DÃÂwà «d ibn ÿAlë ibn Khalaf al-áºÂÃÂhirë (; 815âÂÂ883 CE / 199âÂÂ269 AH) was a Persian Sunni Muslim scholar, jurist, and theologian during the Islamic Golden Age, specialized in the study of Islamic law (sharëÿa) and the fields of hermeneutics, biographical evaluation, and historiography of early Islam. He was the eponymous founder of the áºÂÃÂhirë school of thought (madhhab), the fifth school of thought in Sunnë Islam, characterized by its strict adherence to literalism and reliance on the outward (áºÂÃÂhir) meaning of expressions in the Quran and ḥadëth literature; the consensus (ijmÃÂÿ) of the first generation of Muhammad's closest companions (á¹£aḥÃÂba), for sources of Islamic law (sharëÿa); and rejection of analogical deduction (qiyÃÂs) and societal custom or knowledge (urf), used by other schools of Islamic jurisprudence. He was a celebrated, if not controversial, figure during his time, being referred to in Islamic historiographical texts as "the scholar of the era."
DÃÂwà «d al-áºÂÃÂhirë's exact place of birth is not entirely clear to Muslim historians. It is disputed if he was from Kufa or Isfahan. He himself has been described as Persian. Some attribute his origin to the Iranian city of Isfahan, and he has also been referred to as "DÃÂwà «d al-Aá¹£bahÃÂnë". The Muslim historians and scholars Ibn Ḥazm and al-Dhahabë, alongside the American scholar of Islamic studies Christopher Melchert and others, however, held that this attribution was due to the fact that al-áºÂÃÂhirë's mother was a native of Isfahan, and that he was actually from Iraq, having been born in the city of Kufa. The Hungarian scholar of Islamic studies Ignác Goldziher agreed that al-áºÂÃÂhirë was born in Kufa, but attributed the confusion regarding his place of birth due to his father's role in the civil service of the Abbasid caliph al-Maÿmà «n in Kashan, a smaller city near Isfahan.
During his formative years, al-áºÂÃÂhirë relocated from Kufa to Baghdad and studied the prophetic traditions (ḥadëth) and Quranic exegesis (tafsër) with a number of notable Muslim scholars of the time, including Abà « Thawr, Yaḥyàibn Maÿën, and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. His study under renowned figures of traditionalist theology (Atharë) was in contrast to the views of his father, who was a follower of the less orthodox Ḥanafë school. Indian Muslim reformist Chiragh Ali has suggested that áºÂÃÂhirë's school was, like that of Ibn Ḥanbal, actually a direct reaction to the Ḥanafë system of jurisprudence.
Toward the end of his education, al-áºÂÃÂhirë traveled to Nishapur in Greater Khorasan in order to complete his studies with IsḥÃÂq ibn RÃÂhwayh, at the time considered a champion of the traditionalist Sunnë philosophy. Ibn al-Jawzë noted that when studying with Ibn RÃÂhwayh, considered one of the most knowledgeable scholars in the history of Islam, al-áºÂÃÂhirë was willing to debate with Ibn RÃÂhwayh on religious topics, something no one else had ever dared to do. Ibn RÃÂhwayh criticized Muḥammad ibn Idrës al-ShÃÂfiÿë, founder of the ShÃÂfiÿë school, during one of his lessons; a debate ensued in which al-áºÂÃÂhirë alleged that Ibn RÃÂhwayh didn't understand al-ShÃÂfiÿë 's point on the topic of discussion, although Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, who was physically present for the debate, declared Ibn RÃÂhwayh to be the winner.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë was initially a follower of al-ShÃÂfiÿë in matters of jurisprudence, later branching off in terms of his principles, likely due to the influence of Ibn RÃÂhwayh. Describing him as "fanatical" both in his adherence to al-ShÃÂfiÿë and to his own school later on, the Encyclopedia of Islam describes the áºÂÃÂhirëte school as a one-sided elaboration of ShÃÂfiÿë te doctrine, taking the latter's rejection of juristic discretion as a principle in formulating law and applying it to all forms of human reasoning.
After completing his studies in Nishapur, al-áºÂÃÂhirë returned to Baghdad and began delivering his own lessons. While historians differ regarding his exact number of students, it is agreed that his following was large, with most estimates ranging between four and five hundred students who would regularly attend his majlis. His reputation spread outside of Baghdad, and even high-level scholars from elsewhere in the Muslim world began seeking al-áºÂÃÂhirë's advice on religious topics of study. While his views were not universally accepted in his time, no attempts were made by his contemporaries to prevent him from granting religious verdicts, nor were they opposed to his teaching position. His most well-known students were his son Abà « Bakr Muḥammad ibn DÃÂwà «d al-Iá¹£fahÃÂnë; ÿAbdullah, the son of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal; and al-Ṭabarë, Nifá¹Âawayh, and Ruwaym. Al-áºÂÃÂhirë was also the teacher of the Sunnë Muslim jurist ÿAbd AllÃÂh al-Qaysë, who was responsible for spreading the áºÂÃÂhirëte school in Al-Andalus.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë died during the month of Ramaá¸ÂÃÂn in Baghdad, where he was buried. The exact year in which he died according to the Gregorian calendar is a matter of some dispute, with historians having stated both 883 CE and 884 CE.
Al-Dhahabë states that al-áºÂÃÂhirë learnt kalÃÂm (dialectical theology) from Ibn KullÃÂb. Similarly to other Muslim scholars who were accused of sharing Ibn KullÃÂb's creed (ÿaqëdah), such as ḤÃÂritòhò al-MuḥÃÂsibë and (d. 245/859 or 248/862), al-áºÂÃÂhirë was repudiated by certain factions of ḥadëth authorities of his era, which accused him of holding particular creedal views relating to God's speech.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë's understanding of the Islamic faith was described by al-Dhahabë's teacher, the Syrian Muslim historian and scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, as having been based upon the Atharë ÿaqëdah, affirming the attributes of God without delving into their fundamental nature. Muḥammad ibn ÿAbd al-Karëm al-ShahrastÃÂnë, a 12th-century Persian Muslim historian of religion and Ashÿarë theologian, classified al-áºÂÃÂhirë along with MÃÂlik ibn Anas (founder of the MÃÂlikë school), Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and SufyÃÂn al-Thawrë as early Sunnë Muslim scholars who rejected both esoteric and anthropotheistic interpretations of God, but both Ibn Taymiyyah and al-ShahrastÃÂnë considered al-áºÂÃÂhirë and his students, along with MÃÂlik ibn Anas, al-ShÃÂfiÿë , Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Thawrë, Abà « Thawr, al-MÃÂwardë, and their students to be the Ahl al-Ḥadëth ("people of the tradition"), as opposed to the Ahl al-Ra'y ("people of logic").
This creed of not delving into the fundamental nature of the texts likely affected al-áºÂÃÂhirë's views on literalism as well. While all the major figures of Islam were united upon the Quran and sunnah being the foremost sources of Islamic law (sharëÿa), al-áºÂÃÂhirë held that these two sources must also be taken at the literal meanings and only applied in the particular circumstances which they described.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë rejected the principle of qiyÃÂs, otherwise known as "analogical reasoning", as a method of deducing rulings in Islamic jurisprudence, regarding it as a form of bidûah, which means "innovation" within the Islamic religion, which the Islamic prophet Muhammad had not allowed.
There are conflicting views regarding al-áºÂÃÂhirë's position when the specific causality of a command or prohibition within the Quran or prophetic example was stated, due to different Muslim historians recording opposing statements. Some take the view that al-áºÂÃÂhirë restricted the ruling to the incident or condition in which the causality arose, seeing that the causality provides a concrete law; others take the view that he would instead form a general principle in the event of a stated causality.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë considered the scholarly consensus (ijmÃÂÿ) to consist only of the opinions of the first generation of Muhammad's closest companions (á¹£aḥÃÂba), excluding all other generations after them from this definition.
While al-áºÂÃÂhirë at one time studied the ḥadëth literature under Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, he was later barred from study due to a dispute regarding the nature of the Quran; al-áºÂÃÂhirë stated that the Quran was muhdath or "recently occurring", a stance of which Ibn Ḥanbal strongly disapproved. Even before that time, Ibn Ḥanbal had actually cut off contact with anyone who would study with or consult al-áºÂÃÂhirë regarding religious matters, a habit which Ibn Ḥanbal started after witnessing áºÂÃÂhirë's defense of al-ShÃÂfiÿë against the attacks of Ibn RÃÂhwayh. The rumor regarding al-áºÂÃÂhirë's statement about the Quran only added more fuel to the fire. The Syrian Muslim historian and scholar Ibn Taymiyyah said that the dispute was semantic in nature, arising from a confusion of al-áºÂÃÂhirë's intended meaningâÂÂthat God is unique and existent without peers (tawḥëd)âÂÂand the intended meaning of the Jahmite and Muÿtazilite schoolsâÂÂthat the Quran was created (makhlà «q).
Thus al-áºÂÃÂhirë, Ibn Ḥanbal, al-ShÃÂfiÿë, MÃÂlik ibn Anas, al-Thawrë, Ibn RÃÂhwayh, al-Ṭabarë, Abà « Ḥanëfa al-NuÿmÃÂn, ÿAbd al-RaḥmÃÂn al-AwzÃÂÿë, Ibn Khuzaymah, ÿAbdullah ibn MubÃÂrak, al-DÃÂrimë, and Muḥammad al-BukhÃÂrëâÂÂdescribed by Ibn Taymiyyah as the leading figures of Islam at the timeâÂÂall agreed that the Quran was uncreated, but a semantic misunderstanding arose when al-áºÂÃÂhirë, al-BukhÃÂrë, Muslim bin al-ḤajjÃÂj, and others used the phrase "recently occurring" to establish that God and the Quran, believed by Muslims to be the literal speech of God, are not the same thing, but rather that God's speech is an attribute.
Modern-day scholarship has suggested, in light of the weakness in the chains of narration connecting the phrase "the Quran is recently occurring" to al-áºÂÃÂhirë that he may have never made such a statement or held such a belief at all. Due to al-áºÂÃÂhirë's denial of analogical reasoning and blind followingâÂÂcornerstones in the other main Sunnë schools of thoughtâÂÂthe students of those schools may have forged the statement and attributed it to al-áºÂÃÂhirë as a means of pushing the common people away from him and his eponymous school of thought. Abà « ÿUbaida further supported his point by noting that al-áºÂÃÂhirë and his students were actually severer in their opposition to the Muÿtazilite school and their belief that the Quran was created than Ibn Ḥanbal was, using harsh language in their written responses to such beliefs.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë held the view that regarding in-kind exchanges of goods, the forbidden type of usury applies only to the six commodities specified by the Islamic prophet Muhammad: gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, and salt. Because al-áºÂÃÂhirë rejected the use of analogical reasoning in jurisprudence, he disagreed with the majority view that the prohibition on excess gain in in-kind exchanges of all commodities, and did not consider such gains to be a form of interest. Had Muhammad intended to include commodities other than the above six, he could have done so; because he specified that usury was only prohibited in these six commodities and that Muslims were free to deal in other commodities as they liked, al-áºÂÃÂhirë saw no basis for making an analogy to any other commodities.
According to Muḥammad ash-ShawkÃÂnë, al-áºÂÃÂhirë regarded the Muslim face veil to be recommended (mustaḥabb) rather than obligatory (wajëb) or mandatory (fard), which was the majority opinion of most contemporary Hanafi and Hanbali scholars during his time. He considered that a woman's face could be uncovered in public, but that all other body parts must be covered.
If a Muslim begins traveling while fasting (á¹£awm) during the month of Ramaá¸ÂÃÂn, al-áºÂÃÂhirë saw that the individual should break their fast on the day which they started their journey, a view upon which both Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn RÃÂhwayh agreed. This was due to the Quranic verse allowing the traveler to skip the Ramaá¸ÂÃÂn fast and make it up when they complete their journey. If a Muslim did fast while traveling, they would still have to make up the days the skipped according to al-áºÂÃÂhirë's view, as the verse wasn't merely an allowance for breaking the fast, but a command.
Most Muslims shorten the length of their prayers while traveling as well. This "traveling" by which the Muslim shortens his prayers and breaks the fast is a topic of discussion among jurists as to its distance and duration. Al-áºÂÃÂhirë saw that any form of traveling, regardless of distance or duration, allowed the individual to shorten their prayers.
Al-áºÂÃÂhirë was known as being a prolific author, and the Arab-Persian Muslim historian and bibliographer Ibn al-Nadëm was able to personally record the names of at least 157 of his written works, the majority on topics within Islamic studies. Some of these works were very long, and they covered both legal theory and all branches of positive law. He was also considered to be the first person to have written a biography of his former teacher, al-ShÃÂfiÿë. Melchert cites Ibn al-Nadëm and Ibn ÿAbd al-Barr for his claim that áºÂÃÂhirë's biography of al-ShÃÂfiÿë was the not just the first biography about al-ShÃÂfiÿë but the first major biography of any Muslim jurist ever written. None of these works have survived to the modern era in their entirety.
Ibn al-Nadëm also mentions that after al-ShÃÂfiÿë's treatise Al-Risala, Ibn Ḥanbal and al-áºÂÃÂhirë were the next major Sunnë Muslim scholars to author works on the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uá¹£à «l al-Fiqh), with al-áºÂÃÂhirë producing a number of works on various topics, including his rejection of blindly following the Islamic clergymen, the difference between general and specific verses of the Quran, the difference between succinct and detailed commands in the Islamic religion, and his views on and experiences with his former teacher, al-ShÃÂfiÿë. Modern scholarship has pieced together chapter headings for al-áºÂÃÂhirë's work on juristic principles from other early works in the following order: binding consensus, invalidity of blindly following the clergy, invalidity of analogical reasoning, traditions transmitted by single authorities, traditions which provide certainty, incontrovertible proof, particular vs. general scriptural texts, and specified vs. unspecified texts. The chaptersâÂÂand perhaps even the information contained thereinâÂÂhave primarily been preserved in the FÃÂá¹Âimid-era works of the IsmÃÂÿëlë Shëÿëte jurist QÃÂá¸Âë al-NuÿmÃÂn, in addition to the passages preserved in the treatise Al-Muhalla of the Sunnë Muslim historian Ibn Ḥazm, an adherent of the áºÂÃÂhirëte school.
Although al-áºÂÃÂhirë's theological views were and are considered controversial, his character and religious piety carry universal acclaim. The Muslim scholars al-Khaá¹Âëb al-BaghdÃÂdë, al-Dhahabë, al-Ṭabarë, al-NawÃÂwë, al-Suyà «á¹Âë, and al-AlbÃÂnë all attested to his morality, humility, and personal ethics.
While the áºÂÃÂhirëte or "DÃÂwà «di" school, as they were known during the early history of Islam, is not as numerous today as the other four major Sunnë schools of thought, it was once a major school and encompassed Mesopotamia, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearic Islands, North Africa, and Southern Iran. Even his contemporary critics conceded to his intellect and level of knowledge, even while rejecting his beliefs. He has been described as "the scholar of the era" by al-Dhahabë, and the hierarchy of religious knowledge in Baghdad was considered to have ended with al-áºÂÃÂhirë at the top. When al-Ṭabarë was asked regarding the books of Ibn Qutaybah, he answered that Ibn Qutaybah's work was "nothing", and recommended the books of the "people of jurisprudence", mentioning al-ShÃÂfiÿë and al-áºÂÃÂhirë by name, then "their contemporaries".
Members of other schools have often criticized al-áºÂÃÂhirë for his rejection of analogical reasoning. The early followers of al-ShÃÂfiÿë in general held negative views of their former classmate, and the followers of the ShÃÂfiÿëte school, al-JuwÃÂynë in particular, were harsh upon al-áºÂÃÂhirë himself. This is not universal, and many followers of the ShÃÂfiÿë school have taken more accommodating views of al-áºÂÃÂhirë's legal rulings. Al-Dhahabë defended al-áºÂÃÂhirë and his followers, stating that just as al-JuwÃÂynë had arrived to his views by the process of scholarly discourse, so had al-áºÂÃÂhirë. Likewise, Ibn al-á¹¢alÃÂḥ also defended the legitimacy of al-áºÂÃÂhirë's views and his school, listing a number of figures from the other Sunnë schools of thought who considered al-áºÂÃÂhirë's opinions in scholarly discourse.
Shëÿa Muslims have taken a dimmer view of al-áºÂÃÂhirë and his school. In the 1970s, Twelver Shëÿëte scholar Abdul Kareem Mushtaq accused al-áºÂÃÂhirë of having held anthropotheistic beliefs regarding God, citing the Persian Sunnë historian and theologian al-ShahrastÃÂnë as his source. Nearly four decades later, the section of al-ShahrastÃÂnë's work was translated into English, demonstrating that al-ShahrastÃÂnë had actually stated that al-áºÂÃÂhirë didn't hold anthropotheistic beliefs about God. al-Shahrastani had stated:
IsmÃÂÿëlë Shëÿas have, perhaps, been more accurate in that for which they criticized al-áºÂÃÂhirë. The IsmÃÂÿëlë Shëÿëte jurist QÃÂá¸Âë al-NuÿmÃÂn was particularly critical of al-áºÂÃÂhirë for rejecting analogical reasoning yet at the same time accepting inference as a valid means of logical deduction, a position for which he also criticized al-Zahiri's son and school in general.
Being steeped in esoteric philosophy, the Muÿtazila school were quite hostile towards al-áºÂÃÂhirë and his school. Although some prominent figures of this school, such as the Muÿtazilite theologian IbrÃÂhëm al-NaáºÂáºÂÃÂm, denied the validity of analogical reasoning as al-áºÂÃÂhirë did, they also denied literalism and the validity of consensus, and most of them found al-áºÂÃÂhirë's ideas to be ridiculous.