In light of recent developments in the field, this Roundtable on Islamic Legal History and Historiography is designed to take stock of the state of the field. We invited leading and emerging scholars of Islamic law and history to weigh in on their approaches to questions of history and historiography, method and meaning in Islamic legal history. Contributing scholars include Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Michael Cook, Metin Cosgel, Bogac Ergene, Maribel Fierro, Ersilia Francesca, Robert Gleave, Najam Haider, Wael Hallaq, Marion Katz, Hugh Kennedy, Joseph Lowry, Carl Petry, Intisar Rabb, Yosef Rapoport, Marina Rustow, Ahmed El Shamsy, Sohaira Siddiqui, Elizabeth Urban, Hiroyuki Yanagihashi, and many more.
*Intisar Rabb is a professor of law and history at Harvard University, Director of its Program in Islamic Law, and Editor-in Chief of the Islamic Law Blog. Mariam Sheibani is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto and Lead Blog Editor of the Islamic Law Blog. As conveners of this Roundtable on Islamic Legal History and Historiography, we gratefully acknowledge the comments from Professors Abigail Balbale of New York University, Najam Haider of Barnard College, and Adnan Zulfiqar of Rutgers Law School; and the editorial assistance and contributions of two stellar student editors: Cem Tecimer, a SJD candidate at Harvard Law School, and Omar Abdel-Ghaffar, a PhD student in the Department of History at Harvard University.
(Suggested Bluebook citation: Roundtable on Islamic Legal History and Historiography, Islamic Law Blog (Intisar A. Rabb & Mariam Sheibani eds., 2020-2021), https://islamiclaw.blog/2020/12/10/legalhistoryroundtable/)
(Suggested Chicago citation: Intisar A. Rabb & Mariam Sheibani, eds., “Roundtable on Islamic Legal History and Historiography,” Islamic Law Blog, December 10, 2020, https://islamiclaw.blog/2020/12/10/legalhistoryroundtable/)
Over the next several weeks, throughout December 2020 and January 2021, we will publish a series of scholarly essays, reflecting on method and meaning in Islamic legal history on the Islamic Law Blog. This online Roundtable will culminate in a live discussion in February via Zoom. For the first time, these Roundtables—both written and live—will put a wide array of legal, intellectual, and social historians in conversation with one another, connected by the sources and insights about Islamic law that have animated the field over the last half century of scholarship on Islamic law. We are excited to present these thought-provoking essays, and hope that you join us in continuing the conversations and collaborative scholarship that we hope will be sparked by this historic discussion about the state of the field of Islamic legal history.
By Robert Gleave, Professor of Arabic Studies at the University of Exeter
In his essay, Robert Gleave notes that the study of Islamic law in the Western Academy has come a long way since the 1980s, to the extent that it provided target practice for the late Shahab Ahmed, who sought to return Islamic law to just one of many ways of approaching Islam. Yet, for Gleave, there is much to be said and much still to be done in looking at history and other disciplines through Islamic law. To be sure, the plethora of sources, legal and non-legal, that scholars now see to be sources for the study of Islamic law is promising if disappointingly underutilized. Moreover, scholars today focus on Sunnī sources as default at the expense—with some exceptions—of robust engagement with Shīʿī and other minoritarian sources to tell a fuller legal history of the field. Gleave cautions that neither Ahmed’s “legal normativity” nor the field’s Sunnī dominance need lead the field; rather, the sources should guide the field.
Why did legal scholars write the books they wrote in pre-modern Islamic societies? The case of al-Andalus
By Maribel Fierro, Professor, Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean, CSIC-Madrid
Maribel Fierro’s motivating question is “[w]hy books dealing with specific subjects were written at specific times and in specific contexts.” Relying on a dataset compiled by Historia de los Autores y Transmisores de al-Andalus (HATA), a project she directs that aims to map the intellectual production of al-Andalus, the author observes that the majority of scholarship produced by Andalusi scholars were fiqh and poetry texts. The former, she argues, is likely explained by the professional opportunities enabled by engaging in the study of fiqh at the time compared to other genres. What makes such research possible is the breadth of the dataset, in no small way thanks to the collegial sense of some of the scholars during the Andalusi era, exemplified by the case of Ibn al-Ṭallāʿ(d. 497/1104) whose Kitāb aqḍiyat rasūl Allāh lists thirty-four of the sources he relied on.
By Ahmed El Shamsy, Associate Professor, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago
Ahmed El Shamsy responds to Ayesha Chaudhry’s contribution to The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law titled “Islamic Legal Studies: A Critical Historiography.” Taking issue with her characterization of the field as dominated by two paradigms, El Shamsy addressed one of them: what she labels “White Supremacist Islamic Studies (WhiSIS).” He notes that Chaudhry avoided producing evidence to support her claims, which generates unsubstantiated and overgeneralized claims about the field. He focuses on her two main claims: (1) that the field is preoccupied with precolonial texts, which has the effect of treating Islam as a dead religion, and (2) that all scholarship is a form of activism. To the first of these claims, El Shamsy points to a long tradition of Muslims themselves—traditionalists and reformists themselves—actively using precolonial and purportedly “dead” texts to criticize contemporary approaches to Islamic law, rendering them anything but “dead.” As to the second, conceiving of scholarship as inextricable from activism, among others, runs the risk of turning the field into another battlefield for the culture wars.
This interview was conducted by Omar Abdel-Ghaffar (Harvard University, PhD student).
In this interview, Yossef Rapoport emphasizes the inextricable connections between Islamic law and society, and therefore, the interdependence between the study of legal and social history. He urges complementing the study of legal manuals with a thorough examination of social and practical sources; a methodology that he has modeled in his own scholarship. The interview concludes with Rapoport’s observations about how the field has evolved in the past three decades, and promising emerging developments.
By Ersilia Francesca, University of Naples “L’Orientale”
In her essay, Ersilia Francesca reviews scholarship on Ibāḍī law, an understudied and marginalized subfield of Islamic legal history. She argues that recent scholarship in Ibāḍī law has demonstrated that Schact was mistaken to dismiss Ibāḍī jurists as outliers who adopted Sunnī legal norms with only a few tweaks. To the contrary, studying Ibāḍī law as a view of Islam “from the edge,” she contends, enables a fuller picture of the multi-faceted process of Islamic law’s emergence. She further offers a periodization for the study of Ibāḍī jurisprudence in three chronological stages: a formative stage in Basra, an intermediate stage generated by Ibāḍī travels to Oman and the Magreb, ending in “a stage of maturity.”
By Najam Haider, Barnard College
In his essay, Najam Haider calls for “more cohesive and integrated scholarly engagement with the pre-modern Islamicate world.” To that end, the author urges scholars to creatively engage and treat legal texts as valuable sources for understanding the social and political predicates of Islamic societies. For example, tracing the creation and migration of legal texts across regions can yield valuable insights into multiple ideas and ideologies across the pre-modern Islamic world, as a part of a larger intertextual world where scholars study all actors in Islamic history as interacting with, complementing, and arguing against one another.
By Rula J. Abisaab, McGill University
Rula Jurdi Abisaab begins her essay by noting that the turn to literary texts in Islamic legal history should not assume that those texts can be explained by self-referential means only. She calls for attention to context alongside text, and above all, relations of power to explicate textual meaning. An example from her own work on Safavid Iran demonstrates the point: that critical textual analysis ought to be supplemented by “read[ing] around and outside,” which includes examining biographical notes, chronicles, anecdotal evidence and other unconventional sources — even when (or, especially when) the sources leave gaps.
By Elizabeth Urban, West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Elizabeth Urban urges scholars of Islamic law and Islamic history to consider four strategies in their scholarship that collectively aim at achieving “interdisciplinarity and scholarly dialogue.” The strategies range from a capacious use of sources, a multi-genre approach to history and law, attending to the perspectives of the socially vulnerable—namely women and the unfree, and considering demographic change that may simultaneously prove to be a legal consequence to and cause of changes in early Islamic laws, from Islamic family law and beyond.
By Joseph Lowry, University of Pennsylvania
“When did pious speculation by Muslim individuals become Islamic law?,” asks Professor Joseph Lowry in his essay. He suggests that formal institutions applying legal norms historically may not have been necessary for the formation of Islamic law, especially if we understand that term to mean a collection of “juristic discourses.” Although we should not assume that the Qur’an and the prophetic sayings inevitably culminated in a legal tradition, we can certainly see these sources as contributing to a “distinctively Islamic legal hermeneutics.” Read more to see how, and why scholars should clarify their own working definitions of “Islamic law” in their own discourse and use of the early sources.
By Sohaira Siddiqui, Georgetown University in Qatar
Sohaira Siddiqui begins her essay by challenging the explanatory force that “dichotomies” wield in explaining history. The dichotomy of “continuity vs. rupture,” for example, is prevalent in Islamic scholarship, but is, she contends, overly reductive. Instead of seeing a bright-line “colonial moment” that divides two historical periods and generates a sense of rupture from a unified past, can we speak of “legal contestation, transformation, and reformulation” that better explains colonialism in parts of the Islamic world? Siddiqui urges scholars to answer this question with close analysis of transmitted texts and the history of courts and other institutions.
In their joint essay, Metin Coşgel and Boğaç Ergene make the case for “a pluralistic approach to the study of Islamic legal history,” through the lens of law and economics and other types of quantitative analysis. Regression analysis, they suggest, provides especially useful approaches suited to interdisciplinary studies of historical events. To illustrate, the authors describe the findings of their previous scholarship on Ottoman court records, for which they coded data on court petitions and were able to arrive at generalizable conclusions about access to early modern courts. Noting the uptick in digitized primary sources in the field, they predict an increase in Islamic legal scholarship that integrates quantitative analysis.
By Hiroyuki Yanagihashi, University of Tokyo
Hiroyuki Yanagihashi observes how recent developments make the quantitative analysis of ḥadīths a “promising” endeavor. The question then becomes: why and how the text of certain ḥadīths, taken literally, appear to contradict established Sunnī legal doctrine? The logical presumption is that either traditionists transmitted the jurisprudence of ancient legal systems that were eventually replaced by later-derived fiqh rulings or they reformulated the ḥadīths in the process of transmission to develop the rulings underlying those later legal systems. By way of example, and to investigate these possibilities, Yanagihashi proposes quantitative analysis to trace variations within the texts of two prominent ḥadīths over the course of more than a century. His analysis yields conclusions that corroborate other work in ḥadīth-related studies from recent years (e.g., those of Behnam Sadeghi on a larger scale in his “Traveling Tradition Test,” and Intisar Rabb with respect to a select ḥadīth in her evaluation of the doubt canon, and others): an increase in textual variation does not necessarily correspond to a change in legal doctrine; the number of variants can increase over time, even after the compilation of Sunnī Islam’s six canonical ḥadīth collections. His methods represent and propose new directions for quantitative analysis at the intersection of ḥadīth and law in early Islamic history.
By Marion Katz, New York University
Marion Katz reflects on major developments in Islamic legal studies since the 1990’s, the decade that saw – as noted in the introduction to this Roundtable– expanded and diversified scholarly attention to Islamic legal studies. For her, it is puzzling then that outdated frameworks continue to percolate in the field, such as the crude “premodern / modern binary” and the continued neglect of what she calls fiqh studies. Katz urges scholars to pursue more nuanced approaches to deal with the sheer volume of the textual corpus and to fill in chasmic history of substantive law, namely: (1) the study of “core samples,” that is, the diachronic investigation of individual concepts and doctrines to document inflection points, and (2) the study of “transverse slices,” that is, the synchronic study of a wide range of material from a specific historical context that helps expose underlying and pervasive assumptions behind a broad area of law.