AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 55
Almohad thought in general and in the thought of the faqih Ibn Tumart
in par ticular has been highlighted by several modern scholars.^8 In par tic-
ular, the Maliki school of law, which had ruled in al- Andalus for centu-
ries (and to which the Almohads remained in many ways attached), is
usually characterized (in a somewhat ste reotypical, but not altogether
incorrect way) as conservative. It developed the study of casuistics
(furu), paying relatively little attention to the other “sciences of the
Quran,” such as exegesis and theology (usul al- din). Time- honored
practices, which demanded precise listing of the transmitters for each
tradition, bore a voluminous bio- bibliographical literature. The fact
that Islam recognizes the legitimacy of several schools of law rendered
the record of their various opinions and disagreements an integral part
of Maliki legal scholarship. Ibn Tumart and his followers sought to re-
form this legal system.^9 Ibn Tumart began spreading his doctrine among
the Berbers by “composing for them scholarly tracts [in their own lan-
guage]... on the basic religiousdoctrines.”^10 As a basic doctrine of reli-
gion (asl) Ibn Tumart defi ned what ever is based solely on the revealed
tradition:Quran, the prophetic sunna as recorded in the canonical com-
pilations, and the agreement of scholars (ijma). Instead of the Maliki
reliance on pre cedents, the Almohads returned to the sources (usul) of
jurisdiction (Quran and sunna). Only rarely do we fi nd Ibn Tumart re-
ferring to a secondary source of law. Claiming that Truth is one and not
multiple, he rejected the legitimacy of legal controversy (ikhtilaf) and
admitted no plurality of schools. Unlike the extensive multivolume com-
positions typical of Maliki law, Ibn Tumart and his followers summa-
rized their legal opinions in small compendia (which together constitute
what we now know as “The Book of Ibn Tumart”).^11 These compendia
do not list the chains of transmitters, nor do they record the disagree-
ments of scholars. Instead, they endeavor to offer a succinct summary of
(^8) See Nagel, Im Offenkundigne das Verborgene, 35– 44; M. Fierro, “Proto- Malikis, Malikis
and Reformed Malikis in al- Andalus,” in P. Bearman, R. Peters and F. E. Vogel, eds., The
Islamic School of Law: Evolution, Devolution, and Progress (Cambridge, Mass., 2005),
57–76.
(^9) On the Almohad revolutionary attitude, especially in the domain of Islamic law, see
T. Nagel, “La destrucción de la šaria por Muhhammad b. Tumart,” Al-Qantara 18 (1997):
295–304; W. Montgomery- Watt, “Philosophy and Theology under the Almohads,” Actas
del Primer Congreso de Estudios Arabes e Islámicos, Córdoba 1962 (Madrid, 1964), 101–
7; L. E. Goodman, “Maimonides’ Philosophy of Law,” Jewish Law Annual 1 (1978): 84;
Fierro, “The Legal Policies of the Almohad Caliphs,” 227– 28; idem, “Proto- Malikis, Mali-
kis and Reformed Malikis in al- Andalus,” 57– 76 and note 116.
(^10) Abd al- Wahid al- Marrakushi,al-Mujib fi talkhis akhbar al- Maghrib, ed. R. Dozy (Le-
iden, 1881), 275, 270.
(^11) Goldziher, in Luciani, Le Livre de Mohammed Ibn Toumert; Kennedy, Muslim Spain and
Portugal, 198.