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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹¹ Rahman, , Islam, p. 78.Google Scholar

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

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

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

¹⁵ ibid., II, 932.

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

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

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

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

²⁰ ibid., III, 205–206.

²¹ For the requirements of Baydawi and Isnawi, see Nihāyat al-Sūl fī Sharḥ Minhāj al-Wuṣūl, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1899), 111, 307–313.Google Scholar On Subki, see Jam⊂, II, 382–386, especially p. 383.Google Scholar For the requirements of Ibn, al-Humam and Ibn, al-Amir, see Taqrīr, III, 292–294.Google Scholar For those of Ansari and Ibn, ⊂Abd al-Shakur, see Sharḥ Musallam al-Thubūt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1907), 1, 363–364.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁸ Quoted in Goldziher, , Zahiris, p. 35.Google Scholar

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

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

³¹ ibid., pp. 156–157.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵⁰ See Subki, , Ṭabaqāt, 1, 105, 244; 11, 89, 96, 126, 131.Google Scholar See also Goldziher, , Zahiris, p. 31.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

⁵⁶ ibid., II, 206–210.

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

⁵⁸ See Goldziher, , Zahiris, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cited in ibid., p. 26. For a different version of this account see Subki, , Ṭabaqāt, II, 240.Google Scholar

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

⁶¹ See Basri, , Mu⊂tamad, II, 934 ff.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁶⁸ Mawardi, Aḥkām, p. 116.Google Scholar

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

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

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

⁷² ibid., p. 274.

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

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

⁷⁵ ibid., p. 309.

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

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

⁷⁸ ibid., pp. 397–398.

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

⁸⁰ ibid., p. 76.

⁸¹ ibid., p. 78.

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

⁸³ ibid., 111, 251, 256.

⁸⁴ ibid. III, 264; IV, 124.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁹³ ibid., IV, 107.

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

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

⁹⁶ For these opinions see Shawkani, , Irshād, p. 235.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹¹⁴ ibid., pp. 105, 170.

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

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

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

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

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

¹²⁰ See Maid, al-Din Shihab al-Din, and Taqi, al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, al-Musawwada fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Cairo, 1964). pp. 472, 545.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹³⁰ Ghazali, , Iḥyā, I, 63.Google Scholar

¹³¹ On the ranks of mujtahids and degrees of ijtihad see Mirza, Kazim Beg, “Notice sur la march et les progrÉs de la jurisprudence,” Journal Asiatique 15, ser. 4 (01 1850), 181–192, 204–214;Google ScholarSiddiqi, , lqriṣād, fols. 98a-98b.Google Scholar

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

¹³³ ibid., III, 346.

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

¹³⁵ ibid., fol. 98b.

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

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

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

¹³⁹ Nawawi, , Majm⊂ū, 1, 71.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁴² ibid., fol. 97b.

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

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

¹⁴⁵ Mawardi, , Adab, 1, 463.Google Scholar See examples in Ibn, al-Amir, Taqrīr, III, 351Google Scholar and Ghazali, , Mustasfā, II, 384.Google Scholar

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

¹⁴⁷ Subki, , Ṭabaqť, V, 120.Google Scholar

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

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

¹⁵⁰ Cited in Shawkani, , lrshād, pp. 235–236.Google Scholar

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

¹⁵² See n. 154 below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁵⁹ Cited in Goldziher, , “On al-Suyuti,” Muslim World, 68, 2 (04 1978), 98.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁸⁶ ibid., 1, 186, 218–219; II, 28.

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

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

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

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

¹⁹¹ Chelebi, , Balance, p. 129;Google ScholarMandaville, J. E., “Usurious Piety: The Cash of Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10(1979), 295–304.Google Scholar

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

¹⁹³ The Balance of Truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

²⁰¹ ibid., pp. 21–24, 31.

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

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