Mughīth al-chalq fī tardjīh al-qaul al-haqq

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mughīth al-chalq fī tardschīh al-qaul al-haqq ( Arabic مغيث الخلق في ترجيح القول الحق, DMG Muġīṯ al-ḫalq fī tarǧīḥ al-qaul al-ḥaqq  'Savior of the people with regard to the preference for true speech') is an advertising pamphlet by the Chorasan scholar Imām al-Haramain al-Juwainī (1028-1085) for the Shafiite madhhab , the at the same time polemically directed against the Hanafi madhhab. Al-Juwainī called on all Muslims in the East and West to join the Shafiite Madhhab. In modern Western research, the text has received more attention because al-Juwaīnī postulates in it that the meaning of Islamic worship regulations cannot be rationally grasped. Al-Juwayni carries this idea in connection with the emphasis on al-Shaafa'is acuteness and praising its special Qiyas before -Teaching. Various Hanafi scholars later replied with counter-writings in which they tried to refute al-Juwainī's arguments.

Text witnesses

The work has survived in numerous manuscripts that are kept in libraries in Paris , London , Alexandria , Cairo and Tarīm . There is also a manuscript in the Berlin State Library , but it only contains the preface. In 1934 an edition of the work was produced in Cairo based on four manuscripts. The page numbers in the following description of the contents refer to this edition.

Content and structure

Al-Juwainī declares at the beginning of the scripture that God has chosen Ash-Shāfiī from among the religious scholars and made his madhhab the best madhhab (p. 4f.). As arguments for the superiority of Ash-Shāfidīs over the other founders of law schools, he cites, among other things, that he was the only one of them who belonged to the Quraish . Their high position is already attested by the Messenger of God, who said: “The imams come from the Quraish clan” (al-aʾimma min Quraiš) and “Put Quraish at the top, but do not put yourself at their head” (qaddimū Quraišan wa -lā tataqaddamū-hā) . Al- Juwainī reports that he has already shown in the general public of his works on the usūl al-fiqh the reason for the preference of the Shafiite Maḏhab over all other Maḏāhib and that he now wants to write a concise book for this purpose so that high and low can study it and the chosen ones (al-ḫāṣṣa) were inclined to this madhhab (p. 5). It is incumbent on the general public of Muslims (ʿāmmat al-muslimīn) to consult his book so that their allegiance and imitation (sc. Of the Prophet) are of full value (p. 5f).

Introduction: the need to choose a madhhab

In the introduction (muqaddima) , al-Juwainī first deals with the nature of the Tardjīh . He first quotes al-Bāqillānī with the statement that he only accepts the proven tardjīh (at-tarǧīḥ al-maqṭūʿ bi-hī) as an argument, but not the presumed tardjīh (at-tarǧīḥ al-maẓnūn; p. 7f) , because there is a principle that every mujahid is right, and insofar the presumed tardjīh cannot be an independent proof. Al-Juwainī rejects this statement, arguing that the principle stated by al-Bāqillānī is wrong. As evidence of his inaccuracy, he refers to the prophetic word, according to which those who practice ijtihād and find the right thing should be rewarded twice, and those who fail in their ijtihād should be rewarded once. This statement suggests that in the event of a dissent , only one mujtahid is always right. In this respect, it is also possible to achieve reliable knowledge through Tardjīh (p. 9).

Al-Juwainī also rejects the view that no one is obliged to follow the founder of a particular madhhab , but that one can freely choose which madhhab one wants to follow for individual questions (p. 13f.). In his opinion, the layman inevitably has the duty to appoint a madhhab, which he follows in all matters and individual questions, either the madhhab of ash-Shafiʿi, of Mālik ibn Anas , of Abū Hanīfa or another madhhab (p. 14). This is necessary because otherwise it would lead to confusion (ḫabṭ) , a loss of control (ḫurūǧ min aḍ-ḍabṭ) and a cancellation of the obligation including its benefits (inʿidām at-taklīf wa-ibṭāl fāʾidati-hī) (p. 14). It is true that in the time of the Prophet's Companions one was still free to adhere to the teaching of Abū Bakr in individual matters and to the teaching of ʿUmar ibn al-Chattāb in others , but this freedom only existed because the teaching systems of Abū Bakr and the other Prophet Companions were still incomplete. In the present, however, the imams' teaching directions are so fully worked out that nothing can happen to which one cannot find an explicit or implicit answer from them. That is why it is not permissible to cancel the Taqlīd , because otherwise the benefit of the obligation is jeopardized (p. 15f).

Why you have to join the Shafiite madhhab

After completing this preface, al- Juwainī puts forward his main thesis that it is incumbent upon all intellectuals (kāffat al-ʿāqilīn) and the general public of Muslims in east and west, near and far, to follow the madhhab of ash-Shāfiʿī without restriction connected (p. 16). Al-Juwainī claims that Abu Hanīfa had not yet worked out the details of Islamic norms and that his fiqh was still immature. Although he was respected, his madhhab was not yet fully developed, which is why his two disciples Muhammad al-Shaibani and Abū Yūsuf opposed him on many questions (pp. 17-19). As examples, al-Juwainī names 1. the legal institution of the Waqf , which was rejected by Abū Hanīfa but advocated by ash-Shāfiʿī, 2. the measure of capacity of the Sāʿ , which the two defined differently, and 3. the Iqāma , in which according to the opinion Abū Hanīfa's various formulas had to be repeated. Abū Yūsuf and asch-Shāfiʿī, as al-Juwainī subsequently recounts, are said to have argued about these three questions in Medina in the presence of the Abbasid caliph Hārūn ar-Raschīd , with Abū Yūsuf most recently joining the view of al-Shāfiʿī (p. 19– 21). Al-Juwainī sees this story as evidence of the immaturity of Abū Hanīfa's legal thought. Just as one cannot follow the Madhhab Abū Bakrs, although he was proven to be the best person after the Messenger of God Mohammed , one cannot follow the Madhhab Abū Hanīfa either (pp. 21-23).

Refutation of Hanafi objections

The following text is divided into different sections introduced with wa-in qīla ("And when it is said: ..."), in which possible objections from the Hanafi side to a Shafiite claim to priority are refuted:

  • Al-Juwainī counters the objection that Abū Hanīfa was earlier and older than asch-Shāfi undī and that the earlier should not be given up for the later, that Abū Hanīfa, in contrast to the later asch-Shāfiʿī, has not yet had a following with his teaching direction . He also emphasizes that Abū Hanīfa was not a real Arab, but a Nabataean , in contrast to Ash-Shāfiʿī, who not only belonged to the Arabs but even to the Quraish (p. 25).
  • In response to the objection that the doctrinal opinions of al-Shāfidī fluctuate on several questions and thus show the imperfection of his teaching system, al- Juwainī argues that this wavering from the "impenetrability of his reflection and the sharpness of his thinking" (ġāmiḍ naẓari-hī wa- daqīq fikri-hī) and therefore a reason for his superiority (p. 27f.).
  • Al-Juwainī accepts the objection that al-Shāfidī, with the view that the Qur'an could not abrogate the Sunnah , represented a principle that the entire Ummah held to be false. The equilibrium (inṣāf) , which is best in every thing, dictates the admission of the weakness of this principle (pp. 29–32).
  • In response to the objection that there is a reason (waǧh maʿqūl) for all Hanafi views , al- Juwainī emphasizes that ash-Shāfiʿī was the first to bring the Usūl al-fiqh into a system (p. 33f). Overall, these were based on three things, namely Arabic language (luġa) , Kalām and Fiqh . Ash-Shāfidīs leadership in the field of linguistics already results from the fact that he comes "from the midst of the Arabs" (min ṣamīm al-ʿArab) . Ash-Shafid was also known for his excellent knowledge of the hadiths and traditions. The great authority of al-Shafi'ī in this field of knowledge is guaranteed by a statement by Ahmad ibn Hanbal . Conversely, Abū Hanīfa had nothing to show in the field of hadith science. This can be seen from the fact that the Ashāb al-hadīth sharply criticized him and joined the madhhab of al-Shāfidī. Their criticism is also based on the fact that Abū Hanīfa relied excessively on qiyās (p. 35f).
  • Al-Juwainī accommodates those who emphasize Abū Hanīfa's shrewdness in so far as he admits that "the thinking of Abu Hanīfa is extremely sharp" (naẓar Abī Ḥanīfa daqīq fī ġāyat ad-diqqa) , but he objects that that is Thinking of Ash-Shafidis is even more acute (p. 37). In addition, al-Juwainī argues that Abū Hanīfa's thinking contradicts the principles (al-uṣūl) and to a large extent also the book (= Koran), the Sunnah, the traditions (al-āṯār) and also the consensus of the Ummah contradict (p. 38). Al-Juwainī explains this using the example of qiyā , for which ash-Shāfiʿī made it a prerequisite that a reason (ʿilla) can be determined for the normative assessment of the initial case (pp. 38–40).
  • Another objection raised by the opponents was that ash-Shafiʿī had been restricted in his qiyās because he did not allow the qiyās on the question of removing ritual impurity (naǧāsa) with vinegar, while Abū Hanīfa considered the purpose of removing impurity to be decisive and with Considering the fact that vinegar serves this purpose even better, allowed it as a cleaning agent. To this al-Juwainī replies that al-Shāfidī forbade the qiyās in this case because he divided the Islamic norms into two categories, those for which a reason can be identified and those for which there is not. In the latter case he forbade the qiyās. This is one of the original creations of his thinking ( min badāʾiʿ naẓari-hī ; p. 41). Ash-Shāfidī was more perfect and precise in qiyās than Abū Hanīfa on a theoretical level. This is also the reason why the two main students of Abū Hanīfa, Muhammad al-Shaibānī and Abū Yūsuf hated to follow him for two thirds of his madhhab, while they agreed with asch-Shāfidī on most of the questions (p. 44) .
  • In response to the objection as to why the two Hanafi legal scholars who knew the ash-Shāfidīs doctrine did not accept it, al-Juwainī cites an anecdote according to which Hārūn ar-Rashīd al-Shāfidī received and honored upon his arrival in Baghdad sat next to him on his throne. Abū Yūsuf and al-Shaibānī were then jealous and tried in vain to bring him into distress by asking a difficult question about ritual purity. Ultimately, the two scholars recognized al-Shafidis' superiority (p. 46f).

The special Qiyās teaching of Ash-Shāfidīs

As part of the refutation of the potential Hanafi objections to the Shafiite claim to priority, he developed a special Qiyās doctrine, which proceeds from the unfathomability of Islamic ritual rules and assumes various degrees of "ritualization" or "worship" or "servitude" (taʿabbud) . Kevin Reinhart explains the concept of Taʿabbud as "following an incomprehensible rule simply because one is obliged to".

Al-Dschuwainī first illustrates the unfathomable Islamic ritual rules using the example of the removal of ritual impurity (nāǧāsa) . While Abū Hanīfa saw the discernible purpose of the regulation in the purpose of removing impurity and accordingly considered everything to be permissible as a cleaning agent that removes the impurity, ash-Shāfiʿī said that the purity regulations are only comprehensible as a whole when considering the Details, however, defy logic. For example, it is incomprehensible that a pollution disappears when you expose it to the sun, but that it still has to be removed with water. It is even more peculiar that an unclean thing that falls into a bowl of water pollutes the water, but if that water is poured over an unclean thing and drains away, it remains pure. Only running water is said to have such a purifying power, not vinegar.

According to al-Juwainī, the provisions of the Sharia can be divided into three categories: (1) those whose meaning can by no means be understood, (2) those whose meaning is grasped at first glance and (3) those whose meaning is Principle is grasped, the details of which elude reason. Examples of the first category are the liability of the clan association (ʿāqila) for the payment of blood money , and the obligation to wash thoroughly after ejaculation , while this is not necessary after urination . The second category includes the legitimacy of retaliation , which is understandable insofar as it serves as a deterrent. Al-Juwainī places wudū ' and ritual prayer in the third category . It could be said that the principle of both is recognizable, namely cleanliness in wudoo 'and exercise of the body in ritual prayer (riyāḍa) . In the details, such as the special rules of the prayer cycles (rakʿāt) , however, different types of Taʿabbudāt were at work . Al-Juwainī explains that in the third category of Islamic regulations the Taʿabbud is dominant and therefore the gate to qiyās is closed (p. 40).

Al-Juwainī then worked out his theory of Taʿabbud even more. Ash-Shafiʿī has taught that a purchase comes about as soon as any phrase is spoken that expresses the purchase. A marriage, on the other hand, is only valid if special words are used, because a marriage is much more affected by Taʿabbudāt than a purchase. The marriage contract differs from all other contracts by its own characteristics and problems, which are known in large numbers and to everyone. These made clear his dignity and weight, and distinguished marriage from other matters. And so the marriage contract is also emphasized by a special formula as Taʿabbud on the part of the legislator (= God) (p. 41). Nevertheless, asch-Shafiurteil ruled that a marriage contract could also be concluded in the Persian language if a contracting party was ignorant of Arabic, because the Persian wording was not Arabic, but the meaning was one and the same, and therefore the analogy could be concluded with him be drawn (p. 42). Just as the Taʿabbud is weaker in business relationships (muʿāmalāt) than in marriage, conversely it is more pronounced in takbīr in ritual prayer. For this reason, asch-Shafiʿī had restricted his ability to practice qiyās even more and judged that his original form had to be preserved even with a lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. However, the use of the Persian language in the recitation of the Koran is completely out of the question, because it is linked to the Arabic language and the Iʿjāz (p. 43).

While al-Shafid in this way brought the Islamic norms into a precise order and sequence, Abu Hanīfa treated everything equally, business relationships, marriage contracts, the takbīr, acts of worship and the wonderful Koran. He taught: "A purchase also comes about without the appropriate expression, a marriage as well and a takbīr as well, and the recitation of the Koran comes about without preserving its specific composition, so that if one recites the Koran in Persian during ritual prayer that prayer is valid "(p. 44). Al-Juwainī sees it as a mixture of different disciplines and genres and a neglect of the subtleties (ḏuhūl ʿan ad-daqāʾiq) . Ash-Shāfidī, on the other hand, saw these subtleties more closely (p. 44).

Case studies of the superiority of the Shafiite rules

Al-Juwainī then goes through various legal applications (furūʿ) and individual questions in order to demonstrate the superiority of the Shafiite over the Hanafi position. Only individual examples are selected here:

Ritual purity

Al-Juwainī explains that the sense of ritual purity lies on the one hand in cleanliness and purity and on the other hand in worship (taʿabbud) . These two purposes could only be achieved with a special means, namely water. On the other hand, those who do wudoo ' with date wine make themselves a warning example for people, especially in hot summer. As Al-Bāqillānī reported, Abū Hanīfa even considers the prayer of a drunkard to be valid, which he says after he has fallen into a wine trough (p. 53). Abū Hanīfa had also declared the wudū 'performed without Nīya to be valid, although news reports confirmed that it was an act of worship . An act of worship, al- Juwainī explains, is an approach to God (qurba ilā Allāh) . Such an approach can only come about through sincerity (iḫlāṣ) , whereby a nīya is again necessary for sincerity (p. 53f).

Another point addressed by al-Juwainī is the repetition of stroking the head. Abū Hanīfa taught that this was not mandatory because the purpose of the repetition was to completely immerse the head in water. When this is achieved, no more repetition is necessary. Ash-Shāfidī, on the other hand, taught that repetition brought greater cleanliness and cleanliness and in this way perfected the actual purpose of the action (p. 55). Abū Hanīfa also allowed the ritual prayer to be performed with a removable impurity (naǧāsa) when she occupies less than a quarter of the garment. However, this contradicts the religious legal purpose of prayer (p. 54f.). In addition, he had also allowed prayer to be performed while wearing a dog's fur . Al-Juwainī regards this as particularly offensive. He asks: "How should it be allowed to come closer to God when one is clothed with an animal hide that the Sharia has forbidden to acquire ?" (P. 55).

Ritual prayer

With regard to ritual prayer , al -Juwainī cites an anecdote that reports how the Ghaznavid ruler Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030) turned away from the Hanafi madhhab after the Shafiite scholar al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī gave him a ritual prayer according to the Hanafi rules and inserted all sorts of repulsive things into the prayer. “If,” al-Juwainī concludes the anecdote, “the prayer, as Abū Hanīfa has admitted, were presented to a lay person, he would certainly refuse it. Ritual prayer is the mainstay of religion. The wrongness of his faith in prayer will suffice for you to illustrate the futility of his teaching in prayer ”(p. 59).

Zakat

Al-Juwainī emphasizes that the purpose of zakāt is to correct deficiencies, to satisfy hunger and to benefit the poor. For this reason, the zakāt must be paid immediately and does not cease to apply if the person obliged to die. If, on the other hand, one teaches like the Hanafis that the fulfillment of this duty can be postponed and that the duty ceases to exist with death, this would lead to the sense of this duty being nullified (p. 60).

Final part

In the final part of his work, al-Juwainī turns against the objection that the superiority of the Shafiite madhhab over the Hanafi madhhab may be established, but that it is necessary to orientate oneself to the madhhab of Mālik ibn Anas . He rejects this objection, arguing that Mālik ibn Anas, in observing the Qur'an and "cutting off the means" (sadd aḏ-ḏarāʾi überschritten) exceeded the appropriate limits, so that he "killed a third of the ummah around them to allow other thirds to flourish "(p. 77). In particular, he emphasizes the extreme severity of the Malikitic Madhhab in punishment (ʿuqūbāt) (p. 77f.).

Finally, al- Juwainī rejects the charge of zealotry (taʿaʿub) . He affirms that he does not claim infallibility for ash-Shafid (p. 80). The reader should not think that he is getting excited for ash-Shafiī at the expense of Abū Hanīfa (p. 83). Rather, it is said that the Hanafis had taken it very far in their jealousy against al-Shaafidi, so that Muhammad al-Shaibani and Abu Yūsuf, as al-Shaafidi himself reported, even asked God in a supplication to accept Ash-Shaafidī kill (p. 84).

Historical background

Al-Juwainī's writing is related to the Hanafi-Shafiite rivalries in his hometown of Nishapur , which reached a climax during his lifetime, which coincided with the beginning of the Seljuk rule. The vast majority of Muslims in Nishapur at that time were under the influence of the Hanafis, to whom the Turkmens, headed by the sultan, were considered to be. The Shafiites like al-Juwainī were only a minority of the total population, but they made up the majority of the leading, wealthy class in the city. After taking Nishapur in 1037, the Seljuk Sultan Toghrul Beg not only appointed a Hanafi as head of the city, but also appointed a Hanafi chief preacher for the city, namely ʿAlī ibn al-Hasan as-Sandalī (d. 1091). Al-Juwainī, who represented the city's Shafiite establishment, is said to have argued frequently with al-Sandalī; when they got together, their followers fell upon each other. Later, the new vizier in charge Nizam al-Mulk , the wrong religion policies of his predecessor into its opposite and began to support the Shafi'i, Al-Juwayni with the chair at the newly founded Nezamiyeh - madrasa at Nishapur.

At what point in his life al-Juwainī wrote Mughīth al-chalq is not known. His reference to a “generality” (ʿāmma) of his own works on the Usūl al-fiqh in this book makes it probable, however, that he only put them on paper later in his scholarly career. Éric Chaumont suspects that al-Juwainī was addressing the political class with his writing and wanted to get them to make the Shafiite madhhab the official madhhab of the state or at least to privilege it over the Hanafi madhhab.

It is noticeable that the young al-Ghazālī , who studied with al-Juwainī at the Nizāmīya, also wrote an anti-Hanafite pamphlet, the Kitāb al-Manḫūl fī l-uṣūl in the last chapter of this work, al-Ghazālī provides a summary of al-Juwainī's script. The Kitāb al-Manḫūl was written during the lifetime of his teacher and is demonstrably one of the earliest works of al-Ghazālī. This suggests that al-Juwaīnī attached great importance to the confrontation with the Hanafis during his apprenticeship at the Nizāmīya and also instructed his students to argue for this confrontation. Mughīth al-chalq could have originated in this context. The text obviously served to prepare for disputes with Hanafis, because many of the questions introduced with wa-in qīla anticipate possible Hanafi objections to a Shafiite claim to priority in the manner of a refutatio.

Hanafi counter-writings

Later on, Hanafi scholars wrote counter-writings to al-Juwainī's text. One of them is the Kitāb at-Taʿlīm fī radd ʿalā l-Ġazālī wa-l-Ǧuwainī of Masʿūd ibn Schaiba as-Sindī, which at the same time also opposes the Kitāb al-Manḫūl of al-Ghazālī. There is no information about its chronological classification, but it is already mentioned in the Hanafi lexicon al-Ǧawāhir al-muḍīʾa by ʿAbd al-Qādir Ibn Abī l-Wafā 'al-Quraschī (d. 1373). At the beginning of the 17th century, the Meccan scholar ʿAlī al-Qārī wrote his text Tašyīʿ al-fuqahāʾ al-Ḥanafīya fī tašnīʿ as-sufahāʾ aš-Šāfiʿīya (" Strengthening the discreet Hanafites and insulting the individual foolish Shafiites"), in al -Dschuwainīs and rejected each time with counter-arguments. Another Hanafi counter-writing was written in the early 20th century by Muhammad Zāhid al-Kautharī (d. 1951), the assistant to the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Empire . It is entitled Kitab Iḥqāq al-ḥaqq bi-ibṭāl al-bāṭil fī Muġīṯ al-ḫalq (" Assertion of the truth in the debunking of falsities in the book Muġīṯ al-ḫalq "). The book was published at an unknown date in Cairo by the bookstore al-Maktaba al-Azharīya li-t-turāṯ.

literature

  • Carl Brockelmann : History of Arabic Literature. Leiden 1937–1949. Vol. I² p. 488, No. III Supplement-Vol. I, p. 672, No. IV.
  • Éric Chaumont: “En quoi le maḏhab šāfiʿite est-il šāfiʿite selon le Muġīṯ al-ḫalq de Ǧuwaynī?” in Annales islamologiques 35 (2001) 17-26. Digitized
  • Tilman Nagel : The fortress of faith. Triumph and Failure of Islamic Rationalism in the 11th Century. Munich 1988. pp. 179-198.
  • Kevin Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action: The Incomprehensibility of Muslim Devotional Action in Kevin Reinhart u. a. (eds.): Islamic law in theory: studies on jurisprudence in honor of Bernard Weiss . Brill, Leiden, 2014. pp. 55-103. Here pp. 84–90.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Cf. Nagel: The Fortress of Faith. 1988, p. 191f and Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, pp. 84–90.
  2. ↑ Brockelmann: History of the Arabic literature. Vol. I² p. 488, No. III. Supplement vol. I, p. 672, No. IV.
  3. ↑ Chaumont: "En quoi le maḏhab šāfiʿite est-il šāfiʿite". 2001, p. 18.
  4. ↑ See Wilhelm Ahlwardt : Directory of Arabic Manuscripts, No. 4853 ( digitized version ).
  5. ↑ digitized version
  6. ↑ See Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, p. 84.
  7. ↑ So the translation by Kevin Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, pp. 86, 89.
  8. ^ So the translation by Tilman Nagel : Die fortress of faith. 1988, p. 192.
  9. ^ Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, p. 86.
  10. ↑ Muġīṯ al-ḫalq 1934, p. 38f.
  11. ↑ See also Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, p. 89.
  12. ↑ See also Reinhart: Ritual Action and Practical Action . 2014, p. 90.
  13. ↑ See Richard W. Bulliet: The Patricians of Nishapur. A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History. Cambridge / Massachusetts, 1972. pp. 28-46 and Clifford Edmund Bosworth: The Ghaznavids. Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran (994-1040). Edinburgh 1963.
  14. ↑ Nagel: The fortress of faith. 1988, pp. 86f.
  15. ↑ Cf. Ibn Abī l-Wafāʾ al-Qurašī: al-Ǧawāhir al-muḍīʾa fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīya. 2 vols. Hyderabad / Dekkan 1332h. Vol. I, p. 357.
  16. ↑ Chaumont: "En quoi le maḏhab šāfiʿite est-il šāfiʿite". 2001, p. 26.
  17. ↑ Brockelmann: History of the Arabic literature. Supplement vol. I, p. 754, No. 52.
  18. ↑ Chaumont: "En quoi le maḏhab šāfiʿite est-il šāfiʿite". 2001, p. 18.
  19. ↑ George F. Hourani: "A Revised Chronology of Ghazālī's Writings" in Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984) 289-302. Here p. 290f.
  20. ↑ See G. Staab: "Refutatio" in Historical Dictionary of Rhetoric Vol. VII, Sp. 1109–1113.
  21. ↑ Cf. Brockelmann: History of Arabic Literature. Supplement vol. II, p. 953.
  22. ↑ ʿAbd al-Qādir Ibn Abī l-Wafā 'al-Qurašī: al-Ǧawāhir al-muḍīʾa fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīya . Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad Ḥulw. 2nd ed. Hiǧr, Giza, 1993. Vol. III, p. 469, no. 1650. Digitized .
  23. ↑ digitized versionhttp: //vorlage_digitalisat.test/1%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Fhanafi_20150630_0216~GB%3D~IA%3D~MDZ%3D%0A~SZ%3D~ double-sided%3D~LT%3D~ PUR% 3D