Journal of Islamic Studies 21:1 (2010) pp. 89–107 doi:10.

1093/jis/etp027

AL-M2ZARĪ AL-DHAKĪ: AL-GHAZ2LĪ’S

MAGHRIBI ADVERSARY IN NISHAPUR1

K E N N E T H GA R D E N
Tufts University

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

Al-Ghaz:l;’s Persian letters have not received the attention they deserve
since their publication in the mid 1950s.2 Several scholars have
recognized the unique biographical material they contain and referred
to it anecdotally. Studies by Dorothea Krawulsky3 and Joseph Van Ess4
have begun to engage with the letters. Krawulsky published a German
translation of the letters along with an introduction that provides dates
for many of them, as well as details on people, places and events
mentioned in them. Van Ess has written about a controversy, described in
the letters, that erupted in Nishapur when al-Ghaz:l; returned to
teaching there in 499/1106, and culminated in his being summoned to a
hearing before the Seljuk malik al-sharq, Sanjar. It was in the face of this
controversy that al-Ghaz:l; penned what is today his best-loved work
and starting point for his biography, al-Munqidh min al-@al:l—a work
Josef van Ess concludes was in fact ‘nothing but a great apology’.
The implications of this controversy for our understanding of al-
Ghaz:l;’s biography and the reception of his thought have yet to be
pursued, in part, no doubt, due to the confusing and contradictory

1
I would like to thank Frank Griffel for his very helpful comments on an
earlier version of this paper.
2
Ab< E:mid al-Ghaz:l;, Mak:tib-i f:rs;-yi Ghazz:l; bi-n:m-i fa^:8il al-an:m
min ras:8il Eujjat al-Isl:m (ed. 6Abb:s Iqb:l; Tehran: Kit:bfur<shi-yi Ibn S;n:,
1333/1954).
3
Dorothea Krawulsky, Briefe und Reden des Ab< E:mid MuAammad al-
Ğazz:l; (Freiburg IB: K. Schwarz, ‘Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, 14’, 1971).
In her introduction, Krawulsky suggests that the anonymous Maghribi referred
to in the letters is one Ab<-l-Faraj al-Zak;, whose biography is given in Ibn al-
Jawz;’s al-MuntaCam f; ta8r;kh al-mul<k wa-l-umam. She was correct in this, and
it was this reference that led me to the correct version of his name and six other,
more informative biographies that provide the basis for this paper.
4
Josef van Ess, ‘Quelques remarques sur le Munqid min a@-@alâl’ in Ghazâlı̂:
La Raison et le miracle. Table Ronde Unesco, 9–10 décembre 1985 (ed. A.-M.
Turki; Paris: Éditions Maisonneuve et Larose, 1987).

ß The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Oxford Centre for Islamic
Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
90 ke nn e t h ga r de n
accounts the letters provide. As a step towards a clear narrative of the
controversy, I will try to reconcile some contradictions found in the
letters regarding these events, and argue that two key figures in the anti-
Ghaz:l; faction referred to anonymously in the letters are one and the
same person, a Sicilian religious scholar named Ab< 6Abd All:h
MuAammad Ibn Ab; al-Faraj al-M:zar;, known as al-Dhak; (d. 510/
1116). Biographies of al-M:zar; al-Dhak; furnish additional information
on the controversy. They corroborate some charges against al-Ghaz:l;
mentioned in the letters, suggest a date and duration for the controversy,
and reveal some of the strategies used by al-Ghaz:l;’s enemies to try to
cause his downfall.

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

Following this is an appendix dealing with a critique of al-Ghaz:l;’s
IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n that has been ascribed to al-M:zar; al-Dhak;, titled
al-Kashf wa-l-anb:6 6an al-mutarjam bi-l-IAy:8, of which fragments
survive. If this work were by al-M:zar; al-Dhak;, it could provide
additional information on the doctrinal issues at stake in the Nishapuri
controversy. However, I will argue that al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8 was written
by al-M:zar; al-Dhak;’s more famous homonym and near contemporary,
the scholar of Mahdiyya, Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. 6Al; al-M:zar;,
known as al-Im:m (d. 536/1141).5

THE CONTROVERSY IN NISHAPUR AS

DEPICTED IN THE LETTERS

The reconstruction of the controversy in Nishapur from al-Ghaz:l;’s

collected letters is complicated by the fact that they contain not one but
two voices. The first is al-Ghaz:l;’s, of course, while the second is that of
the compiler of the letters, who furnishes most letters with contextual
introductions. Our information about the controversy comes from both
sources. Al-Ghaz:l; discusses the controversy in three letters: one he
wrote to Sanjar asking that he not be forced to appear before him to
answer charges,6 the transcript of his testimony before Sanjar,7 and a
brief introduction he wrote for this transcript.8 The compiler gives
5
There was also a third Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad al-M:zar; living at this
time: Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. Muslim al-M:zar; al-Qurash; al-
Iskandar:n; (d. 530/1105). See H. R. Idris, ‘A propos d’un extrait du ‘Kit:b
al-Mih:d’ d’al-M:zar; al-Iskandar:n;’, Les Cahiers de Tunisie, vol. 2 (1953),
155–9.
6
Al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m, 3–5.
7
Ibid, 6–10.
8
Ibid, 11–12.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 91
further background on these events in introductions he wrote for each of
these three letters and also one afterword.9 These two sources contradict
one another in important details and neither can be relied on to provide
an authoritative version. The compiler seems to have composed his
accounts of events some decades after al-Ghaz:l;’s death and is
sometimes plainly misinformed.10 However, al-Ghaz:l;’s version comes
in letters in which he is pleading his case with the Seljuk Sultan Sanjar,
and his desire to cast himself in a more favourable light seems to have
influenced his account. He dismisses all attacks on his thought and
writings as baseless slander motivated by jealousy, a claim contradicted

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

elsewhere in his own letters and in his surviving writings, which confirm
both the existence of the passages his enemies object to and his defence of
them.
Let us begin, then, with independently attested information and points
of unanimity between al-Ghaz:l; and the compiler of his letters. As he
tells us in the Munqidh, in 499/1106, al-Ghaz:l; brought to a close
eleven years of renunciation of officially sponsored teaching positions
and accepted a post at the NiC:miyya Madrasa in Nishapur at the
request of Fakhr al-Mulk (d. 500/1106), the vizier of the Seljuk ‘King of
the East’, Sanjar. Sources other than the letters tell us that his assuming
this position provoked opposition. Al-Ghaz:l;’s contemporary and
earliest biographer, 6Abd al-Gh:fir al-F:ris;, tells us that as long as al-
Ghaz:l; remained withdrawn from public life in F<s, ‘no contradiction
arose to what he stood for (wa lam tabdu f; ayy:mi-hi mun:qa@a li-m:
k:na f;-hi), nor did anyone object to what he prescribed (wa l: i6tir:@ li-
aAad 6al: m: :thara-hu)’. But after he took up his position in Nishapur,
‘How often was his staff struck by contradiction, attacks on him,
defamation of what he omitted or committed (al-3a6n f;-m: yadharuhu
wa-ya8t;-hu), and slander and condemnation of him’.11
What form did these attacks take and what was their substance? Both
al-Ghaz:l; and the compiler agree that there was an anti-Ghaz:l; faction
in Nishapur, though they differ in ascribing motives to them. Both agree

9
Ibid, 3, 5–6, 10–11.
10
The compiler collected the letters after al-Ghaz:l;’s death. He writes of
‘clinging to the cord of family ties’ (tamassuk bi-Aabl-i qir:bat) as a motive for
his collection: al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m, 2. On the basis of linguistic analysis,
the editor of the collection, 6Abb:s Iqb:l, has suggested that the collector was not
far removed in time from al-Ghaz:l; and may have been a grandson: ibid, j;m.
11
Al-Subk;, Fabaq:t al-sh:fi6iyya al-kubr: (eds. 6Abd al-Fatt:A MuAammad
al-Eil< and MaAm<d MuAammad al-Fan:A;; Cairo: Ma3ba6at 6Īs: al-B:b; al-
Ealab;, 1968), vi. 207–8.
92 ke nn e t h ga r de n
on the role of two of al-Ghaz:l;’s books in the controversy: a youthful
work of uB<l al-fiqh titled al-Mankh<l min ta6l;q al-uB<l, and his late
work Mishk:t al-anw:r. In the case of the Mankh<l, the issue at stake
was criticism it contained of Ab< Ean;fa, criticism the compiler accepts
as genuine but which al-Ghaz:l; dismisses as a forgery. Both point to a
man who went to Sanjar’s camp and criticized al-Ghaz:l; before the
Seljuk ruler,12 and both speak of a group of al-Ghaz:l;’s supporters who
appeared before Sanjar and spoke in al-Ghaz:l;’s favour.13 Finally, both
sources agree on al-Ghaz:l;’s acquittal, the compiler writing on Sanjar’s
subsequent favour of al-Ghaz:l; in grander terms than al-Ghaz:l; himself

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

attests.14
It is in describing the motives of the anti-Ghaz:l; faction and relating
the order of events that the two sources contradict one another. Many of
the major contradictions can be resolved based on internal evidence. The
discussion of al-M:zar; al-Dhak; will corroborate some of my attempts
to reconcile the two accounts and will also provide additional detail.
As mentioned earlier, al-Ghaz:l; writes of enemies motivated by sheer
jealousy of his prestigious position and the number of students he
attracted,15 but the compiler cites a different motive. He writes that al-
Ghaz:l;’s criticisms of Ab< Ean;fa in al-Mankh<l min ta6l;q al-uB<l
infuriated Nishapuri Hanafis and were the root of the Nishapuri
campaign against al-Ghaz:l;.16 Al-Ghaz:l; also refers to condemnation
of critiques of Ab< Ean;fa in the Mankh<l—indeed, this is the sole
charge he responds to directly in the transcript he provided of his
discourse of his defence before Sanjar. But first he claims the passages his
enemies refer to are not his actual words but rather forged interpolations
in his text, and secondly he presents them not as the source of Nishapuri
opposition but rather as a tactic adopted late in their campaign against
him.17
The truth lies in-between. The compiler further claims that, at the start
of the controversy, enraged Hanafis were joined by some Shafi6is
and Malikis.18 Slander of Ab< Ean;fa could not have been the cause
of a campaign against al-Ghaz:l; involving non-Hanafis, especially in

12
For all the foregoing points, see al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m: for the
compiler, p.3; for al-Ghaz:l;, 11–12.
13
Ibid, for the compiler, 5–6; for al-Ghaz:l;, 12.
14
Ibid, for the compiler, 10–11; for al-Ghaz:l;, 12.
15
Ibid, 11.
16
Ibid, 3.
17
Ibid, 10.
18
Ibid, 3.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 93
Nishapur, a city divided by Hanafi-Shafi6i fanaticism (ta6aBBub).19 Nishapuri
Shafi6is would only have joined with Hanafis over threats to their shared
interests as patricians of the city, not over critiques of Ab< Ean;fa that
most of the Shafi6is certainly shared. While the passages critiquing Ab<
Ean;fa were certainly genuine as the compiler presents them and not the
forged interpolations al-Ghaz:l; claims—they are present in the text as it
has come down to us20—al-Ghaz:l;’s portrayal of the charge as a later
tactic to turn the Hanafi Sanjar against him must be preferred to the
compiler’s claim that the Mankh<l was the cause of the controversy.
If the controversy was not motivated by jealousy, as al-Ghaz:l;

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

portrays it, or by anger over youthful critiques of Ab< Ean;fa, as the
compiler claims, then what did it spring from? A complete answer would
require that we look beyond the letters,21 but an important part of the
answer lies in the first charges the compiler claims al-Ghaz:l;’s enemies
made against him before Sanjar. They alleged, he writes, that al-Ghaz:l;
did not have any belief whatsoever in Islam, but rather that he held the creed of
the philosophers and heretics (fal:sifa va mulAid:n) and he mixed all of his books
with their words (va jumla-yi kit:bh:-yi khv;sh bi-sukhun-i ;sh:n mamz<j kard).
He mixed unbelief (kufr) and nonsense (ab:3;l) with the secrets of the revelation.
He called God the true light and this is the belief of the Zoroastrians (madhhab-i
maj<s), who speak of light and darkness.22

In addition, the compiler tells us, they altered some words in his book
Mishk:t al-anw:r, and presented it to Sanjar to demonstrate his heresy.

19
See Richard Bulliet, Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic
Social History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 31–2. For the
remarkable story of the gradual destruction of Nishapur between 548/1153 and
557/1162, by a combination of Ghuzz tribesmen and Shafi6i–Hanafi violence, see
76–81.
20
As Van Ess points out, ‘Quelques remarques’, 60. Al-Ghaz:l; charges that
Ab< Ean;fa is not worthy of being considered a mujtahid. See al-Mankh<l min
ta6l;q al-uB<l (ed. MuAammad H;t<; Damascus, 1390/1970), 471. He further
charges that 6Ab< Ean;fa, may God have mercy on him, turned the Shar;6a inside
out, jumbled its method, and altered its rules’ (wa amm: Ab< Ean;fa raAima-hu
All:h, fa-qad qalaba al-shar;6a C:hiran li-ba3n, wa-shawwasha maslaka-h:, wa
ghayyara niC:ma-h:), Mankh<l, 500.
21
In my dissertation I have shown that al-Ghaz:l; wrote al-Iml:8 f; ishk:l:t
al-IAy:8 in response to the controversy and that critiques of Book 35 of IAy:8
6ul<m al-d;n also played a role in these events not mentioned in the letters. See
Kenneth Garden, ‘al-Ghaz:l;’s Contested Revival: IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n and Its
Critics in Khorasan and the Maghrib’ (PhD. diss., University of Chicago, 2005),
121–37.
22
Al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m, 3.
94 ke nn e t h ga r de n
These charges are a much better candidate for the doctrinal issues at
stake in the controversy. The biography of al-M:zar; al-Dhak; will
provide corroboration for them, and questions concerning Mishk:t al-
anw:r appear elsewhere in the letters.
As for the claim that these charges were based on passages
fraudulently interpolated into Mishk:t al-anw:r, there is good reason
for dismissing it and concluding that al-Ghaz:l;’s enemies objected to
genuine passages in the book. In another of al-Ghaz:l;’s letters, we find
him giving advice to a follower on how to respond to criticisms of certain
passages in Mishk:t al-anw:r, criticisms that closely parallel the charges

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

listed by the compiler. One of these passages states that God is the true
light, which the compiler claims was the basis of the charge of crypto-
Zoroastrianism. The same letter also asks about a passage in the Persian
K;miy:-yi sa6:dat that claims that the human soul is a stranger in the
world, originating in a higher world to which it longs to return, a claim,
his critics say, that one also hears from the philosophers.23 Al-Ghaz:l;
makes no effort in the letter to disown either of these two statements but
rather defends them as his own. The charge that al-Ghaz:l; was a
philosopher may seem improbable given the common understanding of
him as an enemy of philosophy, a view based on Tah:fut al-fal:sifa and
al-Munqidh min al-@al:l. But the understanding of the role of philosophy
in al-Ghaz:l;’s thought has been reassessed in important ways in recent
years.24 Such reassessments have made much precisely of Mishk:t al-
anw:r.25
It is at this point that the compiler introduces the anonymous
Maghribi I believe was al-M:zar; al-Dhak;. He writes, ‘They incited
(ighr:8 kardand) one of the Maghribis and told him that Eujjat al-Isl:m
had slandered M:lik [Ibn Anas] and Q:@; Ab< Bakr al-B:qill:n; and had
gone through (qa36 karda) all of Ab< Bakr’s mistakes’. He spread evil
23
Ibid, 12–23.
24
See, for example, Frank Griffel, ‘MS London, British Library Or. 3126: An
Unknown Work by al-Ghaz:l; on Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology’,
Journal of Islamic Studies 17/1 (2006): 1–42; and ‘Al-Gaz:l;’s Concept of
Prophecy: The Introduction of Avicennan Psychology into Aš6arite Theology’,
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 14 (2004): 101–44; and Jules Jansens, ‘Al-
Ghazz:l;’s Tah:fut: It it really a Rejection of Ibn S;n:’s Philosophy?’ Journal of
Islamic Studies 12/1 (2001): 1–17; and Miklós Maróth (ed.), ‘Al-Gaz:l;, and His
Use of Avicennian Texts’, Problems in Arabic Philosophy (Piliscsaba: The
Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, 2003): 38–49.
25
See Hermann Landholdt, ‘Ghaz:l; and Religionswissenschaft: Some Notes
on the Mishk:t al-Anw:r’, Études Asiatiques 45/1 (1991): 19–72, and Alexander
Treiger, ‘Monism and Monotheism in al-Ghaz:l;’s Mishk:t al-anw:r’, Journal of
Qur’anic Studies 9/2 (2007): 1–27.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 95
rumours among the ‘pillars of the state’, and it was this that raised
doubts in Sanjar’s mind about al-Ghaz:l; and caused Sanjar to summon
him for a hearing.26 The compiler does not identify the critiques of
Mishk:t al-anw:r with the evil rumours spread by the Maghribi, but al-
Ghaz:l;’s account gives reason to believe that the Maghribi was the one
who made these charges before Sanjar.
Al-Ghaz:l; describes a man whose role in the controversy is similar
enough to the compiler’s Maghribi as to lead to the conclusion that the
two are one and the same. In the preface to the transcript of his
testimony before Sanjar, al-Ghaz:l; writes that his enemies in their

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

jealousy had no other means to attack him than to insert words of
unbelief (kalim:t-i kufr) into al-Munqidh min al-@al:l and Mishk:t al-
anw:r. They sent a man to al-Ghaz:l; with these altered manuscripts to
request that he sign them to certify their authenticity. However, God
inspired him to inspect their contents and he discovered the forgeries.
The ra8;s-i Khur:s:n learned of the matter, arrested the forger, and
banished him from Nishapur. Al-Ghaz:l; writes that the forger then went
to Sanjar’s camp (lashkarg:h) and spoke slanderously (va zab:n-i3a6n
dar:z kard) of al-Ghaz:l; before him.27
In both al-Ghaz:l;’s account and that of the compiler, we find a
single figure bringing the charges of the anti-Ghaz:l; faction to Sanjar.
Al-Ghaz:l;’s account links the figure to charges made regarding Mishk:t
al-anw:r while the compiler does not specify what the Maghribi might
have alleged. I believe both the compiler and al-Ghaz:l; are referring to
the same figure, and that the allegations this man made before Sanjar are
the same as those the compiler attributes more generally to al-Ghaz:l;’s
enemies. The case for this will be strengthened by the discussion of al-
M:zar; al-Dhak; below.
Al-Ghaz:l; claims that the charges this man made before Sanjar did
not move the sultan to summon him, which required the further charge
that he had criticized Ab< Ean;fa. This is doubtless correct, as this is the
only charge al-Ghaz:l; addressed in his testimony before Sanjar. Al-
Ghaz:l;’s discourse before Sanjar is preserved in the letters, written out
by al-Ghaz:l; at Sanjar’s request. It begins with brief praise of Sanjar
followed by lengthy admonitions to lead a pious life. Al-Ghaz:l; then
reminds Sanjar that Fakhr al-Mulk had promised al-Ghaz:l; his own and
Sanjar’s support if he returned to teaching. He refers to difficult passages
in his works, offers to clarify them if need be, and explicitly denies

26
Al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m, 3.
27
Ibid, 11–12.
96 ke nn e t h ga r de n
having slandered Ab< Ean;fa. His discourse ends with a request to be
relieved of his teaching duties.28
Al-Ghaz:l;’s success in winning over Sanjar is not in doubt. Sanjar was
so moved by his testimony that he asked al-Ghaz:l; to provide him with
a transcript. The compiler writes that, later, while hunting near F<s,
Sanjar had some game sent to al-Ghaz:l;, who responded to the gesture
by writing a short Fürstenspiegel for him entitled NaB;Aat al-mul<k.29 Al-
Ghaz:l; won Sanjar over so thoroughly, the compiler claims, that Sanjar
promised to have schools built for al-Ghaz:l; and to make all scholars of
the realm appear before him once per year so that he could clarify their
doubts about his doctrine.30

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

There is much that remains unclear about the identity of al-Ghaz:l;’s
enemies and their motives. Here I have tried to present a more coherent
account of both by reconciling the differing accounts of al-Ghaz:l;’s
letters on one hand and that of their compiler on the other, mainly on the
basis of internal evidence. By examining biographical entries on al-
M:zar; al-Dhak;, I will show that he is almost certainly the Maghribi to
whom the compiler refers, as well as the anonymous critic al-Ghaz:l;
mentions. I will use information from his biographies to support some of
my arguments above and to add further detail to our understanding of
events.

AL-M2ZAR> AL-DHAK>’S EARLY CAREER AND

TRAVELS IN THE EAST

Entries on al-M:zar; al-Dhak; are found in six biographical dictionaries

and one chronicle. These can be divided into a western tradition and an
eastern tradition. The western tradition is the earlier, beginning with al-
Q:@; 6Iy:@ (d. 544/1149) in his Tart;b al-mad:rik,31 and continuing with
28
Ibid, 6–10.
29
Ibid, p. 11. For an argument that only the first part of the text of NaB;Aat al-
mul<k as it has come down to us is genuine, see Particia Crone, ‘Did al-Ghaz:l;
write a Mirror for Princes? On the Authorship of NaB;Aat al-Mul<k’, Jerusalem
Studies of Arabic and Islam 10 (1987), 167–91. For an opposing view, see Omid
Safi, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and
Religious Inquiry (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006),
115–21.
30
Al-Ghaz:l;, Fa^:8il al-an:m, 10–11.
31
Ab< l-Fa@l b. M<s: b. 6Iy:@ al-Sabt; al-Q:@; 6Iya@, Tart;b al-mad:rik
wa taqr;b al-mas:lik f; ma6rifat a6l:m madhhab M:lik (ed. Sa6;d AAmad A6r:b
et al.; Rabat: Wiz:rat al-Awq:f wa-l-Shu8<n al-Isl:miyya, 8 vols., 1384–1403/
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 97
al-Dabb:gh’s (d. 696/1297) Ma6:lim al-im:n f; ma6rifat ahl Qayraw:n,32
and ending with Makhk<f’s Shajarat al-n<r al-zakiyya f; 3abaq:t al-
M:likiyya,33 completed in 1005/1597. The latter two do not offer any
information not found in 6Iy:@. The eastern sources are the chronicle of
Ibn al-Jawz; (d. 597/1200), al-MuntaCam f; ta8r;kh al-mul<k wa-l-
umam,34 and three biographical dictionaries: Ibn al-Qif3;’s (d. 634/1237)
Inb:h al-ruw: 6al: anb:h al-nuA:,35 al-4afad;’s (d. 764/1363) al-W:f; bi-
l-wafay:t,36 and al-Suy<3;’s (d. 911/1505) Bughyat al-wu6: f; 3abaq:t al-
lughawiy;n wa-l-nuA:.37 Each of the eastern sources provides unique
details on al-Dhak;’s life, and all of them but al-Suy<3; mention his

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

criticisms of al-Ghaz:l;.
The earliest source, al-Q:@; 6Iy:@ (and the subsequent western sources
that draw on him), gives the most detail on al-Dhak;’s early life and
experiences in Baghdad. It provides crucial information about which the
eastern sources are silent, including a clear statement that al-Dhak; was
involved directly in a confrontation with al-Ghaz:l; and a date for this
confrontation. The confrontation appears to have been the last
information 6Iy:@ had about him, because he writes that his death
occurred at some point after this. The eastern sources provide other
information about al-Dhak;’s travels in the East, confrontations with
other scholars there, epithets al-Dhak; used to refer to al-Ghaz:l;, and a

1965–1983), viii. 101–3. Another edition of the entry of al-M:zar; al-Dhak; was
published by Eugenio Griffini, ‘Nuovi Testi Arabo-Siculi’, Centenario della
Nascita di Michele Amari (Palermo, repr. 1990 [originally published 1910]), ii.
380–2. As we will see, there are a couple of minor points in which Griffini’s
edition is to be preferred to the Tetuan edition.
32
Ab< Zayd 6Abd al-RaAm:n b. MuAammad al-Dabb:gh and Ab< l-Fa@l Ab<
l-Q:sim b. 6Īs: Ibn N:j; al-Tan<kh;, Ma6:lim al-;m:n f; ma6rifat ahl al-Qayraw:n
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Kh:nj;, 3 vols., 1968), ii. 202–4.
33
MuAammad b. MuAammad Makhl<f, Shajarat al-n<r al-zakiyya f; 3abaq:t
al-M:likiyya (Beirut: D:r al-Kit:b al-6Arab;, 1970), 125.
34
6Abd al-RaAm:n b. 6Al; MuAammad Ab< l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawz;, al-MuntaCam
f; ta8r;kh al-mul<k wa-l-umam (ed. MuAammad 6Abd al-Q:dir and MuB3af: 6Abd
al-Q:dir 6A3:; Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya), 1992, xvii. 152.
35
Al-Waz;r Jam:l al-D;n Ab; l-Easan 6Al; b. Y<suf Ibn al-Qif3;, Inb:h al-ruw:
6al: anb:h al-nuA: (ed. MuAammad Ab< l-Fa@l Ibr:h;m; Beirut: Mu8assasat al-
Kutub al-Thaq:fiyya, 1406/1986), 73–4.
36
Sal:A al-D;n b. Aybak al-4afad;, al-W:f; bi-l-wafay:t (ed. Sven Dedering
[2nd unchanged edn., Biblioteca Islamica]; Wiesbaden: Fritz Steiner, 1981), iv.
320–1.
37
Jal:l al-D;n 6Abd al-RaAm:n al-Suy<3;, Bughyat al-wu6: f; 3abaq:t al-
lughawiyy;n wa-l-nuA: (ed. al-Dukt<r 6Al; MuAammad 6Umar; Cairo: Maktabat
al-Kh:nj;, 2 vols., 1426/2005), i. 198–9.
98 ke nn e t h ga r de n
death date. Though all of them but al-Suy<3; tell of his critique of al-
Ghaz:l;, none of them state that he personally confronted the great
scholar. The following account, then, is based mainly on 6Iy:@’s Tart;b al-
mad:rik, drawing some additional detail from the eastern sources.
Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. al-Faraj al-M:zar; al-Dhak;38 was a
man whose great virtue—his intellect—was the root of his great vices—
arrogance and contentiousness. Born in Sicily in 427/1036, he studied in
Qayrawan and made such an impression with his intelligence that he
came to be known by the nickname al-Dhak;, ‘the Clever’. His master al-
Suy<r; said he had the keenest memory he had ever seen.39 However, al-

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

Dhak;’s arrogance and tactlessness alienated him from his teacher and
likely damaged his career in Ifriqiya. Q:@; 6Iy:@ writes that al-Dhak; was
frequently rude to his master al-Suy<r;, pointing out his mistakes and
going so far as to collect from his fat:w: some thirty matters in which he
charged him with error. Al-Suy<r;, not surprisingly offended, wrote to all
of his colleagues (aBA:b), telling them not to listen to al-Dhak; because he
was a liar. With this, 6Iy:d tells us, al-Suy<r; caused his downfall (asqa3a-
hu bi-h:dh:).40 On top of this, it was said that al-Suy<r; cursed him (da6:
6alay-hi).41
The sources do not tell us when or why al-M:zar; left Qayrawan for
the east. H. R. Idris suggests he fled the destruction wrought by the Ban<
Hil:l42 who conquered the city in 449/1057, and, indeed Ibn N:j;
presents al-M:zar; al-Dhak; as the last of the noteworthy scholars of the
city.43 Al-Dhak;’s falling out with al-Suy<r; may also have played a role.
In any event, he was to spend the rest of his life in the east.

38
Certain variations on his name exist, especially in eastern sources. Ibn al-
Jawz; misrepresents his name, giving his kuny: as ‘Ab< l-Faraj’, his laqab as ‘al-
Zak;’ and omitting his nisba. Other sources follow him in this. Al-Qif3; gives the
additional nisba ‘al-Katt:n;’ as do al-4afad; and al-Suy<3;. I have taken 6Iy:@ to
be the authoritative source on his name.
39
‘Ibn al-Faraj aAfaC man ra8aytu.’ al-Q:@; 6Iy:@, Tart;b al-mad:rik, viii. 101.
40
Idris paraphrases this as, ‘C’est ainsi qu’il fut confondu.’ Hady Roger Idris,
‘Le Crépuscule de l’école mâlikite kairounaise (fin du XIe siècle)’, Cahiers de
Tunisie 4/16 (1956): 494–507, at 507.
41
6Iy:@, Tart;b al-mad:rik, viii. 102. This is not the only example of al-Suy<r;
cursing his enemies. After the destruction of Qayrawan by the Ban< Hil:l, a
decision was taken to reconstruct the city’s walls to encompass a smaller area.
This was done over al-Suy<r;’s objections, and he asked God to condemn the
inhabitants of Qayrawan to perpetual dissent. Ibn N:j; confirms that God
obliged him. Ma6:lim al-;m:n, 499.
42
Idris, ‘Le Crépuscule’, 495.
43
Al-Dabb:gh, Ma6:lim al-;m:n, 203–4.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 99
6Iy:@ gives a detailed and unique account of al-Dhak;’s early
experience there. He went first to Baghdad, where he found he was
unable to succeed as a jurist. 6Iy:@ writes that he found that the Maliki
school had been extinguished in that city (darasa bi-h:44) and there were
few students, so he did not achieve eminence (ri8:sa) in law. But beyond
this, his western training had left him unprepared to compete in an
eastern scholarly setting. 6Iy:@ writes that the Mashriq;s were more
advanced in rationalism (Ban6at al-naCar) and scholarly debate (al-jadal),
through which their top scholars advanced their careers (al-ladhi bi-
dh:lika taqaddum a’imatihim). And so it was, 6Iy:@ writes, that his

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

knowledge of the Sunna went to waste there, and, as far as he had heard,
no one studied with him (wa-lam yablagh-n; anna aAad akhadha hun:ka
6an-hu). This was the fate of a man, whose student, a q:@; in his own
right, called him the most knowledgeable in fiqh of any Maliki.45 Both
6Iy:@ and the eastern sources suggest al-Suy<r;’s curse as an additional
reason for al-Dhak;’s lack of success.
But al-Dhak; found success in another field. Because he could not
achieve eminence in law, 6Iy:@ tells us, he achieved it in grammar and the
sciences of the Arabic language.46 The recognition he achieved through
his talent in this field was such that al-4afad; preserves some verses of

44
The full sentence is: Wajada madhhab M:lik bi-h: [i.e, Baghdad] qad
darasa wa-qalla 3:libu-hu fa-lam yaABul la-hu ri8:sa hun:ka, wa-li-taqaddum ahl
al-mashriq f; jam:6at [in Griffini Ban6at] al-naCar wa-Aidhq al-jadal al-ladhi bi-
dh:lik taqaddama :8imatu-hum. Durisa in the sense of ‘was studied’ is another
possible reading and this is the more common understanding of darasa. This
would yield: ‘He found that the school of M:lik was studied, but there were few
students [. . .]’ However, given that this is a discussion of the reasons al-M:zar; al-
Dhak; did not succeed as a scholar of Maliki fiqh in the Mashriq, and given that
the next phrase is that students (of Maliki fiqh) were few, the reading of darasa as
‘to be extinguished’, ‘to be obliterated’ must be preferred. See Edward Lane,
Arabic–English Lexicon, part 3, p. 870 (passive meaning—became effaced,
erased, or obliterated); R. Dozy, Supplément aux Dictionnaires arabes (Beirut:
Reproduction, Librairie du Liban, 2 vols., 1968 [Leiden: Brill, 1881]), i. 433
(active meaning—piler, broyer, écraser); Idris also reads the passage in this
way: ‘En Orient, notamment à Baghdad, le mâlikisme était en telle décadence
que le savoir juridique d’Al-Mâzarı̂ ne lui fut d’aucun secours [. . .]’: ‘Le
Crépuscule’, 507.
45
The student was al-Q:@; Ab< 6Abd All:h b. D:w<d. ‘Shaykhun: al-Dhak;
afqah min Ab< 6Umr:n wa min kul M:lik;’, al-Q:@; 6Iy:@, Tart;b al-mad:rik, viii.
101.
46
The Rabat edition contains a typo here: ‘6ilm li-lis:n’. Griffini’s edition
renders this ‘6ilm lis:n al-6arab’, which is preferable.
100 k en ne th g ar d en
praise exchanged between him and the Mu6tazili theologian and Arabic
linguist al-Zamakhshar; (d. 538/1144),47 and all the eastern sources pay
him some grudging respect for his mastery of Arabic.
Through his eminence as a linguist he won a patron. Uniquely among
his biographers, 6Iy:@ reports that, ‘The Custodian of the Caliph there at
the time (al-qayyim bi-l-khil:fa bi-h: idh dh:ka) the just king (al-m:lik
al-6:dil) Ab< l-FatA, sent him (ashkhaBa-hu) to Isfahan to teach his sons
adab.’ 48 The just king Ab< l-FatA is the Seljuk Sultan Malik Sh:h, who
reigned from 465–85/1072–92.
Al-Dhak;’s stay in Baghdad and recruitment by Malik Sh:h likely

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

brought him into contact with—or at least proximity to—al-Ghaz:l;
before the controversy in Nishapur. If he was recruited after al-
Ghaz:l; took up his position at the NiC:miyya madrasa of Baghdad
in 484/1091 the two men would have overlapped in Baghdad,49 and
if he was recruited before then, he would have been in Malik Sh:h’s
court while al-Ghaz:l; was a member of NiC:m al-Mulk’s court. But
the more important implication of al-M:zar; al-Dhak;’s position is
that he had connections to the Seljuk ruling house as the tutor of
Malik Sh:h’s sons and it is even possible that he instructed Sanjar
himself.
Apart from al-Ghaz:l;’s letters, which place al-Dhak; in Nishapur at
the time of the controversy, we have no way of knowing how long he
stayed in Isfahan or when he came to Khurasan. 6Iy:@ does not mention
his having gone to Khurasan at all. The eastern sources tell of extensive
travels, giving his itinerary after Baghdad as Khurasan, where he ‘spent
some time’ and ‘roamed about’ (j:la f;-h:), then Ghazna, then India, and
only then Isfahan, where he died.
The contentiousness that had led his teacher to disown al-Dhak; is in
evidence during his stay in Khurasan. All the eastern sources mention a
conflict he had with a group of im:ms there in which he went so far as to
slander them (3a6ana 6alay-him). This may be a reference to his
confrontation with al-Ghaz:l; in Nishapur, but al-Dhak; had no shortage

47
Al-4afad;, al-W:f; bi-l-wafay:t (ed. Sven Dedering), iv. 320–1.
48
6Iy:@, Tart;b al-mad:rik, viii. 102. Griffini’s version varies slightly here and
seems wrong; instead of ashkaBa-hu il: IBbah:n li-tadr;s ban;-hi al-adab, it reads
(p. 381): ‘wa-istaBAaba-hu il: IBbah:n li-tadr;s baqiyy6at al-adab.’
49
Erika Glassen, Der Mittlere Weg: Studien Zur Religionspolitik Und
Religiosität Der Späteren Abbasiden-Zeit (ed. Hans Robert Roemer;
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner [Freiburger Islamstudien], 1981), 131–2.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 101
of conflicts with religious scholars in Khurasan. Two of the eastern
sources add their own favourite anecdotes to illustrate how disagreeable
and confrontational he was.
Al-Suy<3; writes of a humiliating confrontation between al-Dhak; and
MuAammad b. ManB<r al-Sam6:n; (d. 510/1116)50 of the Khurasanian
city of Marw, father of the famous historian Ab< Sa6d al-Sam6:n; (d. 562/
1166).51 Al-Dhak; attended his session of dictation, likely in Marw,52
and spoke up to take issue with al-Sama6:n;’s reading, saying, ‘It is not as
you say, but rather like this.’ Al-Sam6:n; responded by telling his
students, ‘Write as he said, he knows best.’ Those attending changed the

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

word in question. An hour later al-M:zar; interrupted again, saying, ‘Sir,
I was not paying close attention (sahawtu), the correct word is the one
you dictated (amlayta).’ Al-Sam6:n; said, ‘Change it and make it as it
was.’ When he had finished the dictation and al-Dhak; stood up, al-
Sam6:n; said, ‘The Maghribi thought I would take issue with him over
the wording (un:zi6uhu f;-l-kal:m) so that he could unfurl his tongue
against me (Aatt: yabsu3u lis:na-hu f;-ya) as he has unfurled it against
others.’ Al-Dhak; was silent until he recognized the truth and retreated
(wa-raja6a).53
It seems he had a reputation for going out of his way to find
confrontation with local scholars. Al-Qif3; also writes of arguments
and debates (muA:wal:t wa mun:Car:t) that al-Dhak; had with
Khurasanian scholars and describes a squabble over a question of the
etymology of a Persian word in a Aad;th.54 Al-Qif3; closes by writing
that al-Dhak; was unique in some of his exegesis of akhb:r in which
nobody followed him, something he attributes to al-Dhak;’s narcissism
(i6j:buhu bi-nafsi-hi).

50
Ibn Khallik:n, Wafay:t al-a6y:n wa-anb:8 abn:8 al-zam:n (ed. IAs:n
6Abb:s; Beirut: D:r al-4:dir, 8 vols., 1988), iii. 210–11.
51
Ibid, 209–10.
52
MuAammad went on Aajj in 497/1104 and spent some time in Baghdad
afterwards, where he preached in the NiC:miyya madrasa, dictated Aad;th, and
gathered books. He then went to Isfahan, where he is said to have heard Aad;th.
Afterwards he returned to Marw (ibid, 210). It is possible that their encounter
occurred in Isfahan, depending on when al-M:zar; al-Dhak; left that city. But it
seems more likely that it occurred in Marw after he left Nishapur during the time
in which he was ‘wandering in Khurasan’.
53
Al-Suy<3;, Bughyat al-wu6:, i. 198.
54
Ibn al-Qif3;, Inb:h al-ruw:, 73–4.
102 k en ne th g ar d en

AL-M2ZAR> AL-DHAK>’S CONFRONTATION

WITH AL-GHAZ2L>

6Iy:@’s brief but informative account of al-Dhak;’s confrontation with al-

Ghaz:l; is as follows:
He died in Isfahan after 500, after he became involved in conflicts in that year55
over the claims of al-Ghaz:l; (m:ta bi-IBbah:n ba6da al-khamsa mi8a ba6da an
jarat lahu bi-h: Aur<b f; mu3:labat al-Ghaz:l;), for he was one of those who
opposed him there (wa-k:na aAad al-q:8im;n 6alay-hi hun:ka). But [al-Ghaz:l;]
was protected from them and they did not reach them. And God knows the

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

secrets; there is no god but He.56

This passage places al-M:zar; al-Dhak; among a group of al-Ghaz:l;’s

enemies who staged a failed campaign against him in the year 500/
1106–7. This gives us a date for the controversy.57 If it occurred in 500/
1106–7, the place would have to have been Nishapur. The fact that this
information reached 6Iy:@, while other significant data (such as a death
date) did not, suggests that al-M:zar; al-Dh:ki’s role in the controversy
was significant. It would be an enormous coincidence for him not to be
the Maghribi Maliki the compiler refers to.

55
The bi-h: (in it) could be meant to refer not to the year, but rather to the
city of Isfahan. The case is strong, however, for reading it as referring to the year.
If it is not a reference to the year, then the reason 6Iy:@ gives 500 as the year after
which al-Dhak;’s death must have occurred is left unstated. If bi-h: is taken as
referring to the year, however, the arbitrary-sounding date makes sense: the last
news 6Iy:@ has of his life is that he became involved in conflicts over the claims of
al-Ghaz:l; in the year 500, and his death must have occurred at some point after
that. Al-Dabb:gh, who followed 6Iy:@ nearly word for word in his entry on al-
Dhak;, gives a somewhat different wording, writing that, ‘He died in Isfahan
after 500, a year after he became involved in conflicts with al-Ghaz:l; (tuwuffiya
f; IBbah:n ba6d al-khamsa mi8a sanatan ba6d an jarat la-hu Aur<b f; mu3:labat al-
Ghaz:l;).’ See al-Dabb:gh, Ma6:lim al-;m:n, iii. 203. Both the Rabat edition of
Tart;b al-mad:rik and that of Griffini provide the version given above, and since
al-Dabb:gh clearly followed 6Iy:@, his rendition must be taken to be a
corruption.
56
6Iy:@, Tart;b al-Mad:rik, viii. 103.
57
Krawulsky (Briefe und Reden, 14–15) gives the year 503/1109 as the date
for the controversy, based on the fact that al-Ghaz:l; states his age to Sanjar as
53. Until recently, it has been widely accepted that al-Gh:z:li was born in 450/
1058. Frank Griffel has argued, on the basis of the letters that the correct date, in
ascending order of likelihood, is 446/1055, 447/1056 or 448/1057. See Frank
Griffel, al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009), 23–5.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 103
Further confirmation of this comes from the eastern sources, which
relate some specific epithets al-M:zar; al-Dhak; used whenever referring
to al-Ghaz:l;. Al-4afad; writes that al-Dhak; called al-Ghaz:l; a heretic
(mulAid) whenever he mentioned him and referred to him as ‘al-Ghaz:l;
the Zoroastrian, F<s; cow’ (al-Ghaz:l; al-maj<s; al-baqar3<s;).58 Clearly
this is a bit of puerile name-calling and baqar3<s; is included in part
because it rhymes with maj<s;. But it has other implications as well. The
cow is an animal associated with F<s. The F<si NiC:m al-Mulk, was
referred to in a satirical poem as a cow and had a golden figurine of that
animal made for him.59 More importantly, the echo here of the charges

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

related by the compiler that al-Ghaz:l; held heretical, philosophical, and
Zoroastrian creeds is too striking to be coincidental.
Al-M:zar; al-Dhak;’s earlier affiliation with the sons of Malik Sh:h
also seems significant. This connection would have allowed him access to
the ‘pillars of the state’ the compiler writes of, and the audience with
Sanjar al-Ghaz:l; refers to—certainly both references are to the same
event and person. In his testimony before Sanjar, al-Ghaz:l; reminds the
king that he was appointed and given assurances of support by Fakhr al-
Mulk with the approval of Sanjar himself. Given this official support, it
would have made sense for the anti-Ghaz:l; faction to take the
precaution of pressing their case through an outsider like the Maghribi
al-M:zar;. Al-Ghaz:l; describes the banishment from Nishapur of the
‘forger’ by the ra8;s-i Khur:s:n, a penalty an official may have been
reluctant to impose on a member of a prominent patrician family, which
many prominent religious scholars of Nishapur were. The identity of the
compiler’s Maghribi Maliki with al-Ghaz:l;’s ‘forger’ with al-M:zar; al-
Dhak; produces a coherent and richer narrative of the controversy.
The picture of the controversy that emerges, then, is that in 500/1106-
7 a group of Nishapuri religious scholars, Hanafis and Shafi6is, took issue
with certain aspects of al-Ghaz:l;’s thought found in Mishk:t al-anw:r,
K;miy:-yi sa6:dat, al-Munqidh min al-@al:l and other writings,60
accusing him of holding and promoting philosophical, heretical, and
Zoroastrian doctrines. They recruited al-M:zar; al-Dhak; to their cause.
He approached al-Ghaz:l; and had some sort of confrontation with him.
The ra8;s-i Khur:s:n intervened and banished him from Nishapur. Al-
Mazar; went to the court of Sanjar, won access on the basis of his having

58
al-4afad;, al-W:f; bi-l-wafay:t (ed. Sven Dedering), iv. 320.
59
See Glassen, Der Mittlere Weg, 95. 78. The poem states that NiC:m al-
Mulk is favoured by fate, because fate, like a wheel-work, turns only with the
help of a cow.
60
Especially IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n, see n. 21 above.
104 k en ne th g ar d en
been a tutor to the royal household, and brought these charges before the
‘King of the East’. This effort may have raised doubts about al-Ghaz:l; in
Sanjar’s mind, but the further effort of calling the Hanafi Sanjar’s
attention to al-Ghaz:l;’s youthful critiques of Ab< Ean;fa were required
to bring about al-Ghaz:l;’s summons for a hearing. Al-Ghaz:l;’s
testimony won his acquittal and the further favour of Sanjar. With
this, the controversy seems to have ended.

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

APPENDIX: THE AUTHORSHIP OF AL-KASHF
WA-L-ANB28 6AL2 L-MUTARJAM BI-L-IEY28 6 1

Some twentieth-century scholars have attributed to al-M:zar; al-Dhak; a

work entitled al-Kashf wa-l-:nb:8 6al: l-mutarjam bi-l-IAy:8.62 However,
medieval sources unanimously attribute al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8 to his more
famous homonym, al-M:zar; al-Im:m. The most significant of these are

61
There are a number of different variations on this title: al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8
(or inb:8) 6al: (or 6an) al-mutarjam bi- (or kit:b) al-IAy:8. The Sicilian
MuAammad ibn Gafar (d. 565/1169) writes in his Fürstenspiegel Sulw:n al-
mu3:6 that he has written a refutation of ‘al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8 min al-kit:b al-
musamm: bi-l-IAy:8, which he entitled Kashf al-kashf. See the Italian translation
in Amari, Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, ii. 2 (157), of al-Maqr;z;’s Kit:b al-Muqaff:,
at p. 583, and Ibn Gafar’s Sulw:n al-mu3:6, at p. 630. On Ibn Gafar and his
Sulw:n al-mu3:6, see R. Hrair and Thabit Dekmejian, Adel, Fathy, ‘Machiavelli’s
Arab Precursor: Ibn Gafar al-4iqill;’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
27/2 (2000): 125–37.
62
Charles Pellat wrote the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam on Ab< 6Abd
All:h MuAammad b. 6Al; b. 6Umar al-M:zar;, known as al-Im:m (d. 536/1141).
He included brief entries on al-M:zar; al-Im:m’s two homonyms, our own al-
M:zar; al-Dhak; and also Ab< 6Abd All:h MuAammad b. Muslim al-M:zar; al-
Quraysh; al-Iskandar; (d. 530/1135), to alert the reader to the possibility of
confusing their identities. This article ascribes al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8 to al-M:zar;
al-Dhak;. Pellat clearly relied exclusively on the work of Hady Roger Idris for his
information on al-M:zar; al-Dhak;: he gives the same mistaken death date as
Idris, and he gives the same mistaken citation of Ası́n Palacios’ article on al-
M:zar; al-Im:m (whose page numbers cover not only Ası́n Palacios’ article, but
also that of Eugenio Griffini, which is not cited). However, Idris’ cautious ‘il
semble bien s’agir d’un ouvrage d’al-M:zar; al-Dhak;’, (Idris, ‘L’école M:lakite
de Mahdia: l’im:m al-M:zar; (m. 536/1141)’, 159, n. 30, becomes a plain
statement of fact in Pellat: ‘He is the author [. . .] of an appraisal of certain
Aad;ths quoted by al-Ghaz:l; [. . .] in the Ihy:8, al-Kashf wa-l-inb: 6al: al-
mutarjam bi-l-IAy:8.’
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 105
al-Dhahab;’s Siyar a6l:m al-nubal:8,63 al-Subk;’s Fabaq:t al-Sh:fi6iyya al-
kubr:,64 and Ibn Taymiyya’s SharA al-6Aq;da al-IBfah:niyya.65
In his biography of al-Ghaz:l;, al-Dhahab; reproduces two excerpts of
al-M:zar;’s critique of al-Ghaz:l;. In the first these excerpts, al-Dhahab;
refers to the work as al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8 6an kit:b al-IAy:8, but gives the
author’s name only as ‘al-M:zar;’, without specifying which one of the
three he is referring to.66 Internal evidence suggests that al-M:zar; al-
Im:m is the author. It is directed against Malikis enthralled with al-
Ghaz:l;, and makes no reference to any of the details we have of the
controversy in Nishapur. It seems more likely to have been written by the

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

scholar of Ifriqiyya in response to partisans of al-Ghaz:l; in the well-
known controversy over IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n in the Maghrib and al-
Andalus. As we shall see, al-M:zar; al-Im:m did weigh in on that
dispute. The key passage of the text reads:
I am astonished by a group of M:lik;s who see the im:m (i.e. al-Ghaz:l;) as a
M:lik [Ibn Anas]. They flee from definition (yahrub min al-taAd;d) and avoid
prescribing a ruling (wa yuj:nib an yarsum rasman) even if there is a relevant
athar or analogy (wa in k:na f;hi athar m: aw qiy:s m:). They are hesitant and
wary of a fatw: that incites the people against him (fatw: yaAmil al-n:s 6alayhi—
[presumably al-Ghaz:l;]) but then condone a fatw: from a man founded on
something that has no truth in it.67

Later, al-Dhahab; excerpts another critique of al-Ghaz:l; whose text is

entirely different. He plainly attributes it to al-M:zar; al-Im:m but
without a giving a title. In this case, internal evidence plainly rules out al-
M:zar; al-Dhak; as the author. Al-M:zar; writes,
Your letters have proliferated inquiring into our approach to the book (takarrat
mak:tibatukum f; isti6l:m madhhabin: 6al: al-kit:b) titled IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n.
You mentioned that the views of the people on it differ. There is a faction that has
taken up its cause and become fanatical about spreading it. There is a faction that

63
Al-Im:m Shams al-D;n MuAammad al-Dhahab;, Siyar a6l:m al-nubal:8
(eds. Shu6ayb al-Arna6<3 & Eusayn al-Asad; Beirut: Mu8assasat al-Ris:la, 25
vols., 1981–88), 330–2, 340.
64
T:j al-D;n al-subk;, Fabaq:t al-Sh:fi6iyya al-kubr: (ed. 6Abd al-Fatt:A
MuAammad al-Eil< and MaAm<d MuAammad al-Fan:A;; Cairo: Ma3ba6at 6Īs:
al-B:b; al-Ealab;, 1st edn., 1968, 10 vols.), vi. 241.
65
Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6 al-fat:w: (ed. Faraj All:h Zak; al-Kurd;; Cairo:
Ma3ba6at Kurdist:n al-6Ilmiyya, 1329/1911), v. 116–19. I am indebted to Frank
Griffel for this reference.
66
Al-Dhahab;, Siyar a6l:m al-nubal:8, xix. 330–2.
67
Ibid, 330.
106 k en ne th g ar d en
has urged caution and warned of it. There is a faction that has burned his books.
The Mashriqis have also written me to ask about it.68
The reference to burning dates the work in question to after 503/1109,
when the IAy:8 was ordered burned in Cordoba.69 The author is
addressing a Maghribi audience. The reference to the Mashriqis writing
to the author to ask his opinion on the subject places him in the Maghrib
and dispels any doubt there could be about al-Dhahab;’s attribution of
the passage to al-M:zar; al-Im:m.
Some version of al-Dhahb;’s second citation is also found in al-Subk;’s
al-Fabaq:t al-Sh:fi6iyya al-kubr:, Ibn Taymiyya’s SharA al-6Aq;da al-

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

IBfah:niyya,70 and al-Murta@: al-Zab;d;’s ItA:f al-s:da al-muttaq;n bi-
sharA IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n.71 At one point in giving his synopsis, al-Subk;
writes, ‘then he praised al-Ghaz:l; in his al-Kashf, saying [. . .]’72 The text
he then reproduces is the same as the second text al-Dhah:b; excerpts,
which suggests that both of al-Dhah:b;’s citations are from different
passages of al-Kashf wa-l-anb:8. It must be said, however, that al-Subk;
does not reproduce any material not found in al-Dhahab;, raising the
possibility that he had not read al-M:zar; al-Im:m’s original text and
had relied solely on the excerpt found in al-Dhahab;.
Ibn Taymiyya, on the other hand, cites from al-M:zar; al-Im:m the
material found in al-Dhah:b;’s second excerpt, sometimes more
extensively than al-Dhah:b;, and he writes that he has taken his material
from al-M:zar; al-Im:m’s commentary on al-Juwayn;’s ‘al-Irsh:d wa-l-
burh:n.’73 This raises the possibility that we are dealing with two
separate works of al-M:zar; al-Im:m, one an initial response to
correspondents seeking his opinion on the IAy:8 (the second text
excerpted by al-Dhahab;), and a later formal composition critiquing

68
Ibid, 340. This passage does not occur in al-Subk;’s citation of the same
text. Al-Dhahab;’s version is to be preferred for its greater thoroughness of
citation.
69
The year of the burning is given in Ibn al-Qa33:n, Nazm al-jum:n li-tart;b
m: salafa min akhb:r al-zam:n (ed. MaAm<d 6Al; Makk;; Beirut: D:r al-Gharb
al-Isl:m;, 1410/1990), 70–2.
70
Ibn Taymiyya, Majm<6a al-fat:w:, v. 116–19.
71
Al-Murta@: al-Zab;d;, ItA:f al-s:da al-muttaq;n bi-sharA IAy:8 6ul<m al-d;n
(Beirut: D:r al-Kutub al-6Ilmiyya, 2nd edn., 2002, 14 vols.).
72
Al-Subk;, Fabaq:t al-Sh:fi6iyya al-kubr:, vi. 241.
73
There are two different works by al-Juwayn;. Al-M:zar; al-Im:m’s
commentary on al-Juwayn;’s work of law, Kit:b al-Burh:n survives and it is
likely to this work that Ibn Taymiyya is referring.
 A L - G H A Z 2 L I¯ ’ S M A G H R I B I A D V E R S A R Y I N N I S H A P U R 107
the IAy:8 (the first text excerpted by al-Dhahab;).74 However, this is not
the place to pursue the question. What is important in this context is the
conclusion that we have no evidence that al-M:zar; al-Dhak; produced a
written critique of the IAy:8. In addition to sharing a name, then, Ab<
6Abd All:h MuAammad al-M:zar; al-Dhak; and Ab< 6Abd All:h
MuAammad al-M:zar; al-Im:m also shared the distinction of having
been opponents of al-Ghaz:l;—al-M:zar; al-Dhak; in person, and al-
M:zar; al-Im:m to more enduring effect in written form.

Downloaded from http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Tokyo Library on May 25, 2015

74
If these two excerpts in al-Dhahab; represent two distinct works of al-
M:zar; al-Im:m, this would clarify some other points as well. Al-Kashf wa-l-
anb:8 is described in the EI2 as a work that critiques al-Ghaz:l;’s use of Aad;th,
which al-Dhahab;’s second excerpt seems not to be. See Charles Pellat, ‘al-
M:zar;’, EI2, vi. 942–3. The first of al-Dhahab;’s excerpts, however, does seem to
consist at least in part (the excerpt is too short to say whether it is representative
of the whole) of a discussion of where it is permissible to undertake ta8w;l, or
allegorical interpretation of Aad;th. See al-Dhahab;, Siyar a6l:m al-nubal:8, xix.
330–2.