_This mirror for princes sheds light on the relationship between spiritual and political authority in early modern Egypt_ This guide to political behavior and expediency offers advice to Sufi shaykhs, or spiritual guides, on how to interact and negotiate with powerful secular officials, judges, and treasurers, or emirs. Translated into English for the first time, it is a unique account of the relationship between spiritual and political authority in late medieval / early modern Islamic society.

Tanto en su Iǧāza como en su Fihrist, Ibn al-ʿArabī se refirió a Risāla ilà aṣḥāb al-Šayḫ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mahdawī como a una obra separada. Este documento es una carta escrita a los discípulos del Šayḫ ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Mahdawī de Túnez por el propio Ibn al-ʿArabī, y recientemente se ha determinado que también sirve como una especie de prólogo de Mašāhid al-asrār. Este prólogo cubre temas tales como quién debe estudiar el Mašāhid y cómo debe hacerlo, las explicaciones de las (...) palabras difíciles que se encuentran en él y las defensas de posibles críticas contra él. La carta de Ibn al-ʿArabī es importante por derecho propio: desarrolla los conceptos de ḫatmiyya, walāya, nubuwwa y wirāṯa en sus formas originales y hace referencia a discusiones en los círculos académicos de al-Andalus y el norte de África. Este artículo mostrará cómo debe entenderse la Risāla con los Mašāhid y explorará su contenido a la luz de las obras de Ibn al-ʿArabī y su medio social e intelectual. (shrink)

Averroës,1126-1198; criticism and interpretation; Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm,1263-1328.

This article presents a close reading of Ibn ʿAsākir’s biography of ʿUmar II in the Tārīkh madīnat Dimashq. Although there was an earlier and substantial historiographical tradition, Ibn ʿAsākir’s biography is distinct from those of his predecessors in two major ways. First, he strategically arranged his biography to emphasize or de-emphasize certain aspects of ʿUmar II’s life, including his youth, rise to the caliphate, and reputation as a redeemer. Second, Ibn ʿAsākir’s legitimizing historiography appears to be bi-directional. Namely, where earlier (...) biographers depicted ʿUmar II as the “fifth of the Rāshidūn,” bolstering the later Umayyad’s reputation through an association with earlier authorities, in Ibn ʿAsākir’s account problematic aspects of the early civil wars and fitna-ridden Rāshidūn period are also elided through the Rāshidūn’s association with the famously pious ʿUmar II. The context for this bi-directionality is to be found in the political and social environment in which Ibn ʿAsākir compiled his Tārīkh, where dual pressure from Crusader and Shiʿite opponents contributed to his articulation of a particular Sunni vision of political and religious continuity that relied heavily on ‘Umar II’s unique persona. (shrink)

The Umayyads (41-132/661-750) were the first Muslim dynastic state established in Damascus after the Rasheedun Caliphs. The Umayyads' transformation of the caliphate into a sultanate, their tribalist and discriminatory approaches, as well as the exaggerated palace life and entertainment of some caliphs have been the subject of criticism. Among the Umayyad caliphs, Yazīd II (101-105/720-724) was remembered for his drinking parties and love affairs with his concubines, and his fondness for entertainment to the degree of debauchery was described. The night (...) life of the caliph in question with his concubines named Sallāma and Habābah and his inclusion of them in the administration did not escape attention.It is known that the Umayyads had some problems in their relations with the new non-Arab Muslims (mawālī). Yazīd II’s elder brother, al-Maslama İbn ʽAbd al-Malik, was prevented on the grounds that his mother was a mawāli, although he was known to be the most worthy candidate for the caliphate among his brothers. Yazīd II, on the other hand, was appointed as the heir apparent with the advantage of being a member of the dynasty on his mother's side and then he was brought to the caliphate.After ‘Umar ibn ʽAbd al-ʽAziz, who was recognised as the ‘Fifth Rasheedun Caliph’ thanks to his piety and effective administrative skills, Yazīd II, who had a completely opposite character and administrative understanding, was brought to the caliphate. Although he imitated ‘Umar ibn ʽAbd al-ʽAziz in the first days of his caliphate, this situation did not last long. Soon after, he came under the influence of his favourites named Sallāma and Habāba and started to govern the state under the influence of these two names. It has also been stated that he jeopardised the future of the state and the dynasty with his arbitrary practices and debauched life. The sources give limited information about the lives of Sallāma and Habābah. Sallāma was born in Mecca as the child of a family whose parents were slaves (muwellada). It is narrated that she memorised almost all poetry and song lyrics from the Jahiliyyah period until the time she lived, and that she was extremely knowledgeable in the al-Qur’ân al-Karîm, hadiths and religious sciences. But with her mesmerising voice and physical beauty, she became famous as a singing courtesan. She gained her real fame when she met Yazid ibn ʽAbd al-Malik and became a part of the palace life. After Yazid II became the caliph, she rose in the palace and started to have a say in the state administration. It has been stated that Habābah was not inferior to Sallāma with her physical beauty, superior performance in singing, knowledge and manners, and even more advanced. As a matter of fact, Yazīd II was enamoured of her at first sight and wanted her very much, but his brother Caliph Sulaymān prevented him. Henceforth Yazīd II seated these two combines on his right and left in his palace and did not leave them until his death.Sallāma was an extremely intelligent, knowledgeable and beautiful woman who could be called Yazīd II’s first love. She almost ruled the state by using the affection and trust that the caliph cherished for her. So much so that the highest bureaucrats of the state could only be appointed with her approval. With her beauty, voice, and sharp intelligence, Habābah also enchanted the caliph, and her intervention in the state administration cost the caliph his life. Yazīd II was very saddened by the sudden death of Habābah during an entertainment party. His body was kept waiting for days and could only be buried after the warning of the caliph’s elder brother al-Maslama. The caliph, who knew the cause of her death from himself, never left her grave day or night. Weeks after the burial, he had her grave opened, embraced and kissed her decomposed corpse, lamented, and it was recorded that he died of grief. This situation, which cost the caliph his life, was expressed as ‘lovesickness’.This information and details are mentioned in Islamic historical sources. In this study, by using classical (Arabic) sources, two of the women who we think were influential on politics are introduced. Thus, we have contributed to the discussions on the presence and role of women in state administration in an early period of Islamic history. In this study, the portraits of two women, Habāba and Sallāma, who we think were involved in politics during the Umayyad period, albeit limited to the reign of Yazīd II, are given. While their short biographies are discussed, the status of women in the Umayyads, palace life and entertainments are touched upon. Again, the concepts of concubine and qayna (singing concubine) and umm al-walad, which express their art and social status in the person of these two concubines are explained. (shrink)

The Arabic philosophical fable _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _is a classic of medieval Islamic philosophy. Ibn Tufayl, the Andalusian philosopher, tells of a child raised by a doe on an equatorial island who grows up to discover the truth about the world and his own place in it, unaided—but also unimpeded—by society, language, or tradition. Hayy’s discoveries about God, nature, and man challenge the values of the culture in which the tale was written as well as those of every contemporary society. (...) Goodman’s commentary places _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _in its historical and philosophical context. The volume features a new preface and index, and an updated bibliography. “One of the most remarkable books of the Middle Ages.”—_Times Literary Supplement_ “An enchanting and puzzling story.... The book transcends all historical and cultural environments to settle upon the questions of human life that perpetually intrigue men.”—_Middle East__ Journal_ “Goodman has done a service to the modern English reader by providing a readable translation of a philosophically significant allegory.”—_Philosophy East and West_ “Add[s] bright new pieces to an Islamic mosaic whose general shape is already known.”—_American Historical Review_. (shrink)

Each narration or text, as it informs about an event, situation or person in history, has a history that sheds light on both its formation and how it arrived to us. The illumination of this history is at least as important as the content analysis of the information. For this reason, it is necessary both to examine whether the source in which the information is given has survived to the present day as it was created by the author without being (...) exposed to any external intervention, and to analyze the narration in terms of reliability and indication within the integrity of the isnād-text. In that case, when the word “text criticism” is mentioned, an understanding of a specific criticism should come to mind, which includes both critical edition (scholarly editing) of the first source and the critique of the narration by making sound research in terms of isnād and literary criticism (naqd al-isnād wa-l-matn). Due to reasons such as the inability to follow a standard method, the limited number of the copies and/or the distance of the copies from the author in terms of history and commercial concerns, many classical works published with relative verification contain such errors require a re-examination. One of these works is Ibn Hibbān’s (d. 354/965) book al-Majrūhīn. In his work al-Majrūhīn, Ibn Hibbān divided the narrators into two groups according to their reliability and collected the ones that he determined as weak according to his opinion. In this work, he placed Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) at the top of the list. First, he denounced Abū Ḥanīfa with the following expressions: Sahib al-ra’y, child of slaves, bicker, hypocrite, had little knowledge of hadith, a Murji’ī propagandist, a narrator who was blamed by imams. Then he tried to justify these claims by about thirty narrations from various salaf scholars. These narratives are completely different from the largely intellecutal discussions and criticisms of scholars such as al-Awza'i (d. 157/774), Ibn Abī Laylā (d. 148/765) and Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) on Abu Ḥanīfa and his school. The narrations compiled by Ibn Hibbān are display insulting and polemical narrations against Abu Ḥanīfa’s personality and reliability. In terms of being a source for later periods, it is important to examine and criticize these narratives in terms of the narration techniques. The al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl is important part of the hadith science. al-Mejrūhīn, one of the leading works of this science is remarkable in many respects. According to this narration Abū Ḥanīfa Nuʿmān b. S̱ābit b. Zūtā b. Māh’ın (öl. 150/767) said, "If a man worships this mule to get closer to Allah, I see no harm in it." According to our analysis, there are the following determinations about the narrators in the chain of this narrative. Ibn Abī Mushir is unknown (majhūl), the narrator who is written as “Mahfūz b. Abī Savba” but his correct name is “Tawba” is matrūk. Ahmad b. al-Walīd al-Mahramī al-Karkhī is weak, and Yahyā b. Hamza, source person, is qadari who narrates from people with munkar al-hadith; but is also considered as a thiḳa narrator. As for Sa‘īd b. Abd al-Azīz, he has nothing to do with the reception and transmission of the narrative. In addition, there is also a break in the chain. First of all, what is expected from a basic work such as al-Majrūhīn, whose subject and purpose is purely a narrator analysis, is that the report in it should be acceptable, at least in terms of isnād. When the narrative in question, which is also included in earlier sources such as al-Fesewī (d. 277/890), is evaluated in terms of both the isnād and the text, one realizes the transformation of an expression circulating in the form of gossip against Abu Ḥanīfa in Damascus around the subject of ʾirjāʾ. ʾIrjāʾ was at the forefront of the heated debates in the second half of the second century into semā form in terms of isnād and text, besides, the word النعل/clog is transformed into البغل/mule. Apart from the weak points of the chain, Sa‘īd b. Abd al-Azīz, who has nothing to do with the reception and transmission of the narrative, has also been turned into the narrator/source of the report with the samā expression. Regardless of the purpose and the criteria of the narration technically, during the conversation with Sa‘īd, Yahyā b. Hamza’s sincere friend and teacher, a special speech in which a common report attributed to Abu Ḥanīfa was expressed, was transformed into Yahyâ’s samā‘ in the form of jazm. As a result, the word “shoe” or “clog” has evolved into mule. It would be a reductionist and over optimistic approach to assume that all this may have resulted from tashīf and tahrīf of the copyists. The narration we discussed is a typical example in terms of showing the effect of the conflict of ideas between Ahl al-Hadīth and Ahl ar-Ra’y on the narrations. Of course, this shoud be not regarded as the only example. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The issue of wiping over socks is part of the more general issue of wiping over leather socks (khuffayn) for ablution (wuḍū’). Washing feet or wiping over them is a debate whose sides bases their claims on the verses of the Qur’an and supports these claims with narrations. When performing ablution, if shoes or socks are on the feet, whether one can wipe over them without taking these off and the qualities that these clothes should have is a debate based (...) on hadith narrations. Most Muslims except for the Ja’farite are of the opinion that either washing the feet or wiping over a khuff or similar clothing that was put on while a person already had ablution can be done during ablution, while the Ja’farite think that wiping over bare feet is enough but wiping over khuff is not. There is a consensus that shoes, boots, buskins and other leather footwear qualify as khuff. However, there is disagreement over whether clothing from materials like cotton, linen, wool, and felt -usually referred to as socks- qualify as khuff. For this reason, some Muslims of the world wipe over socks while others do not. There are contemporary fatwas (legal opinion) that are supportive of either of the positions. However, there are those who treat this issue beyond choosing a side in an ijtihad (process of juristic legal reasoning) and some who wipe on socks are censured strongly. In this research based on an examination of the fiqh heritage, the goal is to contribute to making this issue better understood and its fiqh ruling clearer.Summary: The sixth verse of Surah Ma’idah in the Qur’an clearly states that wuḍū’ requires washing the face, arms up until elbows, and wiping over the head. However, when it comes to the fourth element of wuḍū’, the feet, there has been disagreement about whether it should be wiped or washed. Arabic grammar rules and narrations have been interpreted in ways that support both views; in general Sunni sects, Zaydis, and Kharijites argue the feet should be washed while Shia Ja’farites are in favor of wiping over bare feet. There have also been efforts among faqihs (jurists) to reconcile washing and wiping; washing slightly; choosing the better one between the two; washing when not covered, wiping when covered; washing if there is dirt, wiping if it is clean; viewing at least wiping as fard (obligatory), washing as a Sunna (recommended) that includes the fard as a way to unify the two approaches have also been proposed.According to widely accepted narrations, the prophet and his companions washed their feet when performing wuḍū’ and once they put on their shoes having had wuḍū’, the next time they only wiped over the shoes without taking them off. In less commonly accepted narrations, which some hadith authorities regard as authentic, the Prophet is said to have wiped over his socks. In narration sources, it has been narrated that about fifteen faqih companions, among them ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, ʿAbdallāh Ibn Masʿūd, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar, saw wiping over socks as appropriate. However, there are no narrations about the companions disapproving of wiping over socks. Among those who approved of wiping over socks are tābiʿūn (successors) faqihs like Saʿīd b. D̲j̲ubayr, Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī ve al-Aʿmash, and Mujtahid Imams like Zufar, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ, Ibn al-Mubārak, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad al-Shaybānī, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh. Considering their most prominent positions, we can say that Ḥanafis and Shafis allow wiping over socks that are thick and opaque, Hanbalis allow it over socks that cover the foot even if thin, while Mālikīs do not allow wiping over socks at all.As far as it is understood from narrations from the Prophet’s time, due to both climate conditions and weaving possibilities, socks were used only rarely. Also, footwear like shoes or slippers made of leather were very hard to find and narrations suggest that prayers were performed at houses and the masjids over soil base on either bare foot or with shoes. For these reasons, the issue of wiping over socks did not arise at the time and at later periods different opinions on the issue led to disagreements. When carpets were placed on the ground at later periods, performing the prayer with shoes was abandoned and a second layer of shoes (khuff) was placed inside the shoes as khuff. Since removing the shoes would invalidate wuḍū’ performed over that shoe, those who wanted to avoid the difficulty of having to wash their feet each time they needed wuḍū’ have instead wiped over this second layer once they put them on after performing wuḍū’.Ḥanafīs and Shāfiʿīs, who tend to approach the issue of wiping over socks with hesitation and make this conditional on some strict rules, emphasize that the socks to be wiped over should be similar to shoes in terms of thickness, based on the idea that it is certain that the Prophet has wiped over shoes made of leather but his wiping over socks is weaker and that the qualities of those socks are not clear. Among the thickness criteria expressed for the socks are being waterproof, the ability to walk for at least a league with it, and its ability to hold on to feet without being tied at the wrists. Due to these criteria, which have been developed to protect the wuḍū’ and whose boundaries are not well specified, especially among Ḥanafis the idea that wiping over socks is not allowed has gained popularity. As opposed to this, in circles dominated by Ḥanbalīs opinions allowing wiping over any type of socks have been expressed.At times when the Prophet had his shoes on and did not want to take off his shoes, he used to wipe over the shoes. The equivalent of this act today is to wipe over socks since prayer with shoes on is not common any more. While nowadays wiping over socks is an ease for everybody when performing wuḍū’, it is something that is especially needed under certain circumstances. Cold weather and the lack of drying possibilities for the feet leading catching cold and illness, socks that are put on when feet are wet leading to bad smell and fungus on feet, the hardship of elevating the feet high enough to the sink and of changing socks on one foot when there are no special wuḍū’ places, the fact that at societies distant from Islamic culture it is seen against the etiquette to wash feet in the sink are among the reasons why this need arises. Because most of the time we are not in a position to determine the circumstances of our work and travels at modern times, it can be said that today this need is more than it was in the past.Some scholars of today use a precautionary principle and argue that the Qur’an commands to wash the feet, and the only narration powerful enough to make an exception to this rule is about masts made of leather, and extending this to include socks would go against the precaution principle and some other principles of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory). However, some other scholars who use the ease in religion principle argue that the permission to wipe over masts also include wiping over socks and that they are of the same nature, that there are authentic narrations that show wiping over socks are allowed and that one can even talk of an ijmāʿ (consensus) among the companions on this issue, and that seeking additional qualities socks on which one is to wipe over, such as thickness, ability to walk with it, its ability to hold on to the feet, being waterproof, have no merit in the sharīʿa. Jamaleddīn Qāsimī, who wrote a special research book on the topic, and scholars like Abū l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Bāz, Ibn al Uthaymeen think that one can wipe over daily socks that do not show the skin beneath it, while scholars predominantly of the Ḥanafi opinion hold that one cannot wipe over the thin daily socks. (shrink)

Qurʼan; hermeneutics; criticism, textual; criticism, interpretation, etc.

Taftāzānī, Masʻūd ibn ʻUmar, 1322-1389?. Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-al-kalām.

Prophets, Pre-Islamic; conduct of life; early works to 1800.

Islamic thought; Islamic philosophy; history; analytical study.

Muhammad al-Shahrastani, the famous Muslim theologian of the 12th century and author of the Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects, was greatly influenced by Ismaili teachings. In this work al-Shahrastani refutes the metaphysics of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) from an Ismaili point of view.

Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm, 1263-1328; views on philosophy, Islamic; Muslim philosophers; history; apologetic work; editor's Ph.D. dissertation.