The Ḥanbalī Emigration of 551–569 AH/1156–1173 AD in the Context of the Legal Discourse on Muslims under Non‐Muslim Rule

In 551 AH/1156 AD the ?anbalī shaykh A?mad ibn Qudāma (491–558/1098–1163) emigrated from the Frankish‐ruled region of Samaria. He reached Damascus and advised his relatives to follow suit, thus initiating the two‐decade exodus of the Banū Qudāma from the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The migration story survives in a tenth/sixteenth century chronicle and is attributed to A?mad's grandson, ?iyā’ al‐Dīn (569–643/1173–1245). According to ?iyā’ al‐Dīn, the cause of the emigration was the extreme oppression of the local Frankish lord, Baldwin of Ibelin (d. c. 582/1186), and A?mad ibn Qudāma's inability to practice his religion. But scholars have also attributed the emigration to wider ideological and political developments under the reign of Nūr al‐Dīn ibn Zengi (541–569/1146–1174), namely the counter‐crusade and the institutionalization of jihad propaganda. Here I explore the context of the emigration in greater detail while focusing primarily on legal theory. In most cases, a historian can determine the circumstances that led to the issuance of certain legal opinions but in the case of the ?anbalī emigration we have an event without an accompanying legal opinion. Accordingly, the emigration must be analyzed in light of developments in ?anbalī legal thought prior to and during the crusades and in consideration of how members of the Banū Qudāma perceived their role prior to and during the emigration. A?mad's role as a charismatic shaykh and spiritual leader became ever more critical and contentious at a time when political tensions between Franks and Muslims were escalating. Furthermore, the heightened religiosity of the Muslims of Greater Syria inspired other members of the Qudāma family to leave the Frankish domains even though their lives were not in danger. This chapter thus aims to complement Steven Gertz's analysis of legal opinions on the obligation to emigrate (The Muslim World , vol. 103) by providing a grounded example of how such opinions could be enacted.