(9) SUNNI REVIVAL (F16) by Muhammad Amin Samad

THE NATURE OF THE SUNNĪ REVIVAL IN THE SALJUQ PERIOD (429-552/1037-1157)

Muhammad Amin Abdul Samad

Dr. R.N. Verdery

Medieval Islamic

Dec., 1978.

History (397-611D)

INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES McGILL UNIVERSITY

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

…………………………….

THE NATURE OF THE SUNNĪ REVIVAL ………………

1. The Beginning of the Sunnī Revival ……………………

2. The Sunnīs versus the Shī‘īs ……………………………

3. Mu‘tazilīs versus Ash‘arīs ………………………………..

The Niz.āmīyah Madrasahs ……………………………

CONCLUSION ………………………………………….

Endnotes ……………………………………………. ……

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………

INTRODUCTION

This paper is an attempt to present the nature of the Sunnī revival in the Great Saljuq period. As we know, the Sunnī Saljuqs replaced the pro-Shī‘ī Buwayhids in the 5th/11th century. This event is very important in Islamic history, because it was considered the beginning of the Sunnī revival. During this Saljuq period madrasahs (schools, colleges) as institutions were founded. The most important ones were the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs founded by Niz.ām al-Mulk. These colleges were strict to Shāfi‘īs alone. Besides founding the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs Niz.ām al-Mulk also wrote a book entitled Siyāsat Nāma (The Book of Government) in which he expressed his anti-Shī‘ī policy.

THE NATURE OF THE SUNNĪ REVIVAL IN THE SALJUQ PERIOD (429-552/1037-1157)

The Beginning of the Sunnī Revival According the writers of textbooks whom George Makdisi did

not specify, the Sunnī revival in the 11th century started in 447/1055 with the entry of the first Saljuq into Baghdad and the conquest of Iraq and Western Persia.

This view was rejected by Makdisi who

contended that the Sunnī revival started earlier in the beginning of the century during the Shī‘ī Buwayhid rule in Baghdad. It started in Khurāsān where the Sunnī Ghaznavids were implementing the Caliph’s Qādirī Creed.1 In order to clarify his position Makdisi mentioned three names who were supposed to be responsible for the Sunnī revival, i.e.,: T.ughril Beg (429-455/1037-1063), Niz.ām al-Mulk (408-10-485/101820-1092), and al-Ghazālī (d. 504/1111). T.ughril Beg, the Turkish Saljuq Sultan, helped the Sunnī Caliph al-Qā’im (422-467/1032-1075) to put an end to the Shī`ī Buwayhids in 447/1055 and replaced it with the Sunnī Saljuq Sultanate. Niz.ām al-Mulk, the vizier of Alp-Arslān, founded the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī Niz.āmīyah madrasah in Baghdad in 457/1065. Two years later this madrasah was inaugurated.

Al-

Ghazālī, the professor of the Shāfi‘ī law in the Niz.āmīyah, made reconciliation between Sufism and Muslim orthodoxy, after he have left that madrasah in 488/1095. Makdisi contended that prior to the

Saljuqs’ appearance, when the Shi‘ī Buwayhids were still ruling in Baghdad at the end of the 4 th/10th century, the Ghaznavid Sultan Mah.mūd b. Sabuktigīn had already pursued “a traditionalist Sunnī policy under the Caliph al-Qādir.”2 Makdisi contended further that the H.anbalīs in this period had also been successful in opposing the Shi‘ī movement. This revival in the beginning of the 5th/11th century, in Makdisi’s view, was not only Sunnī in character, but also traditionalist, as it was against rationalism of the Mu‘tazilah as well as that of the Ash‘arīyah. The Qādirī creed was anti-Shī‘ī, anti Mu‘tazilī and anti-Ash‘arī.3 According to H.A.R. Gibb the Sunni revival also began in the end of the 4th/10th century in Khurāsān, the region which had not fallen under the Shī‘ī government. Apparently, this revival, in Gibb’s view, occurred in response to the activities of the Fāt.imid missionaries and the consolidation of Twelver Shī‘ism in Western Persia and Iraq during that century.4 2.

The Sunnīs versus the Shī‘īs There were three central points in Dār al-Islām in the beginning

of the 5th/11th century: Baghdad, Cairo, and Cordova. Baghdad is the capital of the Sunnī ‘Abbāsid Caliphate. The Caliph was al-Qādir biAllāh (991-1031) who was one of the Caliphs who ruled very long. In 945 this city of Baghdad had been invaded by the Buwayhids who seemed to be pro-Twelver Shī‘is and who did not recognize the Ismā‘īlī Shī‘ī Fāt.imid in Cairo as a Caliph. In 967-972 the Fāt.imid

conquered Egypt. Cairo was the capital of the Ismā‘īlī Shī‘ī caliphate. The Caliph was al-H.ākim bi-Amr Allāh (996-1021). Cordova was the capital of the Sunnī Umayyad caliphate. The Caliph was Hishām II alMu‘ayyad bi-Allāh (976-1009 and 1010-1013). With the replacement of the pro-Shī`ī Buwayhids with the Sunnī Saljuqs, the controversy between the Sunnīs and the Shī‘īs remained. An unknown ex-Shī‘ī convert to Sunnism wrote an anti-Shī‘ī book entitled Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih al-Rawāfid. (“Some of the Ignominies of the Shī’īs”) where he mentioned 67 ignominies of this sect. As the Sunnī in this time tended to assimilate all Shī‘ism with Ismā‘īlism, the writer said: “Shī‘ism is the corridor leading to heresy.”5 He even accused the Shī‘īs of being Zoroastrians under Muslim dress, repeating the accusation which had been made by Ibn H.azm (d.1064). As an answer to the book mentioned above a Shī‘ī, al-Qazwīnī, wrote Ba‘d. Mat.ālib al-Nawāsib fī Naqd Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih al-Rawāfid. (“Some vices of the Sunnīs in Refuting Ba‘d. Fad.ā’ih al-Rawāfid. ”). The author accused the Sunnīs as the enemies of the family of the Prophet, believers of the predestination and anthropomorphism (tashbīh) as well as blind followers of tradition.6 The Saljuqs were generally anti-Shī‘ī. Niz.ām al-Mulk in his Siyāsat Nāma said: In the days of Mah.mūd, Mas‘ūd, T.ughril, and Alp Arslān (may Allah have mercy on them) no Zoroastrian or Jew or Rafidi would have had the audacity to appear in a public place or to present himself before a great man. Those who administered the affairs of the Turks were all professional civil

servants and secretaries from Khurāsān [as a Sunnī area], who belonged to the orthodox H.anafī or Shāfi‘ī sects. The heretics of Iraq [i.e., the Shī‘īs] were never admitted as secretaries and tax collectors; in fact the Turks never used to employ them at all; they said, “These men are of the same religion as the Dailamites [Dailām was a Shī‘ī area in Western Iran] and their supporters; if they get a firm footing they will injure the interests of the Turks and cause distress to the Muslims. It is better that enemies should not be in our midst.” Consequently they lived free from disaster.7 However, the Shī‘īs’ influence started growing after the dismissal of Niz.ām al-Mulk, whose displeasure with Shī‘īsm was said to be one of the causes of his discharge.

Some Shī‘īs held high

position in Saljuq’s office, for example: Sharaf al-Dīn Anūshirvān b. Khālid Kashnānī became vizier of Sultan Mah.mūd b. Mālik-Shāh (1092-1094) and of the Caliph al-Mustarshid bi-Allāh (1118-1135); Sa‘d al-Mulk Āvajī became vizier of Sult.an Muh.ammad b. Mālik Shāh (1104-1117).8 The Shī`īs spread their faith through their centres, madrasahs, mosques, and libraries. During the second half of the 12 th century they had madrasahs in many cities: Ray, Qum, Kāshān, Āveh, Varāmīn and Sabzavār.9 They also use the manāqibīs or manāqib-khwāns, i.e., singers who praised the virtues of ‘Alī and his descendants. They sang in streets and bazaars, and moved from place to place in order to avoid persecution of the rulers. These manāqibīs had already existed in Iraq since the Buwayhid period, and were secretly active in Iraq and Tabaristan in the early Saljuq period. They poem also contained Shī‘ī

theological doctrines, such as: tanzīh (the absolute transcendence of God) as the opposite of the tashbīh, and the ‘ismah (infallibility and impeccability) and miracles of their imāms.10 The Sunnīs countered these manāgibīs (manāgib-khwāns) with fad.ā’il-khwāns (singers of virtue; both manāqib and fad.ā’il have the same meaning, i.e., “virtues”). We are told that they taught in their poems jabr (predestination) and tashbīh. They fabricated stories concerning the bravery and virtues of Rustam, Suhrāb and others instead of ‘Ali.11 3.

Mu‘tazilīs versus Ash‘arīs The religious controversy during the Saljuq period was not only

between the Sunnīs and the Shī`īs, but also among the Sunnīs themselves, i.e., the H.anafīs who happened to be Mu‘tazilīs versus the Shāfi‘īs who happened to be Ahs‘arīs. Sometimes religious debates among different schools and sects led to religious antagonism. Rāvandī said that after the Ghuzz attack on Nīshāpūr in 1154, every night one sect in that city attacked the enemy sect in the other part of the city where killing and burning took place; in Shīrāz the similar thing occurred between the H.anafīs and the Shāfi‘īs; in al-Rayy, between both of them and the Shī‘īs, and between all of the three and the Ismā‘īlīs.12 In Baghdad the H.anafī and pro-Mu‘tazilī T.ughril Beg pursued an anti-Ash‘arī policy from 445-455/1053-1063. He was the first Sultan among the Great Saljuqs who ordered the public cursing of Abū H.asan

al-Ash‘arī (d. 324/935), the founder of Ash‘arī theological school, from the pulpits of Khurāsān. He exiled Ash‘arī scholars from that province. This persecution continued until he died in 1063. 13 According to al-Subkī, the master-mind of this persecution was the vizier Khundurī, who advised Sultan T.ughril Beg around 445/1053 to denounce heretics.

Once this advice was approved, Khudurī

included the Shāfi‘īs in general and the Ash‘arīs in particular beside the Karrāmis in this persecution. In Khurāsān, besides cursing alAsh‘arī, the public religious posts which had been occupied by the Shāfi‘īs were given to the H.anafīs.14 T.ughril Beg was succeeded by Alp-Arslān. Kundurī, the H.anafīMu‘tazilī vizier of T.ughril Beg, was imprisoned and replaced by Niz.ām al-Mulk.

Although Niz.ām al-Mulk was a Shāfi‘ī and pro-

Ash‘arī, he did not avenge the Ash‘arīs by persecuting the H.anafīMu‘tazilīs. The Sultan Alp-Arslān was a H.anafī, and so was his financial minister. However, Niz.ām al-Mulk end the persecution of the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arīs and took some measure against those who were involved in this mih.nah (severe trial): he approved the execution of Kundurī; he called back the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī refugees from Iraq and Hijāz to their hometown Nīshāpūr; he abrogated the cursing of alAsh‘arī; and he founded mosques and madrasahs for the Shāfi‘īAsh‘arīs.15

4. The Niz.āmīyah Madrasahs According to Goldziher the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs were public schools where Ash‘arī kalām (dogmatic theology) was taught. Therefore, this Ash‘arī school of theology became victorious over the Mu‘tazilīs and H.anbalīs.16 This view was rejected by Makdisi who contends Niz.āmīyah madrasahs were not public schools, but rather private ones intended to implement Niz.ām al-Mulk’s political policies. Ash‘arī kalām, in Makdisi’s view, was not taught in these schools, but was propagated by the Ash‘arīs through wa‘z. (academic sermons).17 These colleges were restricted to Shāfi‘īs and served the Shafi‘ī madhhab (school of law) alone, but no theological school was followed.

Makdisi gives us an example with the Niz.āmīyah of

Baghdad. He contends that since the time of the foundation of this college in 459/1066 until 476/1083, Abū Ish.āq al-Shīrāzī (1002-1083), the great Shāfi‘ī jurist, the famous principal of the Niz.āmīyah in Baghdad, had been teaching us.ūl al-fiqh (legal theory and methodology) there. He would not have been teaching Ash‘arī kalam there since he was himself a Mu‘tazilī and anti-Ash‘arī. Otherwise, Makdisi contends, “if indeed the Niz.āmīyah was an Ash‘arī college, how could an anti-Ash‘arī have been allowed to teach there for the first seventeen years?”18 In Makdisi’s view, al-Ghazālī, who was later appointed to be professor of Shāfi‘ī madhhab, taught only this subject, and never taught Ash‘arī kalām in this college.19

Contrary to Makdisi’s view, according to Tibawi, the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs belonged to the state and were intended to serve its (the state’s) interests. Tibawi also doubted that kalām was not taught in these colleges. This is because, he asserts: … that we have no direct evidence of the content of what exactly was taught in this [i.e., Niz.āmīyah of Baghdad] and other similar institutions…. One thing we are reasonably sure. The madrasah which symbolized the victory of orthodox theology over speculative and natural philosophy excluded the falsafah. Apart from this restriction the whole range of ‘ulūm al-dīn appears to have been within its scope. 20 Tibawi further contends that Ibn al-Jawzī asserted that the endowment of the Niz.āmīyah college in Baghdad was for the benefit of Shāfi‘īs. But this statement, Tibawi contends, does not necessarily mean this endowment was exclusively for fiqh, because Ibn Jawzī included a reader who recited the Qur‘ān and a grammarian who taught Arabic among those who were paid from the endowment.21 AlGhazālī himself was said to have been unsatisfied when he was addressed by his own teacher as “faqīh”, because he was also a scholar in kalām.

The exclusiveness of the madrasahs as institutions23 is

considered by Tibawi artificial and unrealistic. This is because it had become tradition at that time to start every lesson (dars) with reading some verses from the Qur’ān and some h.adīths before the subject was expounded.24 According to Makdisi the object of Niz.ām al-Mulk in founding the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs is “to implement his political policies

throughout the vast lands of the empire under his sway.” The institution which was chosen by him “as an instrument of his policies was one whose administration could be kept outside the reach of the Caliph’s authority, an authority which has its place in the public opinion of the times.”25 Contrary to the view of Makdisi, according to Tibawi, Niz.ām alMulk’s objectives in founding the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs were: to compete with the Fāt.imids in Egypt in the field of learning, to obtain the favour of the ‘ulamā’, and to provide his administrative reforms with qualified persons to hold the position of qād.ī, muftī, khat.īb and clerk. Tibawi contends that there was no evidence that the followers of the other than the Shāfi‘ī madhhab were excluded.26 However, Tibawi asserts that Niz.ām al-Mulk would have never allowed including the Mu‘tazilah and the Hellenistic philosophy in the Nizāmiyah madrasahs. Moreover, these two heretics had been in retreat or in defensive position against orthodoxy before the founding of madrasahs.27 Tibawi contends further than that although Nizām al-Mulk was a Shāfi‘ī he did not intend to ruin the H.anafī or the H.anbalī madhhab, because they also belong to Muslim orthodoxy. When the H.anbalīs accused Abū Ish.āq al-Shīrāzī of attempting to ruin their madhhab because Abū Nās.ir al-Qushayrī had publicly claimed Ash‘arism in the Niz.āmīyah,28 Shīrāzī said to them at their meeting with the Caliph: “Here are my books on legal theory. I speak contrary to Ash‘arism in

them.”29 Niz.ām al-Mulk himself wrote to Shīrāzī, saying “the Sultan’s policy and the dictates of justice do not incline us to one rite (madhhab) to the exclusion of others….

We did not build this

madrasah except for the protection of the learned and in the public interest, not for controversy and division….” 30 Tibawi concludes his article asserting that the Niz.āmīyah was “a public institution dedicated to ahl al-‘ilm and the mas.lah.ah, for the study of religious science and the training of state functionaries,” and that Niz.ām al-Mulk “had a catholic, not a parochial aim in mind establishing this institution in Baghdad.”31 According to M.H. al-Naqīb there are two motives of Niz.ām alMulk in founding the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs. Firstly, “he wanted to preserve and spread the knowledge of the Sharī‘ah.” Secondly, as he believed “that religious opposition is dangerous to the stability of the government,” he wanted to strengthen the position of the Shāfi‘īAsh‘arīs whom he considered representatives of the right religion. Naqīb asserts that Makdisi was right in his claim that the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs were Niz.ām al-Mulk’s own institutions intended to strengthen his policies and to control the ‘ulamā’, but these policies were related to those of the Saljuq Sultanate. 32 Although Naqīb does not claim to have resolved the controversy between Makdisi and Tibawi he gives us some of his findings. He asserts, “Ash‘arī kalām had a place in Niz.āmīyah curriculum as a minimum aspect of the tadrīs.”33 However, he admits that there is

difficulty in determining whether us.ūl means us.ūl al-dīn (kalām) or us.ūl al-fiqh.34

He supports Makdisi’s position in considering the

Niz.āmīyah to be private institutions.

He bases this view on

administrative, religio-political, and financial aspects of Niz.ām alMulk’s policy.35 From the administrative aspect, Niz.ām al-Mulk was the only person who had power to appoint and dismiss the staff of the Niz.āmīyah of Baghdad as observed by Makdisi. From the religiopolitical aspect the Niz.āmīyahs were intended to serve the Shāfi‘īAsh‘arīs. Naqīb rejects the argument of Tibawi in considering Niz.ām al-Mulk to be neutral and had a “catholic” and not “parochial” aim in founding the Niz.āmīyahs.36 Naqīb asserts that Niz.ām al-Mulk “… spoke in the sultan’s name because he ran caliphal affairs for the Saljuqs. As an atabek to Mālik-Shāh, he had the right to issue letters in the sultan’s name and caliphal officials knew well that behind the sultan’s mask there was Niz.ām al-Mulk himself….”37 In the financial aspect Naqīb admits Tibawi assertion that the charter of the Baghdad madrasah did not state that the funds of the Niz.āmīyah came from Niz.ām al-Mulk’s private sources. However, according to Naqīb, both this charter and the Isfahan one gave us indication “that Niz.ām al-Mulk was responsible for the allocation of the waqf.”38 As vizier he had no difficulty in taking some money from government revenue as a loan from the treasury for the Niz.āmīyah madrasahs to be repaid later. He also could use government funds for

charitable purpose to support his Niz.āmīyah madrasahs. Moreover, he himself, according to Naqīb’s observation, “was wealthy enough by the standard of his secretarial opponents”, so that part of the funds came from his own sources.39

CONCLUSION The Sunnī revival started at the end of the 4th/10th century before the Saljuq period. It started in Baghdad with the Caliph’s Qādirī Creed which was anti-Shī‘ī, anti-Mu‘tazilī and anti-Ash‘arī, and with Mah.mūd Ghaznawī’s implementation of this creed in Khurāsān and his other newly conquered territories. This Sunnī revival continued with the replacement of the proShī‘ī Buwayhids with the Sunnī Saljuqs, especially during the vizierate of Niz.ām al-Mulk. Niz.ām al-Mulk founded Niz.āmīyah institutions with the intention to spread the Sharī‘ah and to strengthen the position of the Sunnī creed in general and the Shāfi‘ī-Ash‘arī in particular. He also wrote his Siyāsat Nāma where he expressed his anti-Shāfi‘ī policy. Although he was not against other Sunnī madhhabs than the Shāfi‘ī, he was not neutral with them, for he was pro-Shāfi‘ī. The H.anafi was the madhhab of the majority of the Turkish Saljuq, while the H.anbali belong to supporters of the caliphate. However, after him the Shāfi‘ī influence started growing, and some Shāfi‘īs were appointed viziers. The Sunnī revival that started at the end of 4 th/10th century and continued during the Great Saljuq period in the 11 th century was not only Sunnī due to its anti-Shī‘ī attitude, but also an orthodox revival due to its opposition to the rationalist Mu‘tazilī and Ash‘arī doctrines. It was the revival of the Orthodox-Traditionalist in general and the H.anbalī-traditionalist in particular. This was obvious with the flourish of the H.anbalī colleges in Baghdad.

Endnotes George Makdisi, “The Sunnī Revival”, Islamic Civilization, 950-1150, ed. D.S. Richards (Oxford: Cassier, 1973), p. 155. 1

Ibid., pp. 155-156. In 1010-1111 Mah.mūd killed a large number of Qarmatians in Multan, see Mohammad Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin (Aligharh: Aligharh Muslim University Publications, 1927), pp. 31-32. Makdisi, “Sunnī Revival,” p. 155.

3 4

H.A.R. Gibb, An Interpretation of Islamic History (Lahore: Orientalia Publishers, 1957), p. 33. We are told that Mah.mūd’s army “was not a host of holy warriors resolved to live and die for the Lord” as it fought Muslims as well as non-Muslim (Hindus). Mah.mūd was much concern with expanding his territory and exterminating the “heretic” rather than converting non-Muslim, see M. Habib, Sultan Mahmud, pp. 59, 77. A. Bausani, “Religion in the Saljuq Period” The Cambridge History of Iran, ed. J.A. Boyle (Cambridge: University Press, 1968), vol. 5, pp. 285-286. 5

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 292.

Ibid.

For further details, see ibid., p. 295.

Ibid., p. 293.

Ibid., p. 294.

Ibid., p. 285, quoting Rāvandī’s Rāh.at al-S.udūr (N.p., n.d.), n.p. Makdisi, “Sunnī Revival”, p. 157.

13 14

Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, T.abaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyah al-Kubrā, ed. M.M. al-Tahāni and A.F. al-Hulw (Cairo: `Isā al-Bābī al-Halabī, 1383-1388/1964-1968), vol. 3, pp. 390-391, 393. Contrary to the view of Makdisi that Kundurī was a H.anafī (see “Sunnī Revival” p. 157), according to Edward G. Browne, Kundurī was a fanatical adherent of Shāfi‘ī school, and instituted a public cursing of the Rāfidīs (or Shī‘ites) and of the Ash‘arīs in the mosques, see A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), vol. 2, p. 174. If Browne was right, the persecution of the Shāfi‘īs by Kundurī was because they happened to be Ash‘arīs, and therefore they were considered heretics. However, according to Ibn ‘Asākir, Kundurī was a Mu‘tazilī-Rāfidī, see Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī fīmā Nusiba ilā Abī al-H.asan al-Ash‘arī (Damascus: Mat.ba‘at al-Tawfīq, 1347 A.H.), p. 108. See also al-Subkī, T.abaqāt, vol. 3, p. 390.

Ibn ‘Asākir, Tabyīn, pp. 108-109. After the death of T.ughril Beg Kundurī attempt to proclaim Alp-Arslān’s brother Sulaymān to succeed the late Sultan. This was a grave false-step, for Alp-Arslān imprisoned him (Kundurī) in Marv for about one year, and later put him to death. E.G. Browne, Literary History, vol. 2, pp. 173-174. 15

G. Makdisi. “Muslim Institutions of Learning in Elevent-Century Baghdad,” B.S.O.A.S. xxiv, pt. 1, pp. 2-3. 16

Idem, “Sunnī Revival,” p. 160.

17 18

Ibid., p. 159.

Ibid., p. 160.

A.L. Tibawi, “Origin and Character of al-Madrasah,” B.S.O.A.S. xxv (1962), pp. 227-228. 20

Ibid., p. 228, n. 1, quoting Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntazam fī Tā’rīkh al-Mulk wa al-Umam (Haidarabad: N.p., 1359 A.H.), vol. 9, p. 66. 22

Ibid., p. 229, quoting al-Subkī, T.abaqāt, vol. 3, p. 259.

Makdisi divided the institutions of learning in the eleventh century into two types: unrestrictive and exclusive. The unrestrictive institutions are divided into: cathedral mosques (jāmi‘s), Dār al-‘Ilm and Dār al-Kutub. Subjects taught in the jāmi‘ were: the Qur’ān, tafsīr, (exegesis), h.adīth (traditions), fiqh, us.ūl al-fiqh, nah.w (grammar) and adab (literature), see “Institutions,” pp. 4-6. Dār al-‘Ilm was founded by the Buwayhīd vizier Abū Nas.r Sābūn b. Ardashir in 383/993 and was destroyed by fire in 451/1059. Makdisi asserts that since its director was a H.anafī, and some of its personnel were non-Shī‘īs, this institution was not restricted for the Shī‘īs alone. Dār al-Kutub was founded by Abū al-H.asan Muh.ammad bin Hilāl alSābī in 452/1062. A theological discussion held in this place was recorded by Ibn ‘Aqīl, where an Ash‘arī savant was one of the leading discussants. Ibid., pp. 7-9. The exclusive institutions were colleges, including: masjid, madrasahs, and mashhads. These colleges were specialized in the teaching of law of a certain madhhab. There were H.anafī, Shāfi‘ī and H.anbalī institutions. Ibid., pp. 14-15. Tibawi, “Origin,” p. 229. Tibawi rejected the view of Makdisi that the term mudarris means a professor of law, and that therefore the word madrasah, which is also derived from the word dars, is an institution for the teaching pf law. According to Tibawi, al-Ghazālī used the term mudarris and mu‘allim inconsistently, so that modern scholars might mistakenly consider them to be technical terms. For further details, see ibid., pp. 230-231. 24

Makdisi, “Institutions,” pp. 51-52.

Tibawi, “Origin,” p. 236.

Ibid., p. 237.

Ibid. Tibawi quoted al-Subkī who said that “the H.anbalites spread a rumour that the Shaikh Abū Ish.āq had renounced the school (madhhab) of alAsh‘arī and this angered the Shaikh so greatly that no one could calm him down, and he wrote to Niz.ām al-Mulk.” Ibid., quoting T. abaqāt, vol. 3, p. 99. 28

Ibid., n. 4.

Ibid., p. 237-238.

Ibid., p. 238.

M.H. al-Naqīb, “Niz.ām al-Mulk: An Analytical Study of His Career and Contribution to the Development of Political and Religious Institutions under the Great Saljuqs.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, 1978), pp. 476-477. 32

Ibid., p. 505. Hodgson also assert that kalām was taught by al-Ghazālī in the Niz.āmīyah beside Shāfi‘ī fiqh, see The Venture of Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), vol. 2, p. 180. M.H. al-Naqīb, “Niz.ām al-Mulk,” p. 505, n. 386.

34 35

Ibid., pp. 507-508.

Ibid., p. 508.

Ibid., p. 509.

38 39

Ibid., pp. 509-510.

Ibid., p. 510.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bausani, A. “Religion in Saljuq Period.” The Cambridge History of Iran, ed. J.A. Boyle. Cambridge: University Press, 1968. Browne, Edward G. A Literary History of Persia. Cambridge University Press, 1956.

Cambridge:

Gibb, H.A.R. An Interpretation of Islamic History. Lahore: Orientalia Publishers, 1957. Habib, M. Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin. Aligarh Muslim University Publications, 1972. Hodgson, G.S. The Venture of Islam 3 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974. Ibn ‘Asākir, Abū al-Qāsim. Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī fīmā Nusiba ilā Abī al-H.asan al-Ash‘arī. Damascus: Matba‘at al-Tawfīq, 1347 A.H. Lane-Pool, Stanley. The Mohammadan Dynasties. Geuthner, 1925.

Paris:

Paul

Makdisi, George. “Muslim Institutions of Learning in EleventhCentury Baghdad.” B.S.O.A.S. xxiv Pt. 1. (1961). ______. “The Sunnī Revival.” Islamic Civilization, 950-1150, ed. D.S. Richards. Oxford: Cassirer, 1973. Al-Munjid fī al-A‘lām. Beirut: Dār al-Sharq, 1949. Naqīb, H.M. al-. “Nizām al-Mulk: An analytical Study of His Career and Contribution to the Development of Political and Religious Institutions under the Great Saljuq.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, 1978. Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn. Tabaqāt al-Shāfi‘īyah al-Kubrā, ed. M.M. alTanāhī and A.F. al-Hulw. Cairo: ‘Īsā al-Bābī al-H.alabī, 1383-88 A.H. Tibawi, A.L. “Origin and Character of al-Madrasah.” XXV (1962).

B.S.O.A.S.