The Impact of al-Juwaynī’s Leaflet

Of all al-Juwaynī’s books, the Kitāb al-Waraqāt became the most popular, not because it reflected his most original thinking but precisely because it did not. It was nothing more than a teaching tool, an extremely concise summary of the state of the discipline of legal theory as it existed at the end of the eleventh century. By that time the sharp debates of the ninth and tenth centuries had run their course, and a broad consensus on the main questions had crystalized into what all the surviving Sunnī schools of law now recognize as classical Sunnī legal theory. Al‑Juwaynī was a Shāfiʿī, and his text reflects the particular emphases of his school, but it is not a polemical text. In his masterpiece al‑Burhān fī uṣūl al‑fiqh al‑Juwaynī argued every fine point, sometimes in very original ways; but his Kitāb al‑Waraqāt avoids argumentation, rarely mentions disagreements, and indeed avoids saying anything that would render the book objectionable to teachers or students of any Sunnī legal school. Commentaries on it have been composed not only by dozens of Shāfiʿī scholars, but also by at least one Ḥanafī, one Ḥanbalī, and five Mālikīs.¹ As generations of commentary have shown, this little handbook—the shortest known treatise on its subject²—is detailed enough to teach the main terms and concepts of legal theory, but restrained enough to be interpreted and elaborated in accordance with the views of each teacher or commentator.

Consequently, the Waraqāt is far less nuanced than the Burhān, and sometimes even at odds with it.³ This casts some doubt on its authorship. Ibn al‑Firkāḥ, writing two centuries after al‑Juwaynī, would only say that it was attributed (mansūb) to him, and when he briefly narrated al‑Juwaynī’s biography he credited him with authoring valuable works, “among them, according to what has become widely affirmed (fīmā ishtahara), this book.”⁴ Ibn al‑Firkāḥ plainly felt it prudent to reserve judgment, without explicitly challenging the book’s traditional attribution. In my opinion, the different audiences and purposes of the Burhān and Waraqāt are a sufficient explanation for why one presents al‑Juwaynī’s own arguments and convictions, while the other proffers only the more mainstream views that students were expected to know. Although the text was simple to begin with, and was eventually shorn of its stylistic distinctives, in the early form reconstructed here it contains the same kinds of elegant irregularities and ellipses that one would expect from the legendary eloquence of al‑Juwaynī. I am content, therefore, like Ibn al‑Firkāḥ, to let the work’s ascription to al‑Juwaynī stand both unproven and unchal­lenged.

Indeed the work’s authorship is far less significant than its reception. It must have been in use as a teaching tool within a century or so of al‑Juwaynī’s death, because a written commentary upon it—which for such a handbook suggests a pedagogical use—was produced in the early thirteenth century by Abū ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān Ibn al‑Ṣalāḥ (d. 1243).⁵ It was soon followed by the commentary of Ibn al‑Firkāḥ (d. 1291), al‑Darakāt, which was being copied assiduously by the early fourteenth century, and is still being reprinted in the twenty-first.⁶ From the later fourteenth century we have a commentary titled Irshād al‑fuḥūl by Saʿd al‑Dīn al‑Taftāzānī (d. 1389).⁷ The most famous and widespread commentary was produced by Jalāl al‑Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al‑Maḥallī (d. 1460);⁸ it consists of a concise gloss interwoven with the base text, and has itself been the object of at least ten supercommentaries:

• Shams al‑Dīn Muḥammad al‑Ḥaṭṭāb al‑Mālikī al‑Ruʿaynī (1547), Qurrat al‑ʿayn bi‑Sharḥ Waraqāt Imām al‑Ḥaramayn.⁹ This supercommentary has itself been glossed by Muḥammad ibn Ḥusayn al‑Hadda and by Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Ḥaḍra.¹⁰

• Abū al‑ʿAbbās Aḥmad al‑ʿUbādī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1586) wrote two supercommentaries, al‑Sharḥ al‑kabīr¹¹ and al‑Sharḥ al‑ṣaghīr.¹² The latter was itself the object of a gloss by Nūr al‑Dīn ʿAlī al‑Shabrāmallisī (d. 1676).

• Shihāb al‑Dīn Aḥmad al‑Sunbāṭī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1587).¹³

• Shihāb al‑Dīn Aḥmad al‑Qalyūbī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1658).¹⁴

• Shihāb al‑Dīn Aḥmad al‑Dimyāṭī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1705).¹⁵

• Muḥammad ibn ʿUbādī al‑ʿAdawī al‑Mālikī (d. 1780).

• ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad al‑Bukhārī.¹⁶

• Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al‑Laṭīf al‑Khaṭīb al‑Jāwī al‑Shāfiʿī (fl. 20th century), Ḥāshiyāt al‑Nafaḥāt ʿalā Sharḥ al‑Waraqāt.¹⁷

• Muḥammad al‑Lajmī, al‑Samarāt ʿalā al‑Waraqāt.¹⁸

• ʿIzz al-Dīn al‑Badrānī al-Mawṣilī (a modern scholar), al‑Muḥallā ʿalā Sharḥ al‑Maḥallī li‑Waraqāt al‑Juwaynī fī ʿilm uṣūl al‑fiqh.¹⁹

Following al‑Maḥallī’s gloss, from the middle of the fifteenth century through the seventeenth, there was a proliferation of new commentaries on the Waraqāt:

• Shams al‑Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn ʿAlī al‑Mārdīnī (d. 1467), al‑Anjum al‑zāhirāt ʿalā ḥall alfāẓ al‑Waraqāt.²⁰

• Kamāl al‑Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān Ibn Imām al‑Kāmiliyya al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1469).²¹ His commentary was glossed by Nūr al‑Dīn ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad al‑Ḥalabī (d. 1634).

• Sirāj al‑Dīn ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al‑Balbīsī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1473), al‑Taḥqīqāt fī sharḥ al‑Waraqāt.

• al‑Qāsim Ibn Quṭlūbughā ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Ḥanafī (d. 1474).

• Ibn Qāwān, al‑Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al‑Kīlānī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1484), al‑Taḥqīqāt fī sharḥ al‑Waraqāt.²²

• Abū al‑ʿAbbās Aḥmad Ibn Zikrī al‑Tilimsānī al‑Mālikī (d. 1495), Ghāyat al‑marām bi‑sharḥ muqaddimat al‑Imām.²³

• Shihāb al‑Dīn Abū al‑ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Aḥmad al‑Ramlī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1550), Ghāyat al‑maʾmūl fī sharḥ Waraqāt al‑uṣūl.²⁴

• Sharaf al‑Dīn Yūnus al‑ʿAythāwī (d. 1570), Zubdat al‑mukhtaṣarāt.²⁵

• Yaḥyā Imām al‑Kāmiliyya al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1606), Taʿlīq.

• Ibrāhīm Ibn al‑Munlā al‑Ḥaṣkafī al‑Ḥalabī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1621) wrote three commentaries on the Waraqāt: Jāmiʿ al‑mutafarriqāt min fawāʾid al‑Waraqāt, al‑Taḥārīr al‑mulḥaqāt wa‑l‑taqārīr al‑muḥaqqaqāt, and Kifāyat al‑ruqāh ilā maʿrifat ghuraf al‑Waraqāt.

• ʿAbd al‑Raʾūf ibn Tāj al‑ʿĀrifīn al‑Mināwī (d. 1622).

• Muḥammad al‑Murābiṭ ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr al‑Fashtālī al‑Dalāʾilī al‑Mālikī (d. 1679), al‑Maʿārij al‑murtaqāt ilā maʿānī al‑Waraqāt.

Rather than writing prose commentaries, some teachers preferred to render the Waraqāt in verse form (naẓm), for easy memorization. This tradition continued to flourish through the nineteenth century:

• Sharaf al‑Dīn Yaḥyā al‑ʿAmrīṭī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1485), Tashīl al‑ṭuruqāt fī naẓm al‑Waraqāt.²⁶ This popular poetic rendition was the object of commentaries by ʿAbd al‑Ḥamīd ibn Muḥammad ʿAlī Quds al‑Farāhī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1917) (Laṭīf al‑ishārāt ilā tashīl al‑ṭuruqāt li‑naẓm al‑Waraqāt fī uṣūl al‑fiqhiyyāt),²⁷ by Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al‑ʿAthīmīn, and by ʿUmar ʿAbd Allāh Kāmil.²⁸ A scholar named ʿAbd Allāh al‑Baytī, apparently not of the Shāfiʿī school, was dissatisfied with the Waraqāt’s list of sources of law and therefore composed a verse appendix to complete al‑ʿAmrīṭī’s Naẓm, including additional sources of law such as custom and public welfare; ʿUmar ʿAbd Allāh Kāmil printed it under the title Tatimmat Naẓm al‑Waraqāt, and commented upon it, at the end of his commentary on al‑ʿAmrīṭī’s Naẓm.

• Shihāb al‑Dīn Aḥmad ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al‑Ṭūkhī al‑Shāfiʿī (d. 1488), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• Abū Bakr ibn Abī al‑Qasam ibn Aḥmad al‑Ḥusaynī (d. 1626), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• ʿAbd al‑Jawād ibn Shuʿayb ibn Aḥmad al‑Khawānikī al‑Qinānī (d. 1662), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al‑Faḍl ibn Ibrāhīm al‑Yamanī (d. 1674), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• Muḥammad ibn Qāsim ibn Zākūr al‑Fāsī al‑Mālikī (d. 1709), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• Ibn Sind al‑Baṣrī (d. 1826), Naẓm al‑Waraqāt.

• Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān al‑Jazāʾirī (d. 1854), Sullam al‑wuṣūl ilā ʿilm al‑uṣūl. He wrote his own commentary on this verse rendition, calling it al‑Nuṣḥ al‑mabzūl li‑qurrāʾ Sullam al‑wuṣūl.

• Muḥammad Muṣṭafā Māʾ al‑ʿAynayn al‑Maghribī (d. 1910), Aqdas al‑anfus.²⁹

• Muḥammad ibn al‑Muḥammad Ibn al‑Sharīf, al‑Durar al‑musriyāt fī naẓm al‑Waraqāt.³⁰

• Another example is apparently to be found in the anonymous excerpt, Kalimāt fī uṣūl al‑fiqh, with commentary, preserved in ms Ambr. C 154 xvii (FSO VII 624).

In the twentieth century versification fell out of favor, but prose commentaries made a comeback, and are still being composed today:

• ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān ibn Ḥamad ibn Muḥammad al‑Juṭaylī, al‑Taʿlīqāt ʿalā matn al‑Waraqāt (Beirut: al‑Maktab al‑Islāmī; Riyadh, Maktabat al‑Ḥaramayn, 1983).

• ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ al‑Fawzān, Sharḥ al‑Waraqāt fī uṣūl al‑fiqh (Riyadh, Dār al‑Muslim, 1993).

• Abū ʿUbayda Mashhūr ibn Ḥasan Āl Salmān, al‑Taḥqīqāt wa‑l‑tanqīḥāt al‑salafiyyāt ʿalā Matn al‑Waraqāt maʿa al‑tanbīhāt ʿalā al‑masāʾil al‑muhimmāt (Abu Dhabi, Dār al‑Imām Mālik, 2005).

• ʿAbd al‑Ḥamīd ibn Khilyawī al‑Rifāʿī, al‑Sharḥ al‑wasīṭ ʿalā matn al‑Waraqāt (Riyadh, Dār al-Ṣamīʿī, 2006).

• A university teacher in al‑Aḥsāʾ has even come out with a full color textbook for students, complete discussion questions, a foldout diagram of the contents of the Waraqāt, and a resource CD: ʿAbd al‑Salām ibn Ibrāhīm al‑Ḥuṣayn, Iḍāʾāt ʿalā matn al‑Waraqāt (Riyadh: n.p., 2006).

All these works are in Arabic, a language from which Islamic legal theory can scarcely be separated. I have not sought out works in other Islamic languages, but in European languages only a few translations and commentaries have been produced:

• A French translation with extensive notes based on Islamic commentaries: L[éon] Bercher, “Le ‘Kitāb al‑waraqāt,’ traité de méthodologie juridique musulmane traduit et annoté,” Revue Tunisienne (1930): 93-105, 185-214; reprinted Paris, Iqra, 1995.

• A translation of al-Maḥallī’s commentary by Musa Furber (n.p.: Islamosaic, 2015).

• A commentary by Mahmud Adam, Introductory Studies in Usul al-Fiqh: An Annotated Translation of Imam al-Haramayn’s Waraqat (London: The Imam Shafi‘i Bookstore, 2014), which draws on al-Maḥallī’s commentary.

• My own English translation and commentary below.

In addition to these written commentaries, videos of lengthy oral commentaries or lessons on the Waraqāt, in several languages, are now proliferating on the internet and may be found by searching for “waraqat” at www.youtube.com–a fitting development in the reception history of this short medieval handbook, and a telling sign of its continued relevance to the present and future of Islamic law.