Early Mamlãk Ash<arism against Ibn Taymiyya on the Nonliteral Reinterpretation (ta’wil) of God’s Attributes Ion HOOVer introduction Modern research on theological production in the early MamlUk sultanate of Egypt and Syria has focused primarily on the prolific llanhali theologians lbn iaymivva (d. 7281132S) and lbn Qavvini al-Jawzivva (ci. 751/1350).1 This does not mean, however, that they were generally representative of earls’ Mamlük theo logical discourse. On the contraly, they expressed highly controversial views that others sought to marginalize and quell, even by state sanction. In 698/1298 religious scholars in Damascus charged Ibn Tavmivva with ascribing bodily characteristics to God in his a1-Hwnawyct ui-kubrd,2 a fatwa that he had writ ten for the people of lIamhh.3 Ibn Taymiyya emerged victorious over his de— ti-actors, but the charge of corporealism (tajsim) in God’s attributes emerged again in 705/1306 when the Mamlük viceroy in Damascus subjected him to three hearings belore the leading religious scholars of the day. These hear ings were inconclusive, and lbn ‘Iaymivva was thus summoned to the Mamlük capital Cairo soon thereafter 6w a hearing that convicted him of corporealism antI other doctrines deemed reprehensible. I-ic was imprisoned and subjected to further hearings in Egypt befitre returning to Damascus in 7)2/1313. More than three decades latet; in the late 740s/134os, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya also came under attack for Taymivvan views on God’s attributes and other i Recent mu nogni pbs 50(1 edited vol u nles ci iscussi Hg the theologies (II I ho Tavmiyya anti lw Qsvvim al-fan zivva include Suleiniio, I/ni Th,’mivvu nod die .‘lttri/c,itc’ (otlus Vasalou, I/ni Thvn,o,vug ihc’o/oq,cal Ethics; Kiovietz and l’iuner, Islamic Tlunloqt’; Anjunm, l’oliiics; [tori md [loltzmun, ;1 Sti olar in th(’ Shadow; Kapoport and Ahined, lit)? 7hymiyva: and Hoover, I/tn Thymnivva ii Thc’ndicv. Also noteworthy lIre tilt’ 1)111 ny Sf1 thies by iltya M i hot, among them, I/nm 7hymmmon’a, and “A MamlOk Theologian’s Conmineimtiry’ Hoover, Thu idvnovva, provides a survey of lbn fiivmivvn’s theology in chapters :t and 8. 2 lhn ‘lam n;m, Ilamnasroya, in Mu,mnci’ fa)ciwd (hereafter abbreviated M i :‘. lw Kathir, Thdavu, 5:61, (year (iq8). 4 For accounts of these tnals, see Murad, “lhn Thyniiva on Trial’ , (i—at, and Hoover, I/nm Tavno,’va, a4—ag. For I ho Fm’,mtiyvm’s own account uI the Damascus trials, see iarksoo, “thu lavmivvah on i’ri;ml’