A Scholar of The Holy Precincts The Lif

Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 brill.
nl/orie
A Scholar of the Holy Precincts:

The Life, Works and Methodology of
Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī
Gavin N. Picken
University of Edinburgh
Abstract
This article explores the life and works of Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Mundhir
al-Nīsābūrī (d. 318/930), so as to shed further light on this eminent scholar. In particular it
examines his juristic methodology in the most detailed of his extant works, al-Awsaṭ. This article
also shows that despite living in a period in which the canonized schools of jurisprudence are said
to have began their codification, Ibn al-Mundhir’s writings demonstrate that there also existed
scholars who, although they had an affiliation with certain nascent traditions, equalled if not
surpassed their contemporaries with an elevated degree of juristic sophistication. In addition, the
opinions of Ibn al-Mundhir in the works of future generations of scholars of juristic dispute
(al-ikhtilāf ) are also surveyed, to demonstrate his far reaching influence on the development of
this genre of legalistic writing.
Keywords
Islamic Law; Islamic Jurisprudence; Ibn al-Mundhir; ijtihād
Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī (d. 318/930)

was one of the outstanding Islamic jurists of the third-fourth/ninth-tenth cen-
turies. His elevated status was achieved by the fact that he had eruditely
combined the fundamental disciplines of both jurisprudence (al-fiqh) and
Prophetic narration (al-ḥ adīth) to the point that he reached the level of per-
sonal and independent, juristic reasoning (al-ijtihād ).1 In addition to this, Ibn
1
Despite this elevated status Ibn al-Mundhir has received very little attention from Western
scholarship and apart from a brief biographical entry supplied by this author, the only major
contribution has been Scott Lucas’s Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir, Amputation, and the Art of Ijtihad.
Although Lucas’ attempt to shed light on this eminent jurist is laudable, his article’s approach is
questionable from a number of perspectives; although Lucas acknowledges the existence of Ibn
al-Mundhir’s al-Awsaṭ, he selects his al-Ishrāf as his focus for his study of the author’s juristic
sophistication, while at the same time also recognizing that al-Ishrāf is an abridgement of
al-Awsaṭ. Moreover, he selects a very limited and restrictive subject — that of the punitive measure
of amputation. Both of these perspectives seem to inform his conclusion that, “Ibn al-Mundhir’s
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/187783710X536716
186 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
al-Mundhir authored many unique books in the field of juristic dispute

(al-ikhtilāf ), using his ample ability to compose comprehensive and unparal-
leled works. Thus, he lived at the period in which the canonized schools of
jurisprudence are said to have begun their codification and his extant writings
demonstrate that there also existed scholars who, although they had an affilia-
tion with certain nascent traditions, equalled if not surpassed their contempo-
raries with an elevated degree of juristic sophistication. Consequently, this
article will explore the life and works of Ibn al-Mundhir, so as to shed further
light on this eminent scholar and in particular will examine his juristic meth-
odology in the most detailed of his extant works, al-Awsaṭ. In addition, the
opinions of Ibn al-Mundhir in the works of future generations of scholars of
juristic dispute (al-ikhtilāf ) will also be surveyed, to demonstrate his far reach-
ing influence on the development of this genre of legalistic writing.
The Life of Ibn al-Mundhir
Both biographical and historical references reluctantly withhold considerable

detail regarding the life of Ibn al-Mundhir, so much so that we find no infor-
mation enlightening us about his birth, childhood, education or upbringing.
Thus, we are unable to find any information about his father or his family
except that the historical and bibliographical references remember him as
Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Mundhir, his agnomen (kunya) being Abū Bakr
and that he was born in Nīsābūr2 (Nishapur), the then capital of Khurāsān.
Despite there being no mention of Ibn al-Mundhir’s early learning, we can
assume that he gained a substantial primary education, as Nishapur had a
highly civilised Islamic culture at the time. Since the arrival of Islam in
writings indicate that the Qurʾan and prophetic hadith played a modest role in early elaboration
of Islamic law and that the bulk of his efforts were devoted to culling and evaluating legal opin-
ions of the companions, successors, and, in particular, a small group of postsuccessor jurists”
(p. 351). Thus, selecting a limited subject from an abridged text may indeed cause one to formu-
late such an opinion but choosing a broader range of material from a more elaborate source will
surely be informative and it is to this goal that the current article aspires. See S. Lucas, “Abu Bakr
Ibn al-Mundhir, Amputation, and the Art of Ijtihad,” International Journal of Middle East Studies
39 (2007): 351-368 and G. Picken, “Ibn al-Mundhir,” in: Encyclopaedia of Islamic Civilization
and Religion, ed. I. Netton, New York: Routledge, 2008, pp. 249-250.
2
Ibn al-Mundhir’s date of birth is not mentioned by anyone except al-Zirikilī, who states that
his year of birth was 242/856. Al-Dhahabī seems to corroborate this by suggesting that Ibn al-
Mundhir was born in a similar time to the death of Aḥmad b. Ḥ anbal (d. 241/855): see Khayr-
al-Dīn al-Zirikilī, al-Aʿlām, VI, Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn, 1984, p. 184 and al-Dhahabī,
Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūt ̣ and Aḥmad al-Bushaymī, XIV, Beirut: Muʾassasat
al-Risāla, 1983, p. 490.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 187
Nishapur, many scholars had been concerned with the teaching, study and
dissemination of knowledge and therefore Nishapur had a substantial role in
producing Muslim scholars.
Since no tangible record exists of Ibn al-Mundhir’s early life, we might
expect to find some source describing his journeys in search of knowledge
(ṭalab al-ʿilm), as many historical books mention the various scholars who
resided in their respective cities. The answer, however, is rather disappointing
as there seems to be no record of any such travel, except that the historical and
biographical works mention his formative years in Nishapur and his conse-
quent residency in Mecca. Thus, if Ibn al-Mundhir travelled to another place
to gain knowledge, or receive instruction in ḥ adīth, then we have no solid
evidence to prove so. It would seem, therefore, that Ibn al-Mundhir never
travelled to Iṣfahān, Damascus, or Baghdad, as none of the historical sources
specific to these locales make mention of him.3 Despite this, however, it does
seem that he may have travelled to Egypt as his own comments indicate.4 For
example, he states, “Bakkār b. Qutayba narrated to us in Egypt . . .”5 and in
another section he says about al-Shāfiʿī’s opinion,
(Ablution is compulsory upon a man if he kissed his mother, daughter or sister,

out of respect for them), I did not find this issue in his books written in Egypt
which we read to al-Rabīʿ.6
Despite there being very little information regarding the places to which Ibn
al-Mundhir travelled to acquire his knowledge, there is, however, considerable
information about the scholars with whom he studied. It is mentioned for
example that he studied with Muḥammad b. Maymūn, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl
al-Ṣāʾigh, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Ḥ akam (d. 268/881), Isḥāq b.
Ibrāhīm al-Dīrī and ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. More importantly, however, he also
narrated on the authority of al-Rabīʿ b. Sulaymān (d. 270/884), as the excerpt
quoted above asserts.7 Despite this al-Shīrāzī (d. 476/1083) comments, “I don’t
3
Al-Dhahabī states that “al-Ḥ ākim neglected to mention him [Ibn al-Mundhir] in his
Taʾrīkh; moreover, he is not mentioned in the Taʾrīkh of Baghdad, or in that of Damascus, as he
surely did not enter these cities”: al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, p. 491.
4
How Ibn al-Mundhir managed to circumnavigate these metropolises on his way to Egypt is
not so clear however.
5
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ fī l-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf, ed. Muḥammad Ḥ anīf, I, Riy-
adh: Dār Ṭayba, 21993, p. 344.
6
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 130.
7
See al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, I, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1983, p. 55; Ibn
ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥ addithīn, ed. Akram al-Būshī and Ibrāhīm al-Zaybaq, II, Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 21996, p. 494; al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, pp. 490-491;
al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, ed. Zakariyyā ʿUmayrat, III, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya,
188 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
know with whom he studied jurisprudence ( fiqh)’8 and al-Dhahabī (d. 748/
1348) having quoted al-Shīrāzī’s comment adds, “It was from the companions
of al-Shāfiʿī.”9
As for those who studied with Ibn al-Mundhir, they included Muḥammad
b. Yaḥyā al-Dimyāṭī (d. 384/994), al-Ḥ asan b. ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān and al-Ḥ usayn
b. ʿAlī b. Shaʿbān.10 Others who narrated from Ibn al-Mundhir include
Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Wahb, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Rajānī al-Balkhī
and al-Mundhir b. al-Mundhir.11 In addition to this, Ibn Ḥ ajar al-ʿAsqalānī
comments,
Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad Abū Ṭāhir al-Iṣbahānī, the cousin of Abū

Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī, narrated on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir.12
The eminent ḥ āfiẓ Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. al-Muqriʾ

al-Iṣbahānī (d. 381/991) also frequented Ibn al-Mundhir’s circles hearing his
book Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ from him.13 From the Ḥ anbalī school Abū Bakr
al-Khallāl al-Ḥ anbalī, who had gained recognition for compiling the fiqh
of Ibn Ḥ anbal, also heard from Ibn al-Mundhir.14 Yāqūt mentioned that
1998, p. 5; al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, ed. ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ, V, Beirut:
Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1996, p. 37-38; Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm
Khān, I, Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1987, p. 98; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man
dhahab, ed. Muṣtạ fā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā, II, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1998, p. 478; Carl
Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur: Zweite den Supplementbänden angepasste
Auflage, Leiden: Brill, 1942, p. 191. See Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 14-15 and Ibn al-
Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Jibrīn, I, Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1997,
pp. 15-16 for the definitive listing.
8
Al-Shīrāzī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Beirut: Dār al-Rāʾid al-ʿArabī, 1971, p. 89
and cf. al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, Cairo: Idārat al-Ṭibāʿa al-Munīriyya, 1927,
II, p. 197.
9
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, p. 491; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5.
10
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, pp. 490-491; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III,
p. 5; al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, p. 37; al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, I, p. 55; Ibn ʿAbd
al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥ addithīn, II, p. 494; al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, ed. Maḥmūd
Muḥammad al-Ṭanāḥī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥ ilw, III, Cairo: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Ḥ alabī, 1964,
p. 102; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, II, p. 478 and al-Fāsī, al-ʿIqd al-thamīn fī taʾrīkh al-
balad al-amīn, Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya, 1967, I, p. 407.
11
See al-Samʿānī, al-Ansāb, Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyya, 1966, II, p. 205;
Ibn ʿAt ̣iyya, al-Fihrist, ed. Abū l-Ajfān and Muḥammad al-Zahrānī, Beirut: Dār al-Gharb
al-Islāmī, 1980, p. 102 and Ibn al-Faraḍī, Taʾrīkh ʿulamāʾ al-Andalus, II, Cairo: Dār al-Miṣriyya
li-al-Taʾlīf, 1966, p. 97.
12
Al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, p. 38.
13
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, p. 490; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5;
al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, p. 37; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, II, p. 478; Ibn al-
Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, I, p. 17.
14
Ibn Abī Yaʿlā, Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥ anābila, I, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, n.d., I, p. 42.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 189
the famous traditionist Muḥammad Ibn Ḥ ibbān al-Tamīmī al-Bisṭāmī

(d. 254/868) also attended classes with Ibn al-Mundhir in Mecca, this being
one of the many places Ibn Ḥ ibbān visited whilst seeking knowledge.15 There
are even references naming specific students, such as in the introduction to
Ibn al-Mundhir’s book al-Iqnāʿ, which states that Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b.
Ibrāhīm al-Balkhī studied al-Iqnāʿ with its author in Mecca in Masjid al-Ḥ arām
in the year 315/927.16
Many scholars from Muslim Spain are also said to have studied with Ibn
al-Mundhir creating an ‘Andalusian connection’ for the dissemination of
his thought; they include Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī
(d. 339/950) who was a qāḍī in Cordoba and who visited Ibn al-Mundhir in
Mecca in 312/924-5.17 Another was Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān b. ʿAbd al-Malik
al-Judhāmī who studied al-Iqnāʿ with Ibn al-Mundhir and who was conse-
quently given permission to teach it.18 Another Andalusian scholar who stud-
ied al-Iqnāʿ with Ibn al-Mundhir was ʿAbd al-Barr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn
Mukhāriq, who was also from Cordoba.19
Most Muslim scholars regarded Ibn al-Mundhir as being an independent
jurist of the calibre capable of deducing his own legal opinion (mujtahid
muṭlaq). Despite this, al-Shīrāzī considered Ibn al-Mundhir as a scholar of the
Shāfiʿī school mentioning him frequently in his juristic work al-Muhadhdhab20
and commenting in his biographical work al-Ṭabaqāt,
He [Ibn al-Mundhir] wrote books on the topic of juristic dispute, the like of
which had not previously written, until everyone — whether they agreed or
disagreed — used them to support their argument.21
Al-Nawawī further commented:
He [Ibn al-Mundhir] is not restricted in adhering to a specific madhhab, nor is he

fanatical about any individual’s opinion, which is the custom of scholars of juris-
tic dispute. Indeed, he acts in accordance with the meaning of the proof and the
indication of the authentic sunna, regardless of whose opinion it might be. Despite
15
Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, I, p. 416.
16
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, I, p. 43.
17
Ibn al-Faraḍī, Taʾrīkh ʿulamāʾ al-Andalus, II, pp. 58-59.
18
Ibn al-Faraḍī, Taʾrīkh ʿulamāʾ al-Andalus, I, p. 170.
19
Ibn al-Faraḍī, Taʾrīkh ʿulamāʾ al-Andalus, I, p. 294.
20
See al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 196.
21
Al-Shīrāzī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ, p. 89 and cf. al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II,
p. 197; al-Yāfiʿī, Mirʾāt al-jinān wa-ʿibrat al-yaqẓān, ed. Khalīl al-Manṣūr, II, Beirut: Dār al-
Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1998, p. 19.
190 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
this, he is considered as being from our Shāfiʿī colleagues, being mentioned in

their biographical books.22
However, this statement did not satisfy al-Subkī (d. 771/1370) who
responded:
I say: that the four Muḥammads, Muḥammad b. Naṣr [al-Marwazī], Muḥammad

b. Jarīr [al-Ṭabarī], Ibn al-Khuzayma and Ibn al-Mundhir are from our compan-
ions [i.e. of al-Shāfiʿī]. They have reached the level of independent ijtihād but that
does not exclude them from being of the followers of al-Shāfiʿī, being trained in
his principles, following his methodology and their ijtihād being in accordance
with his. Indeed, there are those who are considered as being from our compan-
ions but who have claimed riddance [of adherence to the madhhab], like sheikh
Abū ʿAlī, however, their opinion is the same as that of the great imam. Thus, they
followed him and associated themselves with him but not as blind followers. So,
what is your opinion about these four? Indeed, even if they have differed with the
great imam on a number of issues, then they did not do so on the whole, such that
they are counted as being from al-Shāfiʿī’s group, being trained in his principles,
adopting his path and following his methodology.23
The statements of Ibn al-Mundhir himself may well support this opinion as he
sometimes uses the phrase, “our companions” (aṣḥ ābu-nā), when referring to
the scholars of the Shāfiʿī school, indicating his affiliation to it.24 It may also lie
in the fact that Ibn al-Mundhir agreed with the ijtihād of al-Shāfiʿī in most
instances as al-Subkī suggests. Despite Ibn al-Mundhir’s affiliation to the
Shāfiʿī madhhab, however, careful examination of his works demonstrates that
he did on occasion oppose the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī, exercising his own per-
sonal opinion about a number of specific cases. An example of which is found
in his book al-Ishrāf, where he states:
And they [the scholars] disagreed about the drinking of the urine of animals, as a
group of them permitted it . . . and there is a second opinion which is that all urine
is impure (najisa). This is the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī and the first opinion is my
opinion . . . as things are only prohibited by the book (al-kitāb) or sunna or con-
sensus (al-ijmāʿ) and as for someone who prohibits something without the author-
ity of the Prophet, then this is not permissible. Indeed we know that the
Messenger of God ordered the drinking of camel’s urine [on occasion] and we
don’t know of anyone who said this before al-Shāfiʿī, i.e. that the urine and faeces
of animals are impure (najisa).25
22
Al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 197.
23
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, III, pp. 102-103.
24
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, I, pp. 74-75.
25
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ishrāf ʿalā madhāhib ahl al-ʿilm, ed. Muḥammad Najīb Sirāj al-Dīn,
Qatar: Idārat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, 1985, I, p. 330.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 191
Thus, it is clear that despite Ibn al-Mundhir’s affiliation to the Shāfiʿī school,
when he came across an issue where he considered the ijtihād of the school’s
eponym to be contrary to the evidential sources of the sharīʿa, he would then
choose his own independent opinion in accordance with the evidence as he
saw it. Therefore, it is an unconvincing argument that Ibn al-Mundhir was
entirely a Shāfiʿī jurist. In fact, it would seem that he was a jurist who was
capable of his own independent ijtihād but at the same time, however, was
affiliated to the madhhab by virtue of his application of its basic methodologi-
cal principles (uṣūl) and not due to his absolute imitation (taqlīd ) of its
founder. Thus, it would seem reasonable to categorise Ibn al-Mundhir as muj-
tahid muṭlaq muntasib, i.e. a jurist capable of formulating comprehensive and
independent legal opinions but who, at the same time, was affiliated to one of
the four newly established schools of Sunnī jurisprudence.26
Furthermore, Ibn al-Mundhir had reached the pinnacle in both the disci-
plines of Fiqh and Ḥ adīth, being known as “the jurist (faqīh) of Mecca” and
“the scholar of the Holy Precincts (shaykh al-ḥ aram).”27 For example the
renowned jurist al-qāḍī Ibn Shuhba (d. 851/1448) stated:
Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī: the jurist (al-faqīh), the guest of Mecca, one of the
scholastic luminaries, being emulated in his conveyance of that which is licit
(al-ḥ alāl ) and that which is illicit (al-ḥ arām), the author of books held in high
esteem by the scholars of Islam.28
Despite such accolades there remained a certain amount of criticism regarding

Ibn al-Mundhir, which came in the form of a scathing comment made by
Musallama b. al-Qāsim al-Qurṭubī, who said:
He [Ibn al-Mundhir] was a great faqīh, authoring many works but he would use
inauthentic (ḍaʿīf ) ḥ adīth as opposed to authentic (ṣaḥ īḥ ) ḥ adīth and [inaccu-
rately] attributed statements to Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥ anīfa that were not in
their books . . . I used to transmit on his authority but when al-ʿUqaylī deemed
26
Al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 197; al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ,
XIV, p. 491; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5; Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98;
al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328; al-Ḥ usaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, ed. ʿĀdil Nuwayḥiḍ, Bei-
rut: Dār al-Āfāq al-Jadīda, 1971, p. 59; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, II, p. 478; Brockel-
mann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, p. 191; Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen
Schrifttums: Band 1, Qurʾānwissenschaften, Hadīt̠ Geschichte, Fiqh, Dogmatik, Mystik bis ca. 430
H, Leiden: Brill, 1967, p. 495.
27
Al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5; al-Suyūtị̄ , Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328; Ibn al-ʿImād,
Shadharāt al-dhahab, II, p. 478.
28
Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98.
192 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
him unreliable, I abandoned his transmission and didn’t narrate anything on his
authority.29
In this open critique he was referring to the statement of al-ʿUqaylī who

claimed that, “He [Ibn al-Mundhir] would narrate from al-Rabīʿ b. Sulaymān
on the authority of al-Shāfiʿī but he never saw al-Rabīʿ or listened to him.”30
Put very bluntly he was essentially claiming that Ibn al-Mundhir was a liar and
therefore, an unreliable source of transmission. With regard to this statement
by al-Qurṭubī, his conclusion was rejected by the majority of Muslim scholars
due to the fact that he himself was accused invariably of having a poor mem-
ory, of being a liar and of having a weak intellect and therefore, there was no
conclusion to be drawn from the statements of someone who was accused of
considerable inaccuracy. Regarding the statement of al-ʿUqaylī, it should be
noted that he and Ibn al-Mundhir were contemporaries who may well have
had a personal disagreement and therefore, based on “the disparagement and
acceptability of narrators” (al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl ), Muslim scholars would also
deem al-ʿUqaylī’s statement invalid. As for the claim that that he narrated on
the authority of al-Rabīʿ without seeing him, we have already seen the quota-
tion above that suggests he did meet with al-Rabīʿ. Moreover, it is worthy of
note that al-ʿUqaylī did not mention Ibn al-Mundhir in his own book of weak
narrators indicating that he did in fact consider him reliable.31
Historians have differed regarding the date on which Ibn al-Mundhir died.
Al-Shīrāzī, Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) and al-Yāfiʿī (d. 768/1367) claim that
he died in Mecca in the year 309/921 or 310/922.32 However, al-Dhahabī
concludes
What al-shaykh Abū Isḥāq [al-Shīrāzī] mentioned about his death is presumption,
as he [Ibn al-Mundhir] listened to Ibn ʿAmmār in 316/928 and the historian Ibn
al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī, recorded the date of his death as being 318 [930].33
29
Al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, p. 38 and cf. al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl,
ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, III, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, n.d., pp. 450-451.
30
Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl, III, pp. 450-451.
31
For a complete discussion of this issue see: al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, pp. 37-38 and
al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl, III, pp. 450-451, and cf. al-Subkī, Qāʿida fī l-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, in
Arbaʿ rasāʾil fī ʿulūm al-ḥ adīth, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda, Beirut: Maktabat al-Maṭbūʿāt
al-Islāmiyya, 1999, pp. 59-65 and al-Luknawī, al-Raf ʿ wa-l-takmīl fī l-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, ed.
ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghudda, Aleppo: Maktabat al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyya, 1963, pp. 187-200
passim.
32
Al-Shīrāzī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʾ, p. 89; al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 197;
al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, pp. 37-38; Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98; al-Ḥ usaynī,
Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, p. 59; Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān, ed. Iḥsān
ʿAbbās, IV, Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1977, p. 207 and al-Yāfiʿī, Mirʾāt al-jinān, II, p. 196.
33
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, pp. 491-492; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III,
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 193
Ibn al-Mundhir’s Works
It was during Ibn al-Mundhir’s Meccan residency that his focus was on teach-
ing and writing works primarily in the field of jurisprudence. It is unfortunate,
however, many of these books have been lost completely, whilst others remain
as titles in historical annals and only a few remain published, or in manuscript
form.34 By examining the extant material and surveying the biographical and
bibliographical references, however, we are still able to reconstruct an inven-
tory of Ibn al-Mundhir’s considerable contribution.
Kitāb al-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf
The author himself indicates that he compiled this book whilst discussing the
chapter concerning the amount of water to be used during ritual ablution.
Firstly, he mentions the ḥ adīth of Safīna, the slave of Umm Salama, with its
chain of narration, then he states,
We have narrated in this chapter, accounts other than this one, mentioning them
in Kitāb al-Sunan and in the book from which I abridged this book.35
Other scholars have also confirmed that Ibn al-Mundhir wrote such a book as
al-Subkī states, “It is a huge copious book,”36 and al-Dāwūdī reiterates
al-Subkī’s opinion whilst making mention of it in his own works.37
p. 5 and cf. al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-mīzān, V, pp. 37-38; al-Ḥ usaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, p. 59;
al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿUmar, Cairo: Maktabat Wahba, 1973, p. 328;
Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, pp. 98-99; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, II, p. 478;
Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur: Supplementbände, II, p. 191; Sezgin, Ges-
chichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, p. 495.
34
We are fortunate, however, that not only does Ibn al-Mundhir refer to his various contribu-
tions by name in works but also that a number of historical and bibliographical sources also
make mention of his corpus. In total some twenty seven works are suggested and the complete
inventory can be found in Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 19-39 and Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ,
I, pp. 22-30. In the interests of space and time, however, only the major works mentioned in the
sources will be discussed and particular attention will be given to the extant works.
35
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 22-23.
36
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, III, pp. 102 and 105.
37
Al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, II, p. 56 and cf. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen
Litteratur, Leiden: Brill, 1937, p. 306; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, p. 496.
194 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ
Bibliographical sources mention that Ibn al-Mundhir wrote such a book and
parts of this work remain extant.38 The remaining book consists of Kitāb
al-Ṭahāra (the chapter regarding purification) and a few sections about al-jumʿa
(Friday prayer). It contains 131 pages and can be found in Dār al-Kutub
al-Miṣriyya, under number 37 in the ḥ adīth section. On the first page of
this manuscript is the inscription “Volume one (al-mujallad al-awwal ) of
Ibn al-Mundhir’s Ikhtilāf. ” This is corroborated by Ibn Ḥ ajar in his al-Muʿjam
al-mufahras39 and Brockelmann also mentioned the same book under the title
of Kitāb al-ikhtilāf 40 and Sezgin records it as Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ.41
Al-Mabsūṭ
Ibn al-Khallikān states,
And he (Ibn al-Mundhir) has a book concerning juristic differences entitled

al-Mabsūṭ that is larger than al-Ishrāf and conveys various scholarly opinions.42
This is further evinced by a number of scholars including al-Dhahabī,43

al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1362-3),44 Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī (d. 744/1343),45 al-Suyūt ̣ī
(d. 911/1505),46 al-Dāwūdī (d. 945/1538),47 al-Kitānī (d. 1345/1926)48 and
Kaḥḥāla.49
As mentioned previously, however, despite the fact that many of Ibn al-
Mundhir’s books are no longer with us, he often makes mention of them in
other works of his.50 This also seems to the case with al-Mabsūṭ, as indeed Ibn
38
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 24-25 and Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, I, p. 27. It appears
that this work may well have been another abridgement of al-Awsaṭ: see Ibn al-Mundhir,
al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 44.
39
Al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Muʿjam al-mufahras, ed. Muḥammad al-Mayādīnī, Beirut: Muʾassasat
al-Risāla, 1998, p. 151.
40
Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306; Brockelmann, Geschichte der
arabischen Litteratur: Supplementbände, II, p. 191.
41
Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, p. 496.
42
Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān, IV, p. 207.
43
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, p. 490; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5.
44
Al-Ṣafadī, al-Wāfī bi-l-wafayāt, I, p. 336.
45
Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥ addithīn, II, p. 494.
46
Al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, p. 91 and Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328.
47
Al-Dāwūdī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, II, p. 56.
48
Al-Kattānī, al-Risāla al-mustaṭrafa, Damascus: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Fikr, 1963, p. 77.
49
ʿUmar Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, VIII, Beirut: Maktabat al-Muthannā, n.d., p. 220.
50
Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 195
al-Mundhir mentions in his book al-Awsaṭ, in the chapter concerning purifi-

cation (al-ṭahāra), under the section entitled “ablution (al-wuḍūʾ) after
sleep”:
A third group said that ablution is not compulsory for a sleeping person until he
lies on his side . . . and they used a narration conveyed by Ibn ʿAbbās as a proof,
but this ḥ adīth can not be confirmed as being from Abū Khālid al-Dālānī. Indeed,
I have mentioned this ḥ adīth and its faults in the book from which I abridged this
book [i.e. al-Awsaṭ].51
Despite not being definitive evidence, this and many other texts strongly indi-
cate that Ibn al-Mundhir did write a book which was much more expansive
than al-Awsaṭ and that this book was indeed al-Mabsūṭ, as the bibliographic
and biographical sources also suggest.52
Al-Awsaṭ fī al-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf
A great number of scholars have mentioned this book including al-Nawawī,53

al-Dāwūdī,54 al-Subkī,55 Ibn Shuhba,56 Ibn al-Mulaqqin57 and al-Bahnasī;58
Khalīfa (d.1067/1657) states, “It is huge book being around fifteen volumes
and is extremely rare.”59 Indeed, Ibn Ḥ ajar also had a copy of this text in his
possession, as he quoted it frequently in his al-Talkhīṣ al-ḥ abīr,60 clearly nam-
ing the book al-Awsaṭ. Furthermore, one may comment that al-Awsaṭ is clearly
not an independent book but indeed is an abridgement of another work,
namely al-Mabsūṭ, as the previous quotes indicate. Fortunately, this is one of
Ibn al-Mundhir’s works that has survived and there are nine fragments of this
book in manuscript form in various libraries around the world.61 Nevertheless,
al-Awsaṭ remains incomplete as many parts of the book are missing, including
51
52
53
54
55
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, III, p. 102.
56
57
Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Ṭabaqāt Ibn al-Mulaqqin, p. 8.
58
59
Ḥ ajji Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutub wa-l-funūn, I, Istanbul: al-Maṭbaʿa al-
Bahiyya, 1941, p. 21.
60
Al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Talkhīṣ al-ḥ abīr fī takhrīj aḥ ādīth al-rāfiʿī al-kabīr, IV, Medina: al-Yamānī,
1963, p. 60.
61
See Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306; Brockelmann, Geschichte der
arabischen Litteratur: Supplementbände, II, p. 191; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums,
I, p. 496. For this definitive listing see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 28-31.
196 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
the book of alms tax (al-zakāh), the book of fasting (al-ṣiyām) and spiritual
retreat (al-iʿtikāf ), the book of pilgrimage (al-ḥ ajj), the book of sacrifice and
slaughtering (al-ḍaḥ āyā wa-l-dhabāʾiḥ ) and various chapters of the book of
al-jihād.
Al-Ishrāf ʿalā madhāhib al-ʿulamāʾ
More than twenty-five scholars have attributed this work to Ibn al-Mundhir.62
The book is unusual in that it has various unique qualities; for example the
author does not mention any elevated (marfūʿ) ḥ adīth, sufficing with mention
of the ḥ adīth itself, without mention of its chain of narration. He follows a
similar style with narrations of the Companions, content to mention the main
narrator only. In addition to this, he rarely mentions the opinion of any jurist
and when he does so, it is with one narration only and without discussing the
relevant proofs for such an opinion. Finally, the author mentions his own
opinion and only occasionally does he mention its relevant evidence.
These qualities led many scholars to believe that al-Ishrāf was an abridge-
ment of another work. Indeed, the author indicates this himself while discuss-
ing the issue of desisting from fighting; he mentions the narration of ʿAlī b.
Abī Ṭālib and then states,
And we have mentioned these narrations and others on the authority of

Muḥammad b. Maslama, Abū Bakr and Abū Hurayra with their chains of narra-
tion in the book from which I abridged this book.63
He continues in the chapter concerning what is permissible to use from wine,
The people of Kūfa have proposed some incorrect narrations which we have men-
tioned, along with their faults in al-Awsaṭ.64
Such quotations would seem to indicate that al-Ishrāf is indeed an abridge-

ment of al-Awsaṭ.65
62
See al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 196; al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ,
XIV, p. 490; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5; al-Ḥ usaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, p. 59;
al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328; Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98; Ibn al-Mundhir,
al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 32; Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306; Brockelmann, Ges-
chichte der arabischen Litteratur: Supplementbände, II, p. 191; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen
Schrifttums, I, p. 496.
63
64
65
See for example Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 197
Kitāb al-Iqnāʿ
Again, many scholars have mentioned this book and attributed it to Ibn al-
Mundhir.66 They include Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 804/1402)67 and Ibn Shuhba
(d. 851/1448),68 al-Ḥ usaynī (d. 1014/1605);69 al-Asnawī (d. 772/1370), com-
mented, “It [al-Iqnāʿ] is [a book of ] purely juristic rulings, like the al-Rāfiʿī’s
Muḥ arrir, being of a similar size and style.”70 Once again, this book is an
abridgement of a larger work unnamed by the author, as we find in the chap-
ters concerning the situation under it which it becomes compulsory for a
person to fight in a period of tribulation, the circumstances under which it is
compulsory for a person to cease fighting, hold his tongue and his hand and
in the book concerning fighting the oppressor:
It is compulsory for the people in that case, to cease fighting with one of the
groups, if their affair has become dubious, due to the Prophetic narrations related
to this issue and the action of group of the Companions after him. I have men-
tioned this in the book from which I abridged this book.71
However, the book to which Ibn al-Mundhir is referring is not clear but it is
not al-Ishrāf as some have claimed. This is due to the fact that al-Iqnāʿ contains
aḥ ādīth along with their chains of narration, their associated juristic issues and
points of consensus which we do not find in al-Ishrāf. Therefore, it is difficult
to see how al-Iqnāʿ is an abridgement of a much less detailed book, such as
al-Ishrāf.72
Al-Ijmāʿ
The author compiled a separate work concerning the issues which have reached
the level of consensus, the majority of them being derived from Qurʾānic
verses, Prophetic narrations and narrations of the Companions. These issues
can also be found in and indeed, appear to be derived from al-Awsaṭ, al-Ishrāf
and al-Iqnāʿ.73
66
67
Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Ṭabaqāt Ibn al-Mulaqqin, p. 8.
68
69
Al-Ḥ usaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, p. 59.
70
Al-Asnawī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, Maṭbaʿat al-Irshād, Baghdad, 1971, II, p. 375.
71
72
73
Al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, p. 197; al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ,
XIV, p. 490; al-Dhahabī, Tadhkirat al-ḥ uffāẓ, III, p. 5; al-Ḥ usaynī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, p. 59;
al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328; Ibn Shuhba, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya, I, p. 98; Brockelmann,
198 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm
In addition to his considerable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence, Ibn al-

Mundhir also wrote an exegesis (tafsīr) of the Qurʾān in its entirety, using
verses of the Qurʾān itself, authenticated ḥ adīth and proven narrations (āthār)
of the Companions and their Successors.74 This methodology, commonly
referred to as “exegesis based on transmission” (tafsīr bi-al-riwāya),75 was util-
ised by the scholars of his period, the most famous example being Muḥammad
b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 223-310/838-923) in his Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy
al-Qurʾān. Ibn al-Mundhir confirms his authorship of an exegesis despite not
naming the work and it not being named by anyone else; he states in the chap-
ter entitled “The mentioning of dry ritual ablution (tayammum) for the greater
ritual impurity (al-junub) of a traveller unable to find water”:
And more than one of the people of knowledge (ahl al-ʿilm) has stated his case for
the “dry ablution” (tayammum) of a person in junub with His statement, “And not
a person experiencing major ritual impurity ( junub) except someone passing
through,”76 its meaning being that a person experiencing sexual defilement
( junub) shouldn’t pray unless he is passing through [i.e. a traveller] and is unable
to find water; thus he should perform tayammum and pray. We have narrated this
opinion on the authority of ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Saʿīd b. Jubayr, al-Ḥ akam,
al-Ḥ usayn b. Muslim, Qatāda and I mentioned this with its chains of narration in
the “book of exegesis” (kitāb al-tafsīr).77
Al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) conveyed the existence of this work also in his Ṭabaqāt
al-mufassirīn,78 as well as indicating that the tasfīr was complete from Sūrat
Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306; Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur:
Supplementbände, II, p. 191; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, p. 496; Ibn al-
Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 36.
74
Lucas, Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir, pp. 351-354, also seems to neglect the fact that Ibn al-
Mundhir was a Qurʾānic exegete of some repute, writing an entire commentary of the Qurʾān
mentioned here. In addition, although he confirms that the juristic treatment of the Qurʾān by
al-Qurṭubī is replete with mention of Ibn al-Mundhir, indicating his influence on al-Qurṭubī,
he neglects to notice that al-Qurṭubī is quoting Ibn al-Mundhir’s legal decisions regarding the
Qurʾān and hence to suggest “that the the Qurʾan and prophetic hadith played a modest role in
early elaboration of Islamic law” seems somewhat peculiar.
75
On this and its antithesis “exegesis based on opinion” (tafsīr bi-l-dirāya) see A. Saeed, Inter-
preting the Qurʾān: Towards a Contemporary Approach, London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 43-49 and
cf. pp. 57-68.
76
Qurʾān 4: 43.
77
78
Al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-mufassirīn, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1976, p. 91 and cf.
al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥ uffāẓ, p. 328. In fact al-Suyūṭī quotes Ibn al-Mundhir regularly in his
Qurʾānic commentaries al-Durar al-manthūr and Jamʿ al-jawāmiʿ, which is exemplified by the
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 199
al-Fātiḥ a to Sūrat al-Nās. Al-Dāwūdī also mentioned this work,79 as did

al-Subkī in his Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya80 and his status in this regard was clearly
recognised by the historian and traditionist al-Dhahabī who stated in his Siyar
aʿlām al-nubalāʾ,
He also wrote a Qurʾanic exegesis (tafsīr), which is more than ten volumes, indi-
cating his scholastic leadership in interpretation (taʾwīl ).81
It would seem, however, that this text for the most part has been lost to the
ravages of time since Brocklemann noted that there was only small section of
this tafsīr in the Gotha library. It begins with āya number 21 of Sūrat al-
Baqara and continues until āya number 94 of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ.82 Sezgīn went on
further to say that texts from this tafsīr were found in the margin of the tafsīr
of Ibn Abī Ḥ ātim al-Rāzī in the second volume, which contains two hundred
and five pages. It was transcribed in 784/1382 and is to be found in the Ayah
Sofia library.83
Thus, even without compiling a definitive listing for the works of Ibn al-
Mundhir, it is easy to see that he wrote copiously and in particular, in his
specialist field of juristic dispute. Of the various works that have reached us,
however, it is al-Awsaṭ fī l-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf that provides the
richest source with regard to Ibn al-Mundhir’s thought and teachings and
hence, it is this work that will provide the focus for the discussion of his juris-
tic methodology.
The Methodology of Ibn al-Mundhir in his Book al-Awsaṭ
The primary source of Islamic Law is the Qurʾān and this accompanied with
the fact that Ibn al-Mundhir was an accomplished interpreter of the Qurʾān
following quote: “Ibn al-Mundhir relates that Abū Hurayra narrated that the Messenger of God
said, ‘al-ḥ amdu li-llāh rabbi al-ʿālamīn [Q. 1: 2] is the essence of the Qurʾān, the essence of the
Book (al-kitāb) and the seven exaltations (al-sabʿ al-mathānī)’.” In addition to this it also worthy
of mention that Ibn Ḥ ajar mentioned Ibn al-Mundhir in approximately fifty seven places of the
section on tafsīr in his Fatḥ al-bārī. See al-Suyūṭī, al-Durar al-manthūr, Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, I,
p. 3 and cf. al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥ īḥ al-Bukhārī, VIII, Dār al-Salām, Riyadh,
2000, pp. 194-951 passim.
79
80
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, III, p. 102.
81
Al-Dhahabī, Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, XIV, p. 492.
82
Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, p. 306; Brockelmann, Geschichte der ara-
bischen Litteratur: Supplementbände, II, p. 191.
83
200 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
gives us our starting point in examining his methodology within al-Awsaṭ. It

is no surprise that Ibn al-Mundhir uses quotations from the Qurʾān through-
out al-Awsaṭ. However, bearing in mind the very nature of the verses relating
to juristic issues, i.e. their limited number, it is equally worthy of mention that
Ibn al-Mundhir uses such verses infrequently and only in specific circum-
stances where they are deemed appropriate and necessary.
Hence, Ibn al-Mundhir tends to uses Qurʾanic quotation as a structural
device to introduce a new, often major topic within al-Awsaṭ, as if to draw the
reader’s attention to the issue and indicate its importance by highlighting its
significance. An example of this style is presented in the very first discussion
within his book. He starts the primary “book” (kitāb), that of purification
(al-ṭahāra), with the statement,
God, the Exalted, made purification for prayer (al-ṣalāh) compulsory in His book
saying, “O you who believe if you rise to prayer then wash your faces and arms
until the elbow and wipe your heads and legs until the ankle . . .”84 He continues
saying, “And He said, Exalted be His Praise, ‘O you who believe do not approach
prayer in a drunken state until you know what you are saying, or any ritually
impure persons ( junub), unless they are passers by (ʿābirī al-sabīl), until you have
washed . . .’ ”85
Only then does the author begin to mention other sources such as ḥ adīth,
ijmāʿ and so on. Thus, it is clear that for Ibn al-Mundhir the Qurʾān is the
primary, paramount source which takes precedence above all others, to the
extent that if there is an appropriate quotation to be made he provides it, even
if it merely used as a structural conduit in his presentation.
Other occasions where the Qurʾān is quoted include its direct use as a proof
within a specific issue (masʾala), or scholarly opinion. An example of this is the
issue of whether it is permissible to wash certain bodily parts before others in
an order other than that mentioned in verse Qurʾān 5: 6 above. Al-Shāfiʿī held
that it was not permissible and anyone who did that should repeat his ablution
(al-wuḍūʾ). Thus, Ibn al-Mundhir mentions this issue and al-Shāfiʿī’s opinion
saying,
And al-Shāfiʿī proved his claim with the statement of God, the Blessed, the
Exalted, “Indeed al-Ṣafā and al-Marwā are from the signs of God,”86 as the Prophet
when he made his way to al-Ṣafā, he said: “I begin with that which God began
with,”87
84
Qurʾān 5: 6 and Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 107.
85
Qurʾān 4: 43 and Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 107.
86
Qurʾān 2: 158.
87
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 201
indicating the necessity of performing ablution in the correct sequential

order.
Another instance which causes Ibn al-Mundhir to quote from the Qurʾān
as a source is when a juristic difference of opinion (al-ikhtilāf ) occurred
regarding the meaning of a verse. Such an instance was the difference of opin-
ion amongst scholars about whether or not the elbow was included in the
parts to be washed in the verse, “O you who believe if you rise to prayer then
wash your faces and arms until the elbow . . .”88 Thus, Ibn al-Mundhir quotes
this Qurʾānic statement and goes on to discuss the various scholarly opinions
related to it.89
Secondary only to the Qurʾān in terms of sources of law are the narrations,
primarily from the Prophet, denoted by the term ḥ adīth. Apart from the term
ḥ adīth, the scholars associated with this discipline were also known to use the
terms “report” (khabar) and “tradition” (athar).90 Many scholars used these
two terms as synonyms for the term ḥ adīth and they used these terms to mean
any narration that was related to the Prophet, a Companion, or a Successor,
regardless of the specific qualities of its chain of narration. Another group of
scholars considered ḥ adīth to be a narration exclusively from the Prophet,
whereas the khabar was a transmission related to others rather than the
Prophet. Extending this notion further, some scholars of ḥ adīth also used the
terms marfūʿ91 and mawqūf 92 narrations to mean athar, whereas the scholars
of Khurāsān called mawqūf narrations athar and marfūʿ narrations khabar.93
Indeed, there is a great deal of overlap between the three terms but there is,
however, a clear distinction between Prophetic statements and actions and the
88
Qurʾan 5: 6.
89
90
The literal meaning of this word is “trace,” or “remnant” and the Arabs also used it to mean
“footsteps.” See Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, ed. Amīn Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and
Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq al-ʿUbaydī, I, Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1999, p. 69.
91
This term literally means “to be raised” and the scholars of ḥ adīth use this term to indicate
that the narration is an action or statement of the Prophet specifically. In addition, they also use
it for a narration whose chain does not directly link to the Prophet but is “raised” due to the
nature of the material and the intrinsic relationship between the Prophet and the final narrator,
i.e. a Companion. See Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Muqaddima fī ʿilm al-ḥ adīth, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2006,
pp. 37-38.
92
This term literally means “to be stopped” or “held up” and the scholars of ḥ adīth use this
term to indicate that the narration is an action or statement of a Companion since it has not
been associated with the Prophet by being “raised” to him but rather was “stopped” before reach-
ing him: al-Suyūtị̄ , Tadrīb al-rāwī sharḥ taqrīb al-Nawawī, ed. Naẓr Muḥammad al-Farayābī, II,
Riyadh: Dār Ṭayba, 2001, I, p. 202 and Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Muqaddima, p. 38.
93
See al-Qārī, Sharḥ sharḥ nukhbat al-fikr fī muṣtạ laḥ ahl al-athar, ed. Muḥammad Nizār
Tamīm and Haytham Nizār Tamīm, Dār al-Arqam b. Abī al-Arqam, Beirut, n.d., pp. 153-157;
al-Suyūṭī, Tadrīb al-rāwī, I, pp. 29 and 203 and Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Muqaddima, p. 38.
202 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
statements and actions of others. Therefore, the two types of narrations will be
dealt with separately, to give each its own specific discussion.
The use of ḥ adīth in al-Awsaṭ is extensive, so much so that we can say that
almost every singular issue in it contains at least one ḥ adīth and if there is an
absence of ḥ adīth, one may suggest that it will only be because there was not a
ḥ adīth on the topic available to Ibn al-Mundhir in the first place.94 Ibn al-
Mundhir’s skill is further demonstrated by the fact the ḥ adīth utilized are not
only “rigorously authenticated” (ṣaḥ īḥ ) according to the system of authentica-
tion developed by Muslim scholarship but they also contain complete chains
of narration. An example would be the following ḥ adīth quoted in the discus-
sion regarding whether or not touching a woman nullifies ablution. Ibn al-
Mundhir states:
Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb related to us saying; Khālid b. Mukhallid related

to us saying; Mālik narrated on the authority of ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr;
who narrated on the authority of ʿAmr b. Salīm al-Zarqī; who narrated on the
authority of Abū Qatāda that the Prophet carried Umāma, his granddaughter,
whilst in prayer, putting her down if he prostrated and picking her up if he
stood.95
Ibn al-Mundhir also exhibits a clever use of semantics, as was noticed by

al-Nawawī, to indicate the authenticity of ḥ adīth or lack of it when narrated.
If for example the ḥ adīth was “rigorously authenticated” (ṣaḥ īḥ ) he uses the
terms, “It was confirmed” (thabata) or “It was proven” (ṣaḥ ḥ a), whereas if the
ḥ adīth was “inauthentic” (ḍaʿīf ) he uses the term, “It was narrated” (ruwiya)
and its derivatives. This caused al-Nawawī to comment,
94
Ibn al-Mundhir’s use of ḥ adīth in al-Awsaṭ is indeed, exhaustive and is only matched by his
erudition in the nascent elaboration of its transmission. Once again this would seem to contra-
dict Lucas’s conclusions. Indeed, one may well argue that it was such primary sources that pro-
vided the catalyst for the articulation of a vast range of views provided by the early jurists and
hence, it was this diversity that Ibn al-Mundhir had to negotiate. Thus, Lucas’s comment, Abu
Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir, p. 353, “it is important to stress that his primary legacy in the Muslim
scholarly tradition has been that of a diligent and honest compiler of a nearly unparalleled array
of early legal opinions rather than that of a dazzling or iconoclastic jurist,” may seem a primitive
appraisal. Ibn al-Mundhir not only had to collect these various opinions but also, determine the
evidences from which they were derived and the juristic theory on which they were based. In
many cases he also undertook the task of verifying the authenticity of the evidence and hence,
for all of these qualities to have converged in a singular individual was a considerable achieve-
ment. This was clearly recognised by a number of jurists in subsequent generations who consid-
ered him as being an independent jurist of the calibre capable of deducing his own legal opinion
(mujtahid muṭlaq) and thus, in the same rank as the “iconoclastic jurists.”
95
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 203
This is the etiquette which he [Ibn al-Mundhir] observed, being the etiquette of
skilled scholars of ḥ adīth and which was neglected by most of the jurists (al-fuqahāʾ)
and scholars of other disciplines.96
Thus, we find Ibn al-Mundhir clarifying the position of narrations in al-Awsaṭ

using the aforementioned terms to indicate the lack of authenticity of ḥ adīth,
particularly when refuting the claims of jurists in a specific issue. An example
of this would be the narration quoted regarding the question of whether or
not it is compulsory for someone to perform a bath (al-ghusl) after having
been cupped (al-ḥ ijāma). He states:
We have mentioned previously that whoever purified himself then he is in a state

of purity, except if he nullified his state of purity by [an evidence from] the Book,
or sunna or ijmāʿ. Thus, the answer to the issue of cupping is the same as that of
nose bleeds (al-ruʿāf ) except that the traces of the cupping should be washed, as
the removal of impurities (izālat al-najāsa) from the body is compulsory if one
wants to pray.
If, however, someone tried to prove his case by quoting the ḥ adīth of ʿĀʾisha
that states that the Prophet said, “The bath (al-ghusl) is compulsory for four
things: sexual defilement (al-janāba), the Friday prayer (al-jumʿa), cupping
(al-ḥ ijāma) and after washing the deceased (al-mayyit),” then this is unconfirmed
(ghayr thābit). Aḥmad said about this ḥ adīth, “It comes from Muṣʿab b. Shayba”
and in fact, it isn’t. Thus, if the Muṣʿab b. Shayba ḥ adīth is unconfirmed then the
argument is invalidated. It has also reached me that both Aḥmad b. Ḥ anbal and
ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī would challenge (ḍaʿʿafa) the two ḥ adīths of Muṣʿab and the
ḥ adīth of Abu Hurayra regarding performing al-ghusl after the bathing of the
deceased.97
It is also clear from this text that Ibn al-Mundhir was familiar with the sciences
employed to assess the authenticity of ḥ adīth. His use of such terms as ghayr
thābit, ḍaʿʿafa and others such as ṣaḥ ḥ a and majhūl, indicate that he was com-
pletely familiar with these concepts, despite not using the specific terms which
are commonplace today in what is termed “ḥ adīth terminology” (muṣtạ laḥ
al-ḥ adīth). Thus, although this particular discipline was fully developed and
codified over a period of time, it is clear that even in Ibn al-Mundhir’s period
these concepts were clearly understood and indeed, he had become erudite
concerning them.
Upon examining al-Awsaṭ it can be seen that Ibn al-Mundhir adopted the
consensus of Muslim scholars in adopting ḥ adīth as his secondary source after
the Qurʾān and he presents the ḥ adīth after quoting the Qurʾān, assuming there
96
97
204 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
is an appropriate verse and ḥ adīth to be mentioned. In addition to this he also

uses ḥ adīth in a similar manner to that of the Qurʾān, i.e. he includes its direct
use as a proof within a specific issue (masʾala), or scholarly opinion, as well as
using it as a source when a juristic difference of opinion (ikhtilāf ) occurred,
where he goes on to discuss the various scholarly opinions related to it.98
With regard to the āthār of Companions and Successors, as one can imag-
ine, Ibn al-Mundhir’s approach to the use of this type of narration is not that
different from his use of ḥ adīth. Indeed, we find the āthār with complete
chains of narration, being rigorously authenticated (ṣaḥ īḥ ). The author also
employs the same terminological approach to indicate the authenticity of nar-
rations, employing the terms “it was confirmed” (thabata) or “it was proven”
(ṣaḥ ḥ a) and “it was narrated” (ruwiya) and other synonymous derivatives.
Indeed, the only major difference that we find is the positioning of the āthār
in comparison to the ḥ adīth. As one might expect, the āthār are relegated to a
secondary position, always being mentioned after ḥ adīth and consequently,
are in third place if a Qurʾānic quotation is included. The similarity returns,
however, when we address the use of āthār in the juristic and evidential sense.
Ibn al-Mundhir employs āthār in an identical way to that of ḥ adīth, including
its direct use as a proof within a specific issue (masʾala), or scholarly opinion,
as well as using it as a source when a juristic difference of opinion (ikhtilāf )
occurred.99
Thus, in summary we can deduce that Ibn al-Mundhir’s use of āthār was
extensive, due to the very nature of these narrations, i.e. there were numerous
Companions/Successors and only one Prophet. He also clearly distinguished
between that which was a direct Prophetic narration (i.e. a ḥ adīth) and that
which was from sources other than the Prophet (i.e. an athar), possibly follow-
ing the methodology of the scholars of his region of birth, Khurāsān.
The concept of “consensus of opinion” or al-ijmāʿ in Islamic Law, like the
other sources discussed so far, was another area in which Ibn al-Mundhir was
also proficient, gaining a commendable notoriety for his book Kitāb al-Ijmāʿ.
Ibn al-Mundhir’s approach to al-ijmāʿ is clear from his works, such as al-Awsaṭ
and more specifically, in his book Kitāb al-Ijmāʿ. He does not conform to the
98
An excellent example of these usages is illustrated in his discussion of whether ablution
(al-wuḍūʾ) is nullified by sleeping, where he juxtaposes the various opinions by using ḥ adīth in
the manner described: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 142-155.
99
An example of this is Ibn al-Mundhir’s use of āthār in the issue of whether or not the bas-
mala should be recited aloud during the prayer, where he quotes the various Companion narra-
tions, their consequent effect on the opinions of various jurists and the disputes which arose
because of them. See Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, III, pp. 125-130.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 205
definition given by the later scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh (al-uṣūliyyūn)100 but indeed,
broadens this restricted understanding to mean:
The agreement of the majority about an opinion and if one scholar disagreed with
them then his opinion would not be considered.101
In fact, it would seem that this was the general understanding of al-ijmāʿ dur-
ing Ibn al-Mundhir’s period as indeed, his contemporary Muḥammad b. Jarīr
al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) was of a similar opinion.102 This understanding adopted
by Ibn al-Mundhir in his works is clearly presented in al-Awsaṭ and can be
illustrated by the following example. Ibn al-Mundhir states during his discus-
sion in the chapters concerning ownership (al-ḥ irz):
There is nothing authentic in this chapter on the authority of the Prophet’s Com-
panions and the majority of the scholars do not enforce the cutting of the thief ’s
hand until he has left the house with the owner’s property. This is despite that
which was disputed regarding the opinion of al-Ḥ asan (al-Baṣrī) and even if they
had disputed regarding his opinion about it, then it would have been an irregular
statement, which would have no meaning as he would have isolated himself from
the scholars and how is this possible when they differed about what he said?
Al-Nakhaʿī said, “I’m astonished by al-Shaʿbī’s statement that he [i.e. the thief ]
shouldn’t have his hand cut.” However, this statement was never recorded from
him [i.e. al-Shaʿbī] and it might be that a person is astonished by a statement and
then holds the opinion which caused him to be astonished.
I agree with the statement of the scholarly majority because as far as I’m con-
cerned it is as if it is consensus (al-ijmāʿ) and God knows best.103
Thus, it is clear to see that Ibn al-Mundhir, despite the presence of an oppos-
ing opinion, still considers the opinion of the remaining majority to constitute
100
One such example is given by al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233): “The agreement of the juristic elite
from the Prophet’s nation, in a specific period of time, concerning the ruling of a new case.” The
crux of the problem obviously lies in the applicability of such a definition. Many scholars regard
such a definition as unworkable, both intellectually and practically, perhaps with the exception
of the period of the early Companions. See al-Āmidī, al-Iḥ kām fī uṣūl al-aḥ kām, ed. Sayyid
al-Jumaylī, IV, Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1998, I, pp. 253-257.
101
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ijmāʿ, p. 16 and cf. Ibn Ḥ azm, al-Iḥ kām fī uṣūl al-aḥ kām, ed. Maḥmūd
Ḥ āmid ʿUthmān, VI, Cairo: Dār al-Ḥ adīth, 1998, IV, pp. 678-680; al-Āmidī, al-Iḥ kām fī uṣūl
al-aḥ kām, I, pp. 253-255.
102
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ijmāʿ, p. 16. Indeed, Ḥ anīf contends that this was the consensus of
opinion among the early jurists, citing Ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī [in Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ], Mālik [in
al-Muwaṭtạ ʾ], al-Shāfiʿī [in al-Umm], Abū ʿUbayd [in Kitāb al-Ṭahāra and Kitāb al-Amwāl ]
and others, as all of them followed this understanding of al-Ijmāʿ: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ijmāʿ,
p. 16.
103
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 70 (emphasis mine).
206 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
ijmāʿ. He further clarifies this with statements such as, “all of the scholars
whose opinions we have recorded agreed regarding . . .” (wa ajmaʿa kullu man
naḥ faẓ qawla-hu min ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār . . . )104 and “the majority of the scholars
agreed that . . .” (ajmaʿa ʿawāmm ahl al-ʿilm ʿalā . . . )105 to further indicate that
he did not consider the total agreement necessary to reach the status of al-ijmāʿ
but also, by using this style he leaves the reader in no doubt that the issue
being mentioned may well have another opinion.
Ijmāʿ is further indicated by the author by the use of other synonymous
expressions as can be seen in the following example. Ibn al-Mundhir states:
And I don’t know of any dispute amongst the scholars regarding ablution being
compulsory from it (seminal fluid) (wa lastu aʿlam fī wujūb al-wuḍūʾ min-hu
khtilāfan bayna ahl al-ʿilm).106
Thus, Ibn al-Mundhir negates the presence of a dispute and at the same time,
by inference indicates al-ijmāʿ.
Having ascertained Ibn al-Mundhir’s concept of al-ijmāʿ we can now exam-
ine how al-ijmāʿ is employed within al-Awsaṭ. The concept of al-ijmāʿ is used
frequently throughout al-Awsaṭ being characterized by the author’s use of the
phrase ajmaʿa although the use of ittafaqa is also found.107 The positioning of
al-ijmāʿ also varies as occasionally it occupies a supplementary position to the
other sources of law.108 However, in the vast majority of cases we often find
that an issue consisting of al-ijmāʿ opens the discussion of the issue and then
is followed by the mentioning of the various evidential sources.109 This seems
to indicate that Ibn al-Mundhir is drawing the reader’s attention to the fact
that there is no dispute in the issue and then goes on to mention the various
evidential sources, as if to clarify further the reasons why the issue has reached
the status of al-ijmāʿ and thus, where there was no longer room for discussion
or al-ijtihād to be exercised.110
Upon reading the works of Ibn al-Mundhir it also becomes clear that he
had a proficient knowledge of “analytical deduction” or al-qiyās, as he is said
to have written a separate work on this topic. Unfortunately however, this
104
105
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, II, p. 65.
106
107
108
109
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, IV, pp. 16-17.
110
It is interesting to note that Ibn Rushd employs a similar methodology by using the term
ittafaqa in his Bidāyat al-mujtahid. See Ibn Rushd, Bidāyat al-mujtahid wa-nihāyat al-muqtaṣid,
Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥ azm, 1999, p. 15.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 207
work is no longer extant but despite this it does leave us with one important
finding, which is that Ibn al-Mundhir considered al-qiyās to be a valid eviden-
tial source within Islamic Law. Despite this acceptance of al-qiyās as a valid
source, Ibn al-Mundhir was also highly critical of those who used this source
in a manner that he deemed contrary to the spirit of the Law. We find several
examples of this within al-Awsaṭ and Ibn al-Mundhir even goes as far as to
refute al-Shāfiʿī on some issues involving al-qiyās. A good example of his criti-
cal approach to what he considers “invalid analogy” (al-qiyās al-bāṭil ) is the
following excerpt found in the discussion surrounding the evidence concern-
ing the stealing of a slave girl. Ibn al-Mundhir states:
Abū Thawr stated that if a person said to someone, “Sell me your slave girl,” and
he replied, “You have been recompensed,” then this statement would be invalid
and it would not be considered a sale. This is because he said something which is
not considered by anyone to constitute a sale. The statement, “You have been
recompensed,” is not permissible, as a sale is only contracted by the buyer saying,
“Sell me this item for such and such.” Then the seller would say, “I sell you this
item for such and such,” to which the buyer would say, “I accept.” This is the type
of sale which is permissible and this is because possession does not change hands
except by that which is to be found in the Book, or prophetic practice, or consen-
sus, or by something analogous to these principles. God knows best.111
Thus, it is clear to see that while Ibn al-Mundhir considered the use of al-qiyās
permissible as a source of law, he also adhered firmly to the principles he con-
sidered set by the Law and would only accept al-qiyās if he felt it was congru-
ent with them.
Now that the major sources of Islamic Law used in al-Awsaṭ have been dis-
cussed, this leads us to the opinions of the jurists derived from these evidences
through exercising their “personal and independent reasoning,” or al-ijtihād.
As discussed earlier, after mentioning an issue Ibn al-Mundhir then presents
the various evidential sources related to it and finally, he mentions the opin-
ions of scholars known for their juristic ability. Consequently, he always begins
by mentioning the Prophet’s Companions, then the Successors, then the Suc-
cessor’s Successors and finally, the mujtahid imams who came after them. This
order remains constant regardless of the issue and the opinion of the jurists
concerned. For example if there were two opinions about an issue he would
give the first opinion, mentioning the jurists who held this opinion in the
aforementioned order and then recounts the conflicting opinion, referring to
its proponents in a similar manner. There is an exception to this however,
which is when he generalises the opinion to a group level, without initial
111
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, p. 75.
208 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
mention of the scholars by name, which is characterised by the phrase, “a

group stated” (qālat ṭāʾifa).112
Another striking feature of al-Awsaṭ is the way the author quotes these
opinions, as he always quotes them by means of direct narration from their
students,113 or by accurate transmission from their works.114 This leads to
another observation, which is that Ibn al-Mundhir often gives more discus-
sion to the opinions of the later scholars, particularly the four imams of the
major schools and this may well be expected, as their opinions were written,
recorded and disseminated by their students. It is also worth mentioning that
in the longer discussions Ibn al-Mundhir also mentions and debates the evi-
dences on which the opinions of these scholars are based.115
Since al-Awsaṭ is a book discussing the juristic disputes of the scholars of
Islam and therefore the purpose for which it was written intrinsically dictates
that the author exercise his own personal ijtihād to differentiate and eventually
choose the preferred opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir does this in several ways which
the following examples will illustrate. He states for example in mentioning the
compensation to be paid for accidental death:
A group stated, “There is no compensation except that which God has made
compulsory,” this being the opinion of Abū Thawr, aṣḥ āb al-raʾy [i.e. the Ḥ anafī
jurists] and it was said this was the opinion of [Sufyān] al-Thawrī. This is our
opinion also (ka-dhālika naqūl) as compensatory payments are acts of worship
and it is not permissible to apply analogy to them.116
In another place he states,
112
This methodology is illustrated in the discussion concerning whether the hands should be
raised during the subsequent takbīrs after the initial takbīrat al-iḥ rām of the funeral prayer (ṣalāt
al-janāza). See Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, V, pp. 426-428.
113
An example of this is the author’s own personal narration of al-Shāfiʿī’s opinion on the
authority of his student Rabīʿ b. Sulaymān mentioned earlier.
114
Examples of this would include: 1. The opinions of Abū Ḥ anīfa related by his student
Muḥammad b. al-Ḥ asan in his book al-Aṣl: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 185; 2. The opin-
ions of Mālik related by Saḥnūn in his book al-Mudawwana al-kubrā: see Ibn al-Mundhir,
al-Awsaṭ, I, p. 242; 3. The opinions of al-Shāfiʿī related by his student al-Buwayṭī in his book
al-Umm: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 111-112; 4. The opinions of Ibn Ḥ anbal related
by his student Abū Dāwūd in his book Masāʾil al-imām Aḥ mad: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I,
p. 188.
115
This is exemplified in the discussion regarding the nullification of ablution by touching a
woman: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 113-129.
116
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 209
And they differed concerning a man who steals from a man who owes him a debt
of an equivalent amount; we have narrated that al-Shaʿbī said, “There is no pre-
scribed punishment (ḥ add ) for him,” this also being the opinion of Abū Thawr.
At the end of the section he concludes, “Abū Thawr’s opinion is correct”

(ṣaḥ īḥ ).117 In another example he states:
And they differed regarding a Muslim who steals wine from a Christian, one
group saying, “His hand should be cut” and the other group said, “Cutting [the
hand] is not compulsory for him.” And I hold the opinion held by Aḥmad
and al-Shāfiʿī: as God forbade wine, as did his Prophet and as wine has no value,
it is not permissible to cut a hand for stealing it. This is because the Prophet
ordered the cutting of the hand for that which it is permissible to own and some-
thing which is not permissible to own cannot have a value. Thus, if something
does not have value then it is not permissible to fine someone for that which is
worthless.118
Al-Nawawī further clarified Ibn al-Mundhir’s unique methodology and com-

mented on it in detail saying:
He [Ibn al-Mundhir] has an ability in verification (taḥ qīq) that no one has come
close to, which is his reliance on what the authentic Sunna indicates, generally
and specifically, without any objection. He mentions the various scholarly meth-
odologies and then he says, “This is my opinion (wa-bi-hādhā aqūl ).” He only
says this in that which is as we have described, as well as mentioning his evidence
in some places. He doesn’t limit himself to a specific madhhab and is not fanatical
( yataʿaṣsạ b) for someone, or against someone, which is customary for the scholars
of juristic dispute. Indeed, he adopts what the authentic Sunna and the evidence
suggests, stating it clearly no matter whose opinion it is.119
Thus, the suggestion made earlier that Ibn al-Mundhir was an independent
jurist capable of deriving law would certainly seem to be voiced by these vari-
ous quotations.
The Influence of Ibn al-Mundhir and His Works on Islamic Jurisprudence
Although other scholars wrote on the subject of juristic dispute up to and

including the time of Ibn al-Mundhir,120 this vast body of information did not
117
118
119
120
These include Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ by Muḥammad b. Naṣr al-Marwazī (d. 294/906), Ikhtilāf
210 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
stop later scholars from writing in this field and indeed, one may posit that the
nature of ijtihad requires that such books continue to be written. Thus, per-
haps the most renowned books compiled on this topic in subsequent genera-
tions were the following:
1. Al-Muḥ allā bi-al-Āthār by ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Ḥ azm al-Andalūsī (d. 456/1064);

2. Al-Mughnī by ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Qudāma al-Maqdisī (d. 630/1233);
3. Kitāb al-Majmūʿ sharḥ al-muhadhdhab by Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-Nawawī (d.
676/1277).
Therefore, since these works were the foremost works to discuss juristic dis-
pute it would interesting to examine the effect of Ibn al-Mundhir’s works
upon them, to form an image of the influence of his legacy on Islamic juris-
prudence. As for Ibn Ḥ azm, he did not quote directly from Ibn al-Mundhir,
nor did he mention his opinions. However, what is clear for someone studying
al-Muḥ allā is that his method of presenting the various juristic opinions and
his subsequent discussion of their evidences leaves one in no doubt that he was
heavily influenced by Ibn al-Mundhir’s methodology in a book such as
al-Awsaṭ. In fact this is further supported indirectly by Ibn Ḥ azm’s own admis-
sion as he relates the following narration:
Aḥmad b. Layth al-Ansarī informed me that he brought a copy of Ibn al-Mun-

dhir’s al-Awsaṭ to Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Ishbīlī and al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr Yaḥyā
b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Wāqid. On glancing through it, they said to him, “Who-
ever does not have this book at home has not smelled the scent of knowledge!”
and Ibn Wāqid added, “Then we have not smelt the scent of knowledge as we
don’t have it in our homes!”121
Indeed, Ibn Ḥ azm goes further whilst describing those whose opinions have
the right to be considered in the field of ikhtilāf and consequent to mention-
ing the Companions he says, “And after them came Dāwūd b. ʿAlī, Muḥammad
b. Naṣr al-Marwazī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr
al-Ṭabarī and Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī.”122 This
clearly indicates that Ibn Ḥ azm not only held Ibn al-Mundhir in high esteem
but also that he may have been heavily influenced by his writings.123
al-fuqahāʾ by Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and Ikhtilāf al-fuqahāʾ by Aḥmad b.
Muḥammad al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/935).
121
Ibn Ḥ azm, al-Iḥ kām fī uṣūl al-aḥ kām, V, p. 914.
122
Ibn Ḥ azm, al-Iḥ kām fī uṣūl al-aḥ kām, V, p. 885.
123
Compare for example the discussion given by the two authors surrounding the purity of a
cat’s saliva: see Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Awsaṭ, I, pp. 299-304 and Ibn Ḥ azm, al-Muḥ allā bi-l-āthār,
ed. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār Sulaymān al-Bundarī, I, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988, pp. 126-128.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 211
Like Ibn Ḥ azm Ibn Qudāma also does not make mention of any specific
books that he used while compiling his masterpiece al-Mughnī. We do, how-
ever, find his book filled with references to Ibn al-Mundhir to the point that it
would not be an exaggeration to say that there is not a page that passes with-
out Ibn al-Mundhir being mentioned. Ibn Qudāma relies on Ibn al-Mundhir
in relating the issues which have reached the status of ijmāʿ — clearly indicat-
ing his familiarity with Ibn al-Mundhir’s Kitāb al-ijmāʿ — as well as those
which are disputed. Ibn Qudāma even mentions the specific opinion of Ibn
al-Mundhir on some issues as the following extracts illustrate: Ibn Qudāma
relates the opinions of the Companions on the issue regarding water which
reaches the amount of qullatayn124 and thus, will not be considered impure
and then says,
And this was narrated from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, al-Ḥ asan [al-Baṣrī], ʿIkrima,
ʿAṭāʾ, Jābir b. Zayd, Ibn Abī Laylā, Mālik, al-Awzāʿī, al-Thawrī, Yaḥyā al-Qaṭtạ̄ n,
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī, Ibn al-Mundhir and it is the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī.’125
In another place he states:
If dough or sesame seed was affected by impure water, Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī said
that it should be fed to animals, whereas Mujāhid, ʿAtạ̄ ʾ, al-Thawrī and Abū
ʿUbayd said that it should be fed to chickens. However, Ibn al-Mundhir said that
it shouldn’t be fed to animals, as the Prophet was asked about the tallow of carrion
to be used for sealing ships, waxing hide and lighting people’s lamps. He replied,
“No, it is forbidden” (ḥ arām). It [the ḥ adīth] is agreed upon (mutaffiqun ʿalay-hi),126
this issue being included in its meaning.127
Similarly, on the issue concerning leftovers of an animal, Ibn Qudāma states,
And those who permitted all of these i.e. cats, birds, donkeys, mules and beasts of
prey are al-Ḥ asan, ʿAṭāʾ, al-Zuhrī, Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī, Bakīr b. al-Ashajj, Rabīʿa, Abū
Zinād, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī and Ibn al-Mundhir.128
Thus, it can be seen once again that Ibn Qudāma was heavily reliant on the
works of Ibn al-Mundhir being greatly influenced by his ijtihād.
124
A unit used to measure water volume, each qulla being approximately 160.5 litres. See
al-Qalʿajī and al-Qunaybī, Muʿjam lughat al-fuqahāʾ, Karachi: Idārat al-Qurʾān, n.d., p. 368.
125
Al-Maqdisī, al-Mughnī, ed. Muḥamamd Sharaf al-Dīn Khaṭt ̣āb and al-Sayyid Muḥammad
al-Sayyid, I, Cairo: al-Ḥ adīth, 1996, p. 37.
126
Meaning the authenticity of the ḥ adīth.
127
Al-Maqdisī, al-Mughnī, I, p. 52.
128
Al-Maqdisī, al-Mughnī, I, p. 60.
212 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
Unlike the two previous scholars, al-Nawawī openly admits his reliance on
Ibn al-Mundhir with the following statement in the introduction to his book
al-Majmūʿ,
Most of what I relate regarding scholastic methodologies is taken from Kitāb

al-Ishrāf and al-Ijmāʿ by imam Abū Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī al-Shāfiʿī
who is exemplary in this field.129
In another statement al-Nawawī is no less flattering where he describes this

scholar in the following manner:
Ibn al-Mundhir al-Nīsabūrī: the one whose scholastic leadership (imāma), exten-
sive knowledge and greatness are agreed upon. He has gained mastery over and
combined the disciplines of Fiqh and Ḥ adīth. He has written important and valu-
able books on consensus (al-ijmāʿ) and differences in juristic opinion (al-khilāf ),
clarifying the various scholarly methodologies. These include al-Awsaṭ, al-Ishrāf
and Kitāb al-Ijmāʿ and the scholars have depended heavily upon such books in
knowing and conveying the various juristic positions. He is unsurpassed in his
verification of issues and he has reached the peak in distinguishing authentic
ḥ adīth from the inauthentic.130
This statement is perhaps the most revealing in conveying the reliance of

Islamic jurists upon the works of Ibn al-Mundhir as al-Nawawī clearly states
that the author was a scholar who had gained the recognition and reverence of
his peers. This did not suffice him, however, as he went on to clarify that the
reason for this immense respect was his expertise in the combined fields of fiqh
on the one hand and ḥ adīth on the other. His reputation is further enhanced
by his application of these skills through ijtihād until his works became relied
upon. These frank disclosures can leave us in no doubt regarding al-Nawawī’s
opinion of Ibn al-Mundhir and his consequent reliance upon his works.131
In addition to these specific works on juristic dispute perhaps the most
famous juristic exegesis of the Qurʾān is that of Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abī
Bakr al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272), which he entitled al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥ kām al-Qurʾān
and once again this monumental work is embellished with mention of Ibn
al-Mundhir. For example, while mentioning the issue of a pregnant (al-ḥ āmil)
or a breast feeding woman (al-murḍiʿ) breaking her fast (ifṭār) he states:
129
Al-Nawawī, Kitāb al-Majmūʿ sharḥ al-muhadhdhab, ed. Muḥammad al-Muṭīʿī, I, Beirut:
Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, p. 27 [Introduction].
130
Al-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-asmāʾ wa-l-lughāt, II, pp. 196-197.
131
See for example: al-Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ, I, pp. 20-21.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 213
Al-Ḥ asan al-Baṣrī, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabbāḥ, al-Ḍ aḥḥāk, al-Nakhaʿī, al-Zuhrī, Rabīʿa,
al-Awzāʿī and aṣḥ āb al-raʾy all said that a pregnant (ḥ āmil) or a breast feeding
woman (murḍiʿ) should break their fast and that there is no compensation upon
them, as they are in the same category as a sick person who makes up his fast later.
This was also the opinion of Abū Thawr and the choice of Ibn al-Mundhir.132
On another issue related to fasting he states:
They differed regarding someone who forgot his fast and had sexual intercourse or
ate something: al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥ anīfa and his companions and Isḥāq said that
there was no compensatory feeding (iṭʿām) or fasting (qaḍā) incumbent upon him
in either case. However, Mālik, al-Layth and al-Awzāʿī said that he should make
up his fast but there was no compensatory feeding incumbent upon him. Ibn al-
Mundhir said, ‘There is nothing incumbent upon him.’133
Thus, it is clear from these extracts from al-Qurṭubī’s exegesis and many others
besides, that he held the opinions of Ibn al-Mundhir in high regard, often
mentioning them subsequent to the other eminent jurists as if to indicate that
it is this opinion with which he agreed.
Another latter day jurist Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Daqīq al-ʿĪd (d. 702/1302)
also expressed his gratitude to Ibn al-Mundhir, as he stated in the introduction
to his book Sharḥ mukhtaṣar Ibn al-Ḥ ājib:
Concerning the opinions of the Companions and the early generations, as well as
those rare opinions we have mentioned which held opposing views, I have relied
completely on Kitāb al-Ishrāf by al-ḥ āfiẓ Abū Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir, may God
have mercy upon him. I have been guided by his light, following his path to the
goal and if I didn’t find or didn’t see the [necessary] quote then I have taken it
from others in a concise manner.134
Moreover, in another statement quoted by al-Subkī, al-Qaffāl al-Saghīr (d.

417/1052) stated:
I wanted to find an opinion from the predecessors (al-salaf ) that the qunūt sup-
plication in the witr prayer should be recited throughout the year but I searched
for it and didn’t find anyone holding this opinion. Due to this I went out specifi-
cally to buy Ibn al-Mundhir’s Ikhtilāf al-ʿulamāʾ for this issue and on searching for
it [i.e. the issue] I didn’t find anyone holding this opinion except Mālik, who said
132
Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥ kām al-Qurʾān, ed. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī, II, Beirut: Dār
al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 2001, p. 284.
133
Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-aḥ kām al-Qurʾān, II, p. 318.
134
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, IX, pp. 240-241.
214 G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215
that the qunūt should be read throughout the month of Ramaḍān and not in
other months.135
Several issues become clear form this final text and those that preceded it. The
first of which is that the works of Ibn al-Mundhir became famous from the
time they were written and throughout the various parts of the Islamic world.
Secondly, that these books were considered some of the most important refer-
ences regarding juristic dispute, so much so that when al-Qaffāl was unable to
find a specific issue he went out especially to buy one of Ibn al-Mundhir’s
works. Moreover, al-Qaffāl’s statement also indicates that there were issues of
dispute in the works of Ibn al-Mundhir that were not present in the works of
his peers. This is in addition to Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd’s statement, which is no less
important bearing in mind that despite being a scholar of some considerable
standing in his own right, when he wanted to relate issues related to juristic
dispute and its methodology, he turned immediately to the works of Ibn al-
Mundhir.
Conclusion
From the previous discussion, it is clear that Ibn al-Mundhir was born in one
of the most historically important periods regarding the development of
Islamic learning. He was born in a period where jurisprudence, his specialist
field, had undergone a tremendous advancement, until a series of independent
schools emerged, each with its own outstanding scholarly figure. Despite this,
each school was not without its faults, due to varying factors such as the avail-
ability of ḥ adīth and differences in methodological approach. Thus, it may be
suggested that from Ibn al-Mundhir’s perspective a certain amount of verifica-
tion and editing was necessary to liberate these schools from the inaccuracies
found within them, which may have seemed to lie in direct opposition to the
sources of Islamic Law and its principles. It was this task that Ibn al-Mundhir
undertook, armed with an authoritative command of ḥ adīth, as well as being
thoroughly grounded in the precepts of al-Shāfiʿī’s juristic methodology. Con-
sequently, his works are important, as they are some of the first works written
immediately after the formation of the main schools of jurisprudence and
before the advent of fanatical adherence (taʿaṣsụ b) to such schools. Thus, they
furnish us with a relatively unbiased view of Islamic jurisprudence, due to the
author’s attempt to adhere to the primary evidence, soon after its most impor-
tant developmental stage.
135
Al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyya al-kubrā, V, p. 59.
G. N. Picken / Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 215
This is amply demonstrated in Ibn al-Mundhir’s al-Awsaṭ as this is indeed a

unique book due to the fact that it contains one of the richest displays of legal
sources in Islamic juristic history. If we were to take the Qurʾān as an example,
we find that if there is evidence from it to be used, then Ibn al-Mundhir will
certainly have mentioned it and then discussed the rulings and disputes related
to it. Similarly, the use of narration, whether Prophetic or otherwise, is expan-
sive and is enhanced by the fact that all these narrations are quoted with their
relevant chains, after having being verified by the author himself. Further-
more, the author’s clarification of the issues reaching the status of consensus
(al-ijmāʿ) is definitive and gives the reader a clear picture of the agreement
reached by the earliest generations of Islam. Moreover, perhaps where al-Awsaṭ
comes into its own is in the author’s presentation of the various opinions,
schools of thought and juristic choices of the various scholars of early Islamic
history. This is enhanced further by the presence of Ibn al-Mundhir’s own
opinions, which add clarification to the complex maze of Islamic jurispruden-
tial thought. It is his methodology, however, which adds the final augmenta-
tion to this exceptional work, as he attempts to remain true to the evidence
disregarding the opinions of the mere mortals who preceded him and form his
own conclusions from what he understood to be divinely revealed.
In summary, we can say that despite other works being written on juristic
dispute and indeed by contemporaries of Ibn al-Mundhir, few surpassed the
supreme level which he achieved. Moreover, he represents for us the time
before “blind imitation” (al-taqlīd ) when “personal and independent reason-
ing” (al-ijtihād ) was the order of the day and an era in which Islamic jurispru-
dence maintained much of its innovative flexibility. Indeed, this was only
made possible through Ibn al-Mundhir’s erudition in not only the field of
Islamic jurisprudence but also, its synthesis with the discipline of ḥ adīth. These
qualities were not lost on subsequent generations of Muslims and hence, it is
little surprise that he was awarded the laudatory epithets of “the jurist ( faqīh)
of Mecca” and “the scholar of the Holy Precincts” (shaykh al-ḥ aram), appella-
tions he most probably deserved.

A Scholar of The Holy Precincts The Lif

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Scholar of The Holy Precincts The Lif

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oriens 38 (2010) 185-215 brill.

A Scholar of the Holy Precincts:

Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. al-Mundhir al-Nīsābūrī (d. 318/930)

al-Mundhir authored many unique books in the ﬁeld of juristic dispute

The Life of Ibn al-Mundhir

Both biographical and historical references reluctantly withhold considerable

(Ablution is compulsory upon a man if he kissed his mother, daughter or sister,

Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Aḥmad Abū Ṭāhir al-Iṣbahānī, the cousin of Abū

The eminent ḥ āﬁẓ Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī b. al-Muqriʾ

the famous traditionist Muḥammad Ibn Ḥ ibbān al-Tamīmī al-Bisṭāmī

Al-Nawawī further commented:

He [Ibn al-Mundhir] is not restricted in adhering to a speciﬁc madhhab, nor is he

this, he is considered as being from our Shāﬁʿī colleagues, being mentioned in

I say: that the four Muḥammads, Muḥammad b. Naṣr [al-Marwazī], Muḥammad

Despite such accolades there remained a certain amount of criticism regarding

In this open critique he was referring to the statement of al-ʿUqaylī who

Ibn al-Mundhir’s Works

Kitāb al-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf

Ibn al-Khallikān states,

And he (Ibn al-Mundhir) has a book concerning juristic diﬀerences entitled

This is further evinced by a number of scholars including al-Dhahabī,43

al-Mundhir mentions in his book al-Awsaṭ, in the chapter concerning puriﬁ-

Al-Awsaṭ fī al-sunan wa-l-ijmāʿ wa-l-ikhtilāf

A great number of scholars have mentioned this book including al-Nawawī,53

Al-Ishrāf ʿalā madhāhib al-ʿulamāʾ

And we have mentioned these narrations and others on the authority of

He continues in the chapter concerning what is permissible to use from wine,

Such quotations would seem to indicate that al-Ishrāf is indeed an abridge-

Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-karīm

In addition to his considerable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence, Ibn al-

al-Fātiḥ a to Sūrat al-Nās. Al-Dāwūdī also mentioned this work,79 as did

The Methodology of Ibn al-Mundhir in his Book al-Awsaṭ

gives us our starting point in examining his methodology within al-Awsaṭ. It

indicating the necessity of performing ablution in the correct sequential

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb related to us saying; Khālid b. Mukhallid related

Ibn al-Mundhir also exhibits a clever use of semantics, as was noticed by

Thus, we ﬁnd Ibn al-Mundhir clarifying the position of narrations in al-Awsaṭ

We have mentioned previously that whoever puriﬁed himself then he is in a state

is an appropriate verse and ḥ adīth to be mentioned. In addition to this he also

mention of the scholars by name, which is characterised by the phrase, “a

In another place he states,

At the end of the section he concludes, “Abū Thawr’s opinion is correct”

Al-Nawawī further clariﬁed Ibn al-Mundhir’s unique methodology and com-

The Inﬂuence of Ibn al-Mundhir and His Works on Islamic Jurisprudence

Although other scholars wrote on the subject of juristic dispute up to and

1. Al-Muḥ allā bi-al-Āthār by ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Ḥ azm al-Andalūsī (d. 456/1064);

Aḥmad b. Layth al-Ansarī informed me that he brought a copy of Ibn al-Mun-

In another place he states:

Similarly, on the issue concerning leftovers of an animal, Ibn Qudāma states,

Most of what I relate regarding scholastic methodologies is taken from Kitāb

In another statement al-Nawawī is no less ﬂattering where he describes this

This statement is perhaps the most revealing in conveying the reliance of

On another issue related to fasting he states:

Moreover, in another statement quoted by al-Subkī, al-Qaﬀāl al-Saghīr (d.

This is amply demonstrated in Ibn al-Mundhir’s al-Awsaṭ as this is indeed a

You might also like