Salafism Revived: Nu Mān Al-Alūsī and The Trial of Two A Mads

Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97
Salasm Revived: Numn al-Als and

the Trial of Two Amads
Basheer M. Na*
Oxfordshire
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
B.M. Na / Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97
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
the dominant scholarly circles. Such accusations against shaykh Al

al-Suwayd (1749-1821) and his close friend Sulaymn the Young,
the wl of Baghdad (r. 1807-1810), led to the overthrow and
murder of the wl and the exile of the shaykh to Syria.4 Salaforiented ulam of late nineteenth-century Damascus, such as hir
al-Jazir (1852-1920) and Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim (1866-1914), were
also denigrated by traditional opponents as Wahhbs.5 Muammad
Abduh, too, did not escape the charge of Wahhbism when he
defended Ibn Taymiyya during a 1905 visit to Tunisia.6
e appearance of such a conspicuous defense of Ibn Taymiyya
should, therefore, be seen as a major development in modern Islamic
thought. It is true that the book was published in the relatively liberal
Cairo of the late nineteenth century; yet, Ibn Taymiyya could not
have fared any better in the city of al-Azhar, the bastion of Sunni
traditions, than in Ottoman Baghdad. In the following pages, this
article will attempt 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 publication. ere is little doubt that Jal
al-aynayn is a founding text in the emergence of modern Salayya
(neo-Salayya as it is usually called) in major Arab urban centers.
Considering that the Wahhb movement made a major contribution
to the revival of Salaf Islam since the second half of the eighteenth
century, one of the aims of this article is to look into the variant
expressions of modern Salayya.
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
Heir to the Alss Legacy

Numn Khayr al-Dn al-Als (1836-99) was born in Baghdad to one
of the most eminent Sunni families of ulam.7 e Alss, who had
been established in Baghdad since the mid-eighteenth century, were
regarded as a Sharan family of the usayn line. After a period of
turbulent relations with the newly asserted Ottoman authorities in
Baghdad, Numns father, Ab al-an Shihb al-Dn (1802-54),
rose to the prestigious position of the anaf muft of Baghdad in
1835. e grand Als, as Ab an is known, lost his post in
1847, after disagreement with another Ottoman wl of Baghdad.
e family is believed to have been originally Sh but converted to the anaf madhhab, the ocial madhhab of the state, in
order to have easier access to the Ottoman ulam institution. Ab
al-an received his education in the vibrant learning circles
of Mamluk Baghdad at the hands of traditional, Su and Salaforiented ulam. While Ab al-an seems to have concealed his
Salaf leanings during his mufship of Baghdad, his convictions became
more apparent after removal from his post.8 His journey from
the dominant, traditional viewpoint to the Salaf perspective is
best illustrated in the changing discourse of his seminal exegesis
of the Qurn Ru al-man f tafsr al-Qurn al-azm wa-l-sab
al-mathn.9
Numn was the third of Ab al-ans ve sons, all of whom
followed in the footsteps of their ancestors, occupying several posts
in the elds of Islamic teaching and Ottoman judiciary, although
none of the brothers enjoyed the scholarly recognition which Numn
7)
For a brief biography of Numn al-Als, see Abd al-Razzq al-Bayr, Hiliyat al-bashar
f trkh al-qarn al-thlith ashar (Damascus: al-Majma al-Ilm al-Arab, 1961-63),
vol. 3, 1571-4; Mamd Shukr al-Als, al-Misk al-adhfar (Baghdad: Mabaat al-Adab,
1930), 51; Ysuf Sarks, Mujam al-mabt al-arabiyya wa-l-muarraba (Cairo: Maktabat
al-aqfa al-Dniyya, n. d.), vol. 1, columns 7 and 8; Khayr al-Dn al-Zirikl, al-Alm
(Beirut: Dr al-Ilm li-l-Malyn, 1989), vol. 8, 42.
8)
e classical account of the life of Ab al-an is Abbs al-Azzw, Dhikr Ab
al-an al-Als (Baghdad: Sharikat al-Tijra wa-l-iba, 1958). For an extensive study
of his life and works, see Na, Abu al-ana al-Alusi, 465-94.
9)
e rst edition of Ab al-ans Ru al-man f tafsr al-Qurn al-azm wa-l-sab
al-mathn was published in Cairo by Blq Press (1889-93), supervised by his son Numn.
A recent edition was published by Dr Iiy al-Turth al-Arab, Beirut, 1985.
53
rose to. Two, at least, of Numns brothers showed a strong Su

commitment and pursued a traditional ulam career, testifying to
the enduring power of Susm and traditional Islam in late Ottoman
culture.10 Numn himself was only fourteen years of age when Ab
al-an died, which means that his study with his father lasted
for a short period of time. In the last few years of his life, Ab
al-an could not conceal his resentment towards the Ottoman
authorities, but none of his sons would manifest similar attitudes,
at least not in public. For the Alss to preserve their status as a
leading family of ulam, it was necessary to maintain good relations
with the state and its representatives.
Numns other known teacher was Muammad Amn al-Wi
(1808-58), described plainly in historical biographies as a Salaf
lim.11 Al-Wi, a student of Ab al-an and closely associated
with him, was the preacher at the Abd al-Qdir al- Jln mosque,
the second most important mosque of Baghdad along with that of
Ab anfa. When the wl of Baghdad, Najb Pasha (r. 1842-9),
faced an uprising by the people of Baghdad in 1847, protesting
his decision to increase taxes levied from the provinces artisans,
he accused the muft Ab al-an, and his friend and disciple
al-Wi, of instigating the protest. Ab al-an was dismissed
from mufship and al-Wi was exiled to the southern city of
Basra.12 Al-Wi was one of the leading authorities of his time on
anaf jurisprudence, earning the epithet: Ab Ysuf the Second,
in reference to Ab anfas renowned student.13 Yet, a combination of commitment to the anaf madhhab and Salaf attitudes
were not unprecedented in modern Islamic culture. Both Mulla Al
al-Qr al-Haraw (d. 1014/ 1606) and Muammad ayt al-Sind
10)
For biographies of several generations of the Alss, see Muammad Bahjat al-Athar,
Alm al-Irq (Cairo: al-Mabaa al-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
to strengthen the position of the Rifiyya arqa, establishing a network

of supporters, followers and sycophants.18 For the traditional competition in Sunni Iraq between the Rifiyya and Jlniyya uruq, a common
cause attracted the Alss to al-ayyd. Numn, his nephew Mamd
Shukr (1273/1856-1342/1924),19 a later eminent gure in Arab
Salaf circles, and other members of the Als family, became involved
with al- ayyd and his eort to promote the Rifiyya in Baghdad.20
ere are strong indications that the association between al-ayyd
and Numn and Mamd Shukr continued for a short period of
time, during which the two Alss seem not to have made a rm
commitment to the Rifiyya arqa. Some of the evidence can be
derived from the biographical history of Mamd Shukr.
Like his uncle, Mamd Shukr leaned towards taawwuf earlier in
his ulam career. Sometime in the late 1880s, he wrote a commentary
on a poem by al-ayyd praising the renowned Su and eponym
of the Rifiyya arqa, Amad al-Rif. In his commentary, al-Asrr
al-ilhiyya, Mamd Shukr accepted the notion of esoteric knowledge,
but rejected the doctrine of wadat al-wujd, attributed to Ibn
Arab.21 Mamd Shukrs work was received with enthusiasm and
appreciation by al-ayyd; but not long afterwards, this relationship
would suer irreparable damage. A view of the evolving situation
is provided in an exchange of correspondence between Mamd
Shukr and al-ayyd, published by M. Bahjat al-Athar, a close
student and biographer of Mamd Shukr.22
In what appears to be the rst letter that al-ayyd wrote to
Mamd Shukr, al-ayyd expresses gratitude for the seconds ne
comments on his poem, seems hopeful that Mamd Shukr would
join the Rifiyya arqa, and voices disappointment at the new
18)
For the Rifiyya activities in Baghdad, see Louis Massignon, Les saints 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
direction taken by Numn al-Als. Considering that Numns Jal

al-aynayn appeared in 1881, and that al-ayyds letter followed the
publication of al-Asrr al-ilhiyya in 1888/9, it is most likely that
Mamd Shukrs contacts with al-ayyd started after his uncle
had broken o his own, apparently upon the insistence of some of
al-ayyds associates in Baghdad. But these contacts seem to have
been tenuous from the very beginning. Mamd Shukrs responses
to al-ayyd reveal the rsts rejection of an invitation to join the
Rifiyya arqa, and demonstrate Mamd Shukrs doubts over the
excesses of the Rifiyya followers. A year later, Mamd Shukr
nalized the writing of Fat al-mannn tatimmat minhj al-tass
radd ul al-ikhwn, a refutation of Dawd b. Sulaymn b. Jirjis
(1816-82).23 e book, which was published at Bombay in 1309/
1892, was originally an incomplete manuscript, drafted by Abd
al-Laf b. Abd al-Ramn (1810-76), grandson of Muammad b.
Abd al-Wahhb.24 By undertaking this project, Mamd Shukr
was obviously putting an end to al-ayyds hope that the younger
Als might join the Rifiyya.
But if Numn al-Alss association with al-ayyd and the
Rifiyya was short and uncertain, it is certain that he, like his
father, was initiated into the NaqshbandiyyaKhlidiyya arqa,25
with which many of the reformist and Salaf-oriented Damascene
and Baghdd ulam were aliated. In Jal al-aynayn, al-Als
makes frequent references to Khlid al-Naqshband (1776-1826),
23)
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
the celebrated founder of this sub-arqa, especially his views on

major issues of Islamic theology.
In 1295/1878, Numn al-Als took an abrupt decision to quit
his job as a judge. It is not clear why he made such a decision,
and whether he was looking for a more important position or was
passing a period of intellectual crisis. He left Baghdad for Cairo,
where he planned to get his fathers exegesis of the Qurn printed,
and from there he continued to Makka to perform the ajj.26 While
in Cairo, he came across Fat al-bayn, a commentary on the Qurn
written by the Salaf scholar and ruler of the Indian State of Bhopal,
iddq asan Khn (d. 1889),27 and was profoundly impressed by
it. In Makka, a certain Amad b. s al-Najd provided him with
other works by iddq asan Khn. It thus happened that upon his
return to Baghdad, Numn initiated correspondence with the Indian
scholar. e ensuing relationship with iddq asan Khn seems
to have played a substantive role in eecting a major intellectual
shift in the life of Numn al-Als. M. Bahjat al-Athar wrote that
Numn had already been working on Jal al-aynayn when he began
corresponding with iddq asan Khn.28 is could have been the
case; but since Numn nished the writing of his book in Rab
al-khar 1297/March 1880,29 two years after encountering iddq
asan Khns works, there exists a possibility that Numn wrote
Jal al-aynayn, or at least a large part of it, under the inuence
of iddq asan Khn.
26)
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
Intellectual shifts in the life of historical gures are not particularly

easy to explain. Even when the person concerned had left an account
of his own experience, history might have a judgment of its own.30
at Numn al-Als was born and raised in an environment pervaded with Salaf ideas is not in any doubt. But given the dominant
forces of Ottoman culture, Salasm was not a practical choice for
an lim of a notable family. It is true that by the late nineteenth
century, the Saudi-Wahhb movement was no longer seen as a threat
to the Ottoman system,31 but hostility to Salaf Islam was inherent
in the traditional ulam institution, and was not only the function
of the Wahhb-Saudi challenge. Numns acquaintance with iddq
asan Khn and his works, therefore, provided both intellectual
impetus as well as social backing. If so eminent a personality and
ruler-prince as iddq asan Khn could embrace the Salaf choice,
why not the son of Ab al-an al-Als?
A year after the publication of the Jal al-aynayn, sponsored by
iddq asan Khn, Numn dispatched his son Al Al al-Dn
(1861-1922) to Bhopal, acknowledging the support of iddq asan
Khn and strengthening the familys ties with him.32 is, however,
did not mean a break with the Ottoman regime. In 1300/1882,
Numn al-Als was on the move again. is time, his travel would
take him to Istanbul, where he lobbied for the restoration of the
Murjn School (and its waqf ), from which his father had been
deposed, to the family. He spent two years in the Ottoman capital,
meeting with ulam and statesmen. At the orders of Sultan Abd
al-amd II he returned to Baghdad with the school safe under
his control, appointed the head of its teachers. His position at the
Murjn School was later inherited by his son, Al Al al-Dn, and
his nephew Mamd Shukr.33 Whether al-ayyd played any role
30)
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
in restoring the school to the Alss, is not very clear. Whatever

the case, the Alss belonging to the Ottoman regime reached an
unprecedented height when the governor of Baghdad Nmq Pasha
(r. 1899-1902), son of the eminent Ottoman statesman and thinker
Nmq Kemal, married tika, Numns daughter, perhaps just before
the passing of her father.34
Numn went to Istanbul via Damascus, where he stopped for a
while. is visit to the thriving Syrian city left a long-lasting impact
on its emerging Salaf circle of ulam, members of which would
henceforth maintain contacts with Numn well until his death. e
signicance of the Damascus sojourn arises from the fact that it
came a year after the publication of Jal al-aynayn. According to a
much later report by the Damascene al-aqiq journal, quoted by
al-Athar, Numns activities in Damascus included holding lessons
on shiyat radd al-mutr al al-durr al-mukhtr of Ibn bidn
(1198/1784-1252/1836).35 Although published in 1910-13, during
the Ottoman second constitutional period, al-aqiq followed a
traditional, anti-Salaf line,36 which might raise doubts about the
reliability of its report. However, it is hard to imagine, in the highly
34)
Al-Azzw, Trkh al-Irq, vol. 8, 131-46. Eich (e Forgotten 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
charged atmosphere of early twentieth-century Damascus, that a

writer could have invented such a story when other contemporaries
of the event were still alive. It does seem that by dedicating his
teaching sessions to commenting on Ibn bidns work, a major
source of anaf qh in the nineteenth-century Ottoman realm,
Numn al-Als sought to arm his obligation to the anaf school
of law, and show that his Salasm did not mean the diminishing
of his attachment to the madhhabs traditions. In fact, evidence of
Numns interest in anaf qh is not limited to the Damascus
lectures. In Jal al-anayn, he displays a formidable knowledge of
traditional qh and its sources, and repeatedly declares his adherence
to the anaf madhhab.37
e Book
Jal al-aynayn appeared from the beginning in a printed form, which
was an important factor in its enduring inuence and relatively rapid
circulation. By the late nineteenth century, printing had become
an established tool of publication in the Arab mashriq, from Cairo
to Baghdad. After the short-lived printing press of the Napoleonic
expedition, a new printing house was opened in Blq in 1822,
run by a team of workers who received their training in Milan.38
Although the Blq Press was transferred to private ownership in
1862, it was returned to state control in 1880. Serving government
and private needs, the Blq Press made an immense contribution
to the cultural renaissance in nineteenth-century Egypt and the
Arab speaking region. It published al-Waqi al-miriyya, the rst
Egyptian ocial gazette, military manuals, works translated from
European languages, selected works of the Islamic heritage, and
modern books of all elds of knowledge.
37)
According to Muammad Bahjat al-Athar (Mamd Shukr al-Als wa-ruh

al-lughawiyya [Cairo: Mahad al-Dirst al-Arabiyya, 1958], 42), Numn al-Als wrote
an abridgment of Ibn al-Jawzs biography of Amad b. anbal, indicating his admiration
of the anbal madhhab.
38)
Timothy Mitchell, Colonizing Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988),
133f.; J. Jomier, Bl, EI 2, I, 1299.
61
Print had a decisive impact on the communicability of the written

word, but at the same time it unied the format in which writing
was produced, altering the nature of authority embedded in, and
evinced by, the text. Describing the fundamental changes brought
about by the print, Messick wrote,
In comparison with the physical and conceptual openness of manuscripts,
printed texts were to be related to in a new manner. Copying, of course,
would be completely eliminated; reading would no longer be an open-ended
process that required and invited corrective intervention and elucidating
comment. While printed texts were more physically distanced from and
conceptually independent of equally newly constituted readers, they also
contained a new authority, a new truth value, enhanced by the denitiveness
of the technology.39
e uniformity created by the print culture seemed to obliterate the

uniqueness of the manuscript as a free and highly characteristic space
of owing, interconnected text, commentary and marginal glosses. Yet,
the transformation from the characteristic to the standardized was
not abrupt. Well until the early twentieth century, and in some cases
even beyond, Muslim scholars of traditional educational backgrounds
manipulated the print format to stress the genealogical meaning
and scope of their text. Jal al-aynayn, in its Blq edition, is an
example of texts printed during that transitional period.
e book begins with a title page, followed by a table of contents
that occupies pages two to seven. Although the table of contents
is an invention of the print culture, it is used in Numns book not
only as an index of chapters or sections of the book. Jal al-aynayns
table of contents is in fact an exhaustive, long list of subtitles and
explanatory notes, elaborating every signicant evolution of the text.
For example, it contains ve entries for a single page, indicating the
biographies of ve dierent ulam included in the text. Since the
book was conceived of as an organic unit, the implicit scheme of
classication reected in the table of contents of modern printed
39)
Brinkley Messick, e Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim

Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 126f.
62
tracts was almost absent, or seems not to have been recognized by

the author. Additional explanatory titles, highlighting an important
part of the text, appear frequently on the margin of the books pages.
Following the table of contents, there exists a new part, dedicated
to a series of praises and eulogies, some in the form of classical
Arabic poetry, in appreciation of the book and its author.
While almost all of the eulogies were written by ulam or
literary gures from Baghdad, one of them is attributed to a certain
usayn b. Musin al-Sab al-Khazraj al-Anr, who was of Yemen
origin but working as a teacher of Qurn and adth in al-Sikandar
mosque of Bhopal.40 usayn al-Anr was obviously an associate
of iddq asan Khn, and was intimately informed of the developing relationship between the Indian prince/scholar and Numn
al-Als. In his article, al-Anr writes rst of his admiration of Jal
al-aynayn, then proceeds to describe how the relations between iddq
asan Khn and Numn al-Als were established. According to
al-Anr, Numn al-Als sent to iddq asan Khn in 1296/1879
asking for his ijza, a request that was promptly answered. Al-Anr
then lists the full text of the ijza, granted by iddq asan Khn
to Numn al-Als, and discloses that once Numn nalized the
writing of his book, he dispatched a copy of Jal al-aynayn in its
manuscript form to iddq asan Khn, requesting his nancial
support for its printing in Cairo.
e exposition of this course of correspondence is the rst stratagem
adopted by Numn al-Als to emphasize his ideational connections
with iddq asan Khn, as well as the intellectual underpinnings
of the book. Yet, Numns implicit messages do not end here. An
important feature of Jal al-aynayn is that it is not really made of
one single text, but rather of three. While each page of the book
is occupied mainly by the text of Jal al-aynayn, on the margins
of the page there exist two other dierent texts: the rst is al-Qawl
al-jal f tarjamat al-Shaykh Taq al-Dn ibn Taymiyya al-anbal of
af al-Dn al-Bukhr, followed by iddq asan Khns al-Intiqd
40)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 2-8.
63
al-raj f shar al-itiqd al-a.41 As such, Jal al-aynayn appears

like a multifaceted project, not a single monograph.
Little is known about al-Bukhr.42 A anaf scholar of adth
of a central Asian origin, who travelled to the Arab mashriq in a
pilgrimage journey, al-Bukhr visited Yemen and Egypt, where he
became acquainted with circles of adth scholars of the Mizjj
family and with Murta al-Zabd. Eventually, al-Bukhr was to
settle in the Palestinian city of Nablus, where he also died during
a plague epidemic in 1200/1786. His arrival to the Arab mashriq
coincided with the outbreak of the Saudi-Wahhb movement and
the intensifying debate about Salaf Islam and the legacy of Ibn
Taymiyya. His laudatory biography of Ibn Taymiyya is the only
known work he authored, comprising a powerful, but not unprecedented, defense of Ibn Taymiyyas position on the attributes of God.
Al-Bukhrs admiration of Ibn Taymiyya would have been welcomed
in the Wahhb dominated Najd at the time; his choice to reside
in Nablus, therefore, might have been an indication of his wish
not to be associated with the Wahhb vision of Islam. For several
centuries, the Nablus region was a stronghold of anbal ulam,
where Salaf and pro-Ibn Taymiyya views were respected, even as
41)
af al-Dn al-Bukhr, al-Qawl al-jal f tarjamat al-Shaykh Taq al-Dn ibn 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
Susm came to dominate anbal circles. Yet, anbal ulam of

Nablus, as the majority of Syrian anbals, were not particularly
known of their support of the Wahhb mission. 43
Although several semi-biographical works in favor of Ibn Taymiyya were written in the fourteenth century, just after his passing,
al-Bukhrs al-Qawl al-jal is certainly one of very few such works
to be undertaken in the following centuries. Another later biography
of Ibn Taymiyya is that of Mar b. Ysuf al-Karm (d. 1033/1624),44
an eminent anbal scholar at al-Azhar, who originated from the
Nablus region. If Numn al-Als was looking for a recent inuential
biography of Ibn Taymiyya to be included in his book, al-Karms
work was certainly the best known and scholarly recognized. Opting
for al-Bukhrs al-Qawl al-jal was most likely a deliberate act to
serve two purposes. First, like Numn al-Als, al-Bukhr was among
the few anaf ulam to have taken the side of Ibn Taymiyya;
hence, the inclusion of his work in the Jal al-aynayn project would
demonstrate that Numn al-Als was not the only anaf lim
to uphold Ibn Taymiyyas views against the traditional views of the
madhhabs. Second, al-Bukhr is specically concerned with Ibn
Taymiyyas theological convictions, a theme that is comparatively
less elaborate in al-Karms work.
iddq asan Khns al-Intiqd al-raj adds another perspective to
the Jal al-aynayn project. Since the authority of iddq asan Khn
was invoked from the very rst pages of the book, one suspects that
in this case Numn al-Als was fundamentally interested in what
iddq asan Khn had to say in his treatise. In fact, al-Intiqd alraj is not an independent work of its own, but rather a commentary
on a treatise on Islamic beliefs written by the inuential eighteenth-
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
century Indian reformer Wal-Allh Dihlaw (1114/1703-1176/62).45

For questions of theology occupy a central place in Jal al-aynayn,
and the inclusion of iddq asan Khns treatise would help to
convey a broader vision of Salaf Islam, augmenting the one presented
in al-Bukhrs treatise.
Finally, being an intellectual trial of the two Amads, Amad
b. Taymiyya and Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, as to the validity of
the latters opinion of the rst and some of the most controversial
arguments attributed to the fourteenth-century anbal scholar, Jal
al-aynayn embodies a reference to Numn al-Alss authority as
a former judge. For a judge is assumed, and required, to uphold
justice, it is objectivity and fairness that al-Als wishes to promise in
adjudicating the issues under discussion. It is, therefore, warranted to
introduce the entangled dispute of the two protagonists of Numn
al-Alss work.
Al-Haytam on Ibn Taymiyya
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam (909/1504-975/1567) was born in the
village of Ab al-Haytam of the Egyptian western province.46 His
family seems to have been connected to learned circles, since following the passing of his father, he came under the patronage of two
eminent Sh ulam of the time. After a period of study at Amad
al-Badaw mosque of Tanta, he moved to al-Azhar, where he joined
45)
Syed Habibul Haq Nadvi, Islamic Resurgent Movements in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent
(Durban: Academia, 1986); J. M. S. Baljon, Religion and ought of Shah Wali Allah
(Leiden: Brill, 1986); afaru l-Islm Khn, al-Imm Wal Allh al-Dihlaw (New Delhi:
Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, 1996).
46)
Abdallh b. ijz al-Sharqw, al-Tufa al-bahiyya f abaqt al-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
some of the most senior Sh scholars of qh, adth and theology,

including Zakariyy al-Anr (described by his contemporaries as
shaykh al-islm, 826/1423-926/1520),47 and Abd al-aqq al-Sunb
(842/1438- 931/1525).48 In the highly elaborate index of his teachers
and ijzt,49 al-Haytam writes of his aliation with several Su
arqas, such as the Qdiriyya and Shdhiliyya, asserts his belief in
the Su ritual of khirqa wearing (the assuming of Su mantle), and
displays a remarkable knowledge of the Su chains of authority.
Emerging as a noted Sh jurist, licensed for fatw-giving since
he was twenty years of age, al-Haytam could have spent the rest of
his career at al-Azhar; but an unhappy incident of scholarly rivalry
and jealousy drove him to leave Cairo for the city of Makka. He
had visited Makka for the ajj and sojourning at the Grand Mosque
(the Makkan aram) more than once, but when he arrived there
in 940/1534, it was to stay for good. In the Makka of the early
Ottoman period, al-Haytam would soon be recognized as one of
the most renowned Sh jurists of his time, whose opinion was
sought by Sh Muslims from as far aeld as India. Among his
achievements in qh is a gloss (shar) of al-Minhj,50 al-Nawaws
widely used prcis (mukhtaar) of Sh qh, as well as a four-volume
collection of fatws, covering issues related to all departments of
Islamic law.51
Yet, al-Haytam was not only a jurist. An lim with strong attachments to Islamic traditions, he became a standard-bearer of Sunnism,
in a time when the Sunni-Shii disputation was reaching a high
point against a background of Ottoman-Safavid conict and SunniShii frictions in Mughal India. Following on a long line of Sunni
responses to the Shii version of history and vision of Islam, alHaytam wrote two treatises upholding Sunni beliefs and historical
47)
Al-Shawkn, al-Badr al-li, vol. 1, 252; al-Kattn, Fihris al-Fahris, vol. 1, 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
narrative.52 According to al-Haytam, his Tahr al-jinn wa-l-lisn,

a defense of the rst Umayyad Caliph Muwiya b. Ab Sufyn
(r. 41/661-60/680), was written upon the request of the Mughal
Sultan Humyn (r. 1530-40 and 1555-6).53 What is signicant
in al-Haytams discussion of the events and characters of the rst
Islamic civil war, the founding moment in the Sunni-Shii split, is
his heavy reliance on adth, while avoiding historical investigation
and its relevant sources. In fact, al-Haytams expertise in adth
was so highly regarded that he was also recognized as a adth
scholar. His contribution to adth learning includes a gloss (shar)
on the forty adth of al-Nawaw (631/1233-676/1277), al-Arban
al-nawawiyya,54 in addition to a collection of fatws,55 which is
largely adth-based responses to inquiries covering dierent aspects
of Islamic knowledge, not only qh.
In contrast to his teacher Zakariyy al-Anr, and his fellow
eminent Sh Abd al-Wahhb al-Sharn (898/1493-973/1565),
al-Haytam is not listed among the prominent Sus of the time.56
Nor is he noted as an expert in the Islamic legal theory (ul
al-qh).57 Yet, he did write on Islamic legal theory, the fundamentals
of religion (Islamic theology, or kalm), and Susm. In Kitb
al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf,58 a brief work by any measure,
52)
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
al-Haytam adheres to the Sh legal theory as formulated by the

great masters of the middle Islamic period, identifying the four major
sources of law as the Qurn, the Prophetic sunna, consensus (ijm),
analogical reason (qiys), and juridical preference (istisn). When
he speaks of ijtihd and taqld, he recounts the classical denition
of both, without stating his own inclination.59 eologically, he
declares his commitment to the Ashar dogma, as developed by late
Ashar scholars, opting for a middle position on the thorny issue of
Gods attributes, manifested in the approval of moderate allegorical
interpretation (tawl) of the corporeal attributes.60 On the other
hand, the purpose of taawwuf, for al-Haytam, is purifying the
outer, in order (for man) to achieve purication of the inner, and
realize the ultimate perfections.61 His way of Susm is that of Ab
al-Qsim al-Junayd (the sober, claimed founder of the Su path,
d. 298/910); all that might be imagined as unionism (ittid) and
immanentism (ull) in the writings of the late Sus, such as Ibn
Arab (560/1165-638/1240) and Ibn al-Fri (576/1181-632/1235),
should be understood in light of their specic (esoteric) discourse
and terminology, for, in reality, they are totally innocent of the
accusations thrown at them.
is vision of Islam lends itself to a traditional, sixteenth-century
ulam outlook. By the standards of learning in late medieval and
early modern Islamic circles, al-Haytam was certainly a formidable
jurist. But he was also a conformist lim, a great believer in the
received wisdom, and the validity of Sunni Islam as it evolved through
the ages. Like the great majority of the ulam class of his time,
he strongly upheld the Sunni version of history, unquestionably
embraced the Ashar-Mturd theology, saw no way to improve
on the achievements of the classical legal theorists, and sincerely
followed on the path of the Sus. In a sense, he was an orthodox
lim, opposed to socio-moral excesses, not a few of which were
common in populist Su circles, and was thus profoundly committed
59)
60)
61)
Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 23f.

Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 25.
Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 32.
69
to the high values of religion.62 However, he was also an apologist

of Ibn Arab, not an advocate of wadat al-wujd in its literal
conception, whatever that conception could be, but a believer in
Ibn Arabs piety, in his contribution to Islam, and the import of
his experience.
In al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, al-Haytam responds to all kinds of
questions that fall beyond the established departments of qh, elaborating on matters of theology, language, and legal theory. A wide
range of issues that he discusses is of a Su nature. He is clear
in arming that Ibn Arab and Ibn al-Fri, and those who followed in their footsteps, are a group of chosen saints (akhyr
muqqarabn), a status that is reected in the testimonies of a number
of the most eminent scholars of Islam;63 Ibn al-Arabs and Ibn
al-Fris knowledge, and their rejection of this world, are indicators
of their blamelessness of what they are accused of; those who denounced them had no experience of the sciences of revelation (ulm
al-kashf );64 the paths to God are as numerous as the lives of Gods
creations, and to nd the real (al-aqq), one has to read works,
such as al-Iiy of al-Ghazl, the Risla of al-Qushayr (Abd
al-Karm, 376/986-465/1072), Awrif al-marif of al-Suhraward
(Shihb al-Dn Umar, 539/1145-632/1234) and Qt al-qulb of
Ab lib al-Makk (Muammad b. Al al-rith, d. 386/996);65
the highest status, as asserted by al-Ghazl, is that of the Prophets,
the knowing saints (al-awliy al-rifn), the learned ulam, and the
righteous people, respectively, since those who possess the esoteric
knowledge (ilm al-bin) are better than those who know the rules
and categories of Islamic sciences;66 there are dierences between
62)
See, for example, Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Zawjir an iqtirf al-kabir (Cairo:
al-Mabaa al-Maymaniyya, 1331 AH), 2 vols.
63)
Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 50, 335f.
64)
Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 52f., 81, 313f., 331f.
65)
Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 77. For a study of al-Qushayrs Risla, see 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)
Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 311.

Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 289, 291, 296f.
71
they stand in contradiction to the Sunni beliefs; although al-Ghazl

came ultimately to reject the philosophers.
Al-Haytam does not challenge the validity of Ibn Taymiyyas
analysis; but to illustrate the gravity of his attitude to taawwuf,
al-Haytam mentions that he also rejected many other Sus, including
al-allj (244/857-309/922) and Ab al-asan al-Shdhil (ca. 593/
1196-656/1258). Ibn Taymiyyas sweeping attack on the companions
and Sus, al-Haytam points out, led (an anonymous) former follower
of his to denounce him because he put Umar b. al-Khab and
Al b. Ab lib at error. Al-Haytam goes on to list Ibn Taymiyyas
constant disagreement with the Sunni consensus on issues ranging
from divorce (alq), the circumambulation (awf ) of a menstrual
woman around the Kaba, ritual purity (ahra), to endowment
(waqf ), as well as for saying that a dissenter from the consensus
is neither an apostate nor a sinner. Ibn Taymiyya was further a
corporealist, who believed that God was spatially conned, that
the Qurn was contingent, that the world, as a kind (naw), was
eternal, and that the Prophet had no power to aid mans supplication
to God. In response to another question concerning the eponym
of the anbal school, Amad b. anbal (164/780-241/855), alHaytam refuted accusations that Ibn anbal held views on the
attributes of God that contradicted the Sunni beliefs, and blamed
Ibn Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim (691/1292-751/1350)
for suggesting otherwise.69
It is certainly tempting to explain al-Haytams attack on Ibn
Taymiyya in simple, straightforward terms: notwithstanding a few
qualications, al-Haytam was a strong believer in taawwuf in general
and that of Ibn Arab in particular, as well as a committed Ashar.
e two questions that were put to him were both related to late
Susm, that was dominated by Ibn Arabs ideas, and fundamentals
of the Ashar kalm. Asharism aside, Muslim disagreements on Ibn
Arab and wadat al-wujd, from the thirteenth century onward, had
always been riddled with ill-feeling and bitterness. Yet, true as it is,
this specic background does not provide a sucient explanation for
the acute and uninhibited censure pervading al-Haytams account
69)
Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 114-7, 203f.
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)
Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Ilm f Qawi al-Islm, ms 28, Tawd, e Arab

Manuscript Institute, e Arab League, Cairo.
71)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 2f.
73
al-Ward (Umar, 689 or 691/1290 or 1292-749/1349), and Ibn

ajar al-Asqaln (773/1372-852/1449).72 Using a similar tone of
reverence, he outlines short biographical passages of a number of
leading ulam who were critical of Ibn Taymiyya, such as Taq
al-Dn and Tj al-Dn al-Subk, al-Izz b. Jama, and Kamal al-Dn
al-Zamlakn (666 or 667/1267 or 1268-727/1327),73 all of whom
had been mentioned by al-Haytam. He then, maintaining respect
and appreciation, introduces Ibn ajar al-Haytam.
Aiming to illustrate the learned lineage of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Als
discusses the life and achievements of a few of his renowned ancestors and relatives; and to highlight his invaluable legacy, he lists
a number of Ibn Taymiyyas most prominent students and their
achievements, as well as other later ulam inuenced by his ideas.74
What is interesting in the latter group is that while it encompasses
ulam such as Al al-Qr al-Haraw (d. 1014/1606), Ibrhm
al-Krn (1025/1616-1101/1689), Muammad b. Al al-Shawkn
(ca. 1173/1760-1255/1839), Al al-Suwayd, Ab al-an al-Als,
Wal-Allh Dihlaw, and iddq asan Khn, it does not include
Muammad b. Abd al-Wahhb. Given the erudition of al-Als,
and the inconceivably missable reputation of Ibn Abd al-Wahhb,
the exclusion of the Najd controversial reformist from the late
followers of Ibn Taymiyya appears like a declaration of intent by
al-Als, rather than a measure of political precaution. Since the
Wahhb-Saudi question was by the late nineteenth century no longer
a political issue that could preclude the mere mention of Ibn Abd
al-Wahhb in an intellectual context, al-Als seems to be keen not
to identify with the Wahhb legacy. e other possibility, of course,
72)
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)
74
is that al-Als did not regard Ibn Abd al-Wahhb as a student of

Ibn Taymiyya, although he never made that suggestion in explicit
terms.
e rst issue of al-Haytams allegations that al-Als deals with
is Ibn Taymiyyas belief (aqda), especially his attitude towards the
Prophets companions (aba). e central point of al-Alss response
is that Ibn Taymiyya upheld the Sunni belief (aqdat ahl al-sunna) as
it was elaborated in the third and the fourth hijr centuries. Quoting
Ibn Taymiyya on the companions, al-Als arms that like all early
grand pronouncers on the Sunni belief, Ibn Taymiyya venerated
the companions, held them higher than all following generations
of Islam, and declared his allegiance to them; but he also did not
view them as infallible, implying that disagreement with the Caliphs
Umar and Al on specic questions is not a blameworthy matter.75
Adhering to mainstream Sunnism, Ibn Taymiyya believed in the
existence of saints (awliy), those who follow on the righteous way
of the Prophet, as well as in the possibility of Gods bestowing on
some of them the power to act in an extraordinary or miraculous
manner (karma). is does not mean that Ibn Taymiyyas critical
views of Sus, such as al-allj, Ibn Arab, al-Shdhil, and alTilimsn (610/1213-690/1291), were unique or unfounded. After
documenting the claim that al-Shdhil informed his disciples of
invoking his own name in their supplication to God (which is
unacceptable from the point of view of orthodox Islam),76 al-Als
embarks on a delicate, thorough, and elaborate reconstruction of
the various understandings of the principle of wadat al-wujd.
According to Ibn Taymiyya, and obviously approved by al-Als,
the whole debate about Su unionism boils down to a single issue:
at Allh is not His creation, not a part of His creation, and not
an attribute of his creation. Rather, He is, in His sacred Self, the
only one of His kind, and transcendent.77
Al-Als intimates that he himself is not a denouncer of Ibn
Arab, although he prohibits the reading of Ibn Arabs books which
75)
76)
77)

75
convey an apparent discord with the shara. Despite admitting the

complexity involved in judging Su utterances, such as those of Ibn
Arab, by the strict rules of the shara, al-Als impresses upon his
reader the conviction that the Sus, like all Muslims, should be held
accountable to their pronouncements. e bottom line, however, is
that the Su discourse cannot be broken down into the permissible
and impermissible categories of the jurists.
Al-Als, therefore, employs a dierent strategy in explaining Ibn
Taymiyyas position, suggesting that since Muslim scholars had always held dierent and opposing views about the validity of the
esoteric Su discourse, Ibn Taymiyyas position was fully legitimate.
Ibn Arab was condemned by many a great ulam, including Sad
al-Dn al-Taftazn (d. 792/1390), Al al-Dn al-Bukhr, Ibn ajar
al-Asqaln, al-Maqqar (986/1577-1041/1632), and Ibn Daqq al-Id
(625/1228-702/1302); while Jall al-Dn al-Suy, Ibn bidn, and
Ab al-an al-Als trusted his sainthood (wilya), they prohibited
the reading of his works.78 Al-allj was denounced as an apostate
by people no less than Ab Abd al-Ramn al-Sulam (325/937412/1021), al-Qushayr (376/986- 465/1072), as well as Ibn ajar
al-Asqaln. Even al-Munw (Abd al-Raf, 952/1545-1031/1621),
the eminent Sh historian of Susm, accepted the fact that Ibn
Arab, Jall al-Dn al-Rm (604/1207-672/1273), Ibn Sabn, and
al-Tilimsn were subjects of intense disagreement.79 Referring to
Ibn Taymiyya, al-Als establishes the discursive relatedness between
esoteric Susm and the philosophy of Ibn Sn, and pays tribute
to al-Ghazls refutation of the philosophers.80
78)
See, for example, Jall al-Dn al-Suy, Tanb al-ghab bi-tabriat Ibn Arab, ed.
Muammad Ibrhm Salm (Cairo: Dr al-Ilm wa-l-aqfa, 1995), 43.
79)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 43-53. On the long-drawn controversy over Ibn Arab 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
e bulk of Jal al-aynayn is dedicated to the discussion of Ibn

Taymiyyas qh and the theology, with special emphasis on the issues
raised by al-Haytam. Here, the tone and idiom of al-Als become
more specic and entrenched in the Islamic traditions. Whereas
Islamic Su culture never developed exact rules, qh and theology
acquired a relatively dened set of terms and concepts, and came
to be approached in light of countless instances of precedents and
ideal types. Hence, al-Alss strategy of refutation is subsequently
altered. In response to al-Haytams objection that Ibn Taymiyya
dissented from the communitys consensus on a number of juridical
issues, al-Als begins by outlining his vision of ijtihd and taqld,
setting thereby the referential framework against which he believed
Ibn Taymiyya should be judged. Drawing on a wide range of classical
Islamic views, including that of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Arab,
al-Als writes that the terms faqh (jurist) and mujtahid (practitioner
of ijtihd) are synonymous. Ijtihd, according to al-Als, could be
partial, since not all jurists are competent in all branches of qh;
but no age should be free of the existence of a mujtahid; and even
a mistaken ijtihd is to be rewarded by God.81 Although it is clear
that he does not absolutely condemn the madhhab-based taqld, he
is unhesitant in standing on the side of ijtihd, and is particularly
critical of those who demand strict adherence to the madhhab, or
disallow a follower of a certain school of law from embracing an
opinion of another school.82
Al-Alss ultimate aim, nonetheless, is to assert that Ibn Taymiyyas
disputed fatws had either been the choices of other preceding scholars,
even of companions of the Prophet, or that they are simply legitimate
issues of ijtihd. On more than one occasion, he pronounces his
agreement with Ibn Taymiyyas opinion, while still conrming his own
commitment to the anaf school of law. Dealing with al-Haytams
accusations one by one, al-Als does neither deny that Ibn Taymiyya
81)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 103-9. On the development and meaning of the 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)
77
subscribed to what he was accused of, nor does he concede a single

point to Ibn Taymiyyas detractors. For example: Al-Haytam accuses
Ibn Taymiyya of stating that one who determinately neglected the
[obligatory, ritual] prayer is not required to redo it [once he decided
to re-commit himself to praying].83 Al-Als responds that this was
also the position taken by Ibn Arab in his al-Futat al-makkiyya,
as well as that of Ibn anbal, who regarded premeditated desertion
of prayer as apostasy, and an apostate was not required to pray in
the rst place. Al-Haytam attributes to Ibn Taymiyya that he considered it permissible for menstrual women to perform circumambulation (awf ) of the Kaba without incurring a penalty (kara).84
Al-Als argues that this is also a reported opinion of Ab anfa (d.
150/767), as well as that of al-Sh (150/767-204/820). He does
not even refrain from defending Ibn Taymiyya on one of his most
controversial fatws: that a mans declaration of divorce (alq), in
a thrice-declaration form on one single occasion, should be deemed
as a single divorce.85 is fatw, al-Als maintains, is based on the
opinion of companions such as Ibn Abbs and Ikrima; it is also the
position taken by the anaf Ibn bidn; and was equally approved
by al-Shawkn and Ab al-an al-Als. At any rate, Numn
al-Als concludes, whatever the Muslim dierences on this issue
were, it is clearly a matter of ijtihd.
It thus follows that Ibn Taymiyya did not dissent from the
Muslim consensus, as was claimed by al-Haytam. But what about
Ibn Taymiyyas fatw that a dissenter from consensus does neither
commit an act of unbelief nor a grave sin? Al-Als retorts: how
could dissention from the consensus be categorized as unbelief when
denial of the consensus as a source of law was not regarded as
such.86 Consensus, al-Als adds, was the subject of great dierences
83)

85)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 144. For a discussion of this fatw, see Abdul Hakim I.
al-Matrudi, e Hanbali School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah (London: Routledg, 2006),
171-85.
86)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 159f. Al-Als indicates Ab Zara as the author of a commentary of Jam al-jawmi of Tj al-Dn al-Subk, which means that he lived after 354/756.
But no jurist of the name Ab Zara could be identied in the latest of the historical
84)
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
biographies of Sh ulam. See, for example, Abdallh b. Hijz al-Sharqw, al-Tufa

al-bahiyya f abaqt al-Shiyya, ms. 149, Trkh, Institute of the Arab Manuscript,
e Arab League, Cairo. e opinion attributed to Ab Zara on consensus, however, is
common within the Sh madhhab, and seems to be derived from the wide scholarly
disagreement on the validity of consensus as a source of law, and on the possibility of its
occurrence. Al Hasab-Allh, Ul al-tashr al-islm (Cairo: Dr al-Marif, 1959),
141-6.
87)
On the late Ashars, see Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, 267-72; George Makdisi,
Ashari and Asharites in Islamic Religious History, Studia Islamica, 17 (1962): 3580, and 18 (1963): 19-39; M. Montgomery Watt, Ashariyya, EI 2, I, 696.
88)
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)
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)

95)
For a response to Ab Yal by another anbal, see Abd al-Ramn b. al-Jawz, Daf
shubah al-tashbh, ed. Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfqiyya,
n. d.), 26-30, 37-40, 49-61, 79-82, and passim.
96)
94)
81
tenacity of the Muslim debate on the divine attributes.97 To conclude

this section, therefore, al-Als resorts to long quotations from Ibn
Taymiyya, from earlier Muslim scholars, such as al-Sh, Ibn anbal
and al-Ashar, as well as from later scholars, such as the great Su
and anbal scholar, Abd al-Qdir al-Jln (471/1078-561/1166),
and Ibrhm al-Krn, all attest to the validity of the Salaf belief
and its belonging to the mainstream of Sunni Islam.
Al-Als adopts a similar approach to justify Ibn Taymiyyas alleged
belief in the annihilation of Hell ( fan al-nr), illustrating how
dierent earlier Islamic views really were. However, only here al-Als
seems to yield to Ibn Taymiyyas opponents. Accurately summarizing
the prevalent Sunni view, al-Als writes that e inhabitants of Hell
are the unbelievers. e deviating believers, those who committed
grave sins, are not to be immortalized in Hell, contrary to the Mutazil
view.98 He then follows by asserting that the correct opinion is
that both Heaven and Hell are remaining, with their good and evil
inhabitants, and that the variant view attributed to Ibn Taymiyya is
most likely derived from an unveriable report.99 Yet, even if it is
proven that Ibn Taymiyya was inclined to such a view, it is not a
matter of unbelief, for the same understanding had been expressed
by a large number of eminent Muslims.100
While Numn al-Alss work ends with a discussion of minor
questions of divorce and ritual ablution, it is the Muslim perceptions
of the Prophet that constitute the last major issue of the book. Indeed,
Ibn Taymiyya on the Prophet had been constantly, and perhaps
still is, evoking the most emotional controversies, especially the issues
related to the infallibility of the Prophet, the Prophets intercession
97)

99)
e issue of the annihilation of Hell continued to be debated well into the early
modern period. See, for example, a response to Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim in
Muammad b. Isml al-ann (Ibn al-Amr, 1099/1688-1182/1768), Raf al-astr
li-ibl adillat al-qiln bi-fan al-nr, ed. Muammad Nir al-Dn al-Albn (Beirut:
al-Maktab al-Islm, 1984). In his introduction to the book (ibid. 5-23), al-Albn, a well
known proponent of Ibn Taymiyya, discusses the whole issue of annihilation of Hell,
and produces new evidence to the eect that Ibn Taymiyyas real position is that of the
immortality of Hell.
100)
98)
82
on behalf of the believers, and visitation of the Prophets tomb. In

fact, all three issues were recalled in al-Haytams indictment of Ibn
Taymiyya. Although infallibility of the Prophets of God had been
a subject of detailed debate by Muslim scholars, al-Als explains,
all Muslims agree that the Prophets are infallible in terms of their
conveyance of the message of God. e question is whether they
are infallible in terms of other aspects of life, whether this kind of
infallibility is derived from textual evidence or arrived at rationally,
whether it concerns small or grave errors, and whether it means
immunity from approving an error or committing it.
By arraying various opinions of a number of past Muslim theologians of dierent schools, al-Als underlines the specicity of
the debates nature. His aim is not only to show the generality of
al-Haytams accusation that Ibn Taymiyya denied the infallibility of
the Prophets, and that it is hence essentially inadmissible, but also
to restrict the space assigned to matters of belief. It is in the core of
Sunni faith, as articulated by al-Ghazl, al-Isfaryn (d. 418/1027), almid (d. 631/1233), al-Taftazn, and many other grand theologians,
al-Als conrms, that scholarly disputes about infallibility of the
Prophets are never a cause of judgmental pronouncements.101
e question of intercession receives a more elaborate discussion.
Here, however, defending Ibn Taymiyya is not a straightforward
mission. Ibn Taymiyya did opine against the invocation of Prophetic
power in Muslims supplications to God (tawassul). But while Ibn
Taymiyya, like almost all Salaf-oriented scholars, relies heavily on
adth in constructing his vision of Islam, evidence of tawassul by the
Prophet are mainly derived from the corpus of adth. In tackling
this highly sensitive issue, al-Als outlines the views of those who
permitted such supplication and those who prohibited it. But his
denite quote comes from al-Iqd al-thamn of his fathers Salaf
teacher, shaykh Al al-Suwayd. Like Ibn Taymiyya, al-Suwayds logic
is rested on the belief that matters of rituals are based on following,
not inventiveness,102 that is, the legitimacy of Muslim ways and rites
101)

Al al-Suwayd, al-Iqd al-thamn f bayn masil al-dn (Cairo: al-Mabaa
al-Maymaniyya, 1325 AH), 182f. and 212.
102)
83
of worship is the function of precedents ordained by the Prophet,

not of ijtihd, even if that ijtihd is motivated by good intention.
Al-Suwayd refers to many Qurnic verses which emphasize that
only God has the power to answer Muslim prayers, that invocation
of any power but the power of God is a form of association (shirk),
and raises serious questions about the soundness of many adths
that suggest otherwise. e only right of intercession that God conferred on His Prophet is the intercession to save Muslims in the
later day.103 He reinforces his position by referring to Ibn Taymiyyas
Iqtid al-sr al-mustaqm, in which he reminds Muslims that the
death of the Prophet is an undeniable fact, and that they should
never confuse the Prophets exalted place in the divine scheme of
the world with his capacity to intervene for the living, when in his
own life he could not do so. 104
Al-Als, however, was certainly aware that issues related to the
Prophet touch the life of a wide range of Muslims. He, therefore, ends
this part of the discussion with a conciliatory note. In praise of the
middle way between the permission and prohibition of tawassul, he
brings into the eld his fathers exegesis of S. 5: 35 [Ye who believe!
Fear God and seek the means of approach unto Him, and strive on
His Way, that ye may prosper],105 in which Ab al-an al-Als
states, Resorting to a human, as a means of approaching God, by
asking him to make prayer [on your behalf ], is no doubt permissible,
if that person is alive.106 Ab al-an, however, rejects the seeking
of a dead person, however saintly he is regarded to be.
In reality, Ab al-ans position is not in contradiction with
that of Ibn Taymiyya, who also dierentiated between invocation
of the power of a certain individual, on one hand, and asking
such an individual for a prayer, on the other hand, as the latter
103)
Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 275-88; al-Suwayd, al-Iqd al-thamn, 78-118.

Amad b. Taymiyya, Iqtid al-sr al-mustaqm li-mukhlaft asb al-jam, ed.
Muammad H. al-Fq (Cairo: Mabaat al-Sunna al-Muammadiyya, 1369 AH), vol. 1,
414f. See also Idem, Majm fatwa Shaykh al-Islm Amad ibn Taymiyya, ed. Abd al-Ramn
b. Muammad b. al-Qsim and Muammad b. Abd al-Ramn (al-Riy: Maktabat Ibn
Taymiyya, n. d.), vol. 1, 105., 140f., 313f., 319, and 326.
105)
My translation.
106)
104)
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)

109)
For the earliest response to Ibn Taymiyya on visitation, see of Taq al-Dn al-Subk,
Shif al-saqm f ziyrat khayr al-anm (Cairo: Dr Jawmi al-Kalim, 1984?).
108)
85
commentary on his teachers position,110 and to whom al-Als refers

to elucidate the reality of this position. According to Ibn Abd alHd, Ibn Taymiyya, following the Prophetic way, did recommend the
visiting of the Madinan Mosque, where the Prophet is also buried,
and stressed that once entering the Mosque, a Muslim should pay
respect to the Prophet in a specic manner and recite a specic
prayer.111 What Ibn Taymiyya objected to is tomb visitation as a
premeditated purpose of pilgrimage, including the visitation of the
tomb of the Prophet.112
Finally, in a self-depreciating conclusion, Numn al-Als speaks of
his appreciation of both al-Haytam and Ibn Taymiyya, evincing no
sense of hostility to the rst or triumph for the second. He reminds
his readers, however, of the Caliph Al b. Ab libs saying Dont
identify righteousness by men, but identify righteousness you identify
its people.113 He arms that he never thought that al-Haytams
opposition to Ibn Taymiyya arose from self-promotional aspirations
or lack of knowledge; nor that Ibn Taymiyya committed no error
in some of his ijtihd opinions. But why then did al-Haytams
indictment seem not to stand the test of intellectual investigation
that al-Als carried out? Al-Alss answer is that some of the statements which have been ascribed to Ibn Taymiyya were wrongly
attributed to him, some were misinterpreted and never intended
or admitted by Ibn Taymiyya, some reect the common anbal
position, while others are denitely matters of ijtihd by a scholar
who without doubt reached the rank of ijtihd; and the horizon of
ijtihd is broad enough to accommodate them.
All in all, however, while al-Haytam launched a total onslaught
on Ibn Taymiyya, al-Als staged a total defense, drawing on an
encyclopedic knowledge of Islamic theological, Su, and juridical
traditions, and negotiating his way through a countless number of
sources: canons and polemics alike. By rarely conceding a single point
to Ibn Taymiyyas detractors, al-Als succeeds in undermining the
110)
Ab Abdallh b. Abd al-Hd, al-arm al-munk l-radd al al-Subk, ed. Isml
al-Anr (Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyya, n. d.)
111)
112)
Ibn Abd al-Hd, al-arm al-munk, 331f.
113)
86
logic of al-Haytams indictment. But more important is al-Alss

success in undermining the legitimacy of this indictment. One reason
behind al-Alss success is the generalized nature of al-Haytams
critique and its distinctively extreme language, confronted by elaborate
refutation and thorough research. Another reason, perhaps, relates to
al-Haytams unfamiliarity with Ibn Taymiyyas original writings.
Yet, the main reason may lie somewhere else, specically in
al-Haytams implicit denial of Ibn Taymiyyas right to dier, contrasted
by al-Alss recall of the right of ijtihd. In the sixteenth century,
al-Haytams partisan articulation of the narrowly-interpreted domain
of the madhhab was perhaps widely acceptable in Sunni ulam
circles; in the late nineteenth century, this was no longer the case.
e inroads made by the Salaf trend since the late seventeenth
century, the recurring calls for ijtihd in the nineteenth century, and
the intensifying debate about the nature and place of the modern,
made al-Haytams view of things unsustainable. e received Sunni
consensus of the middle Islamic period, based on a cultural system of
the established, traditional qh of the madhhabs and Ashar-Mturd
theology, eectively lost its dominant position. On the other hand,
the power of al-Alss venture emanates from his consistent discursive
strategy to assert Ibn Taymiyyas belonging to the mainstream of
Sunni traditions and his scholarly uniqueness at the same time;
reconciling him with followers of the Sunni schools of law, yet
arming his position as a grand scholar in his own right. In the
end, nonetheless, it might be fair to conclude that Numn al-Alss
interpretation of Ibn Taymiyya is a kind of interface, on which the
vision of the fourteenth-century scholar was reconstructed, and alAlss own understanding of Islam and the way he wished history
to judge him were reected.
Salafs in the Modern Age
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Salaf
trend emerged as the most dynamic force in Islamic cultural circles,
especially in the major cities of the Arab-speaking countries. But
modern Salasm was by its nature a highly contested arena, a plethora
of mental outlooks, and a diverse constellation of ulam and ideas, as
87
diverse as Islamic culture could be. During the seventeenth, eighteenth

and early nineteenth centuries, intellectual dierences between Salaforiented ulam drew meaning from elements largely intrinsic to
Islamic cultural heritage: the position vis--vis the madhhab system
and the established rules of the Islamic legal theory; the extent
to which the legacy of Su and theological doctrines has to be
accommodated; and the methodological approach to the founding
texts of Islam, the Qurn and sunna. From the late nineteenth
century onward, as programs of modernization began to take hold
in Muslim societies, and western ideas began to leave their imprints
on the intellectual texture of educated Muslims, a new situation
developed. Consequently, awareness of, response to, and interaction
with the modern world would become an additional, and no doubt
a major, factor in dening Salaf outlooks.
Although modernization was comparatively slow to arrive in nineteenth-century Iraq, Numn al-Als lived and worked in a period
during which the Ottoman administration in Baghdad became more
centralized, the military was entirely reorganized, the court system was
fundamentally changed and law codes were subsequently introduced,
and modern schools with centrally-devised curricula were established
in growing numbers.114 Numn al-Als, however, left no signicant
legacy to indicate his response to the modern age and its issues.
is, of course, does not mean that he was entirely unaware of
the changing reality and the inuence exercised by the forces of
modernity. Travelling so far a distance to the city of Cairo, where
he would spend several months, supervising the publication of his
fathers exegesis of the Qurn, and taking the uneasy step to seek
iddq asan Khns support to publish his own book, denote a
sharp recognition of the power of the print.
Mamd Shukr al-Als succeeded his uncle as the most eminent
of the Als ulam, and was soon to be regarded as a main gure
of the Arab Salaf circles. Although he lived well after the end of
World War I, he evidently was not very much inclined towards
114)
Jaml Ms al-Najjr, al-Idra al-uthmniyya f wilyat Baghdd: Min ahd al-Wl
Midt Pasha il nihyat al-ukm al-uthmn, 1869-1917 (Cairo: Maktabat Madbl,
1991); Gkhan etinsaya, Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1890-1908 (London: Routledge,
2006).
88
accommodating modern ideas and socio-political institutions. His

survey of late Ottoman Baghdad illustrates his consciousness of the
new cultural climate created by programs of modernization and their
impact on the spatial and socio-political setup of the province.115
Between 1889 and 1891, he was invited by the wl of Baghdad
Sirr Pasha to edit the Arabic section of al-Zawr, the ocial
gazette of the province.116 However, neither witnessing the emergence
of the new Baghdad, nor his early involvement with the powerful
instrument of journalism, seem to have turned Mamd Shukr
into a modernist scholar. Essentially a madrasa teacher, immersed in
the Islamic ancient traditions of learning, he led a largely reclusive
and ascetic life. During the late period of his career, he published
materials in al-Manr of Rashd Ri and the Majallat al-majma
al-ilm al-arab, journal of the Arab Academy of Damascus, when
the academy was headed by the Syrian Salaf scholar Muammad
Kurd Al (1876-1953).117 But his intellectual interests largely revolved
around Arabic-linguistic and literary issues and the re-examination
of traditional religious themes, including questions of the SunniShii polemics. ere were a few exceptions, however.
One is related to the writing of a book in which he tried to
illustrate the congruence between the Qurnic and the modern
scientic cosmological designs, reecting awareness of the intensifying
confrontation between the religious authority and the authority of
scientic knowledge.118 e second is, of course, his contribution
to the increasingly heated SalafSu debate. Mamd Shukrs rst
115)
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
Considering the rapidly blurring borders between the modern and

traditional domains in the Arab mashriq, Mamd Shukr seemed to
acquire a higher prole in relation to the modern than that of his
uncle; but only to a limit. His Salaf projection of Islam was never
developed, or never developed adequately enough, to purposefully
address the political, educational, and legal questions thrust on Muslim
society and culture by the age of modernization. Mamd Shukr
was perhaps the only pre-World War I Arab Salaf lim of the
major urban centers to unreservedly defend the Wahhb movement,
and to identify with its representation of Salaf Islam. is was, of
course, the main reason behind the Ottoman authorities attempt to
exile him to Anatolia in 1905, an attempt thwarted by the people
and notables in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.123 It was also the
reason behind his dispatch, in the early months of World War I, by
the Ottoman War ministry to Najd in order to urge Abd al-Azz
b. Sad to join the Ottoman war eort.124
In neighboring Damascus, another Salaf circle was evolving at the
same time, most eminent amongst its ulam were Abd al-Razzq
al-Bayr (1837-1917), hir al-Jazir and Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim, all
of whom were closely acquainted with Numn and Mamd Shukr
al-Als.125 e Salafs of Damascus, in contrast to their counterparts
of Baghdad, adopted a more reformist attitude, in which Salaf Islam
served as a referential framework for the accommodation of a range
of modern values and ideas. Echoing the Taymiyyan legacy, al-Qsim,
the most intellectually oriented of the Damascene Salafs, emphasized
the harmony of reason and revelation and called for ijtihd. He
upheld the higher values of religion, denouncing popular and Su
excesses, supported the education of Muslim women, without going
as far as his contemporary, the Egyptian Qsim Amn (1863-1908)
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)
91
in his call for the emancipation of women.126 Al-Qsim showed

a great interest in reforming the Islamic court system, in the revival
of Syrian manufacturing and handicrafts, and wrote and spoke in
support of constitutionalism after the 1908 Ottoman constitutional
restoration.127
Yet, it was with Muammad Abduh and Rashd Ri in Cairo
that the reformist project of modern Arab Salasm was expressed
in its most coherent forms.128 Generally, four core issues dened
126)
On Amn, see Hibba Abugideiri, On Gender and Family, S. Taji-Farouki and

B. Na, Islamic ought in the Twentieth Century (London: Tauris, 2004), 229.
127)
r al-Qsim, Jaml al-Dn al-Qsim wa-aruhu (Damascus: al-Mabaa
al-Hshimiyya, 1965); Commins, Islamic Reform, 65.; Itzchak Weismann, Taste of
Modernity: Susm, Salayya, and Arabism in Late Ottoman Damascus (Leiden: Brill, 2001),
part 3.
128)
On Abduh and Ri, see Charles Adams, Islam and Modernism in Egypt (London:
Russell & Russell, 1937); Malcolm Kerr, Islamic Reform: e Political and Legal eories
of Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966);
Albert Hourani, Arabic ought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939 (London: Oxford University
Press, 1962), 130-60 and 222-44; Nabil Abdo Khoury, Islam and Modernization in the
Middle East: Muhammad Abduh, an Ideology of Development, Ph. D dissertation,
University of New York at Albany, 1976. While Ris Salaf credentials have never been
doubted, Abduhs Salasm has been overshadowed by his modernist outlook. In two early,
less-known epistles he wrote in 1290/1873 and 1294/1877, when he was still teaching
Islamic theology at al-Azhar, but published together much later, Rislat al-wridt f
naariyyat al-mutakallimn wa-l-yya l-falsafa al-ilhiyya, followed by al-Aqda
al-Muammadiyya (Cairo: Mabaat al-Manr, 1925), Abduh adheres to his Ashar and
Su education. He writes of the questions of creation, will, and divine attributes more or
less as a typical late Ashar. Upon his return to Egypt from exile in 1888, he re-constructed
and published the lectures on theology he had earlier delivered in Beirut in Rislat al-tawd
(Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Arab, 1966). e Abduh of Rislat al-tawd discusses the
questions of belief as a moderate Salaf, without entirely denouncing the Ashar dogma,
and seems even to incorporate Mutazil ideas. He writes of the transcendental nature of
the divine attributes (24), without delving into the Islamic theological argumentation;
emphasizes mans responsibility for his actions (30.) as a function of the power instilled
in him by God; speaks of the values of reason, liberation of thought and free well (73)
embedded in the message of Islam; and while he approves of the Ashar metaphorical
interpretation of the believers sighting of the divine in the other world, he rejects the
Ashar notion of karma, or the divine gift to the selected to commit an extraordinary
act (104f.). As the muft of Egypt, Abduh adhered to the anaf madhhab in the fatws
he gave as the ocial muft of the land; in responses he gave to inquiries of private
individuals, however, his fatws were free from madhhab limitations. For Abduhs embrace
of the Salaf understanding of Islam, see the view of his disciple Muammad Kurd Al,
92
Salaf-reformist thought at the turn of the twentieth century: tawd,

the precedence of Qurn and the sunna, assertion of the role of
reason, and the call for ijtihd. Yet, nowhere were these issues
argued and advanced in a more deliberate and unrelenting fashion
than in the writings of Abduh and Ri, especially in the period
following the publication of al-Manr in 1898. Equally signicant
was the socio-political meaning embedded in the advocacy of tawd,
Qurn and the sunna, reason, and ijtihd.129 Perhaps never since
the early Islamic centuries were theological and juristic concerns as
markedly interconnected with social and political concerns as they
were in the careers of Abduh and Ri. Conscious of the modern
challenges to the position of Islam in society, they both attempted
to create a viable synthesis, in which Islamic values are interpreted
in modern terms. Hence, beyond the emphasis on tawd was a call
for liberation from despotism and injustice; the return to Qurn
and sunna aimed at freeing the collective consciousness from the
centuries-old domination of the middle traditions; the assertion of
the role of reason reected disenchantment with the prevalent Su
values, and the contention that Islamic revival is conditional upon
a higher sense of the individuals responsibility for his actions. And
ijtihd was not only viewed as an instrument for developing a new
understanding of Islam and for paving the path of social restoration
and renewal, but also as an Islamic conceptive formulation of the
idea of progress.
Abduh and Ri were thus involved in the restructuring of the
Azhar education, in the re-organization of the waqf sector, in the
eort to enhance the functioning of the shara courts, and in the
founding of a modern school for graduating shara judges. ey
expressed strong views against Muslim despotic rulers, and were
vocal exponents of the constitutional system of government. Both
al-Muirn, ed. Muammad al-Mir (Damascus: Majma al-Lugha al-Arabiyya, 1980),
343-72, esp. 354 and 385.
129)
Basheer M. Na, e Rise of Islamic Reformist ought and its Challenge to Traditional
Islam, S. Taji-Farouki and B. M. Na (eds.), Islamic ought in the Twentieth Century
(London: Tauris, 2004), 28-60, esp. 39-47; Kosugi Yasushi, Al-Manar Revisited: e
Lighthouse of the Islamic Revival, S. A. Dudoignon, K. Hisao and K. Yasushi (eds.),
Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World (London: Routledge, 2006), 3-39.
93
supported Qsim Amns rst controversial book, e Emancipation

of the Woman, and Abduh is even believed to have contributed
to its writing. Above all, al-Manr turned into the beacon of the
Islamic reformist movement throughout the Arab-speaking world,
preparing the intellectual milieu for the rise of the second wave of
Islamic reformism, especially in North-African countries.
What almost all Arab Salaf ulam and their students were to share
was a mood of growing assertiveness of an Arab sense of nationness.
Arabist sentiments emanated from the convergence of a multitude of
forces, including Ottoman centralization and Turkication policies;
the falling boundaries of the traditional, segmental modes of identity;
and progressive advances in systems of communication, including the
press media.130 e oppositional discourse of the Arab-Salaf ulam,
their interest in modern education, embrace of journalism, and contribution to the emerging of a modern, non-elitist Arabic language,
played a vital role in shaping the modern Arab consciousness. In his
interpretation of the Muslims predicament, Abduh advanced the
notion that Muslim decline correlated to the removal of the Arabs
from the leadership of the Muslim umma.131 Mamd Shukr alAls wrote one of the earliest Arabist tracts,132 which by discussing
the Arab pre-Islamic social and cultural environment implied the
existence of an Arab nation and identity. e Syrian Salaf circles
became a hotbed for the future of the Arab nationalist movement,133
while al-Manr was the most vocal Arabist organ in the pre-World
War I period.134 In fact, the very idea that the Salaf way is the
way of the great ancestors, the pristine way of Islam, was patently
conducive to the elevation of Arab self-consciousness; for it was the
Arab Muslims who led Islam to its early greatness.
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)
134)
Hourani, Arabic ought, 271.
94
Yet, like with other manifestations of modernity, once Arabism

developed as an anti-Ottoman political movement during World
War I, carrying the banners of full Arab independence, Arab Salafs
were not necessarily united in their political behavior. Salaf Islam
had never been a coherent ideology, and was not to be so in the
uncertain times of the modern age.
Conclusions
Considering the long history of Salaf revival, beginning from the late
seventeenth century,135 Numn al-Als should perhaps be seen as a
transitional gure. In the earlier period, except for the SaudiWahhb
movement, which was largely the function of religious, tribal and
economic forces, the Salaf orientation could hardly be counted as
a broad, self-reproducing and distinctive school of thought. A line
of Salaf ulam with strong inuence can be traced from Ibrhm
al-Krn (1025/1616-1101/1689) onward, and Salaf impulses contributed to the making of a number of revivalist movements, from
the Indian Subcontinent to West Africa. But Salaf Islam continued
to exist on the margin of the traditional institutions of the ulam
class and Su arqas. By the early twentieth century, however, Salaf
Islam broke its historical constrains, to be represented in countless
formulas and ideational accents. One reason behind the rise of Salaf
Islam (neo-Salayya, as it came to be called), was the decline, and
subsequent fall of the Ottoman polity, the main power behind the
traditional ulam institution and Su arqas, especially during the
amdian era. e second was the apparent failure of traditional
ulam to respond to the intellectual and social questions posed by
the sweeping winds of modernity. Finally, a wide range of Salaf
ulam and public gures exhibited the reformist tendencies, and the
real concerns about every-day life of Muslim societies. e rationalist
tilt of the Salaf ulam and public gures, their embrace of ijtihd,
135)
John Voll, Muhammad Hayya al-Sindi and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab: An
Analysis of an Intellectual Group in Eighteenth-Century Madina, BSOAS, 38, 1 (1974):
32-9; Basheer M. Na, Taawwuf and Reform in pre-Modern Islamic Culture: In Search
of Ibrhm al-Krn, Die Welt des Islams, 42, 3 (2002): 307-55.
95
critical view of the past, and involvement in the political sphere,

placed many of them at the heart of the intellectual and sociopolitical dynamics of the time.
Some of the most inuential journals and newspapers were
published by students of the Salaf school; associates of the Salaf
circles played signicant roles in the rise of Arab nationalism, the
Tunisian, Algerian and Moroccan nationalist movements; Salaf
societies established networks of modern schools in several Arab
and non-Arab countries; Salaf-oriented ulam, such as Muaf
al-Margh (1881-1945) and al-hir b. Ashr (1879-1973), occupied
the most senior positions in the ulam institutions of Egypt and
Tunisia, while others like Abd al-Karm al-Khab (1882-1963)
and Izz al-Dn al-Qassm (1883-1935) spearheaded the national
struggle against the foreign occupation in Morocco and Palestine;
the Syrian Salaf scholar Muammad Kurd Al became the president
of the rst of the Arabic Academies; and asan al-Bann (1906-49),
a student of Cairo Salaf circles, came to found one of the most
inuential political Islamic movements in modern times. Even the
most conservative wing of the Salaf school, the Saudi-Wahhb
movement, would by 1930 succeed in unifying the greater part of
the Arabian Peninsula, as an independent monarchic country. In
many respects, the Salaf school of thought proved more adaptable
to the modern climate of the twentieth century than its traditional
counterpart.
Numn al-Als inhabited both worlds of Salaf Islam, without fully
belonging to either one. He was not as engaged with the modern way
as Abduh and Ri, or even al-Qsim or Ibn Ashr; nor was he
associated with any of the political currents that began to spring up
in the Ottoman realm of the second half of the nineteenth century.
is reserved sense of Salasm cannot be attributed to Wahhb
conservative leanings. In fact, contrary to the Wahhb outlook,
Numn al-Als believed in ijtihd, was generally committed to the
rational rules of the Islamic legal theory, paid respect to the legacy
of the madhhabs, and was fundamentally accommodating to certain
expressions of Susm. From the theological and juridical point of
view, he was as progressive as most Salaf modernist would be.
96
Furthermore, while Wahhb Islam was inherently political and equally

perceived by the Ottoman circles as an oppositional force, Numn
al-Als would never sever his ties with the Ottoman regime.
On the other hand, Numn al-Alss powerful statement in support of Salaf Islam cannot be simply described as a sons yearning
for the memory of his father, since ulam of the Als family
went in all kinds of directions. Even the young Numn showed
Su anities and a commitment to the anaf madhhab. Besides
descending from a line of Salaf ulam, it is perhaps the broader
context of the Ottoman modern state wherein the explanation of
Numn al-Alss Salasm lies. Embodied in the amdian regime,
the modern state was burdened by a gripping sense of legitimacy
crisis. To compensate for what has been called its legitimation
decit,136 the amdian regime embarked on a sustained eort
for centralization, control and discipline, even beyond that of the
Tanzimat period with the aim of shaping the Ottoman society
and the outlook of its peoples. e coercive nature of the state
policy, manifested in the imposition of a specic version of
anaf and Su Islam, departed from the established modes of
state-society relationship and evoked dierent intellectual reactions,
including a Salaf reaction. But attachment to the Ottoman league
in Sunni Baghdad was undoubtedly still strong enough for Numns
Salaf shift to evolve into political dissent.
One aspect of the impact of Numn al-Alss work is certainly
related to the way he treated his subject matter, confronting the
outstanding issues of the debate about the Salaf view of Islam
head-on and reconstituting the legacy of Ibn Taymiyya in the
Muslims imagination of their traditions. For a long period of time,
rehabilitation of Ibn Taymiyya had been a work in progress. With
the publication of Jal al-anayn, the process of rehabilitation reached
a high point, heralding a changing climate of religiosity in major
Arab urban centers. e other, equally important, aspect was the
form in which Numn al-Alss book appeared: Jal al-aynayn
136)
Deringil, e Well-Protected Domains, 9f. See also, Jrgen Habermas, Legitimation

Crisis, tr. T. McCarthy (Boston: Heinemann, 1973), 17.
97
was published in print, to reach as far as a printed book can reach.

In the following decades, the ecology of Islamic culture would be
transformed at a dramatic pace. But two things will not lose their
value for the Salaf circles of modern Islam: the referential position
of Ibn Taymiyya and the power of the printing-press.

Salafism Revived: Nu Mān Al-Alūsī and The Trial of Two A Mads

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Salafism Revived: Nu Mān Al-Alūsī and The Trial of Two A Mads

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Die Welt des Islams 49 (2009) 49-97

Salasm Revived: Numn al-Als and

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

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

the dominant scholarly circles. Such accusations against shaykh Al

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

Heir to the Alss Legacy

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

rose to. Two, at least, of Numns brothers showed a strong Su

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

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

to strengthen the position of the Rifiyya arqa, establishing a network

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

direction taken by Numn al-Als. Considering that Numns Jal

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

the celebrated founder of this sub-arqa, especially his views on

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

Intellectual shifts in the life of historical gures are not particularly

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

in restoring the school to the Alss, is not very clear. Whatever

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

charged atmosphere of early twentieth-century Damascus, that a

According to Muammad Bahjat al-Athar (Mamd Shukr al-Als wa-ruh

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

Print had a decisive impact on the communicability of the written

e uniformity created by the print culture seemed to obliterate the

Brinkley Messick, e Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim

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

tracts was almost absent, or seems not to have been recognized by

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

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

al-raj f shar al-itiqd al-a.41 As such, Jal al-aynayn appears

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

Susm came to dominate anbal circles. Yet, anbal ulam of

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

century Indian reformer Wal-Allh Dihlaw (1114/1703-1176/62).45

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

some of the most senior Sh scholars of qh, adth and theology,

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

narrative.52 According to al-Haytam, his Tahr al-jinn wa-l-lisn,

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

al-Haytam adheres to the Sh legal theory as formulated by the

Al-Haytam, Kitb al-taarruf l-alayn wa-l-taawwuf, 23f.

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

to the high values of religion.62 However, he was also an apologist

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

Al-Haytam, al-Fatwa al-adthiyya, 311.

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

they stand in contradiction to the Sunni beliefs; although al-Ghazl

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

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

Amad b. ajar al-Haytam, al-Ilm f Qawi al-Islm, ms 28, Tawd, e Arab

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

al-Ward (Umar, 689 or 691/1290 or 1292-749/1349), and Ibn

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

is that al-Als did not regard Ibn Abd al-Wahhb as a student of

Al-Als, Jal al-aynayn, 37f.

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

convey an apparent discord with the shara. Despite admitting the

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

e bulk of Jal al-aynayn is dedicated to the discussion of Ibn

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

subscribed to what he was accused of, nor does he concede a single