In Rule-Formulation and Binding Precedent in the Madhhab-Law Tradition, Talal Al-Azem argues for the existence of a madhhab-law tradition’ of jurisprudence underpinning the four post-classical Sunni schools of law. This tradition celebrated polyvalence by preserving the multiplicity of conflicting opinions within each school, while simultaneously providing a process of rule formulation (tarjīḥ) by which one opinion is chosen as the binding precedent (taqlīd). The predominant forum of both activities, he shows, was the legal commentary. Through a careful reading of Ibn Quṭlūbughā's (d. 879/1474) al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ, Al-Azem presents a new periodisation of the Ḥanafī madhhab, analyses the theory of rule formulation, and demonstrates how this madhhab-law tradition facilitated both continuity and legal change while serving as the basis of a pluralistic Mamluk judicial system.

Table of Contents:
CO N T E N T S Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Authors 23 A The compendium author: Qudūrī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 B The commentator: Ibn Quṭlūbughā . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Chapter 2 History 51 A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B Periodisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Period 1: Foundational ‘Ḥanafī’ opinions (ca. 150–200) . . . 57 Period 2: Formative transmission (ca. 200–300) . . . . . . 58 Period 3: Classical consolidation (ca. 300–400) . . . . . . 60 Period 4: Tarjīḥ (ca. 400–650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Period 5: Taṣḥīḥ (ca. 650–870) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Who are the ‘latter-day jurists’ (al-muta’akhkhirūn)? . . . . 87 C Historical geographical patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 D Periodisation and the typologies of jurists (ṭabaqāt al-fuqahā’) 96 Chapter 3 Theory 105 A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s introduction to al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ . . 108 B Analysis of the topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 2 The procedures of rule-determinacy . . . . . . . . . . 125 3 Judicial discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 C Arguments for binding precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 1 The ethico-religious argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2 The argument from legal-system consistency . . . . . 139 3 The argument from legal-system coherence . . . . . . 143 4 The argument from strengthened decision-making . . 145 5 The argument from predictability . . . . . . . . . . . 145 viii CO N T E N T S 6 The argument from historical determinism . . . . . . 146 D Historical developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 1 Target audiences: muftis and muftis . . . . . . . . . . 149 2 Rule-determination (tarjīḥ) vs. rule-review (taṣḥīḥ) . . 150 3 From monist to pluralistic legal systems . . . . . . . . 153 4 Madhhab-law: tradition, system, concurrent jurisdictions 154 E The (lack of) definition of ẓāhir al-riwāya . . . . . . . . . . 157 Chapter 4 Practice 163 A Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s practice of rule-review . . . . . . . . . . 163 B The functional relationships of commentary . . . . . . . . 166 To resolve a juristic dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 To clarify a point of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 To identify the opinion or the transmission used in the rule formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 To further expand upon the passage . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 To identify an editorial problem in the passage itself . . . . 187 C Employed legal rhetorical reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1 Arguments of juristic evidence (dalīl) . . . . . . . . . 190 2 Arguments of transmission (riwāya) . . . . . . . . . . 192 3 Arguments of language and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4 Arguments from revelation and the early Muslim community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 5 Arguments from scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 6 Justifications from juristic considerations . . . . . . . 202 7 Justifications from context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 8 Justifications from exigencies of change and necessity . 209 9 Justifications of lifting difficulty and facilitating ease . 212 10 Justifications of preceding juristic authority . . . . . . 214 D Operative principles of rule-determination . . . . . . . . . 218 E The degree of congruence between theory and practice . . 229 Conclusion 235 Appendices 243 A The Writings of Qudūrī 245 B Jurists cited by Ibn Quṭlūbughā 249 C Works cited by Ibn Quṭlubughā 255 CO N T E N T S ix Works Cited 259 Index 271