16 Alina Kokoschka and Birgit Krawietz
type of intense spiritual affection that we have become familiar with in
the case of Rumi and Shams-i Tabrizi.”^62 It was out of the question that
Ibn al-Qayyim would openly criticize a theological standpoint taken
by Ibn Taymiyya.^63 Another factor sustaining this idea of “minorness”
is Ibn al-Qayyim’s modest family background. His agnomen (laqab)
as “the son of the Superintendent of al-Jawziyyah Law College” is “an
indication of the father’s occupation and social status.”^64 However,
while the term ‘superintendent’ may sound somewhat acceptable in
English, ‘janitor’ may be the expression that comes closer; that is to say,
Ibn al-Qayyim’s own career is one of enormous social climbing, even
though he – not least because of his loyalty to Ibn Taymiyya – defi-
nitely did not make it to the top. As a constant reminder, his low social
background as “the son of a janitor of the Jawziyya” was permanently
inscribed in the scholar’s agnomen.^65 One may speculate as to whether
Ibn al-Qayyim suffered from these circumstances; one may also sur-
mise as to whether his compulsive acquiring of manuscripts and quest
for role models and spiritual emulation – be that of Ibn Taymiyya or
of the Prophet Muḥammad – might have had something to do with
this lowly origin. Ibn Taymiyya’s superior command of scholarship
and unabashed self-confidence must have had a special appeal for Ibn
al-Qayyim. Nevertheless, in contrast to the arrogant Ibn Taymiyya,
he comes across in the sources as constantly struggling with a lack of
self-confidence, in no way eager to indulge in harsh accusations of oth-
62 Ibid, p. 164, n. 9.
63 Nevertheless, he would do so on some jurisprudential issues; ibid, p. 164.
64 Holtzman, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, p. 208. Compare Irmeli Perho, Climbing
the Ladder. Social Mobility in the Mamluk Period, in: Mamlūk Studies Review
15 (2011), pp. 19–35, here p. 19.
65 Perho, Climbing the Ladder, p. 20, includes caretakers of mosques (sg. qay-
yim) among “the lowest paid employees of the religious institutions, but even
though they worked among the scholars, they were not necessarily scholars
themselves” and in her conclusion, p. 34, she stresses, “that social advancement
cannot have been easy, and a successful climb up the social ladder was an excep-
tion rather than a rule.” A laudatory biography tries to put these circumstances
in another light by labelling the occupation of the father as “director” and offer-
ing further cover-up reading: “It is sufficient source of his pride that he should
be in charge of this school because of the great influence it had amongst all the
schools of that time” and that, afterwards, “his offspring and his grandchildren
became famous with this ascription”, Abdul-Mawjûd, Biography, pp. 24–25.
The fact that the father had some rudimentary knowledge of hereditary regu-
lations has confused some writers, as if he had already belonged to the lower
strata of scholars, Krawietz, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah, p. 21.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated