book review - a history of an islamic school of law - the early spread of hanafism.pdf

7/23/2019 Book Review - A History of an Islamic School of Law - The Early Spread of Hanafism.pdf

1/5

book reviews 421

BOOK REVIEWS

TSAFRIR, Nurit. The History of an Islamic School of Law. The Early Spreadof \anafism. Harvard Series in Islamic Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, 2004. Pp. xv + 199. ISBN 0-674-01456-1.$36.50.

The spread of a school of law is a process that involves a number of

factors, some political, others economic, psychological, ideological, orgeographical. For the Shfi#school, we have Heinz HalmsDie Ausbreitungder fi#itischen Rechtsschule von den Anfngen bis zum 8./14. Jahrhundert, butfor the \anafschool, this book is the first. It covers most areas of theIslamic world from the middle of the 2nd/8th century until the end ofthe 3rd/9th century, the period during which the early \anaf circlewhose boundaries were initially fluid became more clearly defined.

The book consists of a preface, seven chapters, and a conclusion.Chapter One is dedicated to a detailed analysis of the Jawhir of IbnAb al-Waf" al-Qurash (d. 775/1373), the most important source forthis book, with special reference to semi-\anafs (see below). In thefollowing chapters Tsafrir analyses the spread of \anafism in variousparts of the Islamic world. She starts Chapter Two, the longest chapter, byanalyzing the way the \anafs secured their position in Kufa and Basra.

They did so with the active support of the #Abbsid government, despitecontinued opposition from the traditionists and non-\anaflocal jurists.Their influence diminished from the later 3rd/9th century onwards(sections 1 and 2). Section 3 of Chapter Two, which treats Baghdad, issomewhat different in that it emphasizes the competition between the\anafs and the other Sunni law schools and includes the theologicaldimension which was part of this competition during the 3rd/9th century.The rest of the chapter is dedicated to Anbar and Wasit. Chapter Threeinvestigates the introduction and spread of \anafism in five towns ofwest Iran: Ahwaz, Isfahan, Hamadhan, Rayy, and Qazwin (sections 1-5,respectively). In the second section (on Isfahan), the author regards Zufarb. al-Hudhayls (d. 158/774-5) family connections there as an importantfactor in the Isfahanis acceptance of \anaflegal doctrine. In Isfahan,Zufar transmitted traditions on the authority of his master Ab\anfa,

and the acceptance of these traditions by the Isfahanis paved the wayfor their acceptance of \anaf legal doctrine (pp. 66-8). Chapter Fourdeals with two major towns of the Jazira, Mosul and Raqqa. The \anafcommunity in Mosul was so small that it could hardly provide a qadi.Further, the #Abbasid government could not support the \anafs therebecause of local political unrest and the towns remoteness from thecenter of the empire. By contrast, the government appointed al-Shaybnand his disciples as qadis of Raqqa. There, the \anafcommunity wasalso rather small, but Raqqa was politically important to the #Abbasid

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 Islamic Law and Society14, 3Also available online www.brill.nl

book_ils14 3.indb 421book_ils14-3.indb 421 31 10 2007 13:05:0931-10-2007 13:05:09


2/5

book reviews422

government. In Chapter Five, Tsafrir describes Syria as a typical areain which the #Abbasid government met strong opposition from the localpopulation, which meant that \anafism could not spread there. ChapterSix focuses on the \anafs attempt to introduce \anafism to Egypt.Here, despite their immigration from Iraq and the #Abbsid appointmentof \anafqadis, their attempt was rewarded with only modest success.In Chapter Seven, Tsafrir describes the early stage of legal developmentin Qayrawan which was represented by semi-\anafs, that is, those whofollowed Medinese-Mlik as well as \anaf law. Here, she suggests,the clear division between \anafs and Mliks was preceded by theexistence of two theological groups, the Mu#tazils and the ahl al-sunna.The \anafs embraced the Mu#tazils, and the Mliks the ahl al-sunna(p. 109). After describing the relation between the \anafand the Mlikschools in some detail, the author notes that Aghlabid juridical policiesdid not consistently favor either school.

The factors that led to the success or failure of the \anafs attemptto introduce and spread their doctrine differ from one area to another.However, roughly speaking, the size of the \anaf community in anygiven area and the willingness of the #Abbasid government to controlthat area are the decisive elements. In any locale, if there were asufficient number of \anafs, they could prevail with the support ofthe government; otherwise they could not establish their position there.Tsafrirs analyses are based on careful reading of the primary sourcesand her overall conclusions are persuasive. In the following, therefore,I would like to mention only two points.

The first point regards the concept semi-\anafs and, incidentally,the period during which the traditionist party became hostile to \anafism.The author defines semi-\anafs as second/eighth and early third/ninth century scholars whose biographies are included in the Jawhirbut who are otherwise well known as traditionists (p. 2). Althoughshe introduces this concept in Chapter One, it is mainly in ChapterTwo that it plays an important role in her argument. She says that inbiographical dictionaries compiled by traditionists, i.e. the Kitb al-abaqtof Ibn Sa#d, the Kitb al-abaqt of Khalfa b. Khayyt, and theMashhr#ulam"al-amrof Ibn \ibbn, the \anafs and semi-\anafs representa small percentage of the Kufan scholars active in the 2nd/8th century;the same tendency is found in the Ta"rkh of al-Ya#qb (p. 19). Thatis to say, even if semi-\anafs are classified as \anafs for the sake ofargument, the circle of Ab\anfa attracted only a small fraction ofKufans. Given the unpopularity of Ab\anfas circle in Kufa, Tsafrirconcludes that \anafism became dominant only by virtue of the active

support of the #Abbasid government (see pp. 20-7).This argument is based on the assumption that the biographees who

are neither \anafs nor semi-\anafs are traditionists who in principlewere hostile to \anafism. But the analysis of theManqib of al-Muwaffaqb. Amad al-Makk(d. 568/1172-3) casts doubt on this assumption: (1)of the 81 biographees in the fourth class of the Kufans in Ibn Sa#dsKitb al-abaqt, two persons have entries in theJawhir, i.e. there are two\anafs or semi-\anafs, and one non-\anaf (in the sense that there



3/5

book reviews 423

is no entry on him in the Manqib) who is reported to have admiredAb \anfas knowledge of jurisprudence in the Manqib; (2) of the52 biographees contained in the fifth class (i.e. the same class as Ab\anfa), there are five \anafs or semi-\anafs, and five non-\anafsto whom one or more reports favorable to Ab\anfa are attributed;(3) of the 49 biographees belonging to the sixth class, nine persons are\anafs or semi-\anafs and nine others are non-\anafs credited withreports favorable to Ab\anfa.1

If we regard those transmitters who are credited with reports that praiseAb\anfa as affiliated to the \anafcircleor at least as sympatheticto it, we may infer that during the lifetime of Ab\anfa his circle grewmore popular and influential than Tsafrir assumes (cf. p. 15). Needlessto say, it is not certain whether or not the reports collected in theManqib are authentic, and it cannot be assumed that the transmittersof these reports were necessarily affiliated with or sympathetic to the\anafs. However, it is certain that the sources that Ibn Ab al-Waf"relied on (see pp. 5-12) are not very different from those which were atthe disposal of al-Makk. The Jawhir seems to be too selective to givea balanced picture of the \anafs.

Moreover, for the purpose of dividing them into \anafs (includingsemi-\anafs) and anti-\anafs, Tsafrir regards those Kufans who diedafter 130/747 (but before 180/796, 193/808, or 218/833, according tothe above-mentioned biographical dictionaries) as a homogeneous group.She seems to assume that the animosity of the traditionists towards Ab\anfa and his followers originated in the time of Ab\anfa. She writes:[S]ince the traditionist party in the second/eighth century was hostileto the \anafcircle (p. 5)without specifying the date from which thetraditionists began to be hostile to the \anafs. But Melchert maintainsthat [C]onscious enmity between traditionalists and adherents of ra"yseems to date only from the later eighth century.2If Melchert is right,the distinction between \anafs and semi-\anafs on the one hand,and traditionists on the other hand is not a valid means to measure thepopularity of the \anafs in Kufa during Ab\anfas lifetime and afew decades after his death.

Finally the author suggests that one of the reasons why the traditionistswere hostile to Ab \anfa was his cooperation with the authorities,whereas the traditionists were not cooperative and tried to keep alooffrom them (p. 26). But their animosity against Ab \anfa for thismotive is not proven. Conversely, in Ta"rkh Baghdd several famoustraditionists are quoted as having criticized Ab\anfa for legalizingrebellion against the government.3

1 Ab al-Mu"ayyad al-Muwaffaq b. Amad al-Makk, Manqib al-Imm al-a #am Ab\anfa (Hayderabad: D"irat al-Ma#rif al-Nimiyya), 1321/1904-5.

2 Christopher Melchert, The formation of the Sunni schools of law (Leiden: Brill, 2004),3. See also 4-7.

3 Al-Khab al-Baghdd, Ta"rkh Baghdd aw Madnat al-salm, 14 vols. (Cairo, Maktabatal-Khnj, 1349/1931), 13:384-6.



4/5

book reviews424

My second point concerns the role played by Ab\anfas importantdisciple Zufar in introducing \anafism to Basra and Isfahan. Severalauthors have examined the process by which \anafism was introducedin Basra.4Tsafrir agrees with them that Zufar played an important rolein this process, based on several reports that relate his arrival in Basraand his success there, although she writes that they are so incompatiblewith each other that it is impossible to reconstruct the historical facts(p. 31). There are, however, several other reports that contradict thesereports, to some of which she refers in notes. They are worth takingseriously, if only for the simple reason that they are numerically noless important than those reports that give Zufar credit for introducing\anafism to Basra. Let us examine these counter-reports.

Tsafrir refers to a report in Ibn \ajar al-#Asqalns Lisn al-mzninnote 157 to Chapter Two (p. 134). According to this report (reproducedfrom Kitb al-u#af"of al-#Uqayl[d. 322/934]), the Basran qadi Sawwrb. #Abdallh (d. 156/772), who was reluctant to let Zufar attend his circle,was eventually persuaded to do so, but as he [Sawwr] did not utter asingle word to Zufar, he eventually left [Sawwrs circle].5Accordingto another report cited by Tsafrir in the next note (note 158, p. 134),only when AbYsuf came to Basra as Hrn al-Rashds chief qadicould Ysuf b. Khlid establish his position there. This Ysuf b. Khlidal-Samt (d. 189/805) was a Basran who studied with Ab\anfa inKufa (p. 32). In an autobiographical report contained in his Manqib,al-Makk relates that as soon as Ysuf b. Khlid left Ab\anfa andreturned home he attracted Basrans to his circle, with the result thatthe doctrine of al-\asan al-Bar and Ibn Srn disappeared (saqaamadhhab al-\asan wa-Ibn Srn).6

These reports have in common no mention of Zufars contributionto the introduction of \anafism in Basra. How can we explain theexistence of such reports, alongside those which do give the credit toZufar? One possible explanation is that after Ab\anfas death, therewere two factions competing for leadership within the \anaf school,one represented by Zufar, the other by Ab Ysuf and after him al-Shaybn. Ab \anfa, Ab Ysuf, and al-Shaybn are regarded asthe founders of the \anaf school. But reports found in non-\anafas well as \anaf sources hint at the rivalry between Ab Ysuf andZufar.7 This rivalry seems to have been reduced, among others, to

4 Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar, Lamat al-naar fsrat al-imm Zufar(Cairo: MaktabatDr al-Hidya, 1368 A.H.), 18-20; #Abd al-Sattr \mid, Al-imm Zufar b. al-Hudhayl

(Baghdad: Maba

#at Wiz

rat al-Awq

f, 1399/1979), 77-83; Melchert, Formation, 41-2.5 Ibn \ajar al-#Asqaln, Lisn al-mzn, 7 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-A#lam lil-

Mab#t, 1390/1971), 2:477; Muammad b. #Amr b. Msb. \ammd al-#Uqayl, Kitbal-u#af"al-kabr, ed. #Abd al-Mu#Amn Qal#aj, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya,1418/1998), 2:98.

6 al-Makk, Manqib, 2:109.7 For example, Ibn al-Bazzz al-Kardar, Manqib al-imm al-a#am (printed with al-

Makk, Manqib), 2:184; al-Khab al-Baghdd, Ta"rkh, 14:247; Melchert, Formation, 34,citing Ibn #Abd al-Barr, al-Intiq" f fa"il al-thaltha al-a"imma al-fuqah" (Cairo: Maktabatal-Quds, 1350), 174.



5/5

book reviews 425

one of methodology. In \anafas well as non-\anafsources, Zufar isregarded as a specialist in qiys, i.e. he clung to solutions dictated bysystematic reasoning.8 By contrast, Ab Ysuf and al-Shaybn oftenadopted solutions dictated by istisn (juridical preference) rather thanqiys. It is plausible that the traditionists preferred Zufars doctrine toAbYsufs and al-Shaybns. A report transmitted on the authorityof the Basran traditionist and jurist Yay b. Aktham (d. 242/857) isrevealing: the Kufan traditionist Wak# b. al-Jarr (d. 197/812) usedto frequent the circle of Zufar in the morning and that of AbYsufin the evening, but subsequently he attended only the formers circle,stating: Praise be to God, who has made you [viz. Zufar] the successorto the Imm [viz. Ab\anfa].9

Tsafrir writes that Zufars affiliation with the Ban #Anbar, whosemembers were influential in the Basran legal milieu, and the connectionof Zufar and his family with Isfahan made it easier for the Basrans andthe Isfahanis to accept the authority of Ab\anfa (pp. 32, 66). Thisargument is persuasive, but it is also plausible that the content or themethodology of Zufars doctrine played a certain role in introducing\anafism both to Basra and to Isfahan.

Hiroyuki YanagihashiThe University of Tokyo

POWERS, Paul R. Intent in Islamic Law. Motive and Meaning in MedievalSunnFiqh. Studies in Islamic Law and Society 25. Series editors Ruud

Peters and Bernard Weiss. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006. Pp. xii +236. ISBN 90 04 14592 3. 90.00; $117.00.

This is a revised version of Powers 2001 Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Chicago. It addresses the question of what jurists thought when theydemanded everywhere the correct nyafor an action to be valid. ChapterOne reviews the religious problem of intent in general. Chapters Twoand Three review the problem of intent in Islamic ritual law. Powersproposes that it is the nature of ritual that it is framed not by the actorbut by others long beforehand (in the case of Islamic ritual, this meansthe Prophet under inspiration), and hence requires the link of consciousintent between actor and action. It seems that legal handbooks sawintent as entailing neither intense communion with God nor any formof words.

Chapter Four concerns intent in commercial law. (Outside ritual law,nyaappears less often than other words for intent but still often enoughto justify covering the law of interpersonal relations in the same book.)

8 Shams al-Din al-Sarakhs, Kitb al-Mabs, 30 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Ma#rifa, 1406/1986),1:3; Ab Isq al-Shrz, abaqt al-fuqah" (Baghdad: Maba#at Baghdd, 1356 A.H.),113.

9 al-Kardar, Manqib, 2:184.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 Islamic Law and Society14, 3Also available online www.brill.nl


book review - a history of an islamic school of law - the early spread of hanafism.pdf

Documents