The Relation of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya 153
purposes. If we are to write a proper history of the Ḥanbalī school,
we must consider citations and teaching texts as well as entries in bio-
graphical dictionaries.
As for the special purposes of this study, the chief results of my
counting citations in al-Mardāwī’s al-Inṣāf are immediately clear: Ibn
Taymiyya appears as a relatively minor figure, less often cited than
many other Ḥanbalī jurisprudents, while Ibn al-Qayyim does not even
appear among the top 20 (in fact, appears just twice in the sample). It
also becomes clear, incidentally, that there has been a considerable break
in the tradition between al-Mardāwī’s time and ours, for a majority of
the books associated with these 21 most-cited jurisprudents have never
been printed, so far as I have been able to determine, notwithstanding
their importance in the 15th century. Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim
are the most famous 14th-century Ḥanābila today, but other 14th-century
Ḥanābila did more to shape the characteristic doctrines of the school.
The reason for Ibn Taymiyya’s being seldom cited is not that
al-Mardāwī looks down on him. Al-Mardāwī usually names his
authorities in series. Here is a typical passage, for example, concerning
whom the leader should permit to join the army of jihad:
He also forbids boys, according to the sound opinion of the school. A
number have mentioned this. [The author of] al-Furūʿ puts it first. [The
authors of] al-Mughnī, al-Kāfī, al-Bulghā, al-Sharḥ, al-Riʿāya al-kubrā,
and others say that he forbids young children (al-ṭifl). The Author
(al-muṣannif) and the Commentator (al-shāriḥ) [Ibn Abī ʿUmar] add that
it is permissible for him to give permission to whatever boys are strong.^6Al-Mardāwī occasionally names Ibn Taymiyya in a series of names like
this, but more often quotes him making a special point; for example,
Old Cairo, 264/877?). On their significance, see further Melchert, Christopher:
The Formation of the Sunnī Schools of Law, in: Wael B. Hallaq (ed.): The Forma-
tion of Islamic Law, Aldershot 2004, pp. 351–366, at pp. 352–354. For biographical
information concerning al-Khiraqī, see Laoust, Califat, p. 84. There is some dis-
agreement over al-Futūḥī’s name. Ibn Badrān gives the form Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad
b. al-Najjār, whereas Brockelmann indicates rather Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b.
al-Najjār: Brockelmann, Carl: Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, Leiden 1937–
1942, vol. 2, p. 447, which see for biographical information. Brockelmann’s form
is confirmed by Çelebī, Kātib: Keşf al-zunūn, ed. by Şerefettin Yaltkaya and Rifat
Bilge, Istanbul 1941, 1943, p. 1853. Brockelmann also (more doubtfully) proposes
the spelling Khujāwī: Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, suppl.,
vol. 2, p. 447, which also see for biographical information.
6 Al-Mardāwī, al-Inṣāf fī maʿrifat al-rājiḥ, vol. 4, p. 104 (K. al-Jihād, bāb mā yal-
zamu al-imām wal-jaysh, after qawluhu fa-man lā yaṣluḥu lil-ḥarb).
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated