generality ofal-Haytams accusation that Ibn Taymiyya denied the infallibility ofthe Prophets, and that it is hence essentially inadmissible, but alsoto restrict the space assigned to matters of belief. It is in the core ofSunni faith, as articulated by al-Ghazl, al-Isfaryn (d. 418/1027), al-

mid (d. 631/1233), al-Taftazn, and many other grand theologians,al-Als confirms, that scholarly disputes about infallibility of theProphets are never a cause of judgmental pronouncements.101

e question of intercession receives a more elaborate discussion.Here, however, defending Ibn Taymiyya is not a straightforwardmission. Ibn Taymiyya did opine against the invocation of Propheticpower in Muslims supplications to God (tawassul). But while IbnTaymiyya, like almost all Salaf-oriented scholars, relies heavily onadthin constructing his vision of Islam, evidence of tawassulby theProphet are mainly derived from the corpus of adth. In tackling

this highly sensitive issue, al-Als outlines the views of those whopermitted such supplication and those who prohibited it. But hisdefinite quote comes from al-Iqd al-thamn of his fathers Salafteacher, shaykhAl al-Suwayd. Like Ibn Taymiyya, al-Suwayds logicis rested on the belief that matters of rituals are based on following,not inventiveness,102that is, the legitimacy of Muslim ways and rites

101) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 266-9.102) Al al-Suwayd, al-Iqd al-thamn f bayn masil al-dn (Cairo: al-Mabaaal-Maymaniyya, 1325 AH), 182f. and 212.


35/49


of worship is the function of precedents ordained by the Prophet,not of ijtihd, even if that ijtihd is motivated by good intention.

Al-Suwayd refers to many Qurnic verses which emphasize thatonly God has the power to answer Muslim prayers, that invocationof any power but the power of God is a form of association ( shirk),and raises serious questions about the soundness of many adthsthat suggest otherwise. e only right of intercession that God con-ferred on His Prophet is the intercession to save Muslims in thelater day.103He reinforces his position by referring to Ibn TaymiyyasIqtid al-sr al-mustaqm, in which he reminds Muslims that the

death of the Prophet is an undeniable fact, and that they shouldnever confuse the Prophets exalted place in the divine scheme ofthe world with his capacity to intervene for the living, when in hisown life he could not do so. 104

Al-Als, however, was certainly aware that issues related to theProphet touch the life of a wide range of Muslims. He, therefore, endsthis part of the discussion with a conciliatory note. In praise of themiddle way between the permission and prohibition of tawassul, hebrings into the field his fathers exegesis of S. 5: 35 [Ye who believe!Fear God and seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive onHis Way, that ye may prosper],105 in which Ab al-an al-Alsstates, Resorting to a human, as a means of approaching God, byasking him to make prayer [on your behalf ], is no doubt permissible,if that person is alive.106Ab al-an, however, rejects the seekingof a dead person, however saintly he is regarded to be.

In reality, Ab al-ans position is not in contradiction withthat of Ibn Taymiyya, who also differentiated between invocation

of the power of a certain individual, on one hand, and askingsuch an individual for a prayer, on the other hand, as the latter

103) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 275-88; al-Suwayd, al-Iqd al-thamn, 78-118.104) Amad b. Taymiyya, Iqtid al-sr al-mustaqm li-mukhlaft asb al-jam, ed.Muammad H. al-Fq (Cairo: Mabaat al-Sunna al-Muammadiyya, 1369 AH), vol. 1,414f. See also Idem,Majm fatwa Shaykh al-Islm Amad ibn Taymiyya, ed. Abd al-Ramnb. Muammad b. al-Qsim and Muammad b. Abd al-Ramn (al-Riy: Maktabat IbnTaymiyya, n. d.), vol. 1, 105ff., 140f., 313f., 319, and 326.105)My translation.106) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 308.


36/49


act was approved, and even practiced, by the Prophet. But notto be misunderstood, al-Als launches a fierce attack on Dawd

b. Jirjis, the anti-Salaf, and particularly anti-Wahhb, Iraqi Sufilim. In a polemical treatise, ul al-Ikhwn, Ibn Jirjis wrote thatMuslims could, in their supplication, invoke not only the power ofsaints, but also of animals and physical objects. e mere mentionof this position, of course, serves the overall purpose of al-Als inhighlighting the extreme irrationality to which some anti-Salafscould descend. Hence, while describing Ibn Jirjiss views as merehallucination, al-Als takes no trouble to refute him.107A few years

later, of course, Mamd Shukr al-Als would publish a fierceresponse to Ibn Jirjis.e last question related to the Prophet is that of visitation

(ziyra). A great deal of the Muslim debate about ziyra revolvesaround the Prophetic adthDont embark on traveling but to myMosque [of the Madna], al-aram Mosque [of Makka], and al-AqMosque [of Jerusalem].108e difference between Ibn Taymiyya andhis opponents on the question of ziyra is thin, but crucial. IbnTaymiyya understood the adth as precluding Muslim visitation,as an act of ritual, to any mosque except those specified by theProphet, and to any tomb, including that of the Prophet. Ritualvisitation, according to Ibn Taymiyya, is a form of pilgrimage thatis defined by the Legislator and not left to human speculation. e

wider implications of Ibn Taymiyyas view for Sufi and popularreligious culture, in which tomb visitation was rampant, were fullyclear. Not surprisingly, whether in his life or after his passing, IbnTaymiyyas proposition engendered strong replies from Sufi and non-

Sufi Muslim quarters.109 Ibn Taymiyya, however, did not advocatea blanket ban on visitation to the Prophets tomb, as stated in hisdetractors accusations, including that of al-Haytam. And here is

where al-Als pins his defense.It was Ibn Abd al-Hd (704/1304-744/1343), the anbal

scholar and disciple of Ibn Taymiyya, who wrote the most detailed

107) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 314f.108) Al-Als,Jal al-aynayn, 315.109) For the earliest response to Ibn Taymiyya on visitation, see of Taq al-Dn al-Subk,Shif al-saqm f ziyrat khayr al-anm(Cairo: Dr Jawmi al-Kalim, 1984?).

8/10/2019 Salafism Revived: Numn al-Als and the Trial

Salafism Revived: Nuʿmān al-Alūsī and the Trial of Two Aḥmads

Documents

Transcript of Salafism Revived: Nuʿmān al-Alūsī and the Trial of Two Aḥmads