Talal Al-Azem, DPhil (2011), University of Oxford, is the Mohammed Noah Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. His research focuses on traditions of law and learning in the medieval and early modern Muslim world.

• CO N T E N T SIntroduction 1Chapter 1 Authors 23A The compendium author: Qudūrī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24B The commentator: Ibn Quṭlūbughā . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Chapter 2 History 51A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51B Periodisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Period 1: Foundational ‘Ḥanafī’ opinions (ca. 150–200) . . . 57Period 2: Formative transmission (ca. 200–300) . . . . . . 58Period 3: Classical consolidation (ca. 300–400) . . . . . . 60Period 4: Tarjīḥ (ca. 400–650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Period 5: Taṣḥīḥ (ca. 650–870) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Who are the ‘latter-day jurists’ (al-muta’akhkhirūn)? . . . . 87C Historical geographical patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90D Periodisation and the typologies of jurists (ṭabaqāt al-fuqahā’) 96Chapter 3 Theory 105A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s introduction to al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ . . 108B Analysis of the topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182 The procedures of rule-determinacy . . . . . . . . . . 1253 Judicial discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134C Arguments for binding precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371 The ethico-religious argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1382 The argument from legal-system consistency . . . . . 1393 The argument from legal-system coherence . . . . . . 1434 The argument from strengthened decision-making . . 1455 The argument from predictability . . . . . . . . . . . 145viii CO N T E N T S6 The argument from historical determinism . . . . . . 146D Historical developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491 Target audiences: muftis and muftis . . . . . . . . . . 1492 Rule-determination (tarjīḥ) vs. rule-review (taṣḥīḥ) . . 1503 From monist to pluralistic legal systems . . . . . . . . 1534 Madhhab-law: tradition, system, concurrent jurisdictions 154E The (lack of) definition of ẓāhir al-riwāya . . . . . . . . . . 157Chapter 4 Practice 163A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s practice of rule-review . . . . . . . . . . 163B The functional relationships of commentary . . . . . . . . 166To resolve a juristic dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169To clarify a point of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174To identify the opinion or the transmission used in the rule formulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177To further expand upon the passage . . . . . . . . . . . . 179To identify an editorial problem in the passage itself . . . . 187C Employed legal rhetorical reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1891 Arguments of juristic evidence (dalīl) . . . . . . . . . 1902 Arguments of transmission (riwāya) . . . . . . . . . . 1923 Arguments of language and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954 Arguments from revelation and the early Muslim community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975 Arguments from scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2006 Justifications from juristic considerations . . . . . . . 2027 Justifications from context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2078 Justifications from exigencies of change and necessity . 2099 Justifications of lifting difficulty and facilitating ease . 21210 Justifications of preceding juristic authority . . . . . . 214D Operative principles of rule-determination . . . . . . . . . 218E The degree of congruence between theory and practice . . 229Conclusion 235Appendices 243A The Writings of Qudūrī 245B Jurists cited by Ibn Quṭlūbughā 249C Works cited by Ibn Quṭlubughā 255CO N T E N T S ixWorks Cited 259Index 271

Talal Al-Azem, DPhil (2011), University of Oxford, is the Mohammed Noah Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. His research focuses on traditions of law and learning in the medieval and early modern Muslim world.

• CO N T E N T SIntroduction 1Chapter 1 Authors 23A The compendium author: Qudūrī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24B The commentator: Ibn Quṭlūbughā . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Chapter 2 History 51A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51B Periodisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Period 1: Foundational ‘Ḥanafī’ opinions (ca. 150–200) . . . 57Period 2: Formative transmission (ca. 200–300) . . . . . . 58Period 3: Classical consolidation (ca. 300–400) . . . . . . 60Period 4: Tarjīḥ (ca. 400–650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Period 5: Taṣḥīḥ (ca. 650–870) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Who are the ‘latter-day jurists’ (al-muta’akhkhirūn)? . . . . 87C Historical geographical patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90D Periodisation and the typologies of jurists (ṭabaqāt al-fuqahā’) 96Chapter 3 Theory 105A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s introduction to al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ . . 108B Analysis of the topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182 The procedures of rule-determinacy . . . . . . . . . . 1253 Judicial discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134C Arguments for binding precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371 The ethico-religious argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1382 The argument from legal-system consistency . . . . . 1393 The argument from legal-system coherence . . . . . . 1434 The argument from strengthened decision-making . . 1455 The argument from predictability . . . . . . . . . . . 145viii CO N T E N T S6 The argument from historical determinism . . . . . . 146D Historical developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491 Target audiences: muftis and muftis . . . . . . . . . . 1492 Rule-determination (tarjīḥ) vs. rule-review (taṣḥīḥ) . . 1503 From monist to pluralistic legal systems . . . . . . . . 1534 Madhhab-law: tradition, system, concurrent jurisdictions 154E The (lack of) definition of ẓāhir al-riwāya . . . . . . . . . . 157Chapter 4 Practice 163A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s practice of rule-review . . . . . . . . . . 163B The functional relationships of commentary . . . . . . . . 166To resolve a juristic dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169To clarify a point of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174To identify the opinion or the transmission used in the rule formulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177To further expand upon the passage . . . . . . . . . . . . 179To identify an editorial problem in the passage itself . . . . 187C Employed legal rhetorical reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1891 Arguments of juristic evidence (dalīl) . . . . . . . . . 1902 Arguments of transmission (riwāya) . . . . . . . . . . 1923 Arguments of language and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954 Arguments from revelation and the early Muslim community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975 Arguments from scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2006 Justifications from juristic considerations . . . . . . . 2027 Justifications from context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2078 Justifications from exigencies of change and necessity . 2099 Justifications of lifting difficulty and facilitating ease . 21210 Justifications of preceding juristic authority . . . . . . 214D Operative principles of rule-determination . . . . . . . . . 218E The degree of congruence between theory and practice . . 229Conclusion 235Appendices 243A The Writings of Qudūrī 245B Jurists cited by Ibn Quṭlūbughā 249C Works cited by Ibn Quṭlubughā 255CO N T E N T S ixWorks Cited 259Index 271

Talal Al-Azem, DPhil (2011), University of Oxford, is the Mohammed Noah Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. His research focuses on traditions of law and learning in the medieval and early modern Muslim world.

• CO N T E N T SIntroduction 1Chapter 1 Authors 23A The compendium author: Qudūrī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24B The commentator: Ibn Quṭlūbughā . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Chapter 2 History 51A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51B Periodisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Period 1: Foundational ‘Ḥanafī’ opinions (ca. 150–200) . . . 57Period 2: Formative transmission (ca. 200–300) . . . . . . 58Period 3: Classical consolidation (ca. 300–400) . . . . . . 60Period 4: Tarjīḥ (ca. 400–650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Period 5: Taṣḥīḥ (ca. 650–870) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Who are the ‘latter-day jurists’ (al-muta’akhkhirūn)? . . . . 87C Historical geographical patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90D Periodisation and the typologies of jurists (ṭabaqāt al-fuqahā’) 96Chapter 3 Theory 105A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s introduction to al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ . . 108B Analysis of the topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182 The procedures of rule-determinacy . . . . . . . . . . 1253 Judicial discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134C Arguments for binding precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371 The ethico-religious argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1382 The argument from legal-system consistency . . . . . 1393 The argument from legal-system coherence . . . . . . 1434 The argument from strengthened decision-making . . 1455 The argument from predictability . . . . . . . . . . . 145viii CO N T E N T S6 The argument from historical determinism . . . . . . 146D Historical developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491 Target audiences: muftis and muftis . . . . . . . . . . 1492 Rule-determination (tarjīḥ) vs. rule-review (taṣḥīḥ) . . 1503 From monist to pluralistic legal systems . . . . . . . . 1534 Madhhab-law: tradition, system, concurrent jurisdictions 154E The (lack of) definition of ẓāhir al-riwāya . . . . . . . . . . 157Chapter 4 Practice 163A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s practice of rule-review . . . . . . . . . . 163B The functional relationships of commentary . . . . . . . . 166To resolve a juristic dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169To clarify a point of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174To identify the opinion or the transmission used in the rule formulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177To further expand upon the passage . . . . . . . . . . . . 179To identify an editorial problem in the passage itself . . . . 187C Employed legal rhetorical reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1891 Arguments of juristic evidence (dalīl) . . . . . . . . . 1902 Arguments of transmission (riwāya) . . . . . . . . . . 1923 Arguments of language and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954 Arguments from revelation and the early Muslim community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975 Arguments from scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2006 Justifications from juristic considerations . . . . . . . 2027 Justifications from context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2078 Justifications from exigencies of change and necessity . 2099 Justifications of lifting difficulty and facilitating ease . 21210 Justifications of preceding juristic authority . . . . . . 214D Operative principles of rule-determination . . . . . . . . . 218E The degree of congruence between theory and practice . . 229Conclusion 235Appendices 243A The Writings of Qudūrī 245B Jurists cited by Ibn Quṭlūbughā 249C Works cited by Ibn Quṭlubughā 255CO N T E N T S ixWorks Cited 259Index 271