IN THE SALJUQ PERIOD
THE NATURE OF THE SUNNĪ
REVIVAL
IN THE SALJUQ PERIOD
(429-552/1037-1157)
By
Muhammad Amin Abdul Samad
Dr. R.N. Verdery
Medieval Islamic History (397-611D)
December., 1978.
INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES
McGILL UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ……………………………. 3
THE NATURE
OF THE SUNNĪ
REVIVAL ……………… 4
1.
The Beginning of the Sunnī Revival
…………………… 4
2.
The Sunnīs
versus the Shī‘īs …………………………… 5
3.
Mu‘tazilīs
versus Ash‘arīs ……………………………….. 8
4.
The Niz.āmīyah
Madrasahs ………………… 10
CONCLUSION …………………………………………. 16
Endnotes ……………………………………………. …… 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………… 20
INTRODUCTION
This paper is an attempt to present the nature of the Sunnī
revival in the Great Saljuq period. As
we know, the Sunnī
Saljuqs replaced the pro-Shī‘ī Buwayhids in the 5th/11th
century. This event is very important in
Islamic history, because it was considered the beginning of the Sunnī
revival. During this Saljuq period madrasahs (schools, colleges) as
institutions were founded. The most
important ones were the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs founded by Niz.ām
al-Mulk. These colleges were strict to
Shāfi‘īs
alone.
Besides founding the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs Niz.ām
al-Mulk also wrote a book entitled Siyāsat Nāma
(The Book of Government) in which he expressed his anti-Shī‘ī
policy.
THE NATURE OF THE SUNNĪ REVIVAL
IN THE SALJUQ PERIOD
(429-552/1037-1157)
1.
The Beginning of the Sunnī
Revival
According the writers of textbooks whom George Makdisi did
not specify, the Sunnī revival in the 11th century
started in 447/1055 with the entry of the first Saljuq into Baghdad and the
conquest of Iraq and Western Persia.
This view was rejected by Makdisi who contended that the Sunnī
revival started earlier in the beginning of the century during the Shī‘ī
Buwayhid rule in Baghdad. It started in
Khurāsān
where the Sunnī
Ghaznavids were implementing the Caliph’s Qādirī
Creed.[1]
In order to clarify his position Makdisi mentioned three
names who were supposed to be responsible for the Sunnī revival,
i.e.,: T.ughril Beg (429-455/1037-1063), Niz.ām al-Mulk
(408-10-485/1018-20-1092), and al-Ghazālī
(d. 504/1111). T.ughril Beg,
the Turkish Saljuq Sultan, helped the Sunnī Caliph al-Qā’im
(422-467/1032-1075) to put an end to the Shī`ī
Buwayhids in 447/1055 and replaced it with the Sunnī Saljuq
Sultanate. Niz.ām
al-Mulk, the vizier of Alp-Arslān, founded the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī
Niz.āmīyah
madrasah in Baghdad in 457/1065. Two years later this madrasah was
inaugurated. Al-Ghazālī,
the professor of the Shāfi‘ī
law in the Niz.āmīyah,
made reconciliation between Sufism and Muslim orthodoxy, after he have left
that madrasah in 488/1095.
Makdisi contended that prior to the Saljuqs’ appearance, when the Shi‘ī
Buwayhids were still ruling in Baghdad at the end of the 4th/10th
century, the Ghaznavid Sultan Mah.mūd
b. Sabuktigīn
had already pursued “a traditionalist Sunnī policy under the
Caliph al-Qādir.”[2]
Makdisi contended further that the H.anbalīs
in this period had also been successful in opposing the Shi‘ī
movement. This revival in the beginning
of the 5th/11th century, in Makdisi’s view, was not only
Sunnī
in character, but also traditionalist, as it was against rationalism of the Mu‘tazilah
as well as that of the Ash‘arīyah.
The Qādirī
creed was anti-Shī‘ī,
anti Mu‘tazilī
and anti-Ash‘arī.[3]
According to H.A.R. Gibb the Sunni revival also began in the
end of the 4th/10th century in Khurāsān,
the region which had not fallen under the Shī‘ī
government. Apparently, this revival, in
Gibb’s view, occurred in response to the activities of the Fāt.imid missionaries and the
consolidation of Twelver Shī‘ism in Western Persia and Iraq during that
century.[4]
2.
The Sunnīs
versus the Shī‘īs
There were three central points in Dār
al-Islām
in the beginning of the 5th/11th century: Baghdad,
Cairo, and Cordova. Baghdad is the
capital of the Sunnī ‘Abbāsid
Caliphate. The Caliph was al-Qādir
bi-Allāh
(991-1031) who was one of the Caliphs who ruled very long. In 945 this city of Baghdad had been invaded
by the Buwayhids who seemed to be pro-Twelver Shī‘is
and who did not recognize the Ismā‘īlī Shī‘ī
Fāt.imid in Cairo as a Caliph. In 967-72 the Fāt.imid conquered Egypt. Cairo was the capital of the Ismā‘īlī
Shī‘ī
caliphate. The Caliph was al-H.ākim bi-Amr Allāh
(996-1021). Cordova was the capital of the Sunnī Umayyad
caliphate. The Caliph was Hishām
II al-Mu‘ayyad
bi-Allāh
(976-1009 and 1010-1013).
With the replacement of the pro-Shī`ī
Buwayhids with the Sunnī Saljuqs, the controversy between the Sunnīs
and the Shī‘īs
remained. An unknown ex-Shī‘ī
convert to Sunnism wrote an anti-Shī‘ī
book entitled Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih
al-Rawāfid. (“Some of the Ignominies of the Shī’īs”)
where he mentioned 67 ignominies of this sect.
As the Sunnī in this time tended to assimilate all Shī‘ism
with Ismā‘īlism,
the writer said: “Shī‘ism is the corridor leading to heresy.”[5] He even accused the Shī‘īs
of being Zoroastrians under Muslim dress, repeating the accusation which had
been made by Ibn H.azm (d.1064).
As an answer to the book mentioned above a Shī‘ī,
al-Qazwīnī,
wrote Ba‘d. Mat.ālib
al-Nawāsib
fī
Naqd Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih
al-Rawāfid. (“Some vices of the Sunnīs
in Refuting Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih
al-Rawāfid. ”).
The author accused the Sunnīs as the enemies of the family of the
Prophet, believers of the predestination and anthropomorphism (tashbīh)
as well as blind followers of tradition.[6]
The Saljuqs were
generally anti-Shī‘ī.
Niz.ām al-Mulk in his Siyāsat
Nāma
said:
In the days of Mah.mūd, Mas‘ūd,
T.ughril, and Alp Arslān
(may Allah have mercy on them) no Zoroastrian or Jew or Rafidi would have had
the audacity to appear in a public place or to present himself before a great
man. Those who administered the affairs
of the Turks were all professional civil servants and secretaries from Khurāsān
[as a Sunnī
area], who belonged to the orthodox H.anafī
or Shāfi‘ī
sects. The heretics of Iraq [i.e., the
Shī‘īs]
were never admitted as secretaries and tax collectors; in fact the Turks never
used to employ them at all; they said, “These men are of the same religion as
the Dailamites [Dailām was a Shī‘ī
area in Western Iran] and their supporters; if they get a firm footing they
will injure the interests of the Turks and cause distress to the Muslims. It is better that enemies should not be in
our midst.” Consequently they lived free
from disaster.[7]
However, the Shī‘īs’
influence started growing after the dismissal of Niz.ām
al-Mulk, whose displeasure with Shī‘īsm was said to be one of the causes of his
discharge. Some Shī‘īs
held high position in Saljuq’s office, for example: Sharaf al-Dīn
Anūshirvān
b. Khālid
Kashnānī
became vizier of Sultan Mah.mūd
b. Mālik-Shāh
(1092-94) and of the Caliph al-Mustarshid bi-Allāh (1118-35);
Sa‘d al-Mulk Āvajī
became vizier of Sult.an Muh.ammad b. Mālik Shāh
(1104-17).[8]
The Shī`īs spread their faith
through their centres, madrasahs, mosques, and libraries. During the second half of the 12th
century they had madrasahs in many cities: Ray, Qum, Kāshān,
Āveh,
Varāmīn
and Sabzavār.[9]
They also use the manāqibīs or manāqib-khwāns,
i.e., singers who praised the virtues of ‘Alī and his
descendants. They sang in streets and
bazaars, and moved from place to place in order to avoid persecution of the
rulers. These manāqibīs
had already existed in Iraq since the Buwayhid period, and were secretly
active in Iraq and Tabaristan in the early Saljuq period. They poem also contained Shī‘ī
theological doctrines, such as: tanzīh (the absolute
transcendence of God) as the opposite of the tashbīh, and the ‘ismah
(infallibility and impeccability) and miracles of their imāms.[10]
The Sunnīs countered these manāgibīs
(manāgib-khwāns)
with fad.ā’il-khwāns
(singers of virtue; both manāqib and fad.ā’il have the same
meaning, i.e., “virtues”). We are told
that they taught in their poems jabr (predestination) and tashbīh.
They fabricated stories concerning the bravery and virtues of Rustam, Suhrāb
and others instead of ‘Ali.[11]
3.
Mu‘tazilīs versus Ash‘arīs
The religious controversy during the Saljuq period was not
only between the Sunnīs and the Shī`īs,
but also among the Sunnīs themselves, i.e., the H.anafīs who happened to be
Mu‘tazilīs
versus the Shāfi‘īs
who happened to be Ahs‘arīs. Sometimes religious debates among different
schools and sects led to religious antagonism.
Rāvandī
said that after the Ghuzz attack on Nīshāpūr
in 1154, every night one sect in that city attacked the enemy sect in the other
part of the city where killing and burning took place; in Shīrāz
the similar thing occurred between the H.anafīs
and the Shāfi‘īs;
in al-Rayy, between both of them and the Shī‘īs,
and between all of the three and the Ismā‘īlīs.[12]
In Baghdad the H.anafī
and pro-Mu‘tazilī
T.ughril Beg pursued an anti-Ash‘arī
policy from 445-455/1053-1063. He was the first Sultan among the Great Saljuqs
who ordered the public cursing of Abū H.asan al-Ash‘arī
(d. 324/935), the founder of Ash‘arī theological school,
from the pulpits of Khurāsān. He exiled Ash‘arī
scholars from that province. This
persecution continued until he died in 1063.[13]
According to al-Subkī, the master-mind of
this persecution was the vizier Khundurī, who advised Sultan T.ughril Beg around 445/1053 to denounce
heretics. Once this advice was approved,
Khudurī
included the Shāfi‘īs
in general and the Ash‘arīs in particular beside
the Karrāmis
in this persecution. In Khurāsān, besides cursing
al-Ash‘arī,
the public religious posts which had been occupied by the Shāfi‘īs
were given to the H.anafīs.[14]
T.ughril Beg was succeeded by Alp-Arslān. Kundurī, the H.anafī-Mu‘tazilī
vizier of T.ughril Beg, was imprisoned
and replaced by Niz.ām
al-Mulk. Although Niz.ām al-Mulk was a Shāfi‘ī
and pro-Ash‘arī,
he did not avenge the Ash‘arīs by persecuting the H.anafī-Mu‘tazilīs.
The Sultan Alp-Arslān was a H.anafī,
and so was his financial minister.
However, Niz.ām al-Mulk end the persecution of the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arīs
and took some measure against those who were involved in this mih.nah (severe trial): he approved
the execution of Kundurī; he called back the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī
refugees from Iraq and Hijāz to their hometown Nīshāpūr;
he abrogated the cursing of al-Ash‘arī;
and he founded mosques and madrasahs for the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arīs.[15]
4. The Niz.āmīyah Madrasahs
According to Goldziher the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs were public schools where Ash‘arī
kalām
(dogmatic theology) was taught.
Therefore, this Ash‘arī school of theology
became victorious over the Mu‘tazilīs and H.anbalīs.[16]
This view was rejected by Makdisi who contends Niz.āmīyah madrasahs were not public schools, but
rather private ones intended to implement Niz.ām
al-Mulk’s political policies. Ash‘arī
kalām,
in Makdisi’s view, was not taught in these schools, but was propagated by the
Ash‘arīs
through wa‘z. (academic
sermons).[17]
These colleges were restricted to Shāfi‘īs
and served the Shafi‘ī madhhab (school of law) alone, but no
theological school was followed. Makdisi
gives us an example with the Niz.āmīyah
of Baghdad. He contends that since the
time of the foundation of this college in 459/1066 until 476/1083, Abū
Ish.āq al-Shīrāzī
(1002-1083), the great Shāfi‘ī
jurist, the famous principal of the Niz.āmīyah
in Baghdad, had been teaching us.ūl
al-fiqh (legal theory and methodology) there. He would not have been teaching Ash‘arī
kalam there since he was himself a Mu‘tazilī
and anti-Ash‘arī.
Otherwise, Makdisi contends, “if indeed the Niz.āmīyah
was an Ash‘arī
college, how could an anti-Ash‘arī have been allowed to
teach there for the first seventeen years?”[18]
In Makdisi’s view, al-Ghazālī, who was later
appointed to be professor of Shāfi‘ī madhhab, taught only this subject, and
never taught Ash‘arī
kalām
in this college.[19]
Contrary to Makdisi’s view, according to Tibawi, the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs belonged to the state and
were intended to serve its (the state’s) interests. Tibawi also doubted that kalām
was not taught in these colleges.
This is because, he asserts:
… that we
have no direct evidence of the content of what exactly was taught in this
[i.e., Niz.āmīyah of Baghdad] and other similar
institutions…. One thing we are
reasonably sure. The madrasah which
symbolized the victory of orthodox theology over speculative and natural
philosophy, excluded the falsafah.
Apart from this restriction the whole range of ‘ulūm al-dīn appears to have been within its scope.[20]
Tibawi further contends that Ibn al-Jawzī
asserted that the endowment of the Niz.āmīyah
college in Baghdad was for the benefit of Shāfi‘īs. But this statement, Tibawi contends, does not
necessarily mean this endowment was exclusively for fiqh, because Ibn
Jawzī
included a reader who recited the Qur‘ān
and a grammarian who taught Arabic among those who were paid from the
endowment.[21]
Al-Ghazālī
himself was said to have been unsatisfied when he was addressed by his own
teacher as “faqīh”, because he was also a scholar in kalām. [22] The exclusiveness of the madrasahs as
institutions[23]
is considered by Tibawi artificial and unrealistic. This is because it had become tradition at
that time to start every lesson (dars) with reading some verses from the
Qur’ān
and some h.adīths before
the subject was expounded.[24]
According to Makdisi the object of Niz.ām
al-Mulk in founding the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs is “to implement his political policies throughout the vast
lands of the empire under his sway.” The institution which was chosen by him
“as an instrument of his policies was one whose administration could be kept
outside the reach of the Caliph’s authority, an authority which has its place
in the public opinion of the times.”[25]
Contrary to the view of Makdisi, according to Tibawi, Niz.ām al-Mulk’s objectives
in founding the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs were: to compete with the Fāt.imids in Egypt in the field of
learning, to obtain the favour of the ‘ulamā’,
and to provide his administrative reforms with qualified persons to hold the
position of qād.ī, muftī,
khat.īb and clerk. Tibawi contends that there was no evidence that
the followers of the other than the Shāfi‘ī
madhhab were excluded.[26] However, Tibawi asserts that Niz.ām al-Mulk would have
never allowed including the Mu‘tazilah and the Hellenistic philosophy in the
Nizāmiyah
madrasahs. Moreover, these two
heretics had been in retreat or in defensive position against orthodoxy before
the founding of madrasahs.[27]
Tibawi contends further than that although Nizām
al-Mulk was a Shāfi‘ī
he did not intend to ruin the H.anafī
or the H.anbalī madhhab,
because they also belong to Muslim orthodoxy.
When the H.anbalīs
accused Abū
Ish.āq al-Shīrāzī
of attempting to ruin their madhhab because Abū Nās.ir al-Qushayrī had publicly
claimed Ash‘arism in the Niz.āmīyah,[28]
Shīrāzī
said to them at their meeting with the Caliph:
“Here are my books on legal theory.
I speak contrary to Ash‘arism in them.”[29] Niz.ām
al-Mulk himself wrote to Shīrāzī,
saying “the Sultan’s policy and the dictates of justice do not incline us to
one rite (madhhab) to the exclusion of others…. We did not build this madrasah except
for the protection of the learned and in the public interest, not for
controversy and division….”[30]
Tibawi concludes his article asserting that the Niz.āmīyah
was “a public institution dedicated to ahl al-‘ilm and the mas.lah.ah, for
the study of religious science and the training of state functionaries,” and
that Niz.ām al-Mulk “had a
catholic, not a parochial aim in mind establishing this institution in
Baghdad.”[31]
According to M.H. al-Naqīb there are two
motives of Niz.ām
al-Mulk in founding the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs. Firstly, “he wanted to
preserve and spread the knowledge of the Sharī‘ah.” Secondly, as he believed “that religious
opposition is dangerous to the stability of the government,” he wanted to
strengthen the position of the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arīs
whom he considered representatives of the right religion. Naqīb asserts that Makdisi
was right in his claim that the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs were Niz.ām
al-Mulk’s own institutions intended to strengthen his policies and to control
the ‘ulamā’,
but these policies were related to those of the Saljuq Sultanate.[32]
Although Naqīb does not claim to have resolved the
controversy between Makdisi and Tibawi he gives us some of his findings. He asserts, “Ash‘arī
kalām
had a place in Niz.āmīyah
curriculum as a minimum aspect of the tadrīs.”[33] However, he admits that there is difficulty
in determining whether us.ūl
means us.ūl
al-dīn
(kalām)
or us.ūl al-fiqh.[34] He supports Makdisi’s position in considering
the Niz.āmīyah
to be private institutions. He bases
this view on administrative, religio-political, and financial aspects of Niz.ām al-Mulk’s policy.[35]
From the administrative aspect, Niz.ām
al-Mulk was the only person who had power to appoint and dismiss the staff of
the Niz.āmīyah
of Baghdad as observed by Makdisi. From
the religio-political aspect the Niz.āmīyahs
were intended to serve the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arīs. Naqīb rejects the argument
of Tibawi in considering Niz.ām
al-Mulk to be neutral and had a “catholic” and not “parochial” aim in founding
the Niz.āmīyahs.[36]
Naqīb
asserts that Niz.ām
al-Mulk “… spoke in the sultan’s name because he ran caliphal affairs for the
Saljuqs. As an atabek to Mālik-Shāh,
he had the right to issue letters in the sultan’s name and caliphal officials
knew well that behind the sultan’s mask there was Niz.ām
al-Mulk himself….”[37]
In the financial aspect Naqīb admits Tibawi
assertion that the charter of the Baghdad madrasah did not state that
the funds of the Niz.āmīyah
came from Niz.ām al-Mulk’s
private sources. However, according to
Naqīb,
both this charter and the Isfahan one gave us indication “that Niz.ām al-Mulk was
responsible for the allocation of the waqf.”[38]
As vizier he had no difficulty in taking some money from government revenue as
a loan from the treasury for the Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs to be repaid later. He
also could use government funds for charitable purpose to support his Niz.āmīyah
madrasahs. Moreover, he himself, according to Naqīb’s
observation, “was wealthy enough by the standard of his secretarial opponents”,
so that part of the funds came from his own sources.[39]
CONCLUSION
The Sunnī revival started at the end of the 4th/10th
century before the Saljuq period. It
started in Baghdad with the Caliph’s Qādirī
Creed which was anti-Shī‘ī, anti-Mu‘tazilī
and anti-Ash‘arī,
and with Mah.mūd Ghaznawī’s
implementation of this creed in Khurāsān
and his other newly conquered territories.
This Sunnī revival continued with the replacement of
the pro-Shī‘ī
Buwayhids with the Sunnī Saljuqs, especially during the vizierate of
Niz.ām al-Mulk. Niz.ām al-Mulk founded Niz.āmīyah
institutions with the intention to spread the Sharī‘ah
and to strengthen the position of the Sunnī creed in general and
the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī
in particular. He also wrote his Siyāsat
Nāma
where he expressed his anti-Shāfi‘ī
policy. Although he was not against
other Sunnī
madhhabs than the Shāfi‘ī,
he was not neutral with them, for he was pro-Shāfi‘ī. The H.anafi was the
madhhab of the majority of the Turkish Saljuq, while the H.anbali belong to supporters of the
caliphate. However, after him the Shāfi‘ī
influence started growing, and some Shāfi‘īs
were appointed viziers.
The Sunnī revival that started at the end of 4th/10th
century and continued during the Great Saljuq period in the 11th century
was not only Sunnī
due to its anti-Shī‘ī attitude, but also an orthodox revival due
to its opposition to the rationalist Mu‘tazilī
and Ash‘arī
doctrines. It was the revival of the
Orthodox-Traditionalist in general and the H...anbalī-traditionalist
in particular. This was obvious with the
flourish of the H.anbalī
colleges in Baghdad.
Endnotes
4H.A.R. Gibb, An Interpretation of Islamic History
(Lahore: Orientalia Publishers, 1957), p. 33.
We are told that Mah.mūd’s
army “was not a host of holy warriors
resolved to live and die for the Lord” as it fought Muslims as well as
non-Muslim (Hindus). Mah.mūd was much concern
with expanding his territory and exterminating the “heretic” rather than
converting non-Muslim, see M. Habib, Sultan
Mahmud, pp. 59, 77.
14Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī,
T.abaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyah
al-Kubrā,
ed. M.M. al-Tahāni and A.F. al-Hulw (Cairo: `Isā
al-Bābī
al-Halabī,
1383-88/1964-68), vol. 3, pp. 390-1, 393.
Contrary to the view of Makdisi that Kundurī was a H.anafī (see “Sunnī
Revival” p. 157), according to Edward G. Browne, Kundurī was a
fanatical adherent of Shāfi‘ī
school, and instituted a public cursing of the Rāfidīs
(or Shī‘ites)
and of the Ash‘arīs
in the mosques, see A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1956), vol. 2, p. 174.
If Browne was right, the persecution of the Shāfi‘īs
by Kundurī
was because they happened to be Ash‘arīs,
and therefore they were considered heretics.
However, according to Ibn ‘Asākir, Kundurī
was a Mu‘tazilī-Rāfidī,
see Tabyīn
Kadhib al-Muftarī
fīmā
Nusiba ilā
Abī
al-H.asan al-Ash‘arī
(Damascus: Mat.ba‘at
al-Tawfīq,
1347 A.H.), p. 108. See also al-Subkī,
T.abaqāt, vol. 3, p. 390.
15Ibn ‘Asākir, Tabyīn,
pp. 108-9. After the death of T.ughril Beg Kundurī
attempt to proclaim Alp-Arslān’s brother Sulaymān to succeed
the late Sultan. This was a grave
false-step, for Alp-Arslān imprisoned him (Kundurī)
in Marv for about one year, and later put him to death. E.G. Browne, Literary
History, vol. 2, pp. 173-4.
23Makdisi divided the institutions of learning in the
eleventh century into two types: unrestrictive and exclusive. The unrestrictive institutions are divided
into: cathedral mosques (jāmi‘s), Dār al-‘Ilm
and Dār
al-Kutub. Subjects taught in the jāmi‘
were: the Qur’ān,
tafsīr,
(exegesis), h.adīth
(traditions), fiqh, us.ūl
al-fiqh, nah.w (grammar) and adab
(literature), see “Institutions,” pp. 4-6.
Dār
al-‘Ilm
was founded by the Buwayhīd vizier Abū Nas.r Sābūn
b. Ardashir in 383/993 and was destroyed by fire in 451/1059. Makdisi asserts that since its director was a
H...anafī, and some of its
personnel were non-Shī‘īs, this institution was not restricted for
the Shī‘īs
alone. Dār al-Kutub was founded
by Abū
al-H.asan Muh.ammad
bin Hilāl
al-Sābī
in 452/1062. A theological discussion
held in this place was recorded by Ibn ‘Aqīl, where an Ash‘arī
savant was one of the leading discussants. Ibid., pp. 7-9. The exclusive institutions were colleges,
including: masjid, madrasahs, and mashhads. These colleges were specialized in the
teaching of law of a certain madhhab. There were H.anafī,
Shāfi‘ī
and H.anbalī
institutions. Ibid., pp. 14-5.
24Tibawi,
“Origin,” p. 229. Tibawi rejected the view of Makdisi that the term mudarris
means a professor of law, and that therefore the word madrasah, which is
also derived from the word dars, is an institution for the teaching pf
law. According to Tibawi, al-Ghazālī used the term mudarris
and mu‘allim
inconsistently, so that modern scholars might mistakenly consider them to be
technical terms. For further details,
see ibid., pp. 230-1.
28Ibid. Tibawi quoted al-Subkī
who said that “the H...anbalites
spread a rumour that the Shaikh Abū Ish.āq had renounced the
school (madhhab) of al-Ash‘arī and this angered the Shaikh
so greatly that no one could calm him down, and he wrote to Niz.ām al-Mulk.” Ibid., quoting T. abaqāt, vol. 3, p. 99.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bausani, A.
“Religion in Saljuq Period.” The
Cambridge History of Iran, ed. J.A. Boyle.
Cambridge: University Press, 1968.
Browne, Edward G. A Literary History of Persia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956.
Gibb, H.A.R.
An Interpretation of Islamic History.
Lahore: Orientalia Publishers, 1957.
Habib, M.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin.
Aligarh Muslim University Publications, 1972.
Hodgson, G.S.
The Venture of Islam 3 vols.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Ibn ‘Asākir, Abū
al-Qāsim. Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī fīmā Nusiba ilā Abī al-H...asan al-Ash‘arī. Damascus: Matba‘at al-Tawfīq, 1347 A.H.
Lane-Pool, Stanley. The Mohammadan Dynasties. Paris:
Paul Geuthner, 1925.
Makdisi, George. “Muslim Institutions of Learning in
Eleventh-Century Baghdad.” B.S.O.A.S. xxiv
Pt. 1. (1961).
______.
“The Sunnī
Revival.” Islamic Civilization,
950-1150, ed. D.S. Richards. Oxford: Cassirer, 1973.
Al-Munjid fī al-A‘lām. Beirut: Dār al-Sharq, 1949.
Naqīb, H.M. al-. “Nizām al-Mulk: An analytical Study of His Career and
Contribution to the Development of Political and Religious Institutions under
the Great Saljuq.” Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, 1978.
Subkī, Tāj
al-Dīn. Tabaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyah
al-Kubrā,
ed. M.M. al-Tanāhī and A.F.
al-Hulw. Cairo: ‘Īsā
al-Bābī
al-H...alabī,
1383-88 A.H.
Tibawi, A.L. “Origin and Character of
al-Madrasah.” B.S.O.A.S. XXV (1962).
No comments:
Post a Comment