Rule-formulation and binding precedent in the madhhab-law tradition : Ibn Qutlubugha's commentary on the compendium of Quduri / by Talal Al-Azem.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed.

‎Contents; ‎Preface; ‎List of Figures; ‎Transliteration, Dates, and Abbreviations; ‎Introduction; ‎Chapter 1. Authors; ‎1. The Compendium Author: Qudūrī; ‎1.1. The Sunni Revival and the Probabilism of the Madhhab-Law Tradition; ‎2. The Commentator: Ibn Quṭlūbughā; ‎2.1. Madhhab Literary Tradition and Mamluk Legal Pluralism; ‎Chapter 2. History; ‎1. Ibn Quṭlūbughā's Sources; ‎2. Periodisation; ‎2.1. Period 1: Foundational 'Ḥanafī' Opinions (ca. 150-200) [5 Jurists]; ‎2.2. Period 2: Formative Transmission (ca. 200-300) [12 Jurists, 29 References]

‎2.3. Period 3: Classical Consolidation (ca. 300-400) [11 Jurists, 109 References]‎2.4. Period 4: Tarjīḥ (ca. 400-650) [48 Jurists, 1,090 References]; ‎2.5. Period 5: Taṣḥīḥ (ca. 650-870) [19 Jurists, 900 References]; ‎2.6. Who are the 'Latter-Day Jurists' (al-mutaʼakhkhirūn)?; ‎3. Historical Geographical Patterns; ‎4. Periodisation and the Typologies of Jurists (ṭabaqāt al-fuqahāʼ); ‎Chapter 3. Theory; ‎1. Ibn Quṭlūbughā's Introduction to al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ; ‎2. Analysis of the Topics; ‎2.1. Definitions; ‎2.2. The Procedures of Rule-Determinacy; ‎2.3. Judicial Discretion

‎3. Arguments for Binding Precedent‎3.1. The Ethico-Religious Argument; ‎3.2. The Argument from Legal-System Consistency; ‎3.3. The Argument from Legal-System Coherence; ‎3.4. The Argument from Strengthened Decision-Making; ‎3.5. The Argument from Predictability; ‎3.6. The Argument from Historical Determinism; ‎4. Historical Developments; ‎4.1. Target Audiences: Muftis and Muftis; ‎4.2. Rule-Formulation (tarjīḥ) vs. Rule-Review (taṣḥīḥ); ‎4.3. From Monist to Pluralistic Legal Systems; ‎4.4. Madhhab-Law: Tradition, System, Concurrent Jurisdictions

‎5. The (Lack of) Definition of ẓāhir al-riwāya‎Chapter 4. Practice; ‎1. Ibn Quṭlūbughā's Practice of Rule-Review; ‎2. The Functional Relationships of Commentary; ‎2.1. To Resolve a Juristic Dispute [406]; ‎2.2. To Clarify a Point of Ambiguity [149]; ‎2.3. To Identify the Opinion or the Transmission Used in the Rule-Formulation [185]; ‎2.4. To Further Expand upon the Passage [420]; ‎2.5. To Identify an Editorial Problem in the Passage Itself [25]; ‎3. Employed Legal Rhetorical Reasoning; ‎3.1. Arguments of Juristic Evidence (dalīl); ‎3.2. Arguments of Transmission (riwāya)

‎3.3. Arguments of Language and Logic‎3.4. Arguments from Revelation and the Early Muslim Community; ‎3.5. Arguments from Scholarship; ‎3.6. Justifications from Juristic Considerations; ‎3.7. Justifications from Context; ‎3.8. Justifications from Exigencies of Change and Necessity; ‎3.9. Justifications of Lifting Difficulty and Facilitating Ease; ‎3.10. Justifications of Preceding Juristic Authority; ‎4. Operative Principles of Rule-Determination; ‎5. The Degree of Congruence between Theory and Practice; ‎Conclusion; ‎Appendix 1. The Writings of Qudūrī

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.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide