Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In 1298/1881, the Iraqi scholar Numn al-Als published his Jal al-aynayn
f mukamat al-Amadayn, one of the most astute tracts to be written in defense
of the fourteenth-century anbal scholar, Ibn Taymiyya. is article attempts
to read into the signicance of Jal al-aynayn by studying the life and educational
environment of its author, the subject matter of the book, the format in which
it appeared, and the circumstances of its publishing. ere is little doubt that
Jal al-aynayn is a founding text in the emergence of modern Salayya in major
Arab urban centers. Considering the contribution of the Wahhb movement to
the revival of Salaf Islam, one of the aims of this article is to look into the variant
expressions of modern Salayya. An important aspect of the impact of Numn
al-Alss work is related to the way he treated his subject matter, reconstituting
the legacy of Ibn Taymiyya in the Muslims imagination of their traditions. e
other, was the publishing of Jal al-aynayn in print. In the following decades,
the ecology of Islamic culture would be transformed at a dramatic pace. But two
things would not lose their value for the Salaf circles of modern Islam, the
referential position of Ibn Taymiyya and the power of the printing-press.
Keywords
Numn al-Als, the al-Alss of Baghdad, Salayya, Salasm, neo-Salayya,
Salaf Islam, Salafs of Damascus, Salafs of Cairo, the Wahhb movement, Wahhbism, Islamic Reform, Islamic Reformism, Islamic Reformist thought, Islamic
theology, kalm, Amad Ibn Taymiyya, Jal al-aynayn f mukamat al-Amadayn,
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Muammad Rashd Ri, Ottoman intellectual
history, print media
* Authors note: I am deeply grateful to John O. Voll and Stefan Reichmuth for reading
and commenting on an earlier version of this article.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009
DOI: 10.1163/157006008X424959
50
Muammad Rashd Ri (1865-1935), disciple of Muammad Abduh (1849-1905) and one of the most prominent gures of the modern
Islamic reform movement, wrote that his rst positive impression of
the fourteenth-century Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyya was formed
by Numn al-Alss Jal al-aynayn f mukamat al-Amadayn
(lit. Clearance of the Eyes in Trying the Two Amads).1 One of the
most astute tracts to be written in defense of the fourteenth-century
anbal scholar, Jal al-aynayn was published at Cairo in 1298
AH/1881,2 sixteen years before Ris arrival in Egypt. Ris account
of the inuence that Jal al-aynayn exercised on him is signicant
in more than one way. First, despite their increasing number and
rising condence, the nineteenth century was still a dicult time for
those Muslim ulam identifying with Ibn Taymiyya, especially in the
Ottoman realm and North Africa. Most of the reformist ulam were
attracted, in one form or another, to the Salaf school of thought,
epitomized by Ibn Taymiyya and elaborated in his writings. But the
revival of Ibn Taymiyyas legacy evoked the attending controversies
that overshadowed his vocation, reected in acute disagreements
between him and a number of leading ulam and Su shaykhs of
his time. Ri himself conrms that his earlier knowledge of Ibn
Taymiyya came from works of his opponents.3
Second, references to Ibn Taymiyya and the Salaf school of thought
featured very prominently in the discourse of the Najd reformist
Muammad b. Abd al-Wahhb (1703-92) and his successors. As the
Saudi-Wahhb movement began to expand outside of its birthplace,
confronting the Ottoman authorities in the Arabian Peninsula, Syria
and Iraq, the Wahhb movement was widely vilied by Ottoman
statesmen and ulam. Although almost none of the Salaf-reformists
of the Arab-Islamic major urban centers could entirely accept Wahhb
ideas and practices, identication with Ibn Taymiyya would frequently
feed 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 University
Press, 1962), 226.
51
4)
Basheer M. Na, Abu al-ana al-Alusi: An Alim, Ottoman Mufti and Exegete of
the Quran, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 34 (2002): 470; Butrus AbuManneh, Salayya and the Rise of the Khlidiyya in Baghdad in the Early Nineteenth
Century, 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), 101.
6)
Muammad al-hir b. Ashr, A-laysa al-ub bi-qarb (Tunis: al-Dr al-Tnisiyya
li-l-Nashr, 1967), 249; Arnold H. Green, e Tunisian Ulama: 1873-1915 (Leiden: Brill,
1978), 183.; Basheer M. Na, Tahir ibn Ashur: e Career and ought of a Modern
Reformist Alim, with Special Reference to His Work of Tafsir, Journal of Quranic Studies,
7, 1 (2005): 9.
52
53
For biographies of several generations of the Alss, see Muammad Bahjat al-Athar,
Alm al-Irq (Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Salayya, 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)
Na, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 479.
13)
Muaf Nr al-Dn al-Wi, al-Raw al-azhar f tarjim al-Sayyid Jafr (Mosul: Mabaat
al-Ittid, 1948), 85-89; Al Al al-Dn al-Als, al-Durr al-muntathir f rijl al-qarn
al-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).
54
(d. 1163/ 1750) were anaf ulam with expressed Salaf views.14
During the early period of his life, Numn showed no indications
to doubt his commitment to the traditional Ottoman ulam institution, main attributes of which were adherence to the anaf madhhab
and Su inclinations. ere is no doubt that he was aware of the
later development of Ab al-ans Salaf position, but he was
also conscious of the fathers fall from grace and subsequent loss
of the muftship. As the son of a leading ulam family, struggling
to recover after the demise and passing of its grand gure, Numn
opted for the safety of an ocial career, and was thus to accept a
judgeship in several Iraqi towns. A treatise he wrote earlier in his
life, al-Iba f man al-nis min al-kitba (lit. e Correctness in
Preventing Women from Writing),15 reects a highly conservative
mode 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 rivalry with the Jlns, descendants of the great anbal and Su
scholar Abd al-Qdir al-Jln (470/1077-561/1166), and guardians
of the social and educational complex of his shrine/mosque and
its awqf.16 It also seems that Najb Pashas strong ties with the
Jlns contributed to his decision to remove Ab al-an from
the muftship of Baghdad. In 1879, Ab al-Hud al-ayyd
(1850-1909), a Syrian Su of the Rifiyya arqa became a private
teacher and condant of Sultan Abd al-amd II, marking the
start of a very inuential career in the Ottoman capital.17 From
the time of his arrival in Istanbul, al-ayyd worked assiduously
14)
Basheer M. Na, A Teacher of Ibn Abd al-Wahhb: Muammad ayt al-Sind and
the 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-liba, 1951-55), vol. 7: 16, 83, vol. 8: 85-96; al-Azzw, Dhikr Ab al-an, 27; Al
al-Ward, Lamat ijtimiyya min trkh al-Irq al-adth (Baghdad: Mabaat al-Irshd,
1971), vol. 2: 146; Na, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 481.
17)
On al-ayyd, see Butrus Abu-Manneh, Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda
al-Sayyadi, Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979): 131-53. For a revisionist view, see omas
Eich, e Forgotten SalafAb l-Hud a-ayyd, Die Welt des Islams, 43, 1 (2003):
61-87.
55
For the Rifiyya activities in Baghdad, see Louis Massignon, Les saints Musulmans
enterrs 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, Mamd
Shukr al-Als wa-ruh al-lughawiyya (Cairo: Mahad al-Dirst al-Arabiyya, 1958),
47-124.
20)
Eich, e Forgotten Sala, 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, 76.
22)
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 79-82.
56
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 83. On Ibn Jirjis, see David Commins, e Wahhabi Mission
and Saudi Arabia (London: Tauris, 2006), 58-61; Itzchak Weismann, e NaqshbandiyyaKhalidiyya and the Sala Challenge in Iraq, Journal of the History of Susm, 4 (2003):
229-40.
24)
On Abd al-Laf b. Abd al-Ramn, see Abd al-Ramn l al-Shaykh, Mashhr
ulam najd wa-ghayruhum (Riy: Dr al-Yamma, n. d.), 93-121. At least two more
Wahhb responses to Ibn Jirjis were to follow, including one by Abdallh b. Abd al-Ramn
Ab 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, Susm and Modern
Islam: Mawlana Khalid and the Naqshbandiyya Order, (1976), repr. In Albert Hourani,
e Emergence of the Modern Middle East (London: Macmillan, 1981), 75-89; Itzchak
Weismann, e Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Su Tradition
(London: Routledge, 2007), 85.
57
Al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 60. Cf. al-Als, al-Misk al-adhfar, 51; Taymr, Alm al-kr,
308. While al-Athar states that Numn went to Cairo, then to Makka, al-Als and
Taymr indicate that the ajj came rst.
27)
On him, see Saeedullah, e Life and Works of Muhammad Siddiq Hasan Khan, Nawwab
of Bhopal (Lahore: Ashraf, 1973); Barbara Daly Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India:
Deoband, 1860-1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 269.
28)
Al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 61. If we take the EgyptHijaz journey as the beginning of
Numns embrace of the Salaf outlook, we should not lay great emphasis on Eichs remark
(e Forgotten Sala, 74) that the break between the Alss and the amdian regime
occurred in the mid-1890s, when the Sultan changed his policy to integrating the Jlns.
By writing Jal al-aynayn, Numn was denitely aware that the book would not endear
him to the Su-oriented men of the amdian regime, for the regime had already embarked
on a policy of propagating the anaf madhhab and taawwuf as a kind of its ideology.
Selim Deringil, e Well-Protected Domains (London: Tauris, 1999), 44-92.
29)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 360.
58
See, for example, an analysis of the conversion of Ab mid al-Ghazl (1058/4501111/505) as described in his al-Munqidh min al-all, ed. Samih Dughaym (Beirut: Dr
al-Fikr al-Lubnn, 1993), in W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and eology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962), 114-22.
31)
Madawi al-Rashid, A History of Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002), 23.
32)
Al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 73.
33)
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 59; al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 61 and 74.
59
Al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 131-46. Eich (e Forgotten Sala, 74, note 56.)
describes Nmq Pashas marriage to tika al-Als as an indication of the familys shifting
loyalty from Abd al-amd II to the Young Turks. Nmq Pashas father, the late-Ottoman
inuential thinker Nmq Kemal Pasha, was a Young Ottoman. While the Young Ottomans
were tolerated by Abd al-amds regime, the Young Turks proved to be the downfall of
the Sultan and his rule. See, for example, erif Mardin, e Genesis of Young Ottoman
ought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), esp. 58, note 106, and 59. It is
not 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 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
35)
Al-Athar, Alm al-Irq, 64. Ibn bidn is Muammad Amn b. Muammad al
al-Dn. He was born and educated in Damascus, as well as in Cairo, emerging as one of
the most renowned anaf jurists of the nineteenth-century Ottoman world. e work
that is known simply as shiyat Ibn bidn, is in fact shiyat radd al-mutr al al-durr
al-mukhtr shar tanwr al-abr, which is a gloss and commentary on al-Durr al-mukhtr
of Al al-Dn al-askaf. e rst ve volumes of the shiya were 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.
60
61
39)
62
40)
63
41)
af al-Dn al-Bukhr, al-Qawl al-jal f tarjamat al-Shaykh Taq al-Dn ibn Taymiyya
al-anbal, on the margin of al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 2-140. iddq asan Khn, al-Intiqd
al-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-Ram
A. Abd al-Ram (Cairo: Dr al-Kutub, 1997-8), vol. 2, 188f. (I am indebted to Stefan
Reichmuth 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 tarjim
al-anayya (Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Islm, n. d.), the writing of which was concluded
in 1874, makes no mention of al-Bukhr. e fact that al-Luknaw wrote his book in
Haydarabad, India, may have been the reason, for al-Bukhr became more famous in the
Arab countries than in India. af al-Dn al-Bukhr should be dierentiated from Al
al-Dn Muammad b. Muammad al-Ajam al-Bukhr (779-841), who died in Damascus
and is reported to have pronounced that whoever called Ibn Taymiyya the Shaykh of
Islam is an unbeliever (kr). For a response to Al al-Dn al-Bukhr, see Ibn Nir
al-Dn al-Dimashq, al-Radd al-kr, ed. Zuhayr al-Shwsh (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islm,
1991); and on him, see al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 7, 46f.
64
43)
Cf. John O. Voll, e Non-Wahhabi Hanbalis of Eighteenth-Century Syria, Der
Islam, 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 abaqt
al-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-durriyya
f manqib al-mujtahid ibn Taymiyya, ed. Najm Abd al-Ramn Khalaf (Beirut: Dr
al-Gharb al-Islm, 1986).
65
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-Shiyya, ms. 149,
Trkh, Institute of the Arab Manuscripts, e Arab League, Cairo, plates 204-5; Muy
al-Dn Abd al-Qdir al-Aydars, al-Nr al-sr 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 man
dhahab (Beirut: Dr Iy al-Turth al-Arab, n. d.), vol. 4, 370.; Muammad b. Al
al-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: Dr
al-fq al-Jadda, 1979), vol. 3, 111.; al-Zirikl, al-Alm, vol. 1, 234. Only al-Ghazz
mentions his date of birth as 911 AH/ 1506.
66
Al-Shawkn, al-Badr al-li, vol. 1, 252; al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 1, 457.
Al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 2, 1000.
49)
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Masnd al-Haytham, ms. 2014 Trkh, Institute of
Arab 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-qhiyya (Cairo: Maktabat wa-Mabaat
al-Mashhad al-usayn, n. d.), 4 vols.
48)
67
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-awiq al-muriqa l-radd al ahl al-bida wa-lzandaqa, 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-Mabaa
al-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 Su ulam, see
Abd al-Raf al-Munw, al-Kawkib al-durriyya f tarjim al-sda al-yya, ed. Abd
al-amd li amdn (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li-l-Turth, n. d.), vol. 4, 52-5
and 69-75, repectively.
57)
See, for example, the modern historical biographies of scholars of ul al-qh in Abdallh
Muaf al-Margh, al-Fat al-mubn f abaqt al-uliyyn (Cairo: Abd al-amd anaf
Press, n. d.), 3 vols. Al-Margh, however, lists (vol. 3, 84-5) al-Haytams Sh colleague
and contemporary, Shams al-Dn al-Raml (919/1513-1004/1596), among the scholars
of ul.
58)
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, ms. 597,
Marif, Dr al-Kutub, Cairo.
68
59)
60)
61)
69
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 Richard
Hartmann, al-Kuschairis Darstellung des Sutums (Berlin: Mayer & Mller, 1914). On
al-Suhrawrd, see Henry Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, tr. L. Sherrad (London:
Kegan Paul, 1993), 289. On Ab lib al-Makk, see Umar Ri Kala, Mujam
al-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.
70
the shara and the reality (aqqa): the shara is the origin, while
the aqqa is the branch and the ultimate station of shara, and
the shara is the knowledge of the apparent, while the aqqa is
the knowledge of the hidden.67
is, however, does not mean that al-Haytams embrace of the
Su path is without reservations. His admiration of Ibn Arab, for
example, does not preclude him from stating his belief in the apostasy
of the Pharaoh of Moses (Firawn), a position that contradicts the
one associated with Ibn Arab, nor does he see t for common
people to read the books of Ibn Arab and Ibn al-Fri.68
It was also in al-Fatwa al-adthiyya that al-Haytams view of
Ibn Taymiyya was articulated. Responding to a question regarding
Ibn Taymiyyas disagreement with later Sus, al-Haytam launched
one of the most vitriolic attacks on the fourteenth-century anbal
ever recorded in the annals of middle Islamic polemics. Ibn Taymiyya,
he says, is a God-beaten and blinded man, as was pronounced by
great scholars of his time, including Ab al-asan al-Subk (Taq
al-Dn Muammad, 704/1305-744/1344) and his son (Tj al-Dn
Al, 722/1322-756/1354), al-Izz b. Jama (Abd al-Azz, 694/
1294-767/1366), and other Sh, Mlik and anaf ulam; Ibn
Taymiyyas objection was not limited to the later Sus, but also
to such venerated companions as Umar b. al-Khab (d. 23/644)
and Al b. Ab lib (d. 40/660); his opinions are worthless, and
he should be judged as an innovator, ignorant, extremist, deviated,
and a cause of deviation. Al-Haytams reading into Ibn Taymiyyas
opposition to late Sus focuses on Ibn Taymiyyas identication of the
Su intellectual underpinnings with the philosophy of cosmology as
propounded by Ibn Sn (370/980-428/1037): From Ibn Taymiyyas
perspective, the Su explanation of the state of revelation is similar
to Ibn Sns construction of a Cosmological Self , or the Active
Reason, with which human selves are connected. Inuences of
this cosmological design, from Ibn Taymiyyas perspective, can be
traced in works of al-Ghazl, Ibn Arab, and Ibn Sabn (613 or
614/1217 or 1218-668 or 669/1269 or 1271), a belief with which
67)
68)
71
72
of Ibn Taymiyya and his legacy, given that it was al-Haytam who
wrote a whole treatise warning Muslims against rushing to judge
other Muslims belief.70 Al-Haytam does not even put himself forward
as an extreme adherent to Ibn Arab.
It seems, in light of al-Haytams long indictment of Ibn Taymiyya
and what is described as his deviation from the consensus of the
Sunni schools of law, that by the sixteenth century, Ibn Taymiyyas
ideas came to be viewed as entirely subversive to the established Sunni
scheme of things, rather than a mere singular, or even a strange kind
of ijtihd. For the Islamic world of learning had already been ordered,
and Ibn Taymiyya seemed to represent a serious challenge to this
order. Hence, al-Haytams emphasis on Ibn Taymiyyas dissent from
the 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 biographies, invocations, commentaries, arguments and counter-arguments, Jal al-aynayn evolves into a long, intricate discourse. Al-Als
begins his work by stating that it was the reading of al-Haytams
remarks on Ibn Taymiyya that made him embark on the writing
of his book, with the aim of verifying the disputed issues raised
by al-Haytam. He also notes that al-Haytams views might create
confusion among students of Islam, acknowledging perhaps the inuence that al-Haytams works still exercised in Islamic learning
circles, four centuries after his passing.71 After giving a brief, literal
account of al-Haytams critique of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Als turns
to presenting the fourteenth-century scholar, quoting a plethora
of laudatory biographies of him, written by a range of dierent
ulam, amongst whom are al-Dhahab (673/1274-748/1347), Ibn
Kathr (700/1300-774/1373), al-Suy (849/1445-911/1505), Ibn
70)
73
For al-Dhahabs view, see Shams al-Dn Muammad al-Dhahab, Tadhkirat al-u
(Haydarabad: Dirat al-Marif al-Uthmniyya, 1980, vol. 4, 1496.; for al-Asqalns
view, see Amad b. ajar al-Asqaln, al-Durar al-Kmina ayn al-mia al-thmina,
ed. Muammad S. Jad al-Haqq (Cairo: Umm al-Qur, n. d.), vol. 1, 154-70; for al-Wards
view, 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-lnihya (Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1967), vol. 14, 135-40.
73)
For the opposition to Ibn Taymiyya, and his leading ulam opponents, see Sherman
A. Jackson, Ibn Taymiyya on Trial in Damascus, Journal of Semitic Studies, 39: 1 (Spring
1994), 41-85, esp. 43-9.
74)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 20-32.
74
75)
76)
77)
75
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 and
his Su vision, see Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: e
Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 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 Ab
mid 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.
76
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 103-9. On the development and meaning of the juridic
concepts 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.
77
78
between the ulam, where Ibn Arab himself held that the only
valid consensus was that of the absolutely documented one of the
companions. Although Ibn Taymiyya believed that consensus of
the ulam was legally binding, he could not envisage that such a
situation would have materialized.
e largest part of Jal al-aynayn by far is dedicated to the
discussion of Ibn Taymiyyas theology, specically his conception
of Gods attributes, and of the Prophet. Muslim debates on the
attributes of God and the position of the Prophet had been intense
and long-drawn, laying the foundations for the dierentiation of a
large number of factions. Ibn Taymiyyas advocacy of what came to
be known as the Salaf way, was ferociously attacked by contemporary
Ashar and Su-oriented ulam. In fact, al-Haytams censure of Ibn
Taymiyyas theological views did not oer any original perspective, but
was rather entirely reliant on fourteenth-century polemics. Addressing
the disputed issues of the speech (kalm) of God and nature of the
Qurn, al-Als lays the foundation of his response by assembling an
overview of the Muslim theological terrain, delineating the cardinal
dierences between the Sunni and Mutazil dogmas, between Amad
b. anbal and his opponents, and between Ab al-asan al-Ashar
(260/875-324/939) and the late Ashar theologians.87 He 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 possible
to explain Ibn Taymiyyas belief, as well as that of the majority
of other proponents of the Salaf way since Ibn anbal, that the
Qurn is not created, but is the speech of God, and that God is
79
eternally speaking? Does that mean that the Qurn (as the speech
of 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 doctrine
that the Qurn is created, and both subscribed to the belief in the
Qurn as the speech of God. Yet, concerned with polytheistic and
immanentist implications of this doctrine, late Ashars proposed that
the Qurn is a divine speech not in a literal sense, but as a mental
speech (kalm nafs).89 It thus follows that neither mans recitation
of the Qurn can be identied with the divine speech, nor can
the Qurn be seen as eternal. On the other hand, informed by the
necessities of monotheism and transcendentalization, the prevalent
Salaf doctrine asserted that God is eternally speaking, if He wills
and whenever He wills, and He speaks in a heard voice; the speech
as a kind is eternal, but the form it took is not so.90
e bases of the Salaf objections to the Ashar proposition of the
mental speech are essentially textual, rather than rational, asserting
that a large number of Qurnic verses and Prophetic adths are
incisively clear in describing the Qurn as the speech of God, against
which Muslims are not free to resort to allegorical interpretations
of all kinds (tawl).91 Although he places himself on the Salaf side
of the debate, al-Alss approach to this part of the dispute is not
to broaden the past theological discussions, but rather to show how
variant the Ashar views had been. According to al-Als, Ab alasan al-Ashar himself fully embraced Ibn anbals position on
the nature of the Qurn,92 which 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 Jurisprudence, Nicholas Heler (ed.), Islamic Law and Jurisprudence (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1990), 53-71, esp. 53.
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.
80
of God, and that the speech is an eternal divine attribute, was the
most 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, as
al-Haytam alleged? Did Ibn Taymiyya harbor immanentist attitudes
similar to those of the unionists, his arch nemesis? According to alAls, no Muslim scholar ever subscribed to the eternity-of-the-world
belief, not even Ibn Arab.93 In terms of its appearance, Muslims
believe that the world is certainly contingent; only in terms of
being part of Gods knowledge, the world can be eternal. And this
was the position of Ibn Taymiyya, who not only stated that in the
beginning ere was God and nothing else,94 but also declared
the apostasy of Ibn Sn and his disciples for expressing views that
implied a belief in the eternity of the world. Similarly, while one
might 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 could
not deny that Ibn Taymiyya said that God is on the throne, but
following on the footsteps of Ibrhm al-Krn, he recalls the Islamic
established rule that entailment of a doctrine is not a doctrine;
hence, one cannot commit Ibn Taymiyya to what might be entailed
from 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, and
trust in the book of God; the way of the salaf (the early generations
of Muslims), therefore, is not the way of allegorical interpretation,
which may lead to tal (divestation, or stripping away, impairing
divine attributes). Sincerely, however, al-Als reveals that his father
did accept a certain degree of tawl, indicating the complexity and
93)
81
82
101)
83
84
act was approved, and even practiced, by the Prophet. But not
to be misunderstood, al-Als launches a erce attack on Dawd
b. Jirjis, the anti-Salaf, and particularly anti-Wahhb, Iraqi Su
lim. In a polemical treatise, ul al-Ikhwn, Ibn Jirjis wrote that
Muslims could, in their supplication, invoke not only the power of
saints, but also of animals and physical objects. e mere mention
of this position, of course, serves the overall purpose of al-Als in
highlighting the extreme irrationality to which some anti-Salafs
could descend. Hence, while describing Ibn Jirjiss views as mere
hallucination, al-Als takes no trouble to refute him.107 A few years
later, of course, Mamd Shukr al-Als would publish a erce
response to Ibn Jirjis.
e last question related to the Prophet is that of visitation
(ziyra). A great deal of the Muslim debate about ziyra revolves
around the Prophetic adth Dont embark on traveling but to my
Mosque [of the Madna], al-aram Mosque [of Makka], and al-Aq
Mosque [of Jerusalem].108 e dierence between Ibn Taymiyya and
his opponents on the question of ziyra is thin, but crucial. Ibn
Taymiyya understood the adth as precluding Muslim visitation,
as an act of ritual, to any mosque except those specied by the
Prophet, and to any tomb, including that of the Prophet. Ritual
visitation, according to Ibn Taymiyya, is a form of pilgrimage that
is dened by the Legislator and not left to human speculation. e
wider implications of Ibn Taymiyyas view for Su and popular
religious culture, in which tomb visitation was rampant, were fully
clear. Not surprisingly, whether in his life or after his passing, Ibn
Taymiyyas proposition engendered strong replies from Su and nonSu Muslim quarters.109 Ibn Taymiyya, however, did not advocate
a blanket ban on visitation to the Prophets tomb, as stated in his
detractors 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)
85
86
87
88
Mamd Shukr al-Als, Akhbr Baghdd wa-m jawrah min al-bild, Arab
Manuscripts Institute, e Arab League, Cairo, Trkh 1342.
116)
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 74f. It is doubtful whether Mamd Shukrs links with
Ab al-Hud al-ayyd at the time played any role in this appointment. e wl Sirr
Pasha was himself a scholar of Islam, whose writings included 16 titles, at least, covering
various aspects of Islamic studies (al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 111.), which perhaps
was the reason behind the wls decision to appoint a known scholar to edit the Arabic
section of the ocial gazette of the provincial government.
117)
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 75. On Kurd Al, see Ch. Pellat, Kurd Ali, EI 2, V,
437f.
118)
is book, M dalla alayhi al-Qurn mimm yaud al-haya al-jadda, is apparently
still in a manuscript form. According to al-Athar (Mamd Shukr, 111f.), it was nalized
in 1339/ 1920-1. e only copy of it is in the possession of al-Athar.
89
entry into the debate was his already mentioned completion and
publication of Abd al-Laf b. Abd al-Ramns refutation of Ibn
Jirjis. e signicance of this work is that it testies that Mamd
Shukrs opposition to what he saw as Su excesses seems to have
been shaped by a Wahhb, austere perspective, rather than rational,
modernist motivations. Furthermore, just after Mamd Shukrs
death, a commentary he had written on a text by Ibn Abd al-Wahhb
was published in Cairo, in which he discusses the fundamental
dierences between Islam and the pre-Islamic age of jhiliyya,119
reasserting his identication with the Wahhb religious perspective.
On the other hand, Mamd Shukrs widely circulated book on the
history of Najd, its people, and the advent of Ibn Abd al-Wahhb,
was put together posthumously, by his student M. Bahjat al-Athar,
from notes and essays he had left behind.120 But it was Mamd
Shukrs response to the late-Ottoman judge and Su shaykh Ysuf
al-Nabahn (1849-1932),121 which turned him into a cause clbre
in the Arab Salaf circles. An old ally of Ab al-Hud al-ayyd,
al-Nabahn published more than one tract upholding the madhhab
system, denying the possibility of ijtihd, attacking Ibn Taymiyya,
and accusing reformists and Salafs, including Numn al-Als,
al-Afghn and Abduh, of misguidance. Mamd Shukrs rejoinder
to al-Nabahn was prompt and all-inclusive, staging a erce defense
of Ibn Taymiyya and the Salaf school of thought.122
119)
Mamd Shukr al-Als, Fal al-khitb f shar masil al-jhiliyya li-l-Imm Muammad
ibn Abd al-Wahhb (Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Salayya, 1347 AH).
120)
Al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 118. Mamd Shukr al-Als, Trkh Najd, ed. M. Bahjat
al-Athar (Cairo: Maktabat Madbl, n. d.), 4.
121)
On Nabahn, see al-Bayr, ilyat al-bashar, vol. 3, 1612-6; al-Zirikl, al-Alm,
vol. 8, 218; dil Mann, Alm Filasn f awkhir al-ahd al-uthmn, 1800-1918
(Jerusalem: Jamiyyat al-Dirst al-Arabiyya, 1980), 344-7.
122)
Ysuf al-Nabahn, Shawhid al-aqq l-istighatha bi-Sayyid al-Khalq (Cairo: al-Mabaa
al-Maymaniyya, 1323 AH), 19, 154, and passim; Mamd Shukr al-Als, Ghayat al-amani
l-radd al al-Nabahn (Cairo: Mabaat Kurdistn al-Ilmiyya, 1327 AH), 2 vols. In
its rst edition, Mamd Shukrs book was published under the name of Ab al-Mal
al-usayn al-Salm, only thinly indicating the real identity of its author. e use of a
pen name by Mamd Shukr reected the fear felt by Arab Salaf circles during the late
amdian period. For Rashd Ris reception of Mamd Shukrs book, see al-Manr,
90
12 (1909): 785. For a discussion of al-Nabahns position, see Commins, Islamic Reform,
116.
123)
Al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 150; al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 87.
124)
Al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 267; al-Athar, Mamd Shukr, 92-5; al-Shaykh,
Mashhr ulam Najd, 472f.
125)
Commins, Islamic Reform, 21-48.
91
92
93
130)
Na, e Rise of Islamic Reformist ought, 47-50; Ernest C. Dawn, From Ottomanism to Arabism: On the Origins of Arab Nationalism (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1973).
131)
Muammad Abduh, al-Islam bayn al-ilm wa-l-madaniyya (Cairo: Dr al-Hill, 1983),
76f.
132)
Mamd Shukr al-Als, Bulgh al-arab f marifat awl al-arab, ed. M. Bahjat
al-Athar (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, n. d.), 3 vols.
133)
Commins, Islamic Reform, 89-103.
134)
Hourani, Arabic ought, 271.
94
95
96
136)
97