IBN TÜMART'S TEACHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH AL-GHAZÀLÎ

A joint political project between al-Ghazali and his Andalusian pupil, Abu Bakr Ibn al-^Arabl concerning the government of Spain can be uncovered from the documentary evidence and some reasoning about the chronology. The idea was apparently to gain a foothold for al-Ghazali with the Almoravid ruler Yusuf Ibn lashufín. Our conclusions about the existence of a political project are supported by documents which have been available for some time: ihtfatwa al-Ghazali wrote in support of Yusuf, the letter he wrote to Yusuf praising Abu Bakr Ibn al-*̂ Arabl and the letter he obtained from the caliph, all of which can be compared with al-Turtushl̂ s letter to Yusuf on the same subjects. The connecting idea is that this is part of a political project which would rely on a power base in the peninsula, most notably the Sufi militants and the previous ruling elite of the Taifa kings (Ibn *̂ Arabl's father had served Al-Mu*̂ tamid, Prince of Seville). Al-GhazaFi's writings provide an ideological cement for this political alliance in that they praise sufism and criticize taqUd, which was the standard approach to law used by the jurists who staffed the Almoravid hierachy. Because al-Ghazali's discourse is far above the intellectual level of the ordinary jurist, either because they provided no immediate profit or because of the practical difficulty for simple people to get books and teachers on these subjects. Hence al-Ghazall's discourse remains the property of an intellectual elite which is at the same time a social and economic elite, fluent in literary Classical Arabic and dis(c) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0) http://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es AQ, XVIII, 1997 IBN TUMART'S TEACHERS 329 tilling the intellectual gains of many generations of educated Andalusians. To confront this group, the Almoravid jurists represented the urban middle class and could arouse the urban mob in their favor. Motivated by fear that the combination of Ibn al*̂ Arabi and al-Ghazali could replace him in power, the most prominent among them, Ibn Hamdin of Cordoba, was able to orchestrate the official burning of Al-Ghazall's Ihya^ throughout the realm. Thus we find that the conflict between these two groups was well defined even before Almohad rebellion in North Africa provided the intellectual elite a military champion. The intellectual elite in turn provided the North African Almohads with administrators and an ideology. Al-Ghazali was identified as an enemy of the Almoravid regime even before Ibn Tumart, the founder of the Almohad movement, returned ft-om the East to launch his rebellion against the Almoravids from the Atlas mountains. We propose some changes in the previous picture of Al-Ghazali's whereabouts at different times. Scholars have already accepted a basic modification of the idea that he left Baghdad definitively after he stopped giving his lectures to huge audiences at the Nizamiyya school because they noticed that Abu Bakr Ibn al-*̂ Arabl says he was tutored by al-Ghazali for two years in Baghdad after that period. Now we would like to draw attention to the fact that Ibn Khallikan says that Al-Ghazali stayed in Alexandria, Egypt waiting for an answer from Yusuf Ibn Tashufín. In the context of a shifting picture of the chronology of Al-Ghazah's travels, the notion that Ibn Tumart might have seen the famous scholar seems possible and even probable.

journey to the east is 499 a meeting would be excluded. With the same dates for al-Ghazâlï, Le Tourneau and Huici came to the same conclusion. ^ A closer look at the sources shows that this is unnecessarily arbitrary.
In the first place, there is good reason to question the impartiality of the one negative account, that of Ibn al-Athrr, because of his Merinid informants. Ibn al-Athîr himself indicates that some of his material was oral: «I heard a group of distinguished (fudalà') men from the Maghrib talking about the tamyîz and I heard one of them who said...»."^ These interlocutors of Ibn al-Athïr^s would have been supporters of the Merinids whose policy was to systematically denigrate the Almohads whom they had replaced in the Maghrib. Ibn Tùmart's association with al-Ghazâlï became an embarassment to the Merinids as al-Ghazâlï's greatness began to be universally appreciated, so they had good reason to cast doubt on the two men's meeting. Goldziher, however, obviously considered that the fact that Ibn al-Athir was an easterner insured his impartiality; he speaks of «accounts of impartial oriental writers» ^ while Huici noticed the bias: «And this odious biased version of the origins of the Almohad empire, which under the Banû Marin, their victorious rivals, crystalized into so many black legends or absurd stories such as those collected by the Rawd al-Qirtàs and those incorporated into the eastern chronicles of Ibn al-Athir and al-Nuwayrïthis is what has passed to posterity». ^ Secondly, to state positively that two such peripatetic individuals never met risks error more than to assume they did, not only in contradicting the many accounts of their meeting, but also because an isolated date in a text is intrinsicaly ambiguous in the sense that if an individual is in Syria in March of a given year, he could still have been in Mecca in January, or be in Alexandria or in Baghdad in September. A final reason for rejecting the aforementioned scholars' opinion is that we can revise Macdonald's earlier version of al-Ghazâlï's whereabouts upon which their ideas were based.
Ibn Khallikân, Yâqùt and Subkï all mention the period which al-Ghazâlï spent in Alexandria and Ibn Khallikân specifies that it was directly after his period in Syria. We will anticipate our conclusion by saying that the two men could have met in 500 or 501 when Ibn Tûmart first arrived in ^ Goldziher's introduction to Le livre d 'Ibn Toumert, ed. Luciani, Algiers, 1903, 5-12; Le Tourneau, R., The Almohad Movement in North Africa in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Princeton, 1969, 6-9;Huici Miranda, A., Historia del imperio almohade, Tetuán, 1956, vol. I, 29-32 During his residence in that city, he gave lessons in the great mosque situated on the west bank of the Tigris. He then set out for Jerusalem, where he applied himself with ardour to the practises of devotion, and visited the holy monuments and venerated spots of that sacred ground. He next passed into Egypt, and remained for sometime at Alexandria, whence, it is said, he intended to sail to Maghrib, in hopes of having an interview with the emir Yûsuf Ibn Tâshufîn, the sovereign of Morocco; but having received intelligence of that prince's death, he abandoned the project.
In Al-Munqidh min al-Dalàl, ^° al-Ghazâlï says that he left for Nishapur in the eleventh month of 499, summoned by the wazîr of the Seljuk prince Sanjul, Fakhr al-Mulk. But Fakhr al-Mulk was assassinated less than a year later, on 'Áshurá' (the 10th day of the month of Muharram) 500, leaving al-Ghazâlï with no patron in Nishapur, supposing he had actually arrived there. The involvement of Fakhr al-Mulk is described by Subkï, ^^ the date of Fakhr al-Mulk's assassination as 'Àshûrâ' 500 is given by Ibn al-Athir. ^^ At that point al-Ghazâlï, might well have gone to Alexandria, where, as Ibn Khallikân tells us, he awaited the response to the letters he sent to Yûsuf Ibn Tâshufîn. Ibn Khallikân says that al-Ghazâlï stayed until he heard of Yûsuf's death, so that he would not have left Alexandria until the end of 500 or at . Because of the closeness of these dates, there is no way of being sure whether the period in Alexandria came before or after Nishapur on al-GhazálPs itinerary, but the deaths of two potential patrons within ten days would have been quite a blow to him, even without the painful similarity between Fakhr al-Mulk's death by assassination and the death of the ruler's father, al-Ghazâlï's first patron and fellow countryman Nizam al-Mulk, fifteen years before. It only remained for al-Ghazâlî to learn of the burning of his book, the Ihyà^, in al-Andalus which occurred right after the death of Yüsuf Ibn Tâshufîn to complete the measure of his disillusionment with poütics reflected in the Nasîhat al-Mulük.
As for Ibn Tûmart, his presence in Alexandria in 500 or 501 is easily established, since 500 is the date that Ibn Qattân gives for his trip for study. ^^ The date 499 ^' * is given on the authority of a member of the counsel of the fifty who says he went first to Cordoba. This is not contradictory if we assume he spent a year in al-Andalus before his trip east in 500. Since we are told he spent 15 years away, it also accords with the date 514 for his return home. Makki ^^ lists other sources, all of which give 500 or 501 as the date for Ibn Tûmart's trip. Like most travelers from the west, Ibn Tùmart came through Alexandria on his way east and also on his return west. As to the date of his arrival in Alexandria, Ibn Khallikán '^ says that Ibn Tûmart traveled through Ifriqiya (Tunisia) during the reign of Prince Tamim ibn Mu*'izz who died in 501. But in saying that he was returning rather than setting out on his journey. Ibn Khallikán makes an evident error of which he shows himself to be conscious when he deals with the return journey of Ibn Tûmart in the section he devotes to him ^^: «In this occupation [Ibn Tûmart] persisted till his arrival at al-Mahdiya, a city of Ifriqiya which was then, A.H.505 (A.D.I 111-2), under the rule of the emir Yahyà Ibn Tanûm Ibn al-Mu*^izz Ibn Badis as-Sanhajl. So I find it stated in the history of Kairawan; I have mentioned, however, in the life of Tanûm, Yahyà's father [vol. I, p. 282], that it was under Tanüm's reign that Ibn Tùmart passed through Ifnqiya on his retum from the East, and so also have I found it written. God best knows».
In view of the instability of human powers of recollection, the memory of who the prince was at the time of a given incident is more likely to be correct than a numerical date, and the memory of having met someone more certain that the knowledge of where he came from. It seems clear that it was under Tamïm's reign that Ibn Tûmart went East and under his son's reign that he returned. Hence the value of Ibn Khallikán's testimony correctly understood: Ibn Tûmart went through Mahdiy before the death of the ruler Tamïm which occurred 15 Rajab 501 A. H./Feb. 1108 A.D., which, again, would put him in Alexandria around 500 or 501, that is, early enough to coincide with al-Ghazâlï in Alexandria according to the dates we have already reviewed.
In view of the foregoing information, it is almost certain that the two men were in the same place at the same time. What remains to be seen is whether they would have had any interest in meeting each other. The explanation of why al-Ghazâlï might have been interested in meeting scholars from the west is a long story involving an overview of the political arena where the evident motivations of a number of people comprise a larger context in which to fit the question of Ibn Tumart's meeting with al-GhazalL Many documents seem to bear out Ibn Khallikán's statement that al-Ghazâlî was interested in meeting the Almoravid ruler Yûsuf Ibn Tâshufîn, including al-Ghazâlï's ingratiating letter addressed to him and afatwà al-Ghazálí wrote on the subject of the Almoravid ruler and the party kings. ' This flattering/aíwá on the Almoravid ruler concludes: «And he who considers it licit to delay, without good reason, the act of investiture of a prince whose power is manifest and whose conduct is famous, whose justice all praise, without knowledge of any other in that land who acts like him or follows his footsteps maintains a posture which harms the majesty of the caliphate...» The extent to which this flattery is exaggerated and even disingenuous emerges from the comparison between tht fatwà and al-Turtûshl^s letter to the Almoravid ruler, written on the same subject at the request of the same man a few years later which gives an entirely different picture of the Almoravids. At the end of his letter, al-Turtûshî announces Abu Bakr's trip to visit Yûsuf: «He is bringing you what will please you» = Huwa warada Al-Turtûshï speaking directly to Yüsuf Ibn Táshufín says: ^° Oh Abu Ya*^qûb you have been charged with a matter such that if the heavens were to bear it they would split, if the stars, they would fall, if the earth and the mountains, they would tremble and be flattened; but you are a party to a pact offered to the heavens, the earth and the mountains which they, terrified, refused.
He then quotes passages from the Koran and the hadith in which the unjust ruler is threatened with hell-fire. His expression is rough and straightforeward. He mentions specific complaints he has heard against Yüsuf: that 1) he is inaccessible to the people, staying aloof in his palace, 2) that he lives in luxury, 3) that he has people in prison for their debts and 4) that there are many whose property he has appropriated. Al-Turtüshí concludes by asking God for a martyr's death in holy wai' for both himself and Yüsuf, and that God grant that Yüsuf see truth and follow it, the possible implication being that up to now Yüsuf has not seen the truth. Al-Turtüshí was originally from Tortosa in al-Andalus so he may well have been better informed than al-Ghazâlï, but al-Ghazâlï certainly knew of Abu Muhammad Ibn al-Arabî's troubles with the Almoravids. The difference in the two documents is really in their intent. While al-Turtushï exhorts, al-Ghazâlî's flattery in itself suggests an attempt to establish a political foothold by gaining favor with the ruler. Now al-Ghazâlî's/a/wi^ was of relatively little use to the Almoravids, who were already the de facto rulers of Morocco and most of the Iberian peninsula and functioning as such. It is clearly stated in the documents ^^ that al-Ghazâlï's letter and fatwâ and al-Turtûshî letter were written at the request of an Andalusian, Abu Muhammad Ibn al-'^Arabï, who had gone on the pilgrimage to Mekka with his son in the month of Dhü 1-Hijja 489 the same year as al-Ghazâli. Al-Ghazâlï also was the intermediary for the caliph al-Mustansir bi-llah's letter to Yüsuf dated 491, which grants Yüsuf the right to rule in al-Andalus and to use the title of Prince of the Faithful Amîr al-Muslimïn and Defender of the Faith Nàsir aUdîn. The idea was to favor '9 p. 219 of the edition by ^Abd al-Wahháb b. Mansur, Al-Wathd'iq. Rabat, 1976, voL I. 20 Al-Wathá'iq, vol I, p. 111. The documents were needed as a kind of safeguard to return home to Seville where Ibn ^Arabî was hoping they could gain the favor of the Almoravids and have their confiscated property returned to them. ^~ The considerable political effort al-Ghazálí expended on behalf of these Andalusians also fits with the eclipse of his own prospects in Baghdad at the time he met them. Four years previously, in 485, his protector and fellowcountryman, the wazlr Nizam al-Mulk had been murdered, and in the year he met Ibn al-*^Arabr, Sultan Barkiyaruq, whose rival al-Ghazálí had backed, ^^ came to power in Baghdad, a fact which must have diminished his hopes for an effective role there. In addition to this he suffered a kind of nervous breakdown probably brought on by stress and overwork which resulted in his move to Damascus in the month of dhú *^l-qa'da of 488. '^^ AI-Ghazali's return to Bagdad after spending two years in Damascus is attested by Ibn al-*^Arabf who studied with him there. The alliance with this eminently cultivated Andalusian family in whose interest he had written the fawà and gone to the trouble of arranging for a letter from the caliph to the Almoravid Yùsuf Ibn Tâshufîn was conceivably the corner stone of a political base in Seville. For those who see al-Ghazálí as a completely other-worldly figure it is important to note that these arrangements were made after his breakdown and conversion.
Our picture of al-Ghazálí as a motivated and persistent politician is at odds with the image to which Western scholars such as Macdonald have accustomed us, ^^ basing themselves on his own self-portrait in the Munqidh. Other scholars for example, Farid Jabre, see al-Ghazálí as more of a politician. Jabre points out^^ that al-Ghazálí's actual conversion to sufism occurred several years before 488 when he left Baghdad, which weakens al-Ghazálí's explanation of his retirement in the Munqidh where he does not mention the political situation. But the idea of al-Ghazálí as a politician with worldly power in view seems inescapable and is quite in accord with the religious tradition to which he belonged. There is not such a great distance between him and Ibn Khaldûn in this respect. The notion of the mystic as necessarily other-worldly and politically neutral does not seem to apply in the Islamic world; witness the later historical development of the sufí tarîqàt such as the Naqshbandiyya with their intense political involvement. Similarly, in al-Andalus in 539, the revolution of the sufis or murídün was led by Ibn Qasi who took the title of al-^^Aziz bi-lláh, clearly with the intention of functioning as a secular ruler. ^^ That some of these sufi militants were even capable of sinister acts in their struggle for poUtical power is seen in the tragic story of one of Ibn Qasï's followers, Ibn Mundhir of Sil ves, who in 539 was bhnded by a jealous rival in the sufí movement according to Ibn al-Abbár. ^^ But the sufis of this period were not more ambitious than their contemporaries, the fighting cadis, who sometimes sacrificed all to personal ambition. An example is Ibn al-Abbár's story of the death of the cadi of Almería Ibn Adhâ, who brought a cup of water to his ally Ibn Hud who had arrived to help him against the Almoravids at the siege of Granada. When the cadi brought the cup to Ibn Hud, the common people (al-^^àmma) screamed «don't drink oh sultan» so the cadi had to drink it himself to allay suspicion and he died that night [from his own poison]. ^^ Even the scholarly and ascetic al-Turtùshî probably had something to do with the assassination of the tyrant al-Afdal in Egypt who had imprisioned him:3« Towards the hour of evening prayer, [al-Turtüshí] said to his attendant: «I have hit him now!» and the very next moming, al-Afdal was assassinated whilst riding out. On the death of this emir, the govemment of the country devolved to al-Ma'mûn al-Batâ'ihï and this vizir treated our Shaikh with the utmost respect.
The historical context for this was that Sunni jurists like al-Turtûshï were struggling with the Shiite regime of Fatimid Egypt over the control of religious life at this time.
Ibn Qattan tells us that when the Muslims from Cordoba were besieging the Christians in Talavera, the old cadi Ibn Hamdîn was there, inspiring them to fight with his speeches. ^^ Ibn al-Abbár, al-Hulla al-siyarà', ed. Husain Mu'nis, Cairo, 1963, vol. 11, p. 204. '-^ Al-Hulla, al-Siyarà\ vol. 2, p. 207. 29 Al-Hulla al-Siyarà', vol. 2, p. 207 In the post-caliphal period, heads of state acquired their positions by force rather than by depending upon any sense of legitimacy created by dynastic traditions, or consultations or elections among the populace. Lacking this legitimacy, their power was unstable and their energy was used up in putting down rivals and rebellions. In this political context it fell to the religious leaders to express the interests of the community as a whole, a legal aspect the Malikites call «concern for the public interest» or maslaha. The cadis had to protect their community in very concrete ways, such as by promoting the building and repairing of the walls of the city. These practical matters even the most scholarly of them could not ignore. It is from these activities that the Spanish word for the mayor of a city, «alcalde» is derived from the Arabic word «al-Qâdî», cadi or judge.
In the eastern territories of Islam at this time, the rulers were often tribal leaders who predominated through brute force. We can understand that al-Ghazâlî might feel he should try to piece together a state in which Islam could flourish and be protected. If not in Baghdad or Damascos (overrun by the crusaders by 498) or Jerusalem (taken by the crusaders 492) or in Fatimid (Shiite) Egypt, then in Spain. In this project, his alUes were educated men like Nizam al-Mulk and his son Fakhr al-Mulk, and Abu Muhammad Ibn al-*^Arabï and his son Abii Bakr. His search was for «a pious sovereign who is all powerful» ^' since the poHtical chaos which prevailed in his day made strong centralized power desirable. Given that his tribal circumstances would prevent him from being educated, this «powerful sovereign» would need to be directed by men of the educational elite. Clearly the depoliticization of sufism which might seem natural to Western scholars is not part of Islamic history nor was it part of al-Ghazáli's conception either. His sufism was not to be understood as a quietistic withdrawal from the world, but as solace, relief and renewal of energy depleated in the frustration and despair of his considerable political efforts. His student, Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabî, the son of the Andalusian for whom he wrote the fatwà, later described his studies in Bagdad with al-Ghazâlî: ^^ I carried away what I had imagined and longed for of his truth. Star of luminaries, flawless character, shining intellect whose intelligence makes one forget despair, and leave routine following of authority (taqlîd) for analogical reasoning (qiyàs) and generate the derivative (far^) from the first principle (asl). Tomorrow it will be a sword in the hand of Islam. May God  irrigate al-Andalus with it after what she has suffered from drought of knowledge and extend to her a growing shade and clothe her nobility with glamour and pour her a glistening rain.
In the foregoing passage al-Ghazàlî's pupil Abu Bakr characterizes the teaching he received from al-Ghazâlï in the period of his retreat as «a sword in the hand of Islam», a phrase which clearly suggests a political motivation, while the statement that al-Andalus «suffered from a drought of knowledge» is a direct criticism of the Malikite jurists empowered by the Almoravids.
Abu Bakr's vocabulary in this passage:/ar*^ and asl and the criticism of taqlld recall the main points made by Ibn Tûmart. Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabî had in fact studied with all the teachers Ibn Tûmart is said to have studied with, and with many more, since he was objectively speaking the besteducated man of his generation in having studied with the most scholars. But it is more than probable that the training offered by al-Ghazâlî to Ibn al-Arabî was offered to many students in Bagdad at this time. The stature of al-Ghazâlî should not Hind us to the excellent level of culture in his miheu. For example, al-Ghazâlî^s teacher al-Juwaynî had other students who in turn, had their students, all reproducing a similar set of issues and problems general to the period. It is no compliment to al-Ghazâlî for us to imagine him as absolutely unique. On the contrary, the reason for his influence was that he expressed what many people were thinking in a cogent way.
Al-Ghazâlî praised Ibn al-*^Arabî in his letter to Yûsuf Ibn Tâshufîn, saying: ^^ His son, the sheikh and imam Abu Bakr, has treasured up in the time he has been with me a quantity of knowledge that others might not achieve with more time, and considering his intelligence, capacity for assimilation and the brillance of his talent, he will not leave Iraq without being fulfilled in his worth above his peers.  http://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es khams mi'a, ^^ so if we assume he made two trips, he may have returned to al-Ghazàlî in Alexandria in 500, to give him news from Al-Andalus. This would mean that he and al-Ghazalî continued to cooperate very closely.
Two things alert us to a pecuUar situation. First, that there is no record of the Almoravid ruler's having received the documents, and secondly, the persecution to which Abu Bakr Ibn *^Arabî was subjected in al-Andalus further corroborates his political activity, at least to the extent that it proves that other people judged that he had a political motive in spreading the teaching of al-GhazalL As we shall see, the cadi of Cordoba, Abu ' Abd Allah Ibn Hamdin who died in 508 ^^ opposed the sufis on his home ground. He could not help but be alarmed at the thought of having one of their major apologists on the scene in al-Andalus, since it would be very clear that he would be a magnet for the sufi faction. Speaking of the persecution of Ibn al-*^Arabf in his book, Kitàb al-Madkhal li-Sinâ*^at al-Mantiq, or an Introduction to Logic, Ibn Tumlûs of Alcira (died 1223 A. D.= 620 H.) says: ^"^ «This edict [to bum al-Ghazálfs books] was read in the pulpits and the situation which was created was extremely hateful because all who possessed one of these books were subjected to an inquisition and everyone feared that he could be accused of reading or acquiring one of them, and the punishments could not have been more grave. The most famous of those persecuted in this public commotion was Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabï whom the aroused passion of the jurists almost destroyed, although God got him out of danger so than in his case were fulfilled the words of he who said «If Abu Nasr escaped, it was only because God had so decreed». Not much time passed after this when Imam the Mahdi [Ibn Tûmart] arrived, who clarified the questions which bothered people and invited them to study the books of al-Ghazâlî, making them see that his doctrines were in agreement with his own.» Hints of this controversy can be found in the biographies where the detractors and supporters of Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabï also happen to conserve similar position in the ideological split between the Almoravids and the Almohads. The question of why Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabî was removed from his judgeship in Seville brings out these biases. Ibn Bashkuwàl (d. 1183), studied with Abu Bakr, as did Ibn al-Abbàr, who says of the Almohads  http://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es «may God strengthen them». ^^ Both these historians say or imply that Abu Bakr was removed because he was just. Ibn Bashkuwál says the following: ^^) Having been appointed cadi in his home he rendered the highest service to the inhabitants by the firmness with which he discharged his duties and the severity which made him an object of terror for the wicked.
Ibn al-Abbar says: He was a cadi for the first time in Rajab of the year 528 and God benefitted from his severity and eficiency in amr hi-1-ma^rüf, so much so that he was harmed with the loss of his books and his wealth. And he showed great patience with all that.
Al-Maqqarî says Ibn al-*^Arabï made the people contribute the hides of the animals sacrificed for the *^îd to build one side of the wall around Seville and that this occasioned a popular revolt. «Then the blind mob got together and they rose up against him and pillaged his house and he left for Cordoba.» Al-Maqqarï says further «and I say he (may God have mercy on him) had a wall of stone and another of lime made at Seville with his own money». "^^ On the other hand, the Cadi lyád of Ceuta, who rebelled against the Almohads, claims that the weirdly harsh judgements Ibn al-*^Arabl handed down were the cause of his removal from office. Cadi *^Iyâd distills all possible negative aspects of that situation and others, making an implication of homosexuality in quoting his poetry and saying that his hadiths were not accepted by some.
What the material on Ibn al-*^Arabî seems to indicate is that the ideological split between the reactionary Malikites and the progressive Malikites whom Ibn al-*^Arabl represented pre-dates the Almohad conquest of the peninsula and is played out within the learned elite during the interregnum period, independently of the Almohad military presence. Ibn al-Abbar dates the disappearance of the Almoravid state in the peninsula as 539 when a number of cities followed Cordoba in revolt "^^ It is only as an old man that Ibn al-^Arabl had direct contact with the Almohads when he 3^ Ibn al-Abbar, al-Hulla al-siyarà\ II, p. 207. ^^ Ibn Bashkuwál, Sila, 2 vol., Cairo, 1966, vol. 2, p. 591. This passage is translated in Ibn Khallikán, ffl, p. 13.
^0 Nafh al- Tîb, ed. Ihsàn ^Abbas, 1968, vol. 11, p. 27. "*' «And when the state of the veiled ones came to an end in the year 539 and Ibn Hamdin spoke in his own name in Cordoba», Al-Hulla al-Siyarà^, 1963, vol. II, pp. 211-212. The possibility of Ibn Túmart^s meeting al-Ghazâlï can now be considered in the context of al-GhazálPs pursuit of a western project in which the interview with Yûsuf would have been a first step. Since he needed information and local networks, al-Ghazâlï would have made himself available to Maghribi students in Alexandria while he was waiting to hear from Yüsuf. Thus it is to be expected that he would have been accesible and attentive to Ibn Tûmart or to any other student from the Maghrib, whatever his degree of wealth or education. In addition, the Sunni clerics in Fatimid (Shiite) Egypt at that time were in a politically disadvantaged situation and thus were a unusually tight-knit group with a practical interest in facilitating contacts among their co-religionists.
Al-Ghazâlî^s subsequent loss of interest in this project and his departure from Alexandria would correspond not only to the death of Yûsuf in the year 500, but even more conclusively to the news of the burning of his book, the Ihyâ^ or The Revival of the Religious Sciences. There is a question as to when this took place in al-Andalus. The Revival got to North Africa and to al-Andalus and the jurists examined it and censured some things. Ibn Qattân says «And above all Ibn Hamdîn, who overstepped due bounds in this, to the point of declaring everyone who read it to be an infidel and acting accordingly. He made the Sultan upset about it and asked the advice of the jurists who were in accord with burning them [copies of the book]. *^Alî ibn Yûsuf accepted their findings and ordered them to be burned and the burning spread to the copies of it which had appeared in Morocco at this time, and they say that the buming was the cause of the loss of their kingdom and the dissolution of their empire.
In corroboration of Ibn Qattin^s opinion that Ibn Hamdin was the source of the action against al-Ghazálí, the Almoravid ruler ' Ali Ibn Yüsuf in his decree which was read from all the mosques, took care to say that such had been the decision of the learned men.
Ibn Hamdm^s excessive hunger for power was satirized in poems, a most explicit one being: ^^ On Dajjal [Antichrist] ! this is the time to appear and Oh Sun! Dawn from the west! Ibn Hamdîn wants to be petitioned and his gifts are more distant than the stars.
If one consults him, he rubs his hind quaters to assure his pretension conceming Taghlib.
Thus the momentarily successful effort to discredit al-Ghazâlî in al-Andalus can be identified as a poHtical move on the part of Abu *^Abd Allah '^ «And [Ali] honored the ulema even more and took stands on their advice»: Ibn al-Athïr, Al-Kàmilfi l-Tàrîkh, vol. 10, pp. 417-418; «He could be numbered among the ascetics and hermits more than among the kings and conquerers. He was very attached to the jurists and the religious leaders and decided nothing in his kingdom without consulting them. If he named a cadi he made him promise not to decide anything large or small except in the presence of four Ibn Hamdîn. It is clear that al-Ghazâlî sent some sort of messenger (probably Ibn al-*^Arabï himself, since the date for his return is given as 495 in the Díbáj, and the year 500 is given by al-Dabbî for a trip to the East, as we have said) "^^ or letter to Yúsuf and was waiting in Alexandria for a reply before his journey. The powerful cadi of Cordoba must necessarily have found out about al-Ghazàlï^s plan to visit the Almoravid ruler through the chancellory since the primitive Yusuf was not educated enough to read his own correspondence. Ibn Hamdîn would have realized that the easterner's extraordinary qualifications made him a likely candidate for the position of chief counsellor of the Almoravid ruler, should the two men meet. He would also have been familiar with Ibn al-*^Arabî, and would have feared that he could use his father's connections to the previous ruUng hierarchy of Seville, the prestige of al-Ghazâlî, and an alliance with the sufi militants to create the three elements necessary for political effectiveness: a ruling elite, an ideology and a popular following. That would have interfered drastically with Ibn Hamdin's own goals. Furthermore, al-Ghazâlî's book, the Ihyà^, outlines the defects and shortcomings of jurists, giving advance notice of a possible reform which would certainly have removed some of the Andalusians from their seats of power.
Forewarned is forearmed; in the rather small world of the Islamic religious scholars of the sixth/twelfth century, all these aspects would have been understood. Thus Ibn Hamdîn's reaction to this perceived threat was to anathemize al-Ghazâlî and bum his writings, because the action he could take against Ibn *^Arabl himself was circumscribed by the genuine respect his selfless teaching and personal qualities inspired in the scholars of al-Andalus, almost all of whom knew him and had studied with him upon his return from the East.
There are many indications in the biographical collections of how small and how interrelated this community of jurists was. "^^ For example, Abu "^^ Ibn al-'^Arabï and son had been traveling in Iraq, Syria and Egypt since 485 (1092). Abu Muhammad died in 493. There are two dates of return to Spain for his son Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabï, 493 and 512. Al-Dabbï (died 1203), Bughyat al-Multamis, n.° 179, p. 83, has the date of his return trip as 512 and he has named sources of information, so it is possible that Ibn *^Arabï made two trips. In any case his first trip was ten years, from 485-495, and al-Dabbî records that he told a student he was away on his rihla for ten years. Ibn Farhún, Dîbàj, p. 281 ; Ibn Qattán says Ibn al-*^Arabï took the Ihyà^ to Algeciras to throw it into the sea. This could possibly have been a pretext so send a message to al-GhazálL Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabi studied with the father of the Cadi *^Iyâd and with al-Turtûshi, as did Ibn Tûmart. "^^ The Cadi *^Iyád also studied with al-Turtüshí, as did Ibn Tûmart. ^^ This closeness causes the Cadi *^Iyád to hide his hand somewhat when criticising Ibn al-*^Arabï. The historian al-Zarkashî even claims that Ibn Tûmart studied with Ibn Hamdïn in Cordoba although this is dubious according to Huici. ^* However, we can see the underlying political situation in later events since the son of Cadi Abu *^Abd Allah Ibn Hamdïn, the Cadi Abu 1-Qásim Ibn Hamdïn, undountedly had a hand in inciting the mob (seen in other instances to be the Hamdïn power base) against Ibn al-'Arabî. This rioting included an invasion of Ibn *^Arabï^s home and probably put an end to Ibn al-Arabï's short tenure as Chief Justice of Seville. This event, which Ibn ' Arabï mentions in 536 at the time of writing his book Al-*^Awàsim min al-Qawàsim occurred between his investiture as chief justice in 528 and the date of writing. ^^ Ibn al-*^Arabl himself says of his judgeship: ^^ I judged the people and obliged them to prayer and 'ordering to the good and to refraining from evil' until hardly any evil remained in the land. And I spoke strongly against the people of illegal seizure and extortion and against those of importance in distressing disoluteness, and they plotted and banded together and revolted against me and I left the aifair to God, and I instmcted all who were with me not to defend my house and I left by the roofs by myself and they raged at me, and I gave up my house to their plundering and if it hadn't been for my good luck in this, I would have been killed in the house.
book it is possible to get an idea of the subtle interface between pohtics and doctrine in this kind of milieu.
"^^ E. I. 2nd ed. sub nomen, article by M. Talbi. 50 Dîbàj, p. 289. 5' Historia política del imperio almohade, vol. I, p. 28. 5^ The introduction of Ibn ^^Arabfs Al-'Awàsim min al-Qawàsim (Cairo 1371 H.p 26-7) speaks of the incident: «And Ibn al-*^Arabï became aware while he was chief judge that the walls of Seville could not resist the misfortunes of fate and thus visited a calamitous weakness on the city, and he resolved to restore them and fill several fissures which had ocurred in them. And he agreed that that would take place in the time the government usually used for such things but the necessary money was not sufficient in the government budget. So Ibn al-*^Arabl brought out all funds available to him of his private fortune and provided it to fulfill that financial obligation which was generally incumbant upon all, and he called the people to spend for it. And during those days the first of Dhu 1-Hijja was approaching and Ibn al-*^ Arabï was the first to whom it occurred to make use for the general good of the skins of the animals slaughtered, and he encouraged people to contribute the skins of their slaughtered animals to build the wall [around Seville]. And they were agreed to this except that his enemies and those who were angry with his ideological school who incited the mob against him in their malicious ways until they invaded his home.. A western Malikite jurist, Abu *^Abd Allah al-Mâzaiî^'* (d. 536/1141) has left us his strong written objections to doctrinal aspects of al-Ghazâlî's writing. He was a native of the town of Mazara in Sicily and was teaching in Mahdiyya. Al-Mâzarî's partisan attitude is openly revealed, since he criticizes al-Ghazàlî by his own admission on the reports of others without having read him personally. He did not undertake this criticism without prompting from some external source: Subki says «he was answering someone who asked him about the state of the book, Ihya^ 'ulüm al-dîn.» Furthermore, he takes such a cheap shot against al-Ghazálí [referring to al-Ghazâlî's absolutely traditional statement that some things should be divulged only to a specially prepeared public; he says if they are true, they can be said, if they are false they should be left out of the book] that it causes Subki to suspect his good faith. What he transmits to his readers may be the Almoravid point of view on the conflict between the Almoravids and the Almohads. Al-Mâzarï says: ^^ Although I have not read the book of this man, that is, of al-Ghazâlï, nevertheless I have seen students and companions of his, each one of whom has told me some kind of information about his condition and method and from them I have gotten an understanding of his doctrine and his conduct as if I had witnessed it with my own eyes. I will limit myself to mentioning the condition of the man and the condition of his book, and to pointing out sentences from the doctrines of the al-muwahhidm and the philosophers, the false sufis, and those who use allegorical interpretations. His book, in fact, shows a certain sympathy for the doctrines of one and another of these schools, preferring them to others, and this is all followed by the charges and countercharges of the partisans of each school.
Asín understands al-Mâzarî's term al-muwahhidün as meaning «the partisans of the absolute unity», that is, the Islamic followers of Alexandrine pantheism. Subkï in his refutation of al-Màzarî points out the ambiguity of al-muwahhidm. He takes «pantheists» as one of the possible meanings of the word, another meaning being «those who believe in the oneness of God», hence, all Muslims. Subkï further argues that since the four terms are given in the list as if they were different things, al-Mâzarï is either saying that the Sufis and the Muslims (believers in God's Oneness) are two separate groups which is outlandish and absurd, or accusing al-Ghazâlï of pantheism, which ' ' ' * Studied by M. Asín Palacios, «Un faqih siciliano contradictor de al-Gazzàlï -Abu ' Abd Allah de Mazara», in Centenario délia nascita de Michèle Amari, Palermo, 1910. ^^ Al-Subkl, Tabaqat al-Shafi'^iyya al-Kubrà, éd. Ahmad ibn *^Abd al-Kanm al-Maghrib~i al-Fâsl, Cairo, 1906= 1324 is also absurd, since al-Ghazâlï specifically refuted the doctrine in his writings. It is from Subkï's choice of meanings that Asín quite logically picks the negative meaning «pantheist» for al-muwahhidün.
Because I agree with Subkï's point that these four terms are given as different things, I think that al-Mâzarï did not use al-muwahhidün as meaning pantheist, which was an accusation which would tend to merge into the category of «false sufis», i.e. those who said heretical, pantheistic things like «I am the Truth (God)». Subkï was writing in Egypt more than 200 years after the period of al-Mázarl. By that time the Almohads, or the followers of the Mahdï Ibn Tûmart, had been forgotten, so that meaning of al-muwahhidün did not occur to Subkï. But al-Mâzarï was writing at a time when the Almoravids were seeking to discredit the Almohad ideology, so it is logical that he would be refering to them.
When al-Mâzarï died in 536 he was over eighty years old and this was three years before 539 when the younger Ibn Hamdïn rebelled against the Almoravids. It is likely that the text was written after the Almohad rebellion became a serious threat, around 525-535 at the request of the Almoravid faqïhs. Al-Mâzarï mentions the Almohads first and groups them with other elements of the anti-Ibn Hamdïn and anti-Almoravid coahtion in al-Andalus: the philosophers, the false sufis and those who use allegorical interpretation. That this was the Almohad coalition in ideological terms is evident both from Ibn Tûmart's doctrine and from the famous works produced under the patronage of the dynasty. Al-Mâzarï's disclaimer about not having read the Ihyà' might even mean that he had a practical political obligation to discredit al-Ghazâlï's Ihyà' but no personal desire to do so. He confines his criticism of al-Ghazâlï to «sentences» which coincide with the doctrines of the Almohads and the other three groups, praising al-Ghazâlï's work on law. Thus the four mentioned groups are probably the real targets of criticism and this may be the point of the document. He says he has talked to students of al-Ghazâlï of whom the most well known in the west was Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabl. The negative mention of allegorical interpretation could be aimed at Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabï, since he wrote a work entitled Qánün al-ta'wîl or the laws of allegorical interpretation. ^^ Goldziher's explanation of the book burning as motivated by the Ihyà's attack on the jurists as a class could be misleading. We must remember that al-Ghazali, like Ibn Tûmart or Ibn al-*^Arabï, was himself a jurist and a very eminent one. In fact, what the Andalusian jurists feared was being ^^ Of which the manuscript is in Dar al-Kutub in Cairo. replaced within the ruling ^ulamà^ by another reform faction, rather than any threat to the institution of ^ulama^ rule itself. The Cadi Ibn Hamdïn acted forcefully to suppress opposition to his decree on al-Ghazálí, his agressiveness again suggesting a poUtical motivation, especially since he had consistently opposed the sufis locally ^^ and they protested the decree. After the promulgation of the decree, partisans of al-Ghazálí such as the jurist al-Barjr of Almeria^^ dared to write d, fatwà co-signed by other jurists condemning the burning of al-Ghazâlï's books. Ibn Hamdïn then forced the cadi of Almería to relieve al-Barjî of his post. The personal political ambition to which we attribute Ibn Hamdïn's early campaign against al-Ghazâlï and Ibn al-*'Arabï came to fruition for his son, the Cadi Abu l-Qasim Ibn Hamdïn, in 539, when Cordoba rebelled against the Almoravids. Ibn Hamdïn/ïfa assumed the leadership of Cordoba, taking the title al-Mansür bi-llàh and also Imam al-Muslimîn. ^^ The implication of the title explains his opposition to other charismatic religious leaders. He remained as ruler (with a short interim period of rule by Ibn Hud) until the city was conquered by the Almoravid leader Ibn Ghániya in 541. Although he used the army of Cordoba under the direction of the son of his maternal uncle, Ibn Umm *' Imâd to help Granada, it was no match for Ibn Hud. ^° Ibn Hamdïn's power base was the street mob in Cordoba which brought him to power after the incident which sparked the rebellion of 539: the rape of a Cordobán woman by a member of the Almoravid's negro guard. Thus he is in contrast to his rivals, Ibn Hud and Ibn Ghániya, whose armies conquered the city by force. The fact that the Cordoba mob favored Ibn Hamdïn, as distinct from the people of the villages in the area of Cordoba who supported Ibn Hud, is clear from the following passage from the historian Ibn al-Abbár which also clearly indicates the alliance between the Aragonese prince Ibn Hud and the Sufi Ibn Qasï, who were both rivals of Ibn Hamdïn: ^^ When Ibn Qasï heard that Ibn Hamdïn had revolted he called for Ibn Mundhir to get up an army and go to Cordoba with Muhammad ibn Yahyá ^"^ There was a marked fear of the political power of sufis in this period. Miguel Asín Palacios (éd. Ibn al-*^Arïf, Mahàsin al-Majàlis, Paris, 1933. Introduction, p. 5) quotes Sha*^ram in his Tabaqàt saying that the sufi mystic Ibn Barrajan was condemned to death by the ruler because three hundred villages recognized him as imàm. Asín says that the sufí Ibn al-*^Arïf may have been poisoned (in 536) by the Almoravids for a similar political motive.
^^  Ibn al-Abbar mentions that some of the inhabitants of the eastern suburb of Cordoba sympathized with Ibn Qasî, the sufi militant. Ibn Qasî's opposition to Ibn Hamdîn even in their common rebellion against the Almoravids shows that Ibn Hamdîn had inherited his father's enmity with the sufis, while the existence of sufi partisans in the eastern suburb of Cordoba shows how close to his own stronghold their influence made itself felt.
The importance the elder Cadi Ibn Hamdîn attached to preventing al-Ghazâlï from making contact with Yüsuf Ibn Táshufín has now been made clear, along with his motives and the concrete steps he took to frustrate this plan. The following is the account of al-Ghazálí's learning of the burning of the Ihyà' and the meeting between Ibn Tùmart and al-Ghazàlî from al-Hulal al-Mawshiyya which has been excerpted from a lost volume of al-Mann bi'1-imàma of Ibn Sahib al-Salá. ^^ Ibn Sahib al-Sala tells the following story on the authority of *^Abd Allah b. 'Abd al-Rahmán al-^râqï, an old sheikh living in Fez who said: In Baghdad in the school of the sheikh the Imam Abu Hámid al-Ghazâlî, there was a man with a thick beard and a woolen turban on his head. He entered the school and introduced himself to the sheikh Abu Hâmïd and greeted him.  -Al-Hulal al-Mawshiyya, translated A. Huici Miranda, Tetuán, 1951, 125-125. The part of Ibn Sahib al-Salá's history this was taken from is lost, but the story appears in al-Baycin cil-Miighrib of Ibn *^Idhárí and Nairn al-Juman of Ibn Qattân. Suppose the first burning of the Ihyà' to have occurred in 500, this story has no feature that suggests the exaggeration of the story teller. Because of al-Ghazalï's well-known association with Baghdad this setting might have taken the place of Alexandria as the story was told. It might well have been Moroccans as well as Andalusians who gave al-Ghazâlî the news about the burning of the book, which took place also in the cities of North Africa controlled by the Almoravids. We know that al-Ghazâlî learned of this public event, which would have made him extremely angry, especially in view of the fatwa and his previous hopes with regard to the Almoravids, along with the cumulative effect of his other disappointments: the murder of his protector in Nishapur, the unsatisfactory political situation in Baghdad and Damascus etc. Ibn Túmart, generously endowed with the «combative stubborness» said to be typical of the Berber temperament, ^^ could have made the same fearless and immediate step into action at that point, as on other occasions. The only thing left to doubt is the possibility of Ibn Tumart's coinciding with al-Ghazâlî in the same place after he had learned the news, which could have been possible in Alexandria in 500 rather than Baghdad although it would be extremely difficult to discount the possibility that they might have seen each other in Bagdad as well.
Some writers^ have suggested that there was a great difference between Ibn Tùmart and al-Ghazâlî with respect to doctrine. Setting aside mahdism ^^ «Entretement combatif» according to M. Ghazi, «Evolution de la sensibilité andalouse», Etudes d ^orientalisme dédiées à la mémoire d'E. Lévi-Provençal, Paris, 1962, vol. II, p. 532. ^ For example Huici Miranda says: «[The Mahdï] who never saw al-Ghazálí, and who differed so much from his spirituality is presented as a fervent disciple of his.», from «La leyenda y la historia en los orígenes del imperio almohade» in Historia política del imperio almohade, vol. II, p. 584. In vol. I, p. 30. Huici says «It is evident that Ibn Túmart did not follow in the least thing the orientation that al-Ghazâlî offered to his disciples». Huici also denies Ibn Tumart's evident mystical experience, Historia política, vol. I, p. 31. In the same and magic ^^ which can be considered modes of political communication within a traditional Berber milieu, the kind of reforms Ibn Tùmart advocated on the juridical plane, his attitude towards sufism, his abstract theology and his interest in reforming mores are very much characteristics that he shared with al-GhazalL ^^ Far more important then, than the question of whether the interview between Ibn Tümart and al-Ghazâlï took place once, twice, or not at all, is this constellation of ideas represented by al-Ghazálí with which the Almohads were clearly associated. The consideration of the evidence of Ibn Tûmart's written legacy reveals that the major elements: rational theology, religious reform and sufism were principles he shared with al-Ghazâlî, while the opposition of the conservatives among the Andalusian Malikites to al-Ghazâlî and to each of these three common elements is independently attested in numerous documents of which a final example is the letter sent by the last Almoravid ruler, Táshufín b/Alî b.Yûsuf, to all his judges and officials in Valencia in 538 /1143 just before the definitive eclipse of the Almoravid rule and years after the death of Ibn Tûmart. The letter gives compelling evidence that, in the minds of the Almoravid ruling group, the Almohads were doctrinally associated with al-GhazàlL At this late stage in the conflict, the Almoravids seem to be concerned about the reform of justice which the Almohads were urging. The concern for equal treatment of the subjects is noticeable. In paragraph three,«on justice and equity», the letter cautions about officials abusing their positions. ^^ Justice encourages subjects to good works, while tyranny enrages them, and the lack of equity in treatment divides them and drives them to despair. Thus no government office should be given to anyone who does not enjoy good fame or who is not concerned for the good of the public. And if there be vein, Goldziher, Le litre, introduction, p. 82. This seems typical of the tendency to argue a silentio in such a way that if something is not mentioned in a written text which has survived to be read by the writer, then it doesn't exist or did not happen. This can be corrected only by some familiarity with what is customary in the milieu. On the evidence for mystical experience Fletcher, M., «The Almohad Tawhïd: Theology which relies on logic», Numen (The Journal for the International Association for the History of Religions), XXXVffl (1991), 110-127.
^^ Cf. Fletcher, M., «Al-Andalus and North Africa in the Almohad Ideology», in The Legacy of Muslim Spain, Leiden, New York, Koln, 1992, 235-258. 66 PQJ. example, on the question of reforming mores, al-Ghazâlï was concerned like Ibn Tümart with both city and country since he notes that the religious law is ignored not only in cities but also even more in the villages and country particularly among the bedouin Arabs, Kurds The implied censure of the conduct of Almoravid judges and government officials on the part of the Almoravid prince himself, echoes both Ibn Tûmart's criticisms and the admonitions of the earlier Almoravid ruler *^Ali Ibn Yûsuf whose letter written from Marrákesh twenty eight years before in the year 510 goes over the same points: ^^ Any of your functionaries making excessive demands or changing accepted practice or justice, or unjustly taking a dirhem for himself, you should dismiss from office, punish corporally, and make give back what he has taken by fooling his people and make his punishment an example to dissuade others from doing the same as he, God willing.
In the 538/1143 letter by Tàshufîn b. "^Ali b. Yûsuf, paragraph five on «heretical books», contains a special anathema directed against al-Ghazalï: When you come across a heretical book or a person inciting to heresy, be wary of them, and especially (God grant you success!) of the books of Abu Hámid al-Ghazâlî. Track them down and let their memory be erased through uninterrupted buming; investigate about them and question under oath those suspected of hiding them.
The Almoravid attitude towards al-Ghazâlï has remained implacably inimical for forty years. The letter proves that the polarization over al-Ghazali's ideology, which started with the Cadi Ibn Hamdîn and Abu Bakr Ibn al-*'Arabï in about 500, has persisted to the very end of the conflict, suggesting that the ideology associated with al-Ghazàlï continued throughout this period to present itself in learned circles as Almohad.
In conclusion, it is clear that by the time Ibn Tûmart returned from his student's journey to the East in 514, political contacts had already been made and issues defined in the incipient ideological conflict in al-Andalus. If in Morocco the conflictive issue was tribal friction and oppression, which Ibn Tûmart inunediately channeled into his religious reform; in al-Andalus, conflicts among many selfish power-seekers were dividing the Muslim community in the same sort of chaos which had characterized the taifa period. The urban jurists who had engineered the overthrow of the party kings and their advisors in the name of Yûsuf the Almoravid, had already ^^ Ibn *^Idhárí, Al-Bayàn al-Mughrib, Huici transL, Valencia, 1963, pp. 149-150. http://al-qantara.revistas.csic.es rebelled against the Almoravids before the Almohad intervention in the peninsula. The proponents of the new ideology, epitomized by Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabï were the sufis and the educated class of the period of the taifa kings, and their champion was al-Ghazâlî, hence they could challenge the jurists on their own ground, namely, from within the institution of the ruling ulama^; since al-Ghazâlï was at once a jurist, a member of the educational elite and a sufi. In the course of the long struggle, the new ideology became Almohad ideology. After the installation of the Almohad dynasty in al-Andalus, al-Ghazâlî's philosophical-analytical mentality and mystical inclination find varied parallels in the works of Almohad intellectuals like Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tuf ay 1 and Muhyî al-Dîn Ibn al-*^ArabL The relationship of al-Ghazâlï and Ibn Tûmart can not be dismissed. We have tried to show how and why it has reason to be historical fact. In spite of their different backgrounds, they held common attitudes towards religious reform, mysticism and philosophical theology. But even if their meeting were to be considered a myth, and one were to explain their parallel ideas through their common participation in the intellectual world of Baghdad, it remains the founding myth of the Almohad political system, linking Spain to North Africa through a common ideology accepting: 1) Sufism, 2) theology based upon rational principles and 3) judicial reform. ABSTRACT A joint political project between al-Ghazali and his Andalusian pupil, Abu Bakr Ibn al-^Arabl concerning the government of Spain can be uncovered from the documentary evidence and some reasoning about the chronology. The idea was apparently to gain a foothold for al-Ghazali with the Almoravid ruler Yusuf Ibn lashufín.
Our conclusions about the existence of a political project are supported by documents which have been available for some time: ihtfatwa al-Ghazali wrote in support of Yusuf, the letter he wrote to Yusuf praising Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabl and the letter he obtained from the caliph, all of which can be compared with al-Turtushl^s letter to Yusuf on the same subjects. The connecting idea is that this is part of a political project which would rely on a power base in the peninsula, most notably the Sufi militants and the previous ruling elite of the Taifa kings (Ibn *^Arabl's father had served Al-Mu*^tamid, Prince of Seville). Al-GhazaFi's writings provide an ideological cement for this political alliance in that they praise sufism and criticize taqUd, which was the standard approach to law used by the jurists who staffed the Almoravid hierachy. Because al-Ghazali's discourse is far above the intellectual level of the ordinary jurist, either because they provided no immediate profit or because of the practical difficulty for simple people to get books and teachers on these subjects. Hence al-Ghazall's discourse remains the property of an intellectual elite which is at the same time a social and economic elite, fluent in literary Classical Arabic and dis- tilling the intellectual gains of many generations of educated Andalusians. To confront this group, the Almoravid jurists represented the urban middle class and could arouse the urban mob in their favor. Motivated by fear that the combination of Ibn al-*^Arabi and al-Ghazali could replace him in power, the most prominent among them, Ibn Hamdin of Cordoba, was able to orchestrate the official burning of Al-Ghazall's Ihya^ throughout the realm. Thus we find that the conflict between these two groups was well defined even before Almohad rebellion in North Africa provided the intellectual elite a military champion. The intellectual elite in turn provided the North African Almohads with administrators and an ideology. Al-Ghazali was identified as an enemy of the Almoravid regime even before Ibn Tumart, the founder of the Almohad movement, returned ft-om the East to launch his rebellion against the Almoravids from the Atlas mountains.
We propose some changes in the previous picture of Al-Ghazali's whereabouts at different times. Scholars have already accepted a basic modification of the idea that he left Baghdad definitively after he stopped giving his lectures to huge audiences at the Nizamiyya school because they noticed that Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabl says he was tutored by al-Ghazali for two years in Baghdad after that period. Now we would like to draw attention to the fact that Ibn Khallikan says that Al-Ghazali stayed in Alexandria, Egypt waiting for an answer from Yusuf Ibn Tashufín. In the context of a shifting picture of the chronology of Al-Ghazah's travels, the notion that Ibn Tumart might have seen the famous scholar seems possible and even probable. RESUMEN A través de la documentación conservada y de una reflexión sobre la cronología, es posible descubrir la existencia de un proyecto político de al-Gazáli y su discípulo andalusí, Abu Bakr Ibn al-*^Arabl, con el propósito de ganar para al-Gazáli el favor del príncipe almorávide Yusuf b. TaSufín.