book reviews

421

BOOK REVIEWS
TSAFRIR, Nurit. The History of an Islamic School of Law. The Early Spread
of \anaf ism. Harvard Series in Islamic Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 2004. Pp. xv + 199. ISBN 0-674-01456-1.
$36.50.
The spread of a school of law is a process that involves a number of
factors, some political, others economic, psychological, ideological, or
geographical. For the Shfi# school, we have Heinz Halms Die Ausbreitung
der fi#itischen Rechtsschule von den Anfngen bis zum 8./14. Jahrhundert, but
for the \anaf school, this book is the first. It covers most areas of the
Islamic world from the middle of the 2nd/8th century until the end of
the 3rd/9th century, the period during which the early \anaf circle
whose boundaries were initially fluid became more clearly defined.
The book consists of a preface, seven chapters, and a conclusion.
Chapter One is dedicated to a detailed analysis of the Jawhir of Ibn
Ab al-Waf" al-Qurash (d. 775/1373), the most important source for
this book, with special reference to semi-\anafs (see below). In the
following chapters Tsafrir analyses the spread of \anafism in various
parts of the Islamic world. She starts Chapter Two, the longest chapter, by
analyzing the way the \anafs secured their position in Kufa and Basra.
They did so with the active support of the #Abbsid government, despite
continued opposition from the traditionists and non-\anaf local jurists.
Their influence diminished from the later 3rd/9th century onwards
(sections 1 and 2). Section 3 of Chapter Two, which treats Baghdad, is
somewhat different in that it emphasizes the competition between the
\anafs and the other Sunni law schools and includes the theological
dimension which was part of this competition during the 3rd/9th century.
The rest of the chapter is dedicated to Anbar and Wasit. Chapter Three
investigates the introduction and spread of \anafism in five towns of
west Iran: Ahwaz, Isfahan, Hamadhan, Rayy, and Qazwin (sections 1-5,
respectively). In the second section (on Isfahan), the author regards Zufar
b. al-Hudhayls (d. 158/774-5) family connections there as an important
factor in the Isfahanis acceptance of \anaf legal doctrine. In Isfahan,
Zufar transmitted traditions on the authority of his master Ab \anfa,
and the acceptance of these traditions by the Isfahanis paved the way
for their acceptance of \anaf legal doctrine (pp. 66-8). Chapter Four
deals with two major towns of the Jazira, Mosul and Raqqa. The \anaf
community in Mosul was so small that it could hardly provide a qadi.
Further, the #Abbasid government could not support the \anafs there
because of local political unrest and the towns remoteness from the
center of the empire. By contrast, the government appointed al-Shaybn
and his disciples as qadis of Raqqa. There, the \anaf community was
also rather small, but Raqqa was politically important to the #Abbasid
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007
Also available online www.brill.nl

book_ils14-3.indb 421

Islamic Law and Society 14, 3

31-10-2007 13:05:09

422

book reviews

government. In Chapter Five, Tsafrir describes Syria as a typical area

in which the #Abbasid government met strong opposition from the local
population, which meant that \anafism could not spread there. Chapter
Six focuses on the \anafs attempt to introduce \anafism to Egypt.
Here, despite their immigration from Iraq and the #Abbsid appointment
of \anaf qadis, their attempt was rewarded with only modest success.
In Chapter Seven, Tsafrir describes the early stage of legal development
in Qayrawan which was represented by semi-\anafs, that is, those who
followed Medinese-Mlik as well as \anaf law. Here, she suggests,
the clear division between \anafs and Mliks was preceded by the
existence of two theological groups, the Mu#tazils and the ahl al-sunna.
The \anafs embraced the Mu#tazils, and the Mliks the ahl al-sunna
(p. 109). After describing the relation between the \anaf and the Mlik
schools in some detail, the author notes that Aghlabid juridical policies
did not consistently favor either school.
The factors that led to the success or failure of the \anafs attempt
to introduce and spread their doctrine differ from one area to another.
However, roughly speaking, the size of the \anaf community in any
given area and the willingness of the #Abbasid government to control
that area are the decisive elements. In any locale, if there were a
sufficient number of \anafs, they could prevail with the support of
the government; otherwise they could not establish their position there.
Tsafrirs analyses are based on careful reading of the primary sources
and her overall conclusions are persuasive. In the following, therefore,
I would like to mention only two points.
The first point regards the concept semi-\anafs and, incidentally,
the period during which the traditionist party became hostile to \anafism.
The author defines semi-\anafs as second/eighth and early third/
ninth century scholars whose biographies are included in the Jawhir
but who are otherwise well known as traditionists (p. 2). Although
she introduces this concept in Chapter One, it is mainly in Chapter
Two that it plays an important role in her argument. She says that in
biographical dictionaries compiled by traditionists, i.e. the Kitb al-abaqt
of Ibn Sa#d, the Kitb al-abaqt of Khalfa b. Khayyt, and the Mashhr
#ulam" al-amr of Ibn \ibbn, the \anafs and semi-\anafs represent
a small percentage of the Kufan scholars active in the 2nd/8th century;
the same tendency is found in the Ta"rkh of al-Ya#qb (p. 19). That
is to say, even if semi-\anafs are classified as \anafs for the sake of
argument, the circle of Ab \anfa attracted only a small fraction of
Kufans. Given the unpopularity of Ab \anfas circle in Kufa, Tsafrir
concludes that \anafism became dominant only by virtue of the active
support of the #Abbasid government (see pp. 20-7).
This argument is based on the assumption that the biographees who
are neither \anafs nor semi-\anafs are traditionists who in principle
were hostile to \anafism. But the analysis of the Manqib of al-Muwaffaq
b. Amad al-Makk (d. 568/1172-3) casts doubt on this assumption: (1)
of the 81 biographees in the fourth class of the Kufans in Ibn Sa#ds
Kitb al-abaqt, two persons have entries in the Jawhir, i.e. there are two
\anafs or semi-\anafs, and one non-\anaf (in the sense that there

book_ils14-3.indb 422

31-10-2007 13:05:10

book reviews

423

is no entry on him in the Manqib) who is reported to have admired

Ab \anfas knowledge of jurisprudence in the Manqib; (2) of the
52 biographees contained in the fifth class (i.e. the same class as Ab
\anfa), there are five \anafs or semi-\anafs, and five non-\anafs
to whom one or more reports favorable to Ab \anfa are attributed;
(3) of the 49 biographees belonging to the sixth class, nine persons are
\anafs or semi-\anafs and nine others are non-\anafs credited with
reports favorable to Ab \anfa.1
If we regard those transmitters who are credited with reports that praise
Ab \anfa as affiliated to the \anaf circleor at least as sympathetic
to it, we may infer that during the lifetime of Ab \anfa his circle grew
more popular and influential than Tsafrir assumes (cf. p. 15). Needless
to say, it is not certain whether or not the reports collected in the
Manqib are authentic, and it cannot be assumed that the transmitters
of these reports were necessarily affiliated with or sympathetic to the
\anafs. However, it is certain that the sources that Ibn Ab al-Waf"
relied on (see pp. 5-12) are not very different from those which were at
the disposal of al-Makk. The Jawhir seems to be too selective to give
a balanced picture of the \anafs.
Moreover, for the purpose of dividing them into \anafs (including
semi-\anafs) and anti-\anafs, Tsafrir regards those Kufans who died
after 130/747 (but before 180/796, 193/808, or 218/833, according to
the above-mentioned biographical dictionaries) as a homogeneous group.
She seems to assume that the animosity of the traditionists towards Ab
\anfa and his followers originated in the time of Ab \anfa. She writes:
[S]ince the traditionist party in the second/eighth century was hostile
to the \anaf circle (p. 5)without specifying the date from which the
traditionists began to be hostile to the \anafs. But Melchert maintains
that [C]onscious enmity between traditionalists and adherents of ra"y
seems to date only from the later eighth century.2 If Melchert is right,
the distinction between \anafs and semi-\anafs on the one hand,
and traditionists on the other hand is not a valid means to measure the
popularity of the \anafs in Kufa during Ab \anfas lifetime and a
few decades after his death.
Finally the author suggests that one of the reasons why the traditionists
were hostile to Ab \anfa was his cooperation with the authorities,
whereas the traditionists were not cooperative and tried to keep aloof
from them (p. 26). But their animosity against Ab \anfa for this
motive is not proven. Conversely, in Ta"rkh Baghdd several famous
traditionists are quoted as having criticized Ab \anfa for legalizing
rebellion against the government.3

1
Ab al-Mu"ayyad al-Muwaffaq b. Amad al-Makk, Manqib al-Imm al-a #am Ab
\anfa (Hayderabad: D"irat al-Ma#rif al-Nimiyya), 1321/1904-5.
2
Christopher Melchert, The formation of the Sunni schools of law (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
3. See also 4-7.
3
Al-Khab al-Baghdd, Ta"rkh Baghdd aw Madnat al-salm, 14 vols. (Cairo, Maktabat
al-Khnj, 1349/1931), 13:384-6.

book_ils14-3.indb 423

31-10-2007 13:05:10

424

book reviews

My second point concerns the role played by Ab \anfas important

disciple Zufar in introducing \anafism to Basra and Isfahan. Several
authors have examined the process by which \anafism was introduced
in Basra.4 Tsafrir agrees with them that Zufar played an important role
in this process, based on several reports that relate his arrival in Basra
and his success there, although she writes that they are so incompatible
with each other that it is impossible to reconstruct the historical facts
(p. 31). There are, however, several other reports that contradict these
reports, to some of which she refers in notes. They are worth taking
seriously, if only for the simple reason that they are numerically no
less important than those reports that give Zufar credit for introducing
\anafism to Basra. Let us examine these counter-reports.
Tsafrir refers to a report in Ibn \ajar al-#Asqalns Lisn al-mzn in
note 157 to Chapter Two (p. 134). According to this report (reproduced
from Kitb al-u#af" of al-#Uqayl [d. 322/934]), the Basran qadi Sawwr
b. #Abdallh (d. 156/772), who was reluctant to let Zufar attend his circle,
was eventually persuaded to do so, but as he [Sawwr] did not utter a
single word to Zufar, he eventually left [Sawwrs circle].5 According
to another report cited by Tsafrir in the next note (note 158, p. 134),
only when Ab Ysuf came to Basra as Hrn al-Rashds chief qadi
could Ysuf b. Khlid establish his position there. This Ysuf b. Khlid
al-Samt (d. 189/805) was a Basran who studied with Ab \anfa in
Kufa (p. 32). In an autobiographical report contained in his Manqib,
al-Makk relates that as soon as Ysuf b. Khlid left Ab \anfa and
returned home he attracted Basrans to his circle, with the result that
the doctrine of al-\asan al-Bar and Ibn Srn disappeared (saqaa
madhhab al-\asan wa-Ibn Srn).6
These reports have in common no mention of Zufars contribution
to the introduction of \anafism in Basra. How can we explain the
existence of such reports, alongside those which do give the credit to
Zufar? One possible explanation is that after Ab \anfas death, there
were two factions competing for leadership within the \anaf school,
one represented by Zufar, the other by Ab Ysuf and after him alShaybn. Ab \anfa, Ab Ysuf, and al-Shaybn are regarded as
the founders of the \anaf school. But reports found in non-\anaf
as well as \anaf sources hint at the rivalry between Ab Ysuf and
Zufar.7 This rivalry seems to have been reduced, among others, to
4
Muammad Zhid al-Kawthar, Lamat al-naar f srat al-imm Zufar (Cairo: Maktabat
Dr al-Hidya, 1368 A.H.), 18-20; #Abd al-Sattr \mid, Al-imm Zufar b. al-Hudhayl
(Baghdad: Maba#at Wizrat al-Awqf, 1399/1979), 77-83; Melchert, Formation, 41-2.
5
Ibn \ajar al-#Asqaln, Lisn al-mzn, 7 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-A#lam lilMab#t, 1390/1971), 2:477; Muammad b. #Amr b. Ms b. \ammd al-#Uqayl, Kitb
al-u#af" al-kabr, ed. #Abd al-Mu# Amn Qal#aj, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya,
1418/1998), 2:98.
6
al-Makk, Manqib, 2:109.
7
For example, Ibn al-Bazzz al-Kardar, Manqib al-imm al-a#am (printed with alMakk, Manqib), 2:184; al-Khab al-Baghdd, Ta"rkh, 14:247; Melchert, Formation, 34,
citing Ibn #Abd al-Barr, al-Intiq" f fa"il al-thaltha al-a"imma al-fuqah" (Cairo: Maktabat
al-Quds, 1350), 174.

book_ils14-3.indb 424

31-10-2007 13:05:11

book reviews

425

one of methodology. In \anaf as well as non-\anaf sources, Zufar is

regarded as a specialist in qiys, i.e. he clung to solutions dictated by
systematic reasoning.8 By contrast, Ab Ysuf and al-Shaybn often
adopted solutions dictated by istisn (juridical preference) rather than
qiys. It is plausible that the traditionists preferred Zufars doctrine to
Ab Ysufs and al-Shaybns. A report transmitted on the authority
of the Basran traditionist and jurist Yay b. Aktham (d. 242/857) is
revealing: the Kufan traditionist Wak# b. al-Jarr (d. 197/812) used
to frequent the circle of Zufar in the morning and that of Ab Ysuf
in the evening, but subsequently he attended only the formers circle,
stating: Praise be to God, who has made you [viz. Zufar] the successor
to the Imm [viz. Ab \anfa].9
Tsafrir writes that Zufars affiliation with the Ban #Anbar, whose
members were influential in the Basran legal milieu, and the connection
of Zufar and his family with Isfahan made it easier for the Basrans and
the Isfahanis to accept the authority of Ab \anfa (pp. 32, 66). This
argument is persuasive, but it is also plausible that the content or the
methodology of Zufars doctrine played a certain role in introducing
\anafism both to Basra and to Isfahan.
Hiroyuki Yanagihashi
The University of Tokyo

POWERS, Paul R. Intent in Islamic Law. Motive and Meaning in Medieval

Sunn Fiqh. Studies in Islamic Law and Society 25. Series editors Ruud
Peters and Bernard Weiss. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006. Pp. xii +
236. ISBN 90 04 14592 3. 90.00; $117.00.
This is a revised version of Powers 2001 Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Chicago. It addresses the question of what jurists thought when they
demanded everywhere the correct nya for an action to be valid. Chapter
One reviews the religious problem of intent in general. Chapters Two
and Three review the problem of intent in Islamic ritual law. Powers
proposes that it is the nature of ritual that it is framed not by the actor
but by others long beforehand (in the case of Islamic ritual, this means
the Prophet under inspiration), and hence requires the link of conscious
intent between actor and action. It seems that legal handbooks saw
intent as entailing neither intense communion with God nor any form
of words.
Chapter Four concerns intent in commercial law. (Outside ritual law,
nya appears less often than other words for intent but still often enough
to justify covering the law of interpersonal relations in the same book.)

8
Shams al-Din al-Sarakhs, Kitb al-Mabs, 30 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Ma#rifa, 1406/1986),
1:3; Ab Isq al-Shrz, abaqt al-fuqah" (Baghdad: Maba#at Baghdd, 1356 A.H.),
113.
9
al-Kardar, Manqib, 2:184.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007

Also available online www.brill.nl

book_ils14-3.indb 425

Islamic Law and Society 14, 3

31-10-2007 13:05:11