The charge levelled against al-Imām Taqiyy al-Dīn al-Subkī is that despite possessing all the requirements for ijtihād, he did not perform ijtihād, and preferred to remain within the bounds of his madhhab, since the adoption of independent ijtihād would preclude him from rising to positions which were reserved for fuqahāʾ of the madhāhib.
This allegation appears in a conversation between Abū Zurʿah Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-ʿIrāqī and his teacher Sirāj al-Dīn ʿUmar ibn Ruslān al-Bulqīnī. The former asks the latter the reason why al-Subkī does not adopt independent ijtihād despite having all the requirements. The latter does not know. Abū Zurʿah then suggests this reason, and al-Bulqīnī agrees.
The points requiring discussion are four:
- How is the adoption of ijtihād supposed to manifest itself?
- Al-Subkī’s character
- The ijtihād of al-Subkī vs the ijtihād of al-Bulqīni
- Al-Subkī’s opponents
1. How is ijtihād maninfested?
It appears from the conversation between Abū Zurʿah and al-Bulqīnī that al-Subkī did not perform ijtihād. However, this contention does not tally with the facts. Al-Subkī’s son Tāj al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in his father’s biography in Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā, has given us a list of the masāʾil in which his father’s independent ijtihād led him to opinions completely outside the madhhab (vol. 10 pp. 226-234). The list contains 54 masāʾil. In another list (vol. 10 pp. 234-266) thrice as long than the first one, he tabulates the masāʾil in which his father adopted positions within the madhhab at variance with the official positions of al-Rāfiʿī and al-Nawawī. This too, is an exercise requiring a certain level of ijtihād.
But let us assume that al-Bulqīnī and Abū Zurʿah were unaware of the above. Would it then mean that al-Subkī did not practice ijtihād? That conclusion can only be drawn by someone labouring under the impression that the performance of ijtihād must, as a matter of necessity, lead to the adoption of positions that differ from the official position of the madhhab. When a faqīh of a madhhab performs independent ijtihād he will arrive either at a position different from that of his madhhab, or he will discover that the position of his madhhab was in fact the correct one. The value of the ijtihād which leads back to the madhhab is in no way less than the ijtihād leading away from the madhhab. To expect that every exercise of independent ijtihād must lead away from the madhhab betrays a lack of understanding.
Thus in the case of al-Subkī, his ijtihād was not restricted to the 50-odd cases in which he adopted positions completely outside the madhhab. In the hundreds, if not thousands of other masāʾil in which he concurs with the madhhab the chances of him having adopted those positions as a matter of ijtihād and not taqlīd, are as great as in the case of his ijtihād-based departures from the madhhab. The only difference lies in the fact that the latter are obvious while the former are oblivious.
The history of the madhhab contains abundant examples of ijtihād which leads to conformity with the madhhab rather than departure from it. The case of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī comes to mind. This faqīh, who was the shaykh of the Khurāsānī ṭarīqah of the madhhab, used to say: “We are not muqallids of al-Shāfiʿī. Rather, our ijtihād coincided with his.” This same statement was echoed by his pupil al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, Shaykh Abū ʿAlī al-Sinjī, al-Ustādh Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī and others (Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj vol. 10 p. 109).
2. Al-Subkī’s character
A person who takes the conversation between Abū Zurʿah and al-Bulqīnī at face value cannot be blamed for forming an impression of al-Imām al-Subkī as an avaricious, impious and egotistic person who is prepared to abandon ijtihād for the sake of worldly gain. But does this correspond to what is known about the character of al-Imām al-Subkī?
The character of al-Imām al-Subkī is a topic on which many pages can be filled, and in fact have been filled in the past. Suffice to say that the austerity and piety of al-Imām al-Subkī, and his complete disregard for the world, and disdain of wealth and splendour is a matter of consensus between his biographers. The historian Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-ʿAlāʾī said of him: “People say that there has not appeared anyone like him (al-Subkī) since al-Ghazālī. I am of the opinion that they do him an injustice. To me he is comparable to no one less that Sufyān al-Thawrī.” (Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā vol. 10 p. 197)
His first appointment as qāḍī came at the age of 56, and up to that age he lived a life of isolation, only given to teaching and writing. His appointment as chief justice of Shām in 739 came at the insistence of the Mamlūk king, Barqūq. He persistently refused the appointment, but the king would not excuse him. Eventually, after a long and tedious meeting with the king, he was forced to accept the appointment (Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿīiyyah al-Kubrā vol. 10 p. 168). It goes without saying that this is not the behaviour one would expect of someone who is prepared to abandon ijtihād for the sake of appointments.
3. The ijtihād of al-Subkī vs. the ijtihād of al-Bulqīnī
Al-Imām Taqiyy al-Dīn as-Subkī was not the only Shāfiʿī faqīh of his era to have reached the level of ijtihād. Another one who reached it was this very same Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī. Such was his level of erudition that he was regarded by many as the mujaddid of the eighth century. Al-Sakhāwī quotes his mentor Ibn Ḥajar as saying that al-Bulqīnī possessed the full requirements for ijtihād (al-Dawʾ al-Lāmiʿ vol. 6 p. 88). Yet we find that his recorded departures from the madhhab are markedly less than those of al-Subkī. In fact, it is quite difficult to pinpoint the instances of his departure.
We also know that he had accepted positions of teaching as well as judicial appointments in his lifetime. Would it therefore be justified for us to apply the same standard to him as Abū Zurʿah has applied to al-Subkī and say that despite having the full ability for ijtihād he desisted from practicing it in apprehension that he might lose out on appointments?
No, that would not be justified. The correct way of dealing with aspersions cast by one recognised scholar on another is to disregard it as what the muḥaddithūn term “kalām al-aqrān baʿḍihim fī baʿḍ (disparaging remarks of contemporaries),” which are often inspired by subjective factors. As to what subjective reasons there were for al-Bulqīnī to acquiesce to Abū Zurʿah’s disparaging conclusion, that will come to light in what follows.
4. Al-Subkī’s opponents
The brilliance of al-ImāmTaqiyy al-Dīn al-Subkī had started showing even in his youth. It was inevitable that he would engage the ʿulamāʾ of his time in discussion, and that he would rise above them. The fact that he excelled his contemporaries is attested to even by Ibn Taymiyyah. In fact, it on record that Ibn Taymiyyah had greater respect for al-Subkī than anyone else in his time (Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā vol. 10 p. 194).
Some of the discussions which he had with the older generation of ʿulamāʾ of his time gave rise to negative feelings towards him on account his age. Amongst the names mentioned in this regard are those of Ibn al-Katnānī, Ibn ʿAdlān and Ibn al-Anṣārī (Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā vol. 10 p. 379)
Now, turning to the biography of al-Bulqīnī we discover the following: “Amongst his shuyūkh in fiqh are Taqiyy al-Dīn al-Subkī, but most of his learning was received from Shams al-Dīn Ibn ʿAdlān, Shams al-Dīn Ibn al-Qammāḥ, Najm al-Dīn Ibn al-Aswānī and Zayn al-Dīn Ibn al-Katnānī.” (al-Dawʾ al-Lāmiʿ vol. 6 p. 85)
With two of al-Subkī’s opponents—Ibn ʿAdlān and Ibn al-Katnānī—featuring prominently amongst his main teachers of fiqh, it becomes understandable, to a certain degree, how al-Bulqīnī could be ill-disposed towards al-Subkī, under whom he himself had studied very little. His attitude towards al-Subkī was in all probability inherited from his teachers.
The correct manner of dealing with instances of this nature is to place it within its proper historical and circumstantial perspective. This has been the way the ʿulamāʾ dealt with the disparaging remarks of Imam Mālik against Muḥammad ibn Ishāq, the remarks against Imam Abū Ḥanīfah by his contemporaries, the remarks of Abū Ḥātim and Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī against Imam al-Bukhārī, the remarks of Ibn Mandah against Abu Nuʿaym and vice versa, and the mutual disparagements of al-Sakhāwī and al-Suyūṭī.
To do what Sayyid Sābiq has done — to use the remarks of Abū Zurʿah, al-ʿIrāqī and Sirāj al-Dīn al-Bulqīnī against al-Imām Taqiyy al-Dīn al-Subkī as evidence that the fuqahāʾ abandoned ijtihād for the sake of positions and appointments — smacks of opportunism compounded by a lack of adequate respect for the ʿulamāʾ of the past, and regrettably aided by a failure to understand the context of such statements.
Be that as it may, for the observer who looks back at the past — and right now, our past includes Sayyid Sābiq — the manner of response is dictated not by sentiment, but rather by Divine Revelation:
“Those who come after them, say: Our Rabb, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith. And place not in our hearts rancour towards those who believe. Our Rabb, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (al-Ḥashr, 10)