The Autobiography of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī
(1445–1505)
Introduction
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī was born in Cairo in 1445. Judge, legal scholar, and prolific writer, his bibliography of published works, included in his autobiography, lists hundreds of treatises, books, pamphlets, and monographs on subjects ranging from grammar to legal opinions to ḥadīth to a history of his hometown of Asyut (al-Suyūṭ). His personality did not make him a popular man among his peers. He himself records in detail a number of the public clashes he got into with contemporaries over various legal questions and interpretations. The editor of his autobiography, Elizabeth Sartain, describes him as “the most controversial figure of his time” (1:72) because of his immodest claim to be the most important religious scholar of his century. His remarkable faith in his own judgments, his mocking rebuttals, and his personal attacks on those who disagreed with him all earned him the ire of his fellow scholars. Sometime after composing the autobiography, al-Suyūṭī retired from public life, embittered at the lack of public recognition he received from the very colleagues he so often disparaged. He died in Cairo in 1505.
His autobiography is organized into thematic chapters rather than into a chronological narrative. Although the larger text is not structured as a single narrative, smaller narratives, such as the one translated here, occur within the chapters, and the entire text is ultimately structured so as to present the author as the “Renewer of the Faith” for the tenth Islamic century. It is clear from contemporary references that al-Suyūṭī wrote several versions of his life; by far the lengthiest, and the only one currently available, is Speaking of God's Bounty. Al-Suyūṭī apparently did not finish the work, for the single surviving manuscript contains a number of blank spaces and incomplete sections. Even in this form, at two hundred fifty printed pages, it is one of the longest of all premodern Arabic autobiographies.
This short excerpt from chapter 17, “On How God Blessed Me by Setting Enemies Against Me to Harm Me and Tested Me with the False Accusations of an Ignoramus, as Has Also Happened to our Forefathers,” recounts one of a series of incidents that pitted al-Suyūṭī against the anonymous “ignoramus” (al-jāhil), a fellow religious scholar in Cairo. The term itself is reminiscent of the “father of ignorance” (Abū Jahl) found in the biography of the Prophet Muhammad—a troublesome man who plagued the Prophet, but whose misdeeds were patiently tolerated by Muhammad as a trial sent by God—and, in addition, can carry the connotation of something or someone un-Islamic since the pre-Islamic period as a whole is referred to in Arabic to as the Age of Ignorance (al-jāhiliyya). Al-Suyūṭī construes the insults and troubles he endures from the “ignoramus” as a parallel to those endured by Muhammad and other righteous figures in early Islamic history. This particular incident involves a “house of ill repute,” a building in which sexual licentiousness, drinking, and music are said to take place, and whether the law allowed such an establishment to be destroyed if these activities did not cease. Al-Suyūṭī, of course, portrays himself as the winner in this battle, but the final resolution comes about in a somewhat surprising and even rather unsatisfying manner.
Bibliography
Brustad, Kristen.
“Imposing Order: Reading the Conventions of Representation in al-Suyūṭī's Autobiography.”
Edebiyât: Special Issue—Arabic Autobiography, N.S. 7, no. 2 (1997): 327–44. 
Sartain, E. M. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭīvol. 1: Biography andBackground; vol. 2: al-Taḥadduth bi-ni‘mat Allāh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 175–
80.
Chapter 17
On How God Blessed Me by Setting Enemies Against Me to Harm Me and Tested Me with the False Accusations of an Ignoramus, as Has Also Happened to Our Forefathers
The Incident of the House of Ill Repute
[Jalāl al-Dīn, 2:175–80]
In the month of Ramadan in the year 886 [1481 [C.E.], the aforementioned ignoramus stirred up another controversy involving me over the question of the destruction of property. The story is this: For some years there had been in our quarter a house belonging to a man named Qāsim al-Ḥabbāk, next to which there was a mosque that had a caretaker named Ḥasan al-Masīrī. Now this Ḥasan used to come to see me to complain about the residents of the aforementioned house, saying that men would gather there to engage in such debauchery as adultery, sodomy, drinking, playing musical instruments, and so forth. He told me that this activity had increased and become well known, such that this house was sought out by people from far-off places. Large numbers of people would gather there, so many that one group would enter and begin to engage in adultery and sodomy while another group waited their turn at the door. Some would stand in the street and others would sit at the door of the mosque. It was even said that a man was seen inside that mosque with a youth with whom he was engaged in sodomy. This incident became public knowledge in the quarter and in this way the place became famous for such activities and was sought out by people from far and wide.
The aforementioned Ḥasan would say to me, “What can I do? Shall I complain to the palace guard about them? Shall I complain to the military police about them? Shall I have the place raided?” I would reply, “It is more humane to be gentle in disapproval; limit yourself to verbal threats and take no action.”
Now it turned out that the aforementioned ignoramus was among the residents of that house, but by God, I had no inkling of that until after the occurrence of the incident that I will now relate.
Matters continued in this same vein for some years, until Ḥasan mentioned to me at the beginning of the present year [886/1481] that the place was finally rid of all that, and for that I thanked God profusely. But then during the month of Ramadan, he came to see me in a terrible state and said, “This calamity has returned to the way it was!” “How so?” I asked. He told me that a commander named Qānṣūh al-Sharafī had been one of those who used to frequent the place, and that he had gone away on a military detail in the company of the ruler. News had come of the detachment's approach, and a group of people who used to accompany him in his activities had rented the place from Qāsim the owner and had begun to repair it and prepare it so that they could gather there after the commander's return and resume their activities. I told Ḥasan to go to Qāsim and tell him that I said he must not rent to these people, and that if he did, I would issue a legal ruling to have the place razed. I meant this to frighten him so that he would turn them away at the outset, which would be much easier than moving them out once they had taken up residence.
The owner then went to the aforementioned ignoramus and told him the whole story. He said, “That's not the law. What is his legal basis for saying that?” A man then came to me and asked about the legal basis for my threat, and I said, “Many things, which I will mention in a separate publication.” He replied, “Mention one of them now.” I said, “The story of the al-Ḍirār mosque.” So he went back to the ignoramus and reported this to him. The latter responded, “How is that relevant? That was a mosque built by hypocrites.” The first man returned to ask me again, and I recited to him the Prophet's words: “I decided to call [the people] to prayer and have them gather to do so, then to command a man to lead the people in prayer, then to set out with men carrying bundles of firewood to find those people who were not observing the prayer and to burn down their houses.”
He returned to the other and reported this and the latter responded, “This man doesn't grasp the matter at all. People have disagreed about praying in a group. Some hold that it is a collective obligation, while others claim that is an individual obligation. The people who believe the latter use that saying of the Prophet as evidence; but they do not use it as evidence to prove that house of ill repute should be razed.” When this was reported to me, I realized that these were the words of an ignoramus, and that arguing with the ignorant is a waste of time, so I issued no reply.
After that, this ignoramus went to seek legal rulings from some local scholars and they ruled against razing the building. Shaykh al-Bānī,[1] as was his habit, added that whosoever ruled in favor of razing the building would be subject to punishment. I would like to say to that so-called legal scholar: Master, the judgment to raze the building is correct, according to reports transmitted from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, Ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Abd Allāh ibn Zubayr, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās, and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz.[2] The leaders of the three legal schools—Ḥanafī, Malikī, and Ḥanbalī—have all stipulated it, and the two Shāfi‘ī jurists al-Ghazālī and al-Kawāshī have also suggested this interpretation. So who exactly among those great leaders should be subjected to punishment? If you feared your Lord, you would carefully verify what you say. If you recall that your ruling will be held up to you on the Day of Judgment and you will be asked about it letter by letter, then you would pay more attention to what you write! It is as if you had never heard the words:
I do not deny your knowledge or your schooling, but our situation is like that of Shaykh ‘Abd Allāh al-Minūfī who said to one of his teachers after the latter had spoken rudely against one of his own students: `You are an educated man, Master, but knowledge has not taught you manners!'
Do not write with your own hand anything except
that which you will be pleased to see on Judgment Day.
The aforementioned ignoramus returned overjoyed with al-Bānī's ruling in hand, and sat in his market shop calling out in his loudest voice: “So-and-so has broken the unanimous agreement of jurists with his ruling! This man is speaking recklessly about God's religion! He is a such-and-such!” and so forth, and he began to curse and use foul language. He went to the residents of that house and told them, “Have no fear! They have decided that he is to be punished; he can no longer confront you.” The residents lifted their heads up and puffed out their cheeks, while those who disapproved were humiliated and defeated. The former group prepared to resume their debauchery under the protection of Shaykh Shams al-Dīn al-Bānī.
Ḥasan the caretaker, who had tried to stop them, came to see me in utter humiliation and disappointment, barely able to speak. I said, “Hold on, I am in the right. God says, `So lose not heart, fall not into despair; for you shall overcome, if you are true believers' [Q 3:138]. I swear by God that if they resume their previous debauchery I will inform the caliph and show him the transmitted opinions of the great Muslim jurists in favor of razing, even if a thousand al-Bānī's rule otherwise.”
Then God in His Grace decreed that Qānṣūh, whose arrival they were all awaiting, was instead sent by the ruler to Tripoli. The group disbanded and not one of them was heard from after that. The place became free of debauchery, stood empty and closed up, thanks be to God! I wrote something about this problem and titled it: Raising the Minaret of Religion and Razing the House of Dissipation. It is also called, Bringing the Wineshop Down on the Builder [ = al-Bānī]. As for the aforementioned ignoramus, he flew off on the wings of confoundment, donned the womanly robes of cowardice, and escaped by the skin of his teeth.[3]
I composed [these verses] about the incident:
They wish to straighten his crookedness;
But can people straighten what God Himself has made bent?
I also composed the following:
Marvel [O reader!] at the builder [al-Bānī] of a house of ill repute,
who is master in all types of immorality.We forbade sodomy and hashish,
and he called our ruling on it ignorant and unseemly.
The house of ill repute says, “No Muslim,
due to what I am prepared for, approves of me.No one of intelligence can fail to see
the measure of my deficiency.If someone sees my scales tilting to one side
it is because a lame sodomite is weighing me.”I said, “If the house is not emptied of its contents,
The law stipulates razing this wineshop.”Al-Bānī was asked and he ruled that
the one who rules this way is guilty.O people, listen to what is steady and true,
and is neither wavering nor shaky,Who more justly should be accused of a crime,
whether by friend or by enemy?The one who razes a house built to disobey God in,
or the one who has built it: al-Bānī?
Notes
1. The shaykh's name literally means “Builder.” [BACK]
2. A list of early Muslim figures known for their religious knowledge—‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān were the second and third caliphs who led the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. [BACK]
3. Literally, “he took the spear in his forearm” (i.e., he escaped the more serious injury that would have resulted from a direct confrontation with al-Suyūṭī). [BACK]