AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 69
the Jewish people.^70 Furthermore, he chose to begin his Code of Law
with a chapter of theological, philosophical, and even scientifi c cate-
chism, the Book of Knowledge.^71 In some ways, this decision is probably
related to the structure of theological (kalam) works, which begin with
epistemology. But unlike most of these epistemological chapters, the
Book of Knowledge is about content: what we know (and not just how
we know it), what we must believe in. A parallel structure can be found
in Ghazali’s Ihyaulum al- din. As noted above, Maimonides was obvi-
ously familiar with Ghazali’s works, although he never quotes him by
name.^72 More specifi cally, Steven Harvey has shown the close similarity
between Ghazali’s Book of Knowledge and Maimonides’ own book bear-
ing the same title, and it is indeed quite possible that Maimonides was
familiar with this par ticular part of Ghazali’s magnum opus.^73 One
should note, however, the essential difference in the overall structure into
which the two Books of Knowledge are integrated. Although the Ihya
contains matters of religious law, it is not a legal codex, as the Mishneh
Torah is.
An oft- repeated anecdote stages a meeting between Ibn Tumart and
Ghazali, and depicts the former as a disciple of the latter.^74 Although this
tradition is probably spurious, Ibn Tumart was deeply infl uenced by
Ghazali, and Ghazali’s infl uence on the Almohads was considerable.^75
Like Ghazali, Ibn Tumart, too, opens his book with a Book of Knowl-
edge.^76 Unlike the Ihya, the Book of Ibn Tumart includes manuals for ev-
eryday law, and can thus be said to offer a closer parallel to the Mishneh
(^70) Commentary on the Mishnah, Neziqin, Tractate Sanhedrin, “Introduction,” in Pereq
Heleq, 211.
(^71) See the translation of H. M. Russell and Rabbi J. Weinberg, The Book of Knowledge
from the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (New York, 1983).
(^72) See chap. 2, note 6, above.
(^73) S. Harvey, “Alghazali and Maimonides and their Books of Knowledge,” in J. M. Harris,
ed.,Be’erot Yitzhak:Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., 2005),
99–117. See also F. Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in
Medieval Islam. (Leiden, 1970), 96.
(^74) See M. Fletcher, “Ibn Tumart’s teachers: The Relationship with al- Ghazali,” Al-Qantara
18 (1997): 305– 30; F. Griffel, “Ibn Tumart’s Rational Proof for God’s Existence and Unity,
and His Connection to the NizamiyyaMadrasa in Baghdad,” in Cressier et al., eds., Los
Almohades, esp. 753– 56.
(^75) See Goldziher, “Introduction,” in Luciani, Le Livre de Mohammed Ibn Toumert, 2ff.; M.
al-Manuni, “Ihyaulum al- din fi manzur al- gharb al- islami ayyam al- murabitin wa’1-
muwahhidin,” in AbuHamid al- Gazali, Dirasat fi fi krihi wa-asrihi wa- tathirihi (Rabat,
1988), 125– 37.
(^76) Another possible model for Ibn Tumart’s “Book of Knowledge” could have been Ibn
Hazm’s Al-Muhalla fi’l-athar, which begins with a dogmatical exposition, titled Kitab al-
tawhid.