Karamursel, Ceyda 2017. Transplanted Slavery, Contested Freedom, and Vernacularization of Rights in the Reform Era Ottoman Empire. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 59, Issue. 03, p. 690.
Henig, David 2016. Crossing the Bosphorus: Connected Histories of “Other” Muslims in the Post-Imperial Borderlands of Southeast Europe. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 58, Issue. 04, p. 908.
This article explores the interface of multiple legal systems in early modern Daghestan. By comparing colonial engagements with legal plurality with indigenous genres of Daghestani legal discourse, I aim to shed light on the plurality of legal systems that preceded as well as informed legal discourse under colonialism. The Daghestani turn to ijtihād (independent legal reasoning) in the early modern period parallels the turn away from cādāt (indigenous law) that shaped modern Islamic as well as colonial legal regimes, albeit with radically distinctive genealogies. In tracing these internal debates, I offer a preliminary genealogy of Daghestani ijtihād that is grounded in the robust debates concerning the sources of Islamic authority that originated in Yemen and were transmitted to Daghestan by traveling scholars. This essay is a contribution to the study of legal norms on colonial borderlands, as well as to the study of Islamic modernity before colonialism.
1 Ivanenko V. N., “Razlad mezhdu ugolovnym zakonom i narodnym obychaem na Kavkazie i ego vliianie na prestupnost’,” Russkaia mysl’: ezhemiesiachnoe literaturno-politicheskoe izdanie 4 (Apr.) 1904 / kniga IV, 205–24, 205. Two other installments are: 5 (May): 1–21; and 6 (June): 89–135. Ivanenko is also the author of Grazhdanskoe upravlenie Zakavkaz'em (Tiflis: Voenno-istoricheskii otdel’, 1901). I first encountered this work in Daghestan's Institute for History, Archeology, and Ethnography, an institution dedicated in part to the study of Daghestani indigenous law.
2 On the history and reputation of Russkaia Mysl’, see Grossman Joan Delaney, “Rise and Decline of the ‘Literary’ Journal: 1880–1917,” in Martinsen Deborah A., ed., Literary Journals in Imperial Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 171–96.
3 Ivanenko, “Razlad,” 205. The other two installments of this article are: 5 (May): 1–21; and 6 (June): 89–135.
4 Ivanenko, “Razlad,” 211.
5 For this history and its afterlife, see Strauss Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), esp. 81–119. For an Islamic counterpart, see note 32, below.
6 Ivanenko, “Razlad,” 209 (1st quote), 206 (2d).
7 “Adat against Sharica: Russian Approaches towards Daghestani Customary Law in the 19th Century,” Ab Imperio 3 (2005): 147–74, 148.
8 Cited in Bobrovnikov V. O., “Obychai, shariat i reket v pis'mah ob ishkile iz Dagestana XVII–XIX vv,” Istoriia i sovremennost 1, 11 (2010): 78–98, 79. The definition of ishkil’ given here is that of Luguev Sergey, “Vardish: A Survival of the Old Männerbund in Dagestan,” Iran and the Caucasus 7, 1–2 (2003): 59–71, 59.
9 Legal pluralism is arguably the most promising area of inquiry at present in scholarship on the Islamic north Caucasus. In addition to recent works by Bobrovnikov and Kemper, cited in passim, see, for the West Caucasus, Babich I. L., Evoliutsiia pravovoi kul'tury adygov, 1860–1990-e gody (Moscow: Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N. N. Miklukho-Maklaia, 1999); Pravovoi pliuralizm na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze (Moscow: RAN, 2000); and Richmond Walter, “Legal Pluralism in the Northwest Caucasus,” Religion, State, Society 32, 1 (2004): 59–73.
10 Orientalism and Empire (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002), 77.
11 Law and Colonial Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 12.
12 Marvelous Possessions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 67–68.
13 Law and Colonial Cultures, 2.
14 “The Politics of Islamic Law: Local Elites and Colonial Authority in Malaya, India and Egypt,” PhD thesis, University of Washington, 2008, 29. The book version, titled “The Politics of Islamic Law,” is forthcoming from University of Chicago Press.
15 Bobrovnikov Vladimir, Musul'mane Severnogo Kavkaza (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2002); and Bobrovnikov V., ed., Obychai i zakon v pis'mennykh pamiatnikakh Dagestana V—nachala XX v (Moscow: Mardzhani, 2009); Sartori Paolo, “Constructing Colonial Legality in Russian Central Asia: On Guardianship,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 56, 2 (2014) 419–47.
16 While a full etiology of Daghestani modernity is beyond this article's scope, my chronology follows the history of manuscript production delineated by Amri Shikhsaidov, who notes that the first influx of Arabic manuscripts to Daghestan was followed in the sixteenth century by a period of localization, during which “we observe a huge growth in the number of [Islamic] manuscripts due to the intensive activities of Daghestani copyists” and the increasing sophistication of Daghestani intellectual life. See his, “The Manuscript Collections in Daghestan,” in Moshe Gammer, ed., “Written Culture in Daghestan” (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, in press). This shift from manuscripts imported from abroad to the local production and reproduction of Islamic knowledge is one possible beginning for Daghestan early modernity. Also see note 73, below.
17 Bobrovnikov, Musul'mane, 16–97; and Gould Rebecca, “Transgressive Sanctity: The Abrek in Chechen Culture,” Kritika 8, 2: 271–306.
18 Ivanenko, “Razlad,” 224.
19 “The Time of Dishonour: Land and Murder under Colonial Rule in the Tian Shan,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55 (2012): 664–87, 666, 683.
20 Ibid., 684.
21 Ivanenko, “Razlad,” 224.
23 “Politics of Islamic Law,” 235.
24 Ibid., 235, 237.
25 “Murder in Manghishlaq: Notes on an Instance of Application of Qazaq Customary Law in Khiva (1895),” Der Islam 88, 2 (2012): 217–57, 233.
26 Most recently, see the rich collection of ittifāqāt reproduced in Bobrovnikov, ed., Obychai i zakon, as well as other studies by Bobrovnikov and by Kemper cited inter alia.
27 For analyses of formulaic structure, see Bobrovnikov, Musul'mane, 119–20; and Shikhsaidov Amri, Epigraficheskie pamiatniki Dagestana X–XVII vv, kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow: Nauka, 1984), 362. The cādāt codex of Tsekob (in Bobrovnikov, ed., Obychai i zakon 1: 189–94) is particularly rich in examples of futuristic and performative statements.
28 Bobrovnikov Vladimir, “Ittifaq Agreements in Daghestan in the Eighteenth–Nineteenth Centuries,” Manuscripta Orientalia 8, 4 (2002): 20–27, 21.
29 Ibid., 21.
30 “Andalalskie adaty,” M. D. Saidov and A.R. Navruzov, trans., in Bobrovnikov, ed., Obychai i zakon 1: 174 (Russian); 180 (Arabic).
31 “Andalalskie adaty,” in Bobrovnikov, ed., Obychai i zakon 1: 178.
32 Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 209, n. 64. While the distinction between cādāt and curf requires more discussion, note Gideon Libson's argument that “jurists … did not distinguish between these two terms” in the classical period. “On the Development of Custom as a Source of Law in Islamic Law,” Islamic Law and Society 4, 2 : 131–55, 133, n. 4). Al-Ghazālī states the relationship memorably, defining curf as a component of cādā, which, inasmuch as it references the “custom” of God, constitutes an Islamic version of natural law. See Hallaq Wael B., Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994), 343. Baber Johansen further clarifies this distinction by defining cādā as “normative custom” and curf as “social practice” (“Casuistry: Between Legal Concept and Social Praxis,” Islamic Law and Society 2, 2 : 135–56, 152).
33 “Communal Agreements (Ittifaqat) and cAdat-Books from Daghestani Villages and Confederacies (18th–19th Centuries),” Der Islam 81 (2004): 115–51, 151.
34 Ibid., 117.
35 Kemper, “Adat against Sharica,” 172.
36 Zakon i obychai na Kavkaze, 2 vols. (Moscow: Tip. A. I. Mamontova, 1890).
37 “Adat against Sharica,” 164.
38 “Iz gorskoi kriminalistiki,” SSKG, vol. 3 (1870): 1 (each article in these volumes is separately paginated).
39 Jersild, Orientalism and Empire, 99. Based on his work in the Georgian National Historical Archive (Tbilisi), Jersild establishes that SSKG's chronicles of mountaineer criminality represent near-verbatim reproductions of the Russian administration's court records (196, n. 62).
40 “Iz gorskoi kriminalistiki,” SSKG, vol. 3, 1.
41 “Iz gorskoi kriminalistiki,” SSKG, vol. 8 (1875): 1 (317 for this volume; the only one with overall pagination).
42 Ibid., 340.
43 “Adaty i sudoproizvodstvo po nim,” Sbornik svedenii o Kavkazskikh gortsakh 1 (1868): 58.
44 Ibid., 64.
45 Sartori Paolo and Shahar Ido, “Legal Pluralism in Muslim-Majority Colonies: Mapping the Terrain,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55 (2012): 637–63, 642.
46 By “sharī ca movement” I refer to the anticolonial jihad that was inaugurated in Daghestan in the early decades of the nineteenth century, and which, particularly under the leadership of Imām Shāmil (1797–1871), was accompanied by a more systematized (and paradigmatically modern) attempt than Daghestan had yet seen to base social life on the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. For a magisterial study of this movement, see Kemper Michael, Herrschaft, Recht und Islam in Daghestan (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2005).
47 Sartori and Shahar, “Legal Pluralism,” 649.
48 For Ghāzī Muḥammad's title as mujaddid al-dīn, see Āthār al-Yarāghī (Temir-Khan Shura 1910; cited in Kemper, Herrschaft, 219).
49 Ghāzī Muḥammad's treatise (original title: Bāhir al-burhān li-irtidād curafā’ Dāghistān) is discussed most thoroughly in Kemper, Herrschaft, 219–24. Also see Zelkina Anna, In Quest of God and Freedom (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 138–39. I have not seen the unpublished Arabic original of the treatise, held in Daghestan Institute for History, Archeology, and Ethnography (fond 1, opis' 1, delo 388, inv. no. 2296).
50 Ghāzī Muḥammad, Bāhir al-burhān li-irtidād curafā’ Dāghistān, 224 (Kemper's translation).
51 Kemper Michael, “Ghazi Muhammad's Treatise against Daghestani Customary Law,” in Gammer Moshe, ed., Islam and Sufism in Daghestan (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2009), 95 (I have made slight modifications to Kemper's translation to preserve clarity of English syntax). Future references to Kemper's translation are given parenthetically. Given the Shāficī orientation of traditional Daghestani jurisprudence, it is worth noting that the Shāficī school was open to the use of subjective legal reasoning, which in uṣūl al-fiqh is referred to as ra'y. See Melchert Christopher, The Formation of the Sunni Schools of Law: 9th–10th Centuries C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 87–115. Ghāzī Muḥammad's opposition to ra'y was therefore an innovation within his own tradition. For curf, see note 32, above.
52 In Kemper, “Ghazi Muhammad's Treatise,” 95.
54 Kemper, Herrschaft, 354, for this citation and the details that follow.
55 al-Alqadārī Ḥasan, Āthār-i Dāghistān (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1312/1894–5), 232. I thank Vladimir Bobrovnikov (Russian Academy of Sciences) for furnishing a scan of this edition.
56 cAlī al-Ghumūqī, “Tarājim culamā-yi Dāghistān,” Rukopisnii fond, Daghestan Institute for History, Archeology, and Ethnography, F. 25; Op. 1; D.1; l. 17. I cite here from the Russian translation of the unpublished Arabic manuscript (not to be confused with the Turkic language text of the same name) in Musaev Makhach, “Materialyi k biografii mukhammada, syna musy al-Kuduki,” Vestnik Instituta IAE 3 (2014): 62.
57 “Ghazi Muhammad's treatise,” 91; Herrschaft, 222, 355.
58 In Kemper, “Ghazi Muhammad's Treatise,” 98,
59 The only book-length study on al-Maqbalī known to me is Aḥmad cAbd al-cAzīz Aḥmad al-Mulaykī, Al-Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Maqbalī: ḥayātuhu wa-fikruhu (Ṣanaca: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Siyāḥah, 2004). Also see the brief discussion in Nafi Basheer M., “Taṣawwuf and Reform in Pre-Modern Islamic Culture: In Search of Ibrāhīm al-Kūrānī,” Die Welt des Islams 42, 3 (2002): 301–55, 327–28.
60 Ṣāli ibn Mahdī al-Maqbalī, Al-cālam al-shāmikh fī tafḍīl al-ḥaqq calá al-ābā' wa-al-mashāyikh [The high banner on the superiority of truth to the ancestors and the forefathers] (Ṣanaca: al-Maktaba al-Yamanīyah, 1985). This work's title is sometimes given (as in al-Shawkānī [note 70, below], Kemper, and Krachkovskii) as Al- cālam al-shāmikh fī radd calá al-ābā' wa-al-mashāyikh, and as Al- cālam al-shāmikh fī īthār al-ḥaqq calá al-ābā' wa-al-mashāyikh (al-cAmrī, 166–67).
61 Ibrahimova Patimat, “Inscriptions on Manuscript Margins,” in Gammer Moshe, ed., Written Culture in Daghestan (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2014), 131.
62 Die Islamgelehrten Daghestans und ihre arabischen Werke: Nadīr ad-Durgilīs (st. 1935) Nuzhat al-adhhān fī tarāğim culamā' Dāġistān, Kemper Michael and Shixsaidov Amri R., eds. (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2004), 16 (Arabic). The Arabic manuscript is reproduced in the edition by A. R. Shikhsaidov, M. Kemper, and A. K. Bustanov (Moscow: Mardzhani, 2012); see p. 25 for this quote. Al-Alqadārī summarizes Al-Quduqī's life and accomplishments in his Āthār-i Dāghistān, 232–33.
63 In addition to al-Durgilī, these details are recounted in Shucayb ibn Idrīs al-Bākinī (d. 1912), Ṭabaqāt al-Khwājagān al-Naqshbandiyah (Damascus: Dār al-Nucmān lil-cUlūm, 2003), 399.
64 Sunni legal thought was codified into four schools—Ḥanafī, Shāficī, Malikī, and Ḥanbalī—each named after their founders, during the early cAbbāsid period. A fifth, Shīca school, native to Yemen and known as Zaydī (after the Prophet's grandson Zayd bin cAlī), developed a parallel discourse on the nature of Islamic authority that was crucial to the early modern turn to ijtihād and rejection of taqlīd (see below).
65 Lowry Joseph, Early Islamic Legal Theory: The Risāla of Muḥammad Ibn Idrīs al-Shāficī (Leiden: Bril1, 2007), 144.
66 Al-Tacrīfāt, Flügel Gustav, ed. (Lipsiae: Vogel, 1845), 67 (on taqlīd), 8 (on ijtihād).
67 The Search for God's Law (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992), 683.
68 Messick Brinkley, “The Mufti, the Text and the World: Legal Interpretation in Yemen,” Man, New Series 21, 1 (1986): 102–19, 112.
69 Lucas Scott C., “Abu Bakr Ibn Al-Mundhir, Amputation, and the Art of Ijtihād,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39, 3 (2007): 351–68, 357.
70 Loci classici for this view include Schacht Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 70–71; Coulson Noel, A History of Islamic Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1964), 81; and Rahman Fazlur, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 78. All of these claims are famously and decisively contested in Hallaq Wael B., “Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?” International Journal of Middle East Studies 16, 1 (1984): 3–41.
71 Muḥammad ibn cAlī al-Shawkānī, Qawl al-mufīd fī adillat al-ijtihād wa-al-taqlīd (Cairo: Dār al-Maṭbacah al-Salafīyah wa-maktabatuhā, 1394/1974), esp. 7.
72 Wiederhold Lutz, “Legal Doctrines in Conflict: The Relevance of Madhhab Boundaries to Legal Reasoning in the Light of an Unpublished Treatise on Taqlīd and Ijtihād,” Islamic Law and Society 3, 2 (1996): 234–304, 268. Wiederhold offers the best account I know of the complex maneuverings within European Orientalism concerning the closing of the gate of ijtihād. He significantly complicates Hallaq's attribution of this view to Schacht, and identifies precedents in the work of Snouck Hurgronje (see also 235, n. 2).
73 The consciousness of temporal rupture is amply on display in al-Alqadārī's account of al-Quduqī's introduction of ijtihād to Daghestan (see especially Āthār-i Dāghistān, 233). For a fuller discussion of relevant passages, see Gould Rebecca, “Why Daghestan Is Good to Think,” in Gammer Moshe, ed., Written Culture in Daghestan (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2014).
74 “Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?” 32.
75 Muḥammad ibn cAlī al-Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭālic bi-maḥāsin man bacda al-qarn al-sābic, al-Manṣūr Khalīl, ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-cIlmīyah, 1998), 200.
76 Al-Shawkānī, Irshād al-fuḥūl ilá taḥqīq al-ḥaqq min cilm al-uṣūl (Cairo: Maṭbacat Muṣṭafá al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī wa-Awlādih, 1356/1937), 245–70. The quoted text is Ibrahim Ahmed Fekry's paraphrase in “Al-Shacrānī's Response to Legal Purism: A Theory of Legal Pluralism,” Islamic Law and Society 20 (2013): 110–40, 130, n. 68.
77 For an excellent recent account of these debates, see Haykel Bernard and Zysow Aron, “What Makes a Madhab a Madhab: Zaydī Debates on the Structure of Legal Authority,” Arabica 59, 3–4 (2012) 332–71.
78 Al-Badr, 200.
79 Āthār-i Dāghistān, 233.
80 Al-Badr, 201. The translation used for this poem is mostly that of Ḥusayn cAbdallāh al-cAmrī, “The Text of an Unpublished Fatwā of the Scholar al-Maqbali (d. 1108/1728 [sic]),” New Arabian Studies 2 (1994): 165–74. here 166.
81 Iṣhāq b. Yūsuf, Al-tafkīk li- cuqūd al-tashkīk, 267 (full Arabic text, based on three collated manuscripts, in Haykel and Zysow, “What Makes a Madhab,” 360–71). For a judgment along similar lines by the African reformist Ṣāliḥ al-Fullānī (1753–1800), Īqāẓ al-himam (India: 1298/1880), 76, line 55; cited in Vikør Knut, “The shaykh as mujtahid: A Sufi conception of ijtihād?” El sufismo y las normas del Islam: trabajos del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Jurídicos Islámicos, Derecho y Sufismo, Murcia, 7–10 mayo 2003, Carmona A., ed. (Murcia: Editora Regional de Murcia, 2006), 360.
82 Al-Badr, 202.
83 Clive Smith, notes to Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Nahrawālī al-Makki, Al-barq al-yamānī fī fatḥ al- cuthmānī, trans. from Arabic by Smith Clive under title Lightning over Yemen (London: I. B. Tauris, 2002), 205, n. 4.
84 The reference is to Ṣāliḥ's Sheykhal-Manār fī al-mukhtār min jawāhir al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār (Ṣanaca: Maktabat al-Jīl al-Jadīd, 1988). Al-Murtaḍā's work has been edited by cAbd Allāh ibn cAbd al-Karīm Jarāfī (Beirut: Mu'asassat al-Risālah, 1975). Al-Murtaḍā was also the author of a highly influential overview of Zaydī fiqh, Kitāb al-Azhar, which has been called “the official textbook of the present day Zaidī state” (Strothmann R., “Al-Zaidiyya,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill: 1913–1936).
85 See Kemper, Herrschaft, for the istiftā ' (request for a fatwā) of a Daghestani scholar who pejoratively refers to Sheykh Ṣāliḥ as an “innovator [al-mubtadi c]” and condemns al-Quduqī by association (358, citing material held in Daghestan Institute for History, Archeology, and Ethnography).
86 Al-Badr, 201–2.
87 Ibid., 202.
88 See Krachkovskii , “Dagestan i Yemen,” lzbrannye sochineniia (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademii nauk SSSR, 1960) 6: 574–84; and in French as “Daghestan et Yemen,” Mélanges E. F. Gautier (Tours: Arrault et cie, maîtres imprimeurs, 1937), 288–96. More recent commentaries include Kemper, Herrschaft, 356; and Alikberov , Epokha klassicheskogo islama na Kavkaze (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2003), 314.
89 Al-Durgilī, Nuzhat, 17, 26, 51.
90 Al-Alqadārī, Āthār al-Yarāghī, 232.
91 For Zaydīsm as “the only current within Islam that fostered the continuous transmission and study of Muctazilī kalām up to the present,” see Schwarb Gregor, “Muctazilism in a 20th Century Zaydī Qurʾān Commentary,” Arabica 59 (2012): 372–403, 373. Ibn al-Murtaḍā, whose Al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār widely circulated in Daghestan, was also the author of Ṭabaqāt al-Muctazila (Classes of the Muctazilīs), which has been published in a critical edition by Susanna Diwald-Wilzer as Die Klassen der Muctaziliten (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1961).
92 Al-Durgilī, Nuzhat, 17 (Arabic). For a full discussion of al-Alqadārī's oeuvre, see Rebecca Gould, “The Literatures of Anticolonial Insurgency: Aesthetics and Violence in the Caucasus” (New Haven: Yale University Press, forthcoming), ch. 2.
93 Kemper, Herrschaft, 218. Kemper's argument that ijtihād was less intensively debated in Daghestan than in nineteenth-century Tatarstan (Herrschaft, 360) might be taken as an assertion that it was less widespread in Daghestan than elsewhere in the Islamic regions of the Russian Empire. Further research should deepen the textual basis for the connection between al-Quduqī's turn to ijtihād and Ghāzī Muḥammad's imposition of sharī ca, and compare these shifts to developments in neighboring parts of the Islamic world.
94 For Islamic reformism as both traditionist and future-oriented, see Kerr Malcolm, Islamic Reform: The Political and Legal Theories of Muḥammad cAbduh and Rashīd Riḍā (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966). Like Ghāzī Muḥammad, cAbduh was, in Kerr's word, a “conservative by language and manner and a radical by the implication of many of his teachings” (105).
95 Ibrahim, “Al-Shacrānī's Response,” 130, 132.
96 See, respectively, Hirschler Konrad, “Pre-Eighteenth-Century Traditions of Revivalism: Damascus in the Thirteenth Century,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 68, 2 (2005): 195–214; and Ḥasan Ahmed, “Early Modes of Ijtihād: Ray, Qiyās and Istiḥsān,” Islamic Studies 6, 1 (1967): 47–79.
97 The exchanges between Rashīd Riḍā and Ali Kaiaev are the subject of ongoing research by Shamil Shikhaliev (Institute for History, Archeology, and Ethnography); also see notes 126–27 below.
98 Reichmuth Stefan, The World of Murtaḍá Al-Zabīdī (1732–91) (London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2009). For related seventeenth-century turns to ijtihād, see Reichmuth Stefan, “The Interplay of Local Developments and Transnational Relations in the Islamic World: Perceptions and Perspectives,” in von Kügelgen Anke, Kemper Michael, and Frank Allen, eds., Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, vol. 2 (Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 1998), 11.
99 Kemper Michael, Sufis und Gelehrte in Tatarien und Baschkirien, 1789–1889 (Berlin: Schwarz Verlag, 1998), 272–307. Kemper suggests that al-Quduqī may have indirectly influenced Tatar scholar cAbd al-Nāṣir al-Qūrṣāwī (d. 1812) (in Herrschaft, 358, and Sufis und Gelehrte, 303–4).
100 For South Asian parallels with the turn to ijtihād in Daghestan and Yemen, see Jalbani J. N., Teachings of Shāh Walīyullāh of Delhi (Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1967).
101 See for example Alam Muzaffar, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200–1800 (London: Hurst, 2004); Subrahmanyam Sanjay, “Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia,” Modern Asian Studies 31, 3 (1997): 735–62; Hodgson Marshall, The Venture of Islam: Volume 3: The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); Lieberman Victor, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830: Volume 2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Wink André, Al-Hind: Volume 3: Indo-Islamic Society, 14th–15th Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
102 For early modernity from the perspective of seventeenth-century Georgian-Safavid culture, see Rebecca Gould, “Sweetening the Heavy Georgian Tongue: Jāmī in the Georgian-Persianate Ecumene,” in Thibaut d'Hubert and Alexandre Papas, eds., “A Worldwide Literature: Jāmī (1414–1492) in the Dār al-Islām and Beyond” (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
103 Some of these figures are enumerated in Haykel and Zysow, “What Makes a Madhab,” 350–54.
104 For a preliminary study of this figure from the perspective of Islamic modernity, see Akkach Samer, 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi: Islam and the Enlightenment (Oxford: One World Publications, 2007).
105 “Opening the Gate of Verification: The Forgotten Arab-Islamic Florescence of the 17th Century,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 38, 2 (2006): 263–81; “Was There a Revival of Logical Studies in Eighteenth-Century Egypt?” Die Welt des Islams 45, 1 (2005): 1–19; “The Myth of ‘The Triumph of Fanaticism’ in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire,” Die Welt des Islams 48, 2 (2008): 196–221.
106 “Opening the Gate,” 264.
107 “Ijtihad and Taqlid in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Islam,” Die Welt des Islams 20, 3/4 (1981): 131–45.
108 “Das islamische achtzehnte Jahrhundert: Versuch einer historiographischen Kritik,” Die Welt des Islams 30, 1 (1990): 140–59, 149. Also see his, “Was ist die islamische Aufklärung?” Die Welt des Islams 36, 3 (1996): 276–325; and also the other contributions to this special issue of Die Welt des Islams, entitled “Islamic Enlightenment in the 18th Century?” Schulze's thesis has been subjected to numerous critiques, inter alia, Radtke B., “Erleuchtung und Aufklärung: Islamische Mystik und europäische Rationalismus,” Die Welt des Islams 34, 1 (1994): 48–66.
109 Hallaq Wael, The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), ix. Also see Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nacim, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharica (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008).
110 For discussion of early modern fuqahā' who advocated for tamadhhub, see Ibrahim, “Al-Shacrānī's Response,” 113. For a contemporary Yemeni critique of tamadhhub, see Zayd ibn cAlī Wazīr, cIndamā yasūdu al-jafāf: macsāt al-tamadhhub (Richmond, Surrey: Markaz al-Turāth wa-al-Buḥūth al-Yamanī, 1993). It also indicates the lingering impact of the Yemeni critique of Islamic authority that a Muslim reformist such as Yūsuf Qaraḍāwī should also make tamadhhub an object of critique in his Kayfa natacāmulu maca al-turāth wa-al-tamadhhub wa-al-ikhtilāf? (Cairo: Wahbah, 2001).
111 Ṣāli ibn Mahdī al-Maqbalī, Al- cālam al-shāmikh (manuscript copied in the Great Mosque of Ṣanaca in 1324 A.H.), at: http://makhtota.ksu.edu.sa/makhtota/2367/1#.UpsylmR_XKs], 125, 130, 136 (accessed 12 Oct. 2014).
112 Iṣhāq b. Yūsuf's cUqūd al-tashkīk is given in full with responses by his contemporaries, in Ismācīl ibn cAlī al-Akwa', al-Zaydīyah: nash'atuhā wa-muʻtaqadātuhā (Beirut: n.p., 2000). Iṣhāq b. Yūsuf's poem and biography are discussed in Haykel and Zysow, “What Makes a Madhab,” 350–52.
113 Al-Durgilī, Nuzhat, 17 (Arabic text).
114 See Al-Alqadārī's, Āthār-i Dāghistān, 233; and his Jirāb al-Mamnūn (Temir Khan Shura: Mavraev, 1912), 279. I anticipate that further review of unpublished Daghestani manuscripts will reveal still more engagements with Sheykh Ṣāliḥ's poem.
115 See Kohlberg Etan, “Some Zaydī Views on the Companions of the Prophet,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 39, 1 (1976): 91–98.
116 According to al-Alqadārī, Sheykh Ṣāliḥ belonged to the “people of the sunna [ahl-i sunneh]” (Āthār-i Dāghistān, 233). However his beliefs, as has been demonstrated, were radically heterodox and influenced by Zaydī theology.
117 van Ess Josef, Les prémices de la théologie musulmane (Paris: Albin Michel, 2002), 24. On the infallibility of the prophets' companions, also see Arkoun Mohammad, “The Concept of Authority in Islamic Thought: ‘La Hukma illa li-llah,’” in Ferdinand Klaus and Mozaffari Mehdi, eds., Islam: State And Society, (London: Routledge, 1988).
118 For a contemporary Yemeni attempt to relate Sheykh Ṣāliḥ's poem to his exile, see “Al-zaidiyya fī suṭūr,” at: http://www.ye1.org/vb/showthread.php?t=293100 (accessed 12 Oct. 2014).
119 Krachkovskii, “Dagestan i Yemen,” 583.
120 See, for example, al-Alqadārī's ruling that a Ḥanafī who marries a Shāficī can regard his marriage as valid even if he switches to the Shāficī school, and, even more controversially, concerning the permissibility to Muslims of marrying Christian and Jewish women (Jirāb al-Mamnūn, 158 and 290, respectively).
121 Kemper , “Daghestani Shaykhs and Scholars in Russian Exile,” in Gammer Moshe and Wasserstein David J., eds., Daghestan and the World of Islam (Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 2006), 103 (paraphrasing al-Alqadārī). Al-Alqadārī was the author of two unpublished treatises in defense of the Shīca. See Shikhsaidov Amri, “Rukopisnoe Nasledie Alkadari,” in Istoriko-literaturnoe nasledie Gasana Alkadari (Makhachkala: Dagestanskii filial AN SSSR, 1988), 60.
122 Jirāb al-Mamnūn, 50.
123 Politics of Piety (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 81.
124 “Idzhtihad ili sledovanie traditsii?” at: http://gazavat.ru/history3.php?rub=14&art=433 (accessed 12 Oct. 2014). A fuller treatment of debates concerning ijtihād in these periodicals can be found in Navruzov's “Dzharidat Dagistan”—araboiazychnaia gazeta kavkazskikh dzhadidov (Moscow: Mardzhani, 2007), 174–80. For the impact of al-Manār in Tatarstan, see Dudoignon Stéphane A, “Echoes of al-Manār among the Muslims of the Russian Empire,” in Dudoignon Stéphane A., Hisao Komastsu, and Yasushi Kosogi, eds., Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World (London: Routledge, 2006), 85–116.
125 “Al-ijtihād wa-al-taqlīd,” Al-Manār 6 (1315/1903): 236–40.
126 Medzhidov I.U.V. and Abdullaev M. A., Ali Kaiaev (Makhachkala: Dagestanskoe kn. izd-vo, 1993), 35–39.
127 “Authorized Lies: Colonial Agency and Legal Hybrids in Tashkent, c. 1881–1893,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55 (2012): 688–717, 691, n. 7.
128 Ibid.,” 692.
129 Bobrovnikov, “Ittifāq Agreements,” 24.
130 Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 222.
131 Kemper, Herrschaft, 358; see note 82, above.
132 On the rejection of cādāt in later Daghestani history, see, in addition to Kemper's Herrschaft, 366–400, Gammer Moshe, Muslim Resistance to the Tsar (London: Frank Cass, 1994), 43.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.