In the period of the Saḥāba (Companions), Tābiʿīn (Successors), and Atbāʿ al-Tābiʿīn (Followers of the Successors), those who had the capacity to do ijtihād on religious issues would act according to their ijtihād without being tied to any a particular person or school. Those who did not have the capacity to perform ijtihād could obtain a fatwā from any muftī whom they consulted, without any school-sectarian affiliation. However, with the emergence of the schools of jurisprudence (madhhab) in II-IV centuries AH, (...) the issues of ijtihād, taqlīd and madhhab have been discussed and different opinions have emerged on the subject. Some scholars argue that those who do not have the capacity to do ijtihād should do taqlīd, while others argue that every legal person (mukallaf) should do ijtihād in their religious affairs according to their own capabilities and act according to the conclusions reached. While those who argue that taqlīd is necessary for a Muslim who does not have the proficiency in ijtihad claim that a Muslim should adhere to a madhhab in his religious-practical life, another group argues -based on the legal maxim “Ammī does not have a madhhab. His sect is that of the mufti he consults”- that a Muslim may act upon the consultation of the scholar he wants to follow. In this study, the issue related to the situation of the Muslim who does not have competence to do ijtihād has been examined. In this context, the nature of taqlīd is emphasized and scholars’ opinions regarding opinions about the taqlīd of the layperson (ʿāmmī) are addressed. (shrink)

The primary and secondary sources of Islamic law often assume a binary distinction between ijtihād and taqlīd, ignoring a third level of engagement with the sources, which was conceptualized by some jurists as forming a distinct category. In this article I discuss the evolution of the terms ijtihād, taqlīd, and ittibāʿ, using a conceptual-historical approach. I argue that the use of taqlīd to mean “precedent-following” did not emerge as a technical term until after the time of al-Shāfiʿī. (...) The distinction between precedent-following and verifiable-following did not appear in legal discourse until the time of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. I also demonstrate that there were three approaches to these terms in legal discourse after the time of Ibn Ḥanbal, with three groups of jurists defining them in ways that advanced their different visions of law-making. I conclude with a discussion of the debate over the meanings of these terms in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (shrink)

No quadro genérico da proposta "Tempo e Temporalidades", aqui num horizonte islâmico, parte-se de um ponto de vista assumidamente fragmentário e regional, intentando alcançar uma posição de observação no interior da concepção do tempo histórico e da memória. Observa-se, assim, a obra e a vida de Ibn Ṣāḥib al-Salāt, proveniente de uma família de notáveis de Beja, procurando seguir os acidentes na formulação de uma memória regional no contexto de uma construção política de modelo imperial como a almôada. No limiar (...) entre as práticas heurísticas e hermenêuticas, regista-se uma rejeição de facto do taqlīd e uma opção pelas memórias pessoais e pelas fontes primárias, consentâneas com o registo de uma história contemporânea que passa ao lado de uma concepção universal islâmica da história. (shrink)

Islamic legal historiography has dealt extensively with questions of continuity and change, as epitomized by the relationship between ijtihād and taqlīd. This paper offers a new conceptualization of the ijtihād–taqlīd modes of law-making in the Sunni legal tradition. I argue that the institutional transformation from ijtihād to taqlīd required that jurists transform the views of the founding authorities of the schools over the course of the eleventh through thirteenth centuries. They achieved this by stratifying legal knowledge in (...) their typologies of muftis and judges in ways that had not been envisioned earlier, justifying their typologies by invoking tropes of decline and the extinction of mujtahids. This longue-durée view will shed light on the institutional significance of the taqlīdification of Islamic law, where legal security and stability were privileged over judicial discretion. (shrink)

Debates about preserving, modifying and applying sharia through principles of taqlid or ijtihad are immensely useful in thinking through a sharper definition of tradition for political theorists and historians of political thought more generally. Political theorists and historians of political thought have tended to use tradition in a range of ways without specifying key elements of the concept. Building on debates in Islamic thought related to taqlid and its relationship to ijtihad, and through a focus on the ideas of a (...) contemporary thinker, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, this paper proposes that tradition in political thought can be defined as a framework for knowledge production and consumption constituted of two key elements: method and sensibility. Further, the paper suggests that this definition allows us a better understanding of vibrancy in a tradition: vehement debate, contradictions and internal contestation are not signs of decay but of vitality within a tradition. It is the severe delinking of the two elements of a tradition, method and sensibility, which has greater potential to reduce its vibrancy. (shrink)

How do we judge whether we should be willing to follow the views of experts or whether we ought to try to come to our own, independent views? This book seeks the answer in medieval philosophical thought. In this engaging study into the history of philosophy and epistemology, Peter Adamson provides an answer to a question as relevant today as it was in the medieval period: how and when should we turn to the authoritative expertise of other people in forming (...) our own beliefs? He challenges us to reconsider our approach to this question through a constructive recovery of the intellectual and cultural traditions of the Islamic world, the Byzantine Empire, and Latin Christendom. Adamson begins by foregrounding the distinction in Islamic philosophy between taqlid, or the uncritical acceptance of authority, and ijtihad, or judgment based on independent effort, the latter of which was particularly prized in Islamic law, theology, and philosophy during the medieval period. He then demonstrates how the Islamic tradition paves the way for the development of what he calls a "justified taqlid," according to which one develops the skills necessary to critically and selectively follow an authority based on their reliability. The book proceeds to reconfigure our understanding of the relation between authority and independent thought in the medieval world by illuminating how women found spaces to assert their own intellectual authority, how medieval writers evaluated the authoritative status of Plato and Aristotle, and how independent reasoning was deployed to defend one Abrahamic faith against the other. This clear and eloquently written book will interest scholars in and enthusiasts of medieval philosophy, Islamic studies, Byzantine studies, and the history of thought"-- Back cover. (shrink)

In this article, I examine al-Ghazālī’s methodological skepticism and its role in establishing foundational knowledge.Despite the considerable scholarly attention given to The Deliverance from Error (al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl), the foundationalism present in it has received relatively limited investigation. Al-Ghazālī established the foundations of knowledge by taking his methodological skepticism to its logical conclusions. His engagement with the sources of knowledge, namely, taqlīd, sense perception, and self-evident truths form the cornerstone of his skepticism. To understand how al-Ghazālī finds deliverance from his (...) skeptical impasse, and ultimately establish foundational knowledge, the concepts of “divine light” and fiṭra will be dis­cussed. Unlike Greek skepticism, al-Ghazālī’s skepticism was not a denial of the possibility of knowledge about the nature of reality, nor was it a denial of Muslim doctrine, but a methodological approach to establish the foundations of knowledge. (shrink)

In this article, we discuss the current trend of authoritarianism in the Islamic world, especially as embodied in the institution of taqlîd, whereby a lay person blindly follows a religious scholar. We will compare this to the mystical tradition of Ibn ‘Arabî as well as the early esoteric Shî’ite tradition, where a much more “rebellious” type of Islam was offered and provided purviews of pluralism and universalism that challenge authoritarian closures of interpretation in relationship with God. By way of further (...) comparison, we will also attend to the writings of some liberal and pluralistic thinkers in the Muslim world. Maintaining cheerfulness in the midst of a gloomy task, fraught with immeasurable responsibility, is no small feat; and yet what is needed more than cheerfulness?-Nietzsche Twilight of the Idols. (shrink)

This article on Islamic philosophical theology discusses the following topics: peripateticism, mysticism, illuminationism, ethics, politics, the soul, logic, the double-truth issue, Qur'anic logic, and the significance of following tradition or taqlid. One way in which different theorists in Islam are often characterized is in terms of their being either rationalists or traditionalists or something else, but in fact it goes with the commitment to theory which one uses reason to try to make clear how one is resolving problems and why (...) that way of doing it is the right way. Islamic philosophical theology has always in the past been a lively arena for rational discussion and controversy, and there is every sign that it will continue to have the same sort of character in the future. (shrink)

In this study, Qāḍī Abd al-Jābbār’s views on knowing Allah (ma‘rifatullah) and following issues have been analysed. In this context, either the divine message has reached to a person or not, it is examined whether ma‘rifatullah is obligatory (wajib) upon him. Subsequently, it is discussed whether this obligation is ensured by reasoning (‘aql) or revelation (naql). Furthermore, while keeping in mind the role of intellect (nazar) and argumentation (istidlāl), we have established and evaluated religious state and source of nazar and (...) istidlāl. Also, we discussed to what extend God can be the subject of knowledge and from which aspects He can be known. Besides, we discussed whether ma‘rifatullah is an obligation and if not what its justification is. In addition, we examined whether imitative knowledge (taqlīd) is possible in the case of ma‘rifatullah or not and whether it’s sufficient to know God just by taqlīd without the reasoning at all. Finally, Qāḍī Abd al-Jābbār’s opinions on the religious situation of people to whom the divine revelation did not reach at all and so they lack of knowledge on God. (shrink)

The early period Ismaili jurist Al-Qādî al-Nu'mān appears as an important figure in the formation of Ismaili jurisprudence. There is very little information about Kadı Nu'mân's family, childhood, education and intellectual environment. His full name is Abû Hanîfah Nu'man b. Muhammad b. Mansûr al-Qādî at-Tamîmî Al Qayrawānî. He was born around 290/903 (late 3rd (9th) century) into an educated family in Qayravan in North Africa. There are different opinions about the sect he belonged to when he was growing up. On (...) the other hand, it is difficult to say for certain whether Nu’mān received education in the Ismaili sect due to the understanding of taqiyya in the madhhab. However, it is understood from the basic jurisprudence texts Nu’mān wrote that he most likely did not receive a Sunni education. Historians refer to him as 'Qadi Nu’mān or Abu Hanifah al-Shi'i' in order not to confuse him with the imam of the Hanafi school. Qādî Nu’mān served at different levels of the Fatimid State. Around 313/925, he entered the service of the first Fatimid caliph, Mahdi (r. 909-934 CE/297-322 AH), as a copyist and secretary. During the reigns of the third caliph Mansur and the fourth Fatimid caliph Mu’izz (d. 365/975), Qādî Nu’mān first served as a judge in Tripoli and then in Mansouriya, the Fatimid capital. After the Fatimids conquered Egypt and the center of government was moved to Cairo, Qādî Nu’mān was appointed by the fourth caliph Mu’izz as the head of the appellate courts (maẓālim). Qadi Numans career was at the peak in the period of Caliph Muiz. Qādî Nu’mān worked as a judge in the Fatimid State for about twenty-six years and continued this duty until his death in 363 (973). After the fall of the Fatimid caliphate, there haven’t been any other Fatimid or Ismaili jurists. Qādî Nu’mān is considered by contemporary Ismaili writers as a figure who systematically transformed Ismaili fiqh into an independent sect of fiqh. It can be said that Ismaili fiqh was developed through his works in the Fatimid period. His works continued as the main references in the fiqh studies and after the Fatimid period. With the death of Qādî Nu’mān, the period of ijtihad in Ismaili fiqh and its the establishment phase of Ismaili fiqh came to an end; The sect, in which esoteric interpretations were at the forefront, emerged as a distinctive school of fiqh by discarding ambiguity. Qādî Nu’mān was a very productive writer. He wrote important works related to the field of furu al-fiqh and usûl al-fiqh. Among his works, Ikhtilāf uṣūl al-madhāhib is undoubtedly one of the most important works in the early history of fiqh methodology. The work in question, which was originally written with the aim of rejecting the Sunni fiqh method, discusses the approaches of the Sunni schools of fiqh on ikhtilāf, taqlid, ijma, nazar, qiyas, istihsan, ijtihad and ra’y in a polemical manner. It reveals the differences of the Ismaili method from the Sunni method in terms of the sources on which the fiqh is based, the authority to make ijtihad and the theory of interpretation of the texts. Qādî Nu’mān examined the relationship between reason and revelation in general and the role of religious authority in comprehending and interpreting the texts while criticizing Sunni methods. Ikhtilāf uṣūl al-madhāhib has the characteristics of the works of development period as a form. It is possible to observe the question-answer and dialectic form which can be seen in the works of the development period throughout the work in question. Qādî Nu’mān endeavoured to persuade his opponents with a dialectical and argumentative style. Again, he replied to the Sunnis, who were his interlocutors, with their own proofs. In addition to these, Ikhtilāf uṣūl al-madhāhib has a unique feature in the matter of content. Because it is not very familiar to any Sunni handbook of usûl al-fiqh. It does not mention the hâss, âmm, ijma, qiyas, amir, nahy, alfaz bets, etc. The text is very similar to the Ahbari movement of the Jafari sect for it rejects all forms of ijtihad. It was written at a time when fiqh was not yet stable. Ikhtilāf uṣūl al-madhāhib gives us crucial information about the development of different usûl and fiqh sources in the middle of the fourth century. However, what is interesting here is that the information he gives about Ismaili method and fiqh is very little compared to the one about Sunni method and fiqh. Much of it centered on Sunni thought and its rejection. However, his ultimate goal was to defend the Ismaili doctrine. (shrink)

Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is one of the important representatives of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Al-Ta‘līḳa is his famous work, which is one of the first commentaries of al-Muzanī’s Mukḫtaṣar. One of the important features of this work is the introduction to some of the subjects of ijtihād (process of juristic legal reasoning), taqlīd (acting upon the word of another without asking for specific proof), ijmā‘ (consensus of jurists) and view’s of the companions of the Prophet. The first systematic, complete and detailed (...) works of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) that belonged to the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School have reached to the present day belong to the second half of the V./XI. century. Making research on the studies which were done about uṣūl al-fiqh and formed the basis of this period is essential to follow the development of uṣūl al-fiqh of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Transfer of the uṣūl al-fiqh in al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s al-Ta‘līḳa make it possible to determine the literatüre, which was formed in Khurāsān region in the period from the death of Shāfi‘ī to the first half of the V./XI. century until the first half of the Khurāsān region, which allows the determination of the uṣūl al-fiqh. In this study, on the basis of ijmā‘, al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s method in al-Ta‘līḳa will be examined.Summary: Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is considered to be one of the most important representatives of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. In addition to receiving fiqh education from al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, who is accepted as the founder of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School in Shāfiʿī fiqh circles. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, one of the most distinguished students of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, has become one of the important bearers of the fiqh heritage of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. The fact that the epithet “el-kāḍî” is used in the works of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School to absolutely refer to al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, is another issue that shows his being authority on fiqh. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī has accomplished many works in the field of fiqh. The most famous and most important work of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn is the al-Ta‘lîḳa, written according to the Mukḫtaṣar arrangement style of al-Muzanī. He is often cited as the author of the well-known work al-Ta‘lîḳa in the sect. Al-Ta‘lîḳa, commonly cited in fiqh studies to refer to the views of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, is one of the first commentary on Mukḫtaṣar by Muzanī. With these characteristics, al-Ta‘lîḳa is one of the outstanding manuscripts for exploring the fiqh legacy of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Another important feature of this text is that uṣūl al-fiqh issues such as ijtihād, taqlīd, ijmā‘ and view’s of the companions of the Prophet (qawl al-ṣaḥābah) have been covered in the introduction of the work. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn discusses the issues of evidentiality and types of ijmā‘ and ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah in the chapter on ijmā‘ in al-Ta‘lîḳa. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also handles the debates on view’s of the companions of the Prophet in the section on ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah. It is also seen that the proofs proposed for evidentiality of ijmā since Shāfiʿī’s period became more versatile and differed. The fact that the arguments al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites in the chapter of the evidences of ijmā‘ were also mentioned by his contemporary, al-Māwardī, an Iraqi Shāfiʿī jurist, points out the accumulation of knowledge in terms of proofs of ijmā. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes two related distinctions that are fundamentally related to the types of ijmā. The first is the division between ijmā supporters, those who argue for knowability of ijmā, and their opponents. According to this, ijmā is divided into two parts as ‘āmm (general public) ijmā‘ and khāṣṣ (scholars) ijmā‘. Opposition to ‘āmm ijmā‘, such as fardhs (obligations) in prayer, rawātib sunnah (the practice that the Prophet regularly performed) and feast prayer requires kufr (blasphemy). Al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, who considers issues such as ‘awl (a sharing method in Islamic inheritance law), mut‘a marriage (a type of temporary marriage) and riba’l-faḍl (interest in exchange or sale transactions) which are seen as controversial ijmā‘ issues in literature, as khāṣṣ ijmā‘ and evaluates opposition to this type of ijmā‘ as fisq (impiety). The second division al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes is between ijmā‘ based on the text and apparent comparison, and the ijmā‘ based on hidden comparison. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn thinks that the opposition to ijmā‘ that is based on ijtihād or the text in terms of sanad (chain of narrators), requires blasphemy. In a sense, this is to accept ijmā‘ as a provision on an equal basis and to reduce the distinctions of ijmā‘ to literary level. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also discusses evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah in connection with the issues of ijmā‘. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn opposes the thesis that ijmā‘ is only limited to companions’ era and argues that it can be realized in any century after the Prophet. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who discusses ṣaḥābah’s ijmā‘ under two categories: the views of ṣaḥābah that have gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs and those that have not gained prevalence among other companions, argues for evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which have gained prevalence and known not to be opposed. He provides significant information on ijmā‘ discussion in Shāfi‘ī fiqh methods with regard to the evidentiality of this type of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which is referred ijmā‘ al-suqūtī (consensus based on lack of opposition-silence). The knowledge al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites with regard to the evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah which have not gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs differs from Māwardī, one of his contemporary, and his predecessors. The fact that he cites Shāfi‘ī’s previous and latest views with regard to the state of such qawl al-ṣaḥābah in the face of qiyās (legal analogy) enables him to make comparison using uṣūl material available in his era. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who mentions debatable issues among ṣaḥābah, makes controversial narrations. While al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn reports that there is not any conflict on the argument that it is legitimate to express a third view with regard to issues on which ṣaḥābah is divided in two groups and fall into conflict, his contemporary al-Māwardī and other Shāfi‘ī jurists report that it is not legitimate to propose a third view on such an issue as there is ijmā‘ on these issues. (shrink)

A través de la documentación conservada y de una reflexión sobre la cronología, es posible descubrir la existencia de un proyecto político de al-Ghazālī y su discípulo andalusí, Abū Bakr Ibn al-‛Arabī, con el propósito de ganar para al-Gazālī el favor del príncipe almorávide Yūsuf b. Tāšufīn. Los documentos que prueban la existencia de este proyecto se conocían desde hace algún tiempo: la fatwà que al-Gazālī escribió en apoyo de Yūsuf, la carta que le escribió en alabanza de Abū Bakr (...) Ibn al-‛Arabī y la carta que obtuvo del califa, todo lo cual puede compararse con la carta de al-Ṭurṭūšī a Yūsuf sobre los mismos asuntos. La idea que pone todo esto en conexión es que se trataba de un proyecto político con apoyo en la Península, sobre todo de los sufíes y de la elite de los reyes de Taifas. Los escritos de al-Gazālī suministraron una base ideológica a esta alianza política, puesto que alaban el sufismo y critican el taqlīd, la forma usual de interpretar la ley entre los juristas de la jerarquía almorávide. El discurso de al-Gazālī, muy por encima del nivel intelectual del jurista medio, se aceptó finalmente por la elite de los periodos califal y taifa que tenía interés en las ciencias naturales, la filosofía griega y la lógica. Estos temas eran innacesibles para el jurista medio, bien porque no procuraban un provecho inmediato, bien por la dificultad práctica de encontrar libros y profesores expertos en ellos. Por tanto, fue una elite intelectual conocedora del árabe clásico y heredera de las adquisiciones intelectuales de muchas generaciones de andalusíes la que se apropió del discurso gazaliano. Frente a ese grupo, los juristas almorávides representaban a las clases medias urbanas y podían movilizar a su favor a las masas urbanas. El más importante de esos juristas, Ibn Ḥamdīn de Córdoba, temeroso de que la combinación de Ibn al-‛Arabī y al-Gazālī le expulsara del poder, orquestó la quema oficial del Iḥyā' de al-Gazālī por todo el país. Así es posible observar que el conflicto entre esos dos grupos estaba bien definido incluso antes de que la rebelión almohade en el Norte de África proporcionase a la elite intelectual un adalid militar. A cambio, esa elite suministró a los Almohades una ideología y una clase administrativa. Al-Gazālī fue identificado como un enemigo del régimen almorávide incluso antes de que Ibn Tūmart, el fundador del movimiento almohade, volviese de Oriente para lanzar su rebelión contra los almorávides desde el Atlas.Proponemos algunos cambios en el panorama de las estancias de al-Gazālī en diferentes momentos. Se ha aceptado ya una modificación básica de la idea de que abandonó Bagdad definitivamente tras dejar de dar clases a gran número de personas en la Nizāmīya, al observarse que Abū Bakr Ibn al-‛Arabī afirma haber estudiado con él en Bagdad dos años después. Aquí querríamos llamar la atención sobre el hecho de que Ibn Jallikān dice que al-Gazālī estuvo en Alejandría esperando una respuesta de Yusuf b. Tāšufīn. En el contexto de un panorama cambiante de la cronología de los viajes de al-Gazālī, la posibilidad de que Ibn Tūmart estuviera en contacto con él se convierte en una probabilidad. (shrink)

Some contemporary readings of Averroes put special emphasis on the philosophical and critical character of the work of the Muslim theologian and mystic al-Ġazālī, who is also known as the “Proof of Islam”. They even regard him as some pioneer of Enlightenment thought. This paper therefore investigates the thesis of Averroes as a critical philosopher. It sets forth that one can indeed find some essential elements of critical thought in al-Ġazālī’s writings: for example Ġazālī’s critique of reason and especially his (...) rejection of, which means the nonreflective imitation of a teacher, authority or tradition, especially in matters pertaining to religion. Nevertheless, comparing him to both, Kant and Descartes, we will try to show that his thought falls short of critical thinking and even of philosophy itself. To this end we will proceed as follows: First, we analyze his critique of taqlīd. Secondly, we investigate his critique of Aristotelian Arabic philosophy as a variety of taqlīd. Thirdly, we consider his skeptical suspension of reason in favor of immediate prophetic perception. Fourthly, we look upon the relationship between the super-rational perception and reason. Fifthly, we show that Ġazālī dismisses the idea of autonomous reason. (shrink)

In this paper I challenge the notion that medieval philosophy was characterized by strict adherence to authority. In particular, I argue that to the contrary, self-consciously critical reflection on authority was a widespread intellectual virtue in the Islamic world. The contrary vice, called ‘taqlīd’, was considered appropriate only for those outside the scholarly elite. I further suggest that this idea was originally developed in the context of Islamic law and was then passed on to authors who worked within the philosophical (...) tradition. (shrink)