Competitive hagiography in biographies of al-Awza'i and Sufyan al-Thawri.

• Author: Judd, Steven C.

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT of Islamic law involved both the elaboration of increasingly complex systems for deriving positive law from Islamic sources (whose validity and relationship to each other were still by no means settled) and the process of defining boundaries between the emerging Islamic legal madhhabs. Modern discussions of the origins of Islamic law and the advent of madhhabs typically follow Joseph Schacht's basic chronology, according to which legal decisions were initially made on case by case bases relying upon past precedents. This approach eventually led to regional variations of a "living tradition," which ultimately transformed into eponymous madhhabs, some of which survive today. While the influence of particular sources on early Islamic law and the timing of events have been the focus of vigorous debate, most scholars accept in some form the basic progression from living tradition to regional school to eponymous madhhab. (1)

The emergence of eponymous madhhabs marked a pivotal change in the way approaches to Islamic law were labeled and discussed. Once particular methods for deriving Islamic law were attached to the individual "founders" of madhhabs, legal discourse could no longer be limited to debates about methods, but instead required the defense and criticism of the long-departed legal titans for whom the madhhabs were named. An examination of medieval Arabic biographical literature illustrates the melange of praise, insult, and legal reasoning this transition produced. The increasing focus on the madhhabs' legendary founders induced students

of prominent jurists to claim particular views for their shaykhs while rejecting the validity of rival shaykhs' similar conclusions. Competition also led later generations of scholars to insist on comparing and ranking their predecessors according to every conceivable criterion. As a consequence of fervent rivalry between madhhabs, biographies of a school's eponym provide evidence of th e scholar's exemplary personal qualities, justifications for his interactions with political authorities, and numerous testimonials from later authorities asserting his superiority to the founders of rival madhhabs, in addition to sometimes disappointingly cryptic descriptions of his jurisprudence.

Competition, along with the nature of the opponent, also affected the degree to which biographers focused on any particular aspect of the eponym's greatness. Biographers seeking to distinguish between rivals who held fundamentally different views about central issues of jurisprudence could do so without deviating far from fiqh. For instance, students of Malik b. Anas could contrast their madhhab to Abu Hanifa's by demeaning the latter's acceptance of personal reasoning ([ra.sup.[contains]]y), which Malik rejected in favor of the sunna of the Hijaz. Abu Hanifa's students could respond in similar fashion, lauding the virtues of reason and questioning the primacy of the Hijaz. In such an exchange, the focus remained on jurisprudence and the boundary between the two madhhabs was drawn primarily on methodological grounds.

When scholars' approaches to jurisprudence did not differ substantially, the bases for comparison necessarily shifted away from fiqh. Instead, students of scholars with similar views had to compare their shaykhs' exemplary personal qualities to their rivals' deficiencies of piety or character. Biographies of legal scholars are filled with anecdotes emphasizing the subject's personal virtues. Aside from their obvious hagiographic function, stories of the shaykh's merits were also used to distinguish him from his rivals. Consequently, in some cases the subtle differences in legal reasoning that may (or may not) have separated eponyms are obscured by the biographical dialogue about the relative personal qualities of the rival madhhabs' founders.

The biographies of [Abd.sup.[subset]] al-Rahman b. [Amr.sup.[subset]] al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i (d. 157/774) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161/778) illustrate how followers of scholars whose legal approaches differed only subtly struggled to delineate between them and to define the boundaries between their madhhabs. In the absence of specific, significant legal disagreements or clear regional affinities, biographers of Sufyan and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i focused their discussions on other aspects of their shaykhs' lives, particularly on their responses to the [Abbasid.sup.[subset]] revolution and their interactions with the new regime. Hence, the boundary between the two madhhabs was drawn not on theoretical or regional grounds, but instead on the basis of the historical roles of their eponyms. In biographies of al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i and Sufyan al-Thawri, their followers used their responses to the [Abbasid.sup.[subset]] revolution as evidence of the superiority of one shaykh over the other.

After a brief overview of the jurisprudence of Sufyan al-Thawri and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i, this article goes on to describe al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i's and Sufyan's responses to the [Abbasids.sup.[subset]], paying particular attention to the hagiographic dialogue implicit in these reports. Next it discusses reports detailing direct interactions between the two shaykhs that are more explicitly competitive. Finally, it considers the significance of this dialogue between followers of al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i and Sufyan al-Thawri and its implications for our understanding of the medieval Arabic biographical sources.

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF AL-[AWZA.sup.[supset]]I AND AL-THAWRI

While it is beyond the scope and intent of this article to offer a comprehensive comparison of the fiqh of al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i and Sufyan al-Thawri, a brief overview of their legal thinking is in order. Al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i and Sufyan al-Thawri approached Islamic jurisprudence in similar ways. Both relied on the "living tradition" of the community as a major source of Islamic law and both were also noted muhaddiths. In contrast to the Hanafis, neither accepted the validity of [ra.sup.[contains]]y as a distinct source of Islamic law. In fact, both were reportedly hostile to the ashab al-[ra.sup.[contains]]y and to Abu Hanifa specifically. (2) Despite this, both used rudimentary logical and analogical reasoning to answer some legal questions. (3) Both also rejected the parochial views of Malik, who favored the traditions of Medina over those of other regions. (4) Due in part to the similar methods they employed, Sufyan al-Thawri and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i agreed on many points of positive law, as eviden ced by numerous citations, particularly relating to the division of spoils, compiled by their shared pupil Abu Ishaq al-Fazari (d. 185/802) in his Kitab al-siyar. Indeed, even when they disagreed, their methods for deriving law remained essentially similar. (5)

Their similar jurisprudence and their association with the Umayyad regime made it difficult for their followers to claim particular views exclusively for one shaykh or the other. (6) However, with the emergence of eponymous madhhabs as the standard nomenclature for classifying legal traditions, distinctions between Sufyan and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i had to be made.

Modern scholars have also found it difficult to fit Sufyan and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i into their models for classifying legal thinkers. Beginning with Schacht, al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i has generally been described as a leader of the ancient Syrian regional school. His influence survived longest in Syria and al-Andalus, where his Umayyad patrons were still respected after the [Abbasid.sup.[subset]] revolution, but it had been more widespread during the Umayyad era. (7) His association with the defeated regime, combined with the rising prominence of Hanafis and Hanbalis in the new capital city of Baghdad, ultimately led to the demise of the [Awza.sup.[subset]]iya madhhab.

Most scholars also classify Sufyan al-Thawri regionally, treating him as something of a dissenter within the Iraqi tradition. This classification rests on the following tenuous assumptions: first, the fact that he spent significant portions of his life in the Hijaz and Yemen, where he acquired much of his had ith knowledge, must not detract from his Iraqi affinity; (8) second, his objection to Abu Hanifa's [ra.sup.[contains]]y is surely a mere variant within the Iraqi tradition rather than a fundamental rejection of one of its major tenets. By contrast, his acceptance of hadith from a broad array of sources and his students' criticism of Malik's rejection of non-Medinan traditions are evidence of his regional affinity. Finally, the parallels between Sufyan's approach to fiqh and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i's jurisprudence should be dismissed in favor of their geographical origins.

Biographies of Sufyan and al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i do not rely on geography to distinguish between them, implying that regionalism was not as prominent as modern scholars tend to believe. Their followers thus found it difficult to create distinctions to clarify the boundaries between the separate eponymous madhhabs that eventually claimed Sufyan and al-[Awza.sup.[contains]]i as their founders. The absence of fundamental theoretical disagreements, their association with the Umayyad regime, and the fact that their most prominent students refused to choose one over the other forced biographers to contemplate other aspects of their lives to separate them.

The [Abbasid.sup.[subset]] revolution provided a convenient focus for creating contrasts between the two men, since their responses to the defeat of their Umayyad patrons were so different. Al-[Awza.sup.[subset]]i was able to accommodate the new regime without either condemning his former patrons or acknowledging the justice of the revolution. The [Abbasids.sup.[subset]] allowed him to retire to Beirut, provided him with a stipend, and corresponded with him about various legal matters. Many of his students went on to become qadis for the new dynasty. (9)...