Zahirism

Important works on Ibn Hazm and, more generally, on Zāhirisma legal school of which he was the major representative in Andalusia-have emerged over the last fifteen years. 1 All tackle, in a more or less thorough way, depending on the case, the thorny question of the 'Zāhirism of Ibn ʿArabī'-or what is presumed as suchand refer to the influence that the author of the Muhallā may have exercised on him in the domain of fiqh, in the broadest sense. This academic debate-which dates back to 1884, when Goldziher's famous study on Zāhirism was first published 2-is indisputably fruitful: pointing out borrowings between authors of different eras,

La situation des dhimmīs dans l’occident musulman a été l’objet d’un certain nombre de recherches qui eurent toutes pour point de départ le droit malikite qui fut l’école officielle au Maghreb et en al-Andalus. Cependant, il importe de relever que même si le malikisme fut majoritaire en Espagne musulmane, d’autres interprétations du droit musulman purent se développer en marge de ce madhab. Tel fut le cas, par exemple, du ẓāhirisme qui trouva son expression la plus achevée en la personne d’Ibn Hazm de Cordoue (456/1064). Adversaire déclaré des malikites et très critique à l’égard des autres écoles juridiques, celui-ci fut un révélateur de certaines « incohérences » du droit des dhimmīs et il se fit aussi parfois l’écho d’exégèses abusives des autres juristes sur cette question. Afin d’apporter quelques éclairages sur la pensée d’Ibn Ḥazm à l’égard des non-musulmans, et parce que notre étude n’entend nullement être exhaustive, nous avons pris le parti d'étudier les chapitres suivants de son Muḥallā : pureté et impureté, nourriture, pacte de dhimma, fiscalité et justice. Dans ces derniers chapitres, les "infidèles" se répartissent en deux grands ensembles : non-musulmans et dhimmī. Nous entendons par non-musulmans toutes les personnes ne professant pas l’islam et ne vivant pas nécessairement en terre musulmane. Et par dhimmī, toute personne juive, chrétienne ou autre, adepte de l’une des religions du Livre, vivant dans le dār al-islām et jouissant d’un statut de protégé en échange du versement d’un impôt communément appelé ǧizya. Nous avons pu mettre en évidence dans cet article que le ẓahirisme d’Ibn Hazm se fonde sur une lecture littéraliste des textes révélés (Coran et sunna), et que cette lecture entraîne une conception particulière de la dhimma, dont le développement le plus abouti se trouve dans son grand œuvre al-Muḥallā. C'est d'ailleurs l'étude de certains chapitres de cet ouvrage s’intéressant aux non-musulmans qui nous a permis de révéler la méthodologie juridique de notre auteur ainsi que ses spécificités au regard de la tradition malikite.

Öz: Ahmed b. Muhammed el-Kazâbâdî (ö. 1163/1750), Tokat Kazâbâd'da (Kazova/Üzümören) doğmuş, Osmanlı döneminin önemli ilmî simalarından biridir. Memleketi Tokat'ta başladığı tahsilini Sivas'ta ta-mamlayarak İstanbul'a gelen Kazâbâdî, müdderris olarak vazife almış ve çeşitli kadılıklarda bulunmuştur. Aralarında Ebû Saîd el-Hâdîmî (ö. 1176/1762) gibi meşhur âlimlerin de bulunduğu pek çok öğrenci yetiştirmiş, aynı zamanda tefsir, kelam ve fıkıh gibi temel ilimlerde şerh ve hâşiye türünde çok sayıda eser kaleme almıştır. Çalışmamızda Kazâbâdî'nin hayatı, ilmî şahsiyeti ve eserleri hakkında kısaca bilgi verildikten sonra, zâhir ve bâtın ilmini konu edindiği İlmu'l-bâtın isimli risalesinin değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle risalenin tercüme ve tahliline, son olarak da ek hüviyetiyle eserin tahkikli neşrine yer verilmiştir. Esasında bu çalışmada temel gaye, risalede kullanılan hadis ve rivayetle-rin tenkit ve tahlilini yapmaktır. Ancak risalenin tamamını ele alarak tercüme ve tahliline yer vermenin daha isabetli olacağı düşünülmüş, makalenin hacmini artırmamak amacıyla hadis ve rivayetlerin tahric ve değerlendirmesine ise dipnotlarda yer verilmiştir. Çalışma dahilinde Kazâbâdî'nin zâhir ve bâtın ilim-lerine yaklaşım biçimi üzerinde durulmuştur. Müellif, risalesinde özellikle de bâtın ehlinden bazı kim-selerin ilm-i bâtın anlayışlarına yönelik birtakım tenkit ve değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktadır. O, tarihte olduğu gibi kendi döneminde de zâhir uleması ile bâtın uleması arasında zâhir ve bâtın ilmi, bunların mahiyeti, kabulü ve ilkeleri gibi hususlarda cereyan eden tartışmalara binaen meseleyi ilmî olarak de-ğerlendirmek üzere bu konuda müstakil bir risale kaleme almış ve sonuçta zâhir ve bâtın arasında denge kuran ve zâhirle uyum içerisinde olan bir bâtın anlayışının ilke ve sınırlarını ortaya koymaya çalışmıştır.

The great majority of the Islamic law schools have included analogy (qiyās) in their usūl al-fiqh, whether on a comprehensive or limited scale. The ahl al-ra’y (rationalists) especially expressed that no solution to the fiqh problems can be found without referring to analogy. Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064), one of the most important representatives of the Zāhirīts that position themselves as ahl al-hadīs (traditionalists), has argued that the unlimited problems that can be encountered will be solved by the texts (nūsūs) in hand without resorting to analogy. Accordingly, Ibn Hazm proposed the use of syllogism and other tools of the science of logic as an alternative to analogy. He also brought intense and serious criticism against the understanding of fiqh that was dominant in his time.
This thesis, which aims to reveal Ibn Hazm’s criticism of analogy against the ahl al-ra’y specific to the Hanafī school of law and its effects in furū al-fiqh, consists of an introduction and two main sections.
In the introduction part, the aim, importance, method and resources of the work are presented. In the first chapter, in order for the background of Ibn Hazm’s criticism of analogy to be understood, we first briefly addressed his epistemology, understanding of logic and shar’ī evidence, and then taqlīd (imitation), ra’y (reason) and istihsān (juristic preference), the concepts to which he established a relation to analogy, and to his understanding of ijtihād (legal reasoning). Later, we tried to examine his view of rationale (illah), causation (ta'lîl) and analogy, and his criticisms of the ahl al-ra’y specific to Hanafīts, in comparison with the views of al-Jassās (d. 370/981), one of the early Hanafīts, in particular.
In the second chapter, we handled Ibn Hazm’s practical criticism against analogy, which he does not acknowledge as a shar’ī evidence in theory, within the scope of his comprehensive furū al-fiqh book al-Muhallā bi al-āsār. In this framework, some highly representative analogies, which Ibn Hazm attributed to the Hanafīts, have been selected and his objections and criticisms against these analogies have been put forward and their belonging to Hanafīts was investigated.

Abstract: The great Cordoban polygraph Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) chose as the legal school to follow the literalist or Ẓāhirī, instead of the Mālikī legal school that was the predominant in al-Andalus and that had been supported by the Cordoban Umayyads. On the basis of the information provided by his personal biography and his political trajectory as well as of the analysis of some of his doctrinal conclusions, I conclude that his election is explained by his vision of how he wanted society to be. It was a vision determined by his formation in the Umayyad-ʽĀmirid court context and culture, and by his rejection that jurists would have exclusive control of the legal sphere.

Ibn ʿArabī is often presented in an ahistorical and achronistic fashion with little mention of the intellectual milieu from which he was raised, – and nothing much of ‘their’ thought is discussed, nor its impact on Ibn ʿArabī’s thought. I argue that the most important facet in understanding Shaykh al-Akbar is through his predecessors, not only to understand his ideolect, but also his concepts. Addas, Chodkiewizc, Gril, Winkel and Al-Gorab mistakenly attribute to Ibn ʿArabī non-madhhabism. To the contrary, I posit that Goldziher was quite correct in his assessment of Ibn ʿArabī as a Ẓāhirī. I entirely agree with Jawad Qureshi in his assessment of the corpus of Ibn ʿArabī’s legal thought. Moreover, Ibn ʿArabī cannot be understood without understanding Ẓāhirism, and Ẓāhirism cannot be understood without assessing Ibn ʿArabī’s contributions. In the same fashion Andalusian mysticism, and the renunciant movement cannot be understood without Ibn ʿArabī, and vice versa. Putting Ibn ʿArabī outside of those contextualizations may be detrimental to future research, which may enlighten us more strongly to their influence on Ibn ʿArabī or vice versa. Undoubtedly, more research needs to be done looking at Ibn ʿArabī’s legal thought and theory of language, and then comparing it directly to Ẓāhirī thought & texts, which has not been properly done yet. I am imploring researchers to be cognizant
of the questions, what is a madhhab and what does it mean
to belong to a madhhab? If one cannot conceive of Ibn ʿArabī
being a Ẓāhirī, surely he was a semi-Ẓāhirī!

I explore the presence of zahir and batin as guiding design principles of the Aljaferia-- an eleventh-century fortified palace of the Taifa Kings of Saragossa. By way of introduction, the paper also examines Taifa architecture in the historical lineage of Andalusian Umayyad architecture. It explores the presence of early speculative thought and philosophy in al-Andalus and examines the Treatise on Contemplation by Ibn Masarra alongside the visual details of the Aljaferia.