In
the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. By Him we seek Assistance.
The following
text was sent to me via e-mail from a brother who had studied primary
level fiqh and tajweed in North Africa prior to moving to
the United States; hence I cannot and do not claim it as my own, and unfortunately,
I was not given the name of the author nor can I recall the identify of
the sender, other than his Efnet IRC nick name, Sahnoon. The daleel
was written by one of the fuqara’ in one of his teaching circles
who had compiled the information in order to aid the insight of the people
who were interested in the issue. This article was edited with the understanding
that all of the various positions of our mujtahideen that have
been supported and passed through the generations are valid, and each
mujtahid is bound by their ijtihad unless they are presented
with proof that they consider stronger than what they based their original
ijtihad on, both the absolute and the limited among them. Our duty,
as simple Muslims, is to take one of them as our tariqa to the
Kitab wa Sunnah, to hear and obey. Imam Sufyan al-Thawri, the famous
‘Iraqi mujtahid said: "If you see a man doing something over
which there is a debate among the scholars, and which you yourself believe
to be forbidden, you should not forbid him from doing it." Adhering
to this advice would greatly benefit this ummah, draw us away from
the petty bickering that some of us do and get us back to the real issue
at hand, the near complete domination of the Muslims at the hands of the
kufar.
That being
the case, it is not the intention of myself to in any way degrade or attempt
to weaken the positions of our other Imams, but rather, it is merely my
intention to show positively that sadl is the dominant, majority
position of the Maliki madhhab; a point which is shown by what
can be considered "strong" language as you will shortly see
in the text.
The text
I received was of an extremely low level of English, so I have taken careful
liberties at upgrading the language in order that it may be read more
smoothly and have in no way intentionally interpolated into the text.
The notes that I have added were done for three reasons:
Firstly,
being that much of the weight of evidence lies on the people who have
transmitted it, I thought it necessary to, whenever possible, give a brief
biographical note in order that people may come to know, even if superficially,
who these people actually are, for as Imam Zuhri stated, "This knowledge
is deen, so look well to whom you are taking your deen from."
Secondly,
I felt it necessary, in some instances, to dispel certain myths and half-truths
that are being passed around by certain groups of people who have practically
waged war against the Maliki madhhab, focusing on this issue in
particular, by attempting to project the image that the later Maliki scholars
(some even have the audacity to accuse Malik’s students) were acting contrary
to their Imam and placed him above the Sunnah of the Messenger
of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam.
And lastly,
to avoid any interpolation.
I do not
claim to be a scholar, nor a student of knowledge, and hence I ask the
reader not to judge the strength of the madhhab by me, but instead
judge it by the strength of the man from who it is primarily derived:
There
will come a time shortly when people will beat the flanks of their
camels searching from East to West
in pursuit
of knowledge. And they will find no one more knowledgeable than the
‘alim of Madina.
Imam al-Tirmidhi,
al-Qadi ‘Iyad, Imam adh-Dhahabi and many others relation from Sufyan ibn
‘Uyana (in one transmission), ‘Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Mahdi, Dhu’aya ibn Imama,
Ibn al-Madani, Muhammad Idris ash-Shafi’i and many others, that "We
used to consider it to mean Imam Malik." Imam as-Suyuti list it as
one of the hujiyyat of the messengership of the Prophet sallallahu
‘alayhi wa salam.
There are
many short texts in the ‘Arabic language that are circulated throughout
North Africa that deal with this issue. If it were possible, I would rather
rely on those text, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the text of
the madhhahib have yet to be translated, instead, most people preferring
to translate works of contemporary "scholars" who are in all
respects inferior to our great Imams of the Salaf &
Khalaf. But for now, until other works are translated and published,
this will have to do.
The first
appendix is an excerpt from an answer I received back in late 1998 from
Hajj Gibril Haddad. The second appendix is my attempt to explain what
was too exhaustive to be placed in the footnotes. I felt that since most
people in the West are
ignorant
of the science of fiqh, there were certain allusions to Maliki
principles of jurisprudence that many people may not be aware of, or are
contrary to what they have been taught, and hence, in order to somewhat
enlighten the readers, I have attempted to explain them as briefly and
best as I can, being that they are the principles of this proof to aid
its proper understanding. As I said, I’m not an usuli scholar,
so please don’t quote me. The third appendix is an excerpt of a fatwa
that Shaykh Muhammad ‘Illiyish gave in reply to a question relating
directly the issue. The fourth are my references which have over the years
have helped aid my ability to be able to write my humble appendix.
I have titled
it, "The Vindication of the People of the Maghrib" because
sadl is one of the main issues for which the Malikis, who dominate
the Maghrib, are attacked for today. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu
‘alayhi wa salam stated:
There
will always be a part of my Community firm before the truth in the Maghrib
until the order comes from Allah.
And the validity
of sadl is one of those truths that the people of the Maghrib
are firm in upholding, despite the criticism they may receive.
This was
written while I was residing in Hampton, Virginia, but is in no way connected
to the Masjid there, nor to Jamal Badawi, Ahmad Sakr, or Ahmad
Noor, the three respective trustees of the masjid.
May Allah
forgive me for the burden I have taken upon myself, as well as for my
speech. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His Messenger,
and the People of the House.
Lumumba
K. Shakur
20
Muharram 1422
14
April 2001
Hampton,Virginia
The
Masjid & Islamic Center of Hampton Roads
The
Main Text
Irsal al-Yadayn - The Laying of the Hands
In sha
Allah, I will be listing the reasoning that our Maliki scholars have
given to support their opinion, that is, laying the arms straight in prayer
(sadl).
Proof
from Ahadith Regarding Hand Placement
1. Sadl
(laying the hands straight in the prayer) is not an action, but rather,
it is the natural position of the hands while standing. This is the asl
(root, origin, source)
2. The scholars
have differed on the matter of qabd (grasping: holding the left
hand with the right). Ibn Rushd states in Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1:137)
The reason
behind their differing is that there are some ahadith narrating
the way the Prophet prayed which did not mention him placing his right
hand over his left, and on the other hand, it was reported that the
people were ordered to do that.
As for the
ahadith that Ibn Rushd is referring to, one of the most commonly
cited is the hadith of Abu Humaid al-Sa’idi, which is as follows:
Muhammad
ibn ‘Amir ibn ‘Atta stated: "I heard Abu Humaid al-Sa’idi talking
amongst ten of the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah. Abu Qattada
who was among them spoke up and said, "I am the most knowledgeable
of you about the prayer of the Messenger of Allah." They replied,
"How can that be when you were not following him for a longer
period, nor were you a companion of his before us?" To this Abu
Qattada replied, "Yes." "Well then prove it,"
the others challenged. He (Abu Qattada) said, "When the Messenger
of Allah stood for prayer, he raised his arms until they were level
with his ears, said the takbeer and didn’t being reciting until
all of his limbs had rested in their natural position. After finishing
his recital, he raised his hands until they were level with his ears,
said the takbeer and from there, performed the ruku’.
He placed his palms on his knees and posed his back straight, neither
raising his head nor lowering it . . .
This version
of the hadith is narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, al-Tirmidhi
and Abu Dawud in their Sunan, while Imam al-Bukhari narrates a
shorter version of it in his Sahih. When Abu Humaid finished his
description of the prayer, they all stated, "You are truthful, this
is the way he used to pray."
The statement
of Abu Qattada that, "[A]nd didn’t being reciting until all of his
limbs had rested in their natural position" is proof that the Prophet
did not always place his right hand over his left, for this is not the
natural position at which the limbs rest, rather, this is what is known
as sadl. If the Prophet placed his right hand over his left in
the prayer all the time, then (at least) one of the Sahabah would
have objected to Abu Humaid’s failure to report that in his narration.
Furtherstill,
and most importantly perhaps, amongst those Sahabah was Sahl ibn
Sa’d, the narrator of the hadith: "The people were ordered
(literally "used to be ordered") that a man place his right
hand over his left arm in the prayer," as stated by Ibn Hajar in
Fath al-Bari (2:334).
3. Ibn ‘Abd
al-Barr narrated in his book, al-Tamheed that:
Mujahid
said, "If the right hand is to be placed over the left, then
it should be on the palm or the wrist on the chest." The narrator
added from Mujahid, "and he hated that."
It is understood
from this that placing the right hand over the left was not what Mujahid
was accustomed to, proof that he did not witness the Sahabah doing
it.
4. Ibn ‘Abd
al-Barr also narrates in the same book (20:76):
‘Abd
Allah ibn al-Izar said, "I used to make tawaf around the
Kaba with Said ibn al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand
over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned
to me.
From this,
we notice that placing one hand over another in prayer was considered
by him to be a munkar, because he changed it with his hand, which
is only acceptable in relation to the munkarat. Furthermore, it
is apparent from this athar that at the Masjid al-Haram,
there were few people seen putting their hands over each other in the
prayer, indicating that the custom was otherwise. And this was during
the time of the Sahabah and Tabi’een.
5. Also narrated
in al-Tamheed:
‘Abd
Allah ibn Yazid said, "I never saw Said ibn al-Musayyib holding
his left hand with his right hand in the prayer, he used to lay them
straight.
Sa’id ibn
al-Musayyib was one of the biggest Tabi’een in Madina, and this
was thus the practice of the people of Madina that Imam Malik witnessed.
6. Ibn Abu
Shaybah narrated that al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibrahim al-Nakh’ai, Ibn al-Musayyib,
Ibn Sirin, and Sa’id ibn Jubayr all laid their arms straight in the prayer.
Imam Malik’s
View Concerning Sadl and Qabd
1. The
dislike of qabd in the fard and its permissibility in the nafl if one
is standing for a long time in order to make it easier on him. (i.e.
a rukhsa)
This is the
opinion narrated by Ibn al-Qasim in al-Mudawanna (1:74) and in
al-Tamheed (20:75) al-Layth as-Sa’d is reported to have said:
The laying
of the hands if prayer is preferred, unless he is standing for an
extended period and becomes tired, then there is no problem (la
ba’as) in putting the right hand over the left.
Al-Bukhari
narrated in his Sahih (1:401) in the chapter entitled, "Using
the Hands in Prayer for Help, if it is Part of the Prayer" that Ibn
Abbas said:
A person
can use any part of his body for support. Abu Ishaq placed his head
cover (over his arms) in prayer and raised it (as a sling), and ‘Ali
placed his palm over his left wrist, unless scratching his skin or
straightening his clothes.
Thus, putting
the hands over each other in prayer is permissible when used as a means
for support in cases of standing in prayer for a prolonged period of time,
as is narrated of ‘Ali and as Ibn Hazm explicted stated in his al-Muhalla
(4:113),
[A]nd
we have narrated of ‘Ali that when he stood in prayer for a long time,
he used to hold his left arm with his right hand at the origin of
the palm, unless straightening his clothing or scratching his skin.
Standing
for extending periods of time is a characteristic of the nafl rather
than the fard prayer, as the Prophet ordered the imam to be light
in the fard.
Imam al-Shawkani
mentioned in Nayl al-Awtar (2:201),
[A]nd
the narration of irsal (laying the arms straight in prayer)
is the narration of the majority of his students, and it is the famous
among them (referring to Malik and the Maliki scholars).
Imam al-Shawkani
also stated:
Ibn al-Munthir
narrated that Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri and al-Nakh’ai all
used to lay their arms straight in the prayer, and not put the right
hand over the left.
‘Abd al-Razzaq
in his Musanaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq states: "I saw Ibn Jurayr praying
while laying his arms straight, and al-Awza’i said that whoever wished
to do the same (then let him do so) and whoever wanted to leave it (then
let him leave it), and it is also the saying of ‘Atta."
2. The
permissibility of qabd in both the fard and nafl.
This is the
saying of Ashhab and Ibn Nafi. It is also the statement of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr.
3. The
performance of qabd in the fard and nafl.
This is narrated
of the two brothers: Mutrif and Ibn al-Majishun from Malik, as stated
by Ibn Rushd in al-Tahsil (1:395).
4. The
prohibition of qabd.
And this
is the narration of the ‘Iraqi scholars from Malik, as mentioned in by
al-Bagi in al-Mutawa (1:281).
And
Allah knows best.
Appendix
I
Opinions from the Scholars of the Maliki School
Shaykh
Ahmad ad-Dardiri:
The Maliki
scholar Shaykh Ahmad ad-Dardir said in his Arqab al-Maasilik li Madh’hab
al-Imam Malik that:
It is allowable
to grasp the hands during the nafl prayer and it is reprehensible
to grasp the hands during the fard.
Shaykh
Ahmad az-Zarruq:
And to end
this, we would like to quote from one of the greatest Maliki ‘ulama,
Shaykh Ahmad az-Zarruq, in his commentary on the Risala of Ibn
Abu Zayd:
The person
praying is not to place his right hand over his left in the fard,
although it is allowable in the nawafil due to the length that
one stands in prayer in order to support oneself in standing. Shaykh
at-Turtushi said, "It is forbidden to grasp the hands during
the fard because it becomes like something he supports himself
upon during the prayer" . . . The People of Learning in Madina
disagreed regarding the grasping of the hands for support as to whether
it was part of the outward aspects of the prayer or not.
Shaykh
‘Usman dan Fodio:
It is mentioned
in the Bayan (by Shaykh ‘Uthman ibn Fudio),
Grasping
the hands for support during the prayer is summed up in three opinions:
- some
say it is allowed absolutely
- it is
reprehensible except when standing long in the nawafil
- it is
highly recommended and its matter is to grasp the left wrist with
the right hand and place them under the chest.
And
Allah knows best.
Appendix
II
Explanation of the Fiqh of Imam Malik as it Relates to the Issue
at Hand
In regards
to the issue at hand, there are three relevant points of fiqh that
I feel need briefly to be discussed: ‘amal, khabar al-wahid, and
the qat’i in respects to the dhanni.
Imam
Malik’s Risala to Imam Layth ibn as-Sa’d
Imam Malik,
in an authenticated letter to Layth ibn as-Sa’d in Egypt, wrote:
It has
reached me that you give fatwas to the people concerning things
which are contrary to what is done by our community of people and
in our city. You are the Imam and you have excellence and position
with the people of your city, and they need you and rely on what comes
from you. Therefore you ought to fear for yourself and follow that
whose pursuit you hope will bring you rescue. Allah Almighty says
in His Mighty Book, 'The outstrippers, the first of the Muhajirun
and the Ansar.' Allah Almighty says, 'Give good news to My
slaves who listen to the word and the follow the best of it.'
People follow the people of Madina, and the hijra was made
to it and the Qur'an was sent down in it, and the halal was
made halal and the haram was made haram there
since the Messenger of Allah was living among them and they were present
at the revelation itself. He commanded them and they obeyed him. He
made sunnah for them and they followed him until Allah made
him die and chose for him what is with Him, may the blessings of Allah
and His mercy and blessing be upon him.
Then
after him, the people followed those from among his community who
were given authority after him. Whenever something happened that they
had knowledge about, they carried it out. What they did not have knowledge
of, they asked about, and then took the strongest of what they found
regarding that by their ijtihad and the recentness of their
contract (with the Prophet). If someone disagreed with them or said
something else which was stronger than it and better, they left the
first statement and acted on this other one.
Then
the Tabi'un after them followed this path and they followed
those sunnan. Since the business in Madina was open and acted
upon, I do not think that anyone should oppose it, because of what
the Madinans possess of that inheritance which none is allowed to
plagiarize or lay claim to.
If the
people of the other cities had begun to say, 'This is the action which
is in our city and this is what happened in it from those before us,'
they would not be certain about that and they would not have that
which allows them that.
Imam
ash-Shaf’i and His Risala
This is the
crux of the Maliki position in his own words. When Imam ash-Shafi’i went
to Egypt, he found people doing things that he felt were strange. Upon
inquiring into their proofs and reasons, it was apparent that they were
acting in accord to various fatawa passed by Imam Malik. In order
to ascertain the reasons why Imam Malik held such positions, Imam ash-Shafi’i
began looking into Malik’s ijtihadi rulings, and saw that there
wasn’t a readily identifiable methodology that Imam Malik had employed,
hence he felt it his duty to do such. Immediately afterwards, he wrote
his innovative work, al-Risala which began the period of usul
al-fiqh.
When this
work was written, Malik was already gone, and Imam ash-Shafi’i was an
Imam in his own right. That being so, there were many positions that Imam
Malik held that Imam ash-Shafi’i disagreed with, due mostly to differences
of methodology, or usul. With these differences in mind, he wrote
his Risala, which became the basis for the definitions and generally
propagated procedure of fiqh. For Imam ash-Shafi’i, the first source
was the Qur’an, then the Sunnah, then ijmaa’’, and then
qiyas, nothing more. But Imam ash-Shafi’i’s methodology was not
necessarily the agreed upon methodology of the entire ummah, nor
where his definitions, hence, the different scholars in different regions
and different methods took the Risala, and adapted it to and for
themselves. Imam ash-Shafi’i, although he had studied under Muhammad Shaybani,
had at this time became the main proponent of the ahl al-hadith,
and expressed his schools views within his work. Although no one disagreed
with the general identification of the sources that Imam ash-Shafi’i identified,
how those sources were handled is the point of departure. Since
my intention is to help supplement the understanding of the above text,
it is not my concern here to deal with the Qur’an nor qiyas, since
the issue of sadl is neither a point of tafsir nor qiyas.
I will only briefly try and focus upon the Sunnah and ijmaa’
as it relates to the topic.
The
Early Definition and Implications of the Word ‘Sunnah’
The Sunnah,
as it is commonly defined, is the "words, actions, tacit approval
and characteristics of the Prophet". This is the definition that
was given to it by Imam ash-Shafi’i, which the people of hadith
concurred upon. But as is evident in the proceeding quote from Imam Malik,
this was not the definition that he understood. To Imam Malik and the
people of Madina before and after him, the Sunnah including the
totality of the Prophet, the Sahabah and the agreed upon practice
of the Tabi’een. Hence, in the mind of Imam Malik, the Sahabah
and Tabi’een, in a sense, were held on the same level as the Prophet’s
personal sunnah. That is not to say that the Sahabah were
equals with the Prophet, but rather, the conclusions and massly accepted
ijtihad of the Sahabah and the subsequent rulings of the
Tabi’een, were the explanation and extension of the Sunnah,
in the same way that the Sunnah is considered to be an explanation
and extension of the Qur’an, and hence, Imam ash-Shafi’i’s statement:
I do
not know anyone among the ulama to oppose (the idea) that the
Sunnah of the Prophet is of three types: first is the Sunnah
which prescribes the like of what Allah has revealed in His Book;
next is the Sunnah which explains the general principles of
the Qur’an and clarifies the will of Allah; and last is the Sunnah
where the Messenger of Allah has ruled on matters on which nothing
can be found in the Book of Allah. The first two varieties are integral
to the Qur’an, but the ulama have differed as to the third.
Hence in
the same manner, the Sunnah is of three other types: the Sunnah
of the Prophet as mentioned above, the Sunnah of the Companions
which explains and supplements the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah,
and the last is the Sunnah of the Tabi’een that was transmitted
to them from the Sahabah, which they acted upon and ruled in accordance
of when they could find nothing in the former. And in the same manner,
the first two are agreed upon, while the ulama have differed in
regards to the third.
Before I
continue with Malik, there is an important point that needs to be made
that will clarify much of the confusion over the different madhhahib,
and that is that hadith and Sunnah are not necessarily synonymous
to all the usulieen.
The
Mutawatir and the Ahad Riwayat
The whole
of this deen is by way of transmission. The Qu’ran is transmitted,
the ahadith are transmitted, the athar and fatawa of
the Sahabah are transmitted, ijmaa’ is transmitted, and
the ijtihad of our early fuqaha’ is transmitted. And accordingly,
our scholars of usul and hadith have differed between two
basic types of transmission: mutawatir and ahad. The mutawatir
is a mass-transmission such that it is practically impossible for
a lie to have crept into the narration and distorted the text. This is
the basis of the infallibility and protection of the Qur’an, and the reason
why there is absolutely no doubt in our minds that the Qur’an has not
been changed since it was completed. Ahad on the other hand, is
that whose chains of transmission have not reached that level of certainty,
hence, there is a possibility that it can be a fabrication or distortion.
Hadith falls into both of these categories. That being the case,
the mutawatir and ahad both correlate to two different degrees
of proofs: qat’i and dhanni, definite and speculative respectively.
The
Use of Khabar al-Wahid by Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y
In relation
to the two different schools of the Salaf, the ahl al-ra’y
and ahl al-hadith, there was a difference on how they looked at
ahadith in light of this categorization. No one disputes the authority
and ‘isma of the mutawatir, but the point of disagreement
is around the ahad. The ahadith al-ahad or khabar al-wahid
are those ahadith whose level of transmission, prior to the period
of collection, did not reach the level of mutawatir, which comprise
the vast majority of the ahadith that are transmitted. The two
different schools had differing views on the authority of such ahadith.
The ahl
al-hadith, after checking both the sanad and text of the hadith,
were generally more willing to adopt the hadith after it could
be ascertained that it was not abrogated. But, however, the ahl al-ra’y
were stricter in this regard. To the ahl al-ra’y, although the
mutawatir was a definite (qat’i) proof, the ahad
was dhanni at best, and hence was treated like such. Since the
ahad was speculative, it could not impart definite knowledge by
itself and since Allah said in the Qu’ran: "[V]erily, conjecture
avails nothing against the truth" the fuqaha’ have put stipulations
on the acceptance of the ahad. Imam ash-Shafi’i, and Ahmad both
stated that when if the narrators of the ahad were upright, competent
Muslims with a retentive memory, a direct connection to the person they
transmitted from and were not known to distort the text or chain of ahadith,
they accepted them and readily utilized those ahadith in their
‘ijtihad, which is Imam al-Bukhari’s criterion for his Sahih.
Imam Abu
Hanifa and His Companions: the Representative of the Madhhab al-Ra’y
The Hanafis
however placed two other conditions, namely that the person who transmitted
the hadith is not known to have acted contrary to their report,
and that it is a matter that does not necessitate the knowledge of a vast
number of people.
In the first
condition, there is a hadith which states that "When a dog
licks a dish, wash it seven times, one of which must be with clean earth."
The hadith in question fulfills all the above requirements of Imams
ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad, but however, it is known that Abu Hurayra, the
Sahabi that the hadith comes from, did not act upon it himself.
Because it is known that normally, the criterion for purifying anything
is only three washes, an established qa’ida, and since Abu Hurayra
is known not to act upon this hadith, Imam Abu Hanifa and his madhhab
rejected both its text and attribution to Abu Hurayra.
In regards
to the second criterion, the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam,
is reported to have said, "Anyone who touches his sexual organ must
make a fresh wudu’." The Hanafis have rejected this hadith
in light of the fact that even though this is an important hadith,
it was not an established practice amongst the whole community, and hence,
there is too much doubt surrounding its authenticity to be acted upon,
for if it were true, it would have been necessitated that it be transmitted
and acted upon by all.
Another example
from the Hanafis is the issue of the wali. The Hanafis have ruled
that a wali is not an essential part of the nikkah, and
hence a nikkah is valid without one, even though there is a sahih
hadith that states, "There is no marriage without a wali,"
along with others which state something similar. Their reasoning is that
in the Qur’an, Allah states, "If he has divorced her, then she
is not lawful to him until she marries (hatta tankiha) another man"
(2: 229). The dhahir, outward meaning of the word hatta tankiha
implies that a woman has the authority to contract her own marriage, and
since the Qur’an is a qat’i and the hadith is ahad,
it is rejected since the speculative cannot override the definite. Furthermore,
the Hanafis consider the ‘amm of the Qur’an to be definite and
hence binding it is dhahir wording and general application, unless
there is a qat’i proof to specify (takhsis) its generality.
In other
words, when there was a clash between a qat’i and a dhanni
proof, the qat’i takes priority, and in many instances, the dhanni
is disregarded.
An example
from Imam Malik is the same issue above, that of the dog. The Shafi’is
and the Hanbalis have ruled because of this hadith and one similar
to it, that both dogs and pigs are nejus. However, in the Qur’an,
Allah says, "When they ask you what is lawful to them, say: ‘What
is lawful to you is that which is good and pure and also what you have
trained your hunting animals to catch in the manner directed to you by
Allah." (5:4) In this verse, Allah allows for the game which
is taken from the mouths of hunting animals to be eaten, without any stipulations
attached. One of the animals that the Arabs used to hunt with was dogs.
Allah did not make an exception to dogs, hence, the ayat in the
Qur’an is general and implicitly implies that the saliva of dogs is pure.
Furthermore, there is a qa’ida derived from the Kitab wa Sunnah
that "everything is pure until proven otherwise", and since
this hadith is ahad, along with the reasoning that Imam
Abu Hanifa gave, it cannot overrule the general principle, thereby specifying
something which Allah has apparently made general. In light of the fact
that there is no other proof to substantiate it, Imam Malik and his madhhab
rejected it and consider all living animals, and that which is pure from
humans (i.e. hair, saliva, skin, etc.), to be pure as well. Even to the
extent that the left over water that a dog has drunken from is considered
tahir for taharah.
Imam Malik
and the Madinan Divergence
Imam Malik
and the Madinans have added another criterion to accepting the khabar
al-wahid apart from what which is mention in relation to Imam ash-Shafi’i
and Ahmad: that the hadith in question does not conflict with the
‘amal of ahl al-Madina.
The ‘amal
of ahl al-Madina as a juristic principle states what Malik
mentioned above, that Madina is the inheritor of the sunnah of
the Prophet and the sunnah of the Sahabah, and hence the
entire city is the visual legacy of the Prophetic Sunnah. The proofs
are the ayat stated above, along with ahadith:
My community
will not agree on an error.
and
Madina is
sacred, and throws out its dross as fire cast out the dross of metal.
and
Islam will
cling to Madina as a serpent clings to its hole.
In Malik’s
view, all of these ayat and ahadith substantiate not only
the superiority of Madina spiritually, but in regards to its practice
as well, and hence, their practice is a mutawatir transmission
of the Sunnah. That being the case, the ‘amal of ahl
al-Madina is in his mind, which he inherited from his teachers, a
qat’i proof, and when it comes in conflict with a dhanni,
such as the khabar al-wahid, either explains the latter’s ambiguity,
or completely overrides its text, even when the ‘amal is of the
Tabi’een or Tab’ut Tabi’een. The rational reasoning behind
this was stated by Imam Malik himself, who said,
About
so many thousand Companions came with the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu
‘alayhi wa salam, from a certain expedition at such-and-such a
time. About 10,000 of them died in Madina, and the rest split up in
the cities. Which would you prefer to follow and whose words would
you prefer to take? Those (Tabi’een) in whose presence the
Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, died with his Companions
I mentioned (i.e. the 10,000 of them who died in Madina), or the one
(group of Tabi’een) who died with one or two of the Companions
of the Prophet-sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam.
The understanding
that Malik had comes down to common sense. Imam Malik was the Imam of
the Abode and Hijra of the Prophet. Madina, was the first Islamic
state established, hence, all the relevant historical occurrences happened
in Madina. The majority of the akham revealed by Allah ‘Azza
wa Jal were revealed in or in relation to Madina. The Prophet made
hijra there, lived out his life there, and died there. Revelation
came while he was in the city, and the whole area was illuminated by its
effect. The vast majority of the Sahabah, in the efforts to be
as close as possible to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa
salam, followed him to Madina and took up residence there. Most importantly
in this respect, the seven companions that were known to pass fatwa
spent a considerable amount of time in Madina, including ‘Abdullah ibn
Mas’ud and ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas. It was the seat of the first three Khulafa
Rashidun, and ‘Ali spent half of his khalifate in Madina. If
there was ever a sunnah established, it was done in Madina. If
there ever was a relevant hadith, it was known in Madina. If there
ever was a city that deserved to be followed, it was Madina.
The
Issue of Ijmaa’
As it can
be noticed from the quotes that are dispersed throughout this article,
Imam Malik was primarily concerned with Madina and did not feel that any
other city had a legitimate claim to be equal, let alone superior. That
being the case, it is only natural to conclude that the ijmaa’
that Malik was concerned with was only the ijmaa’ of the Madinans,
the seven fuqaha’ in particular.
If you turn
to the Muwatta’, Malik constantly refer to both ‘amal and
Madinan ijmaa’, thus we find numerous statements like,
I have never
heard any of the people of knowledge and fiqh and those whom people
take as an example . . .
or
I have
not heard that any of our predecessors used to do that, and the people
of knowledge disapprove of it . . .
or
This
is what we do, and what I have seen the people of knowledge in our city
doing.
And many
other statements along those lines. The earlier Imams of the Salaf were
extremely careful not to transmit any false information, hence, instead
of declaring outright that there is an ‘ijmaa on an issue, they
would simply state, "I have not heard any of the people of knowledge
say otherwise," or something similar out of caution. But with Malik,
you will however, never find a statement indicating that something is
the ijmaa’ of the entire ummah; primarily because what Malik
preferred the statements and conclusions of the people in whose cemeteries
over 10,000 Sahabah are buried, as opposed to those with only a
handful. Malik’s ‘amal and ijmaa’ can be directly related
to two other priniples of fiqh that the ‘ulama have for
the most part concurred upon: ijmaa’ and ‘urf.
‘Urf
as it is defined by the fuqaha’ are the set of practices and word
usages that the upright amongst a particular group of people have considered
to be good. In essence, Malik’s ‘amal if actually the ‘urf
of Madina. ‘Urf as a juristic principle, by the agreement of the
fuqaha, cannot stand alone since ‘urf is rooted in the rationale
and intellect of a people as opposed to revelation. But however, in Malik’s
eyes, the ‘urf of Madina is a divinely inherited phenomenon, and
hence, does have the capacity to stand alone as a proof in the shari’ah.
Similarly, the knowledge of the scholars in the city was derived from
this same fountain as an inherited reality as opposed to a theoretical
speculation. In other words, the ‘amal and ijmaa’ of Madina
is inherited from the Lawgiver himself sallallah ‘alayhi wa salam,
along with the majority of his most trained specialists, and hence is
a part of the Sunnah. The difference between the two is that ‘amal,
being the ‘urf, it is a reference to the people at large, laymen
and scholars alike, while ijmaa’ is a reference to the scholars,
to the exclusion of the masses: the distinction between ‘urf and
ijmaa’ to the usuli’een of the other traditions. It is however,
important to note, that in the Maliki madhhab, after Imam ash-Shafi’i
wrote his Risala, all four of these aspects were adopted and consider
as sources of law, the Madinan phenomenon obvious having first preference.
Ahadith
vs. ‘Amal
‘Amal
in relation to ahadith has five possibilities. It will either:
contradict the ahadith, confirm the ahadith, contradict
one while affirming another other, explain the ahadith, or speak
when ahadith are silent.
When ahadith
clashes with ‘amal, the latter is preferred over the former. One
of Imam Malik’s major shaykhs, Rabi’a Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman,
nicknamed Rabi’a al-Ra’y, stated: "I will take a thousand from a
thousand before I will take one from one, because that one from one can
strip the sunnah out of your hands." In emulation of his teacher,
Malik stated,
The practice
is more firmly established than ahadith. One whom I emulate
said, "It is distressing that it should be said concerning the
like of that, "So-and-so related to me from so-and-so"
To illustrate
the point of hadith and Sunnah not being synonymous, the
Sunnah including not just the Prophet, Ibn al-Mahdi, one of Imam
Malik’s contemporaries, stated: "An established sunnah from
the sunnah of the people of Madina is stronger than hadith."
Ibn al-Qasim
and Ibn Wahb, both of al-Bukhari’s "men" and Malik’s two best
students, Ahhab being the third, stated: "I saw in Malik’s opinion,
‘amal was stronger than hadith."
This perspective
was not something that Imam Malik arbitrarily invented on his own due
an exaggerated love and respect that many felt Imam Malik had for Madina,
but it was instead the understanding that was taught to him by his teachers.
Hence, it was stated by him, that while still learning in his youth he
noticed that,
The men
from the people of knowledge among the Followers conveyed ahadith
which had been conveyed to them from others and they said, 'We are
not ignorant of this, but the past action is other than it.
and
I witnessed
Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm who was a qadi and
his brother 'Abdullah, a truthful man who had memorized many ahadith.
When Muhammad gave a judgement in which a hadith had come contrary
to the judgement, I heard 'Abdullah criticise him, saying, "Hasn't
this and this come in this hadith?" He said, "Yes."
His brother said to him, "Then what is wrong with you? Why don't
you give judgement by it?" He said, "Where are the people
in respect to it?" i.e. what is the consensus of action in Madina?
He meant that the action is stronger than the hadith in it.
This understanding
can be traced all the way back to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, who stated upon
the mimbar of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam,
By Allah
Almighty, I will make it difficult for a man who relates hadith
different from it (i.e. ‘amal)
Which is
possibly one of the reasons why he ordered that all ahadith collections
be burned.
When ‘amal
confirms ahadith, obviously, it isn’t a major issue. But however,
being that ‘amal is a source of shari’ah, it has the effect
of raising the grade of a hadith to a level beyond sahih,
even when its isnad is da’if, the relevance of which will
be seen shortly. The same holds true when it both confirms and contradicts,
the correctness of the confirmed hadith is raised above the one
that it contradicts, and the latter is disregarded. Being that hadith
is an oral transmission, which not all of a society will be aware of,
while ‘amal is a custom which is generally known by all, there
arises the logical possibility that ‘amal records something that
hadith does not. In this case, ‘amal serves as hadith,
in that they are both indications of the Sunnah, and is thus utilized
as if it was a mutawatir text. When ‘amal contradicts hadith,
being that it is regarded as a mutawatir transmission, the ‘amal
overrules the text.
The whole
reason that I have explained all of this is that all the hadith
that mention qabd, even though well known, are khabar al-wahid
at the level of the Sahabah, while on the other hand, sadl
was the ‘amal of the people of Madina as was stated by Malik in
the text of the Mudawanna quoted above, and which as I have explained
is mutawatir. Since, in Malik’s eyes, the ‘amal takes priority
over the ahad, he considered it preferable to act upon the ‘amal
of sadl, rather than the hadith of qabd. For as Ibn
‘Uyana stated,
Hadith
is a place of error for everyone but the fuqaha’
While the
‘amal of ahl al-Madina amounts to an established, visually
inherited practice.
In sha
Allah, I will try my best to give examples of each possibility of
the ‘amal/ahadith correlation, to prove all of what I have
stated.
A concrete
example of this is the adhan and ‘iqama of the Malikis.
Imam Malik states in his Muwatta’:
Yahya
ibn Yahya said: Malik was asked about doubling the adhan and
the iqama, and at what point people had to stand when the iqama
for the prayer was called. He said, "I have heard nothing about
the adhan and iqama except what I have seen people do.
As for the iqama, it is not doubled. This is what the people
of knowledge in our region continue to do.
If we turn
to the Risala of Ibn Abu Zayd, we find that the description of
the adhan is: Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar.
Ashadu
anla ilaha ill Allah, Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah. Ashadu anna Muhammadan
Rasulillah, Ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasulillah. And again, in a louder
voice: Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah, Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah. Ashadu
anna Muhammadan Rasulillah, Ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasulillah. Haya ‘ala-s
salah, Haya ‘alas-s salah. Haya ‘ala-f falah, Haya ‘ala-f falah. Allahu
akbar, Allahu akbar, La ilaha ill Allah.
Now, if we
turn to Sahih Muslim, we find the hadith:
Abu Mahdhura
said that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam
taught him the adhan like this: Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar.
Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah, Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah. Ashadu anna
Muhammadan Rasulillah, Ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasulillah; and
it should be repeated: Ashadu anla ilaha ill Allah, Ashadu anla
ilaha ill Allah. Ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasulillah, Ashadu anna Muhammadan
Rasulillah. Haya ‘ala-s salah, Haya ‘alas-s salah. Haya ‘ala-f falah,
Haya ‘ala-f falah. And the narrator added: Allahu akbar, Allahu
akbar. La ilaha ill Allah. (Muslim 4:740)
None of the
ahadith mention the softening and raising of the voice between
the two sets of the shahadatyn, even though they mention the repetition,
and the people of Madina, apparently, were the only people to call the
adhan in this manner. Shaykh al-Islam al-Qadi ‘Iyad narrates
in his Tartib al-Madarik:
Abu Yusuf
said to Malik, "You do the adhan with tarjih, but
you have no hadith from the Prophet about this." Malik
turned to him and said: "Subhan Allah! I have never seen
anything more amazing than this. The call to prayer has been done
(here) every day, five times a day, in front of witnesses, and sons
have inherited it from their fathers since the time of the Messenger
of Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam. Does this need
"So-and-so from so-and-so"? This is sounder (asahh)
in our opinion than hadith.
The same
situation is in regards to the ‘iqama. The ‘iqama as described
in the Risala is: Allahu akbarullahu akbar. Ashadu anla ilaha
ill Allah wa ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasulillah, Haya ‘ala-s salati haya
‘ala-f falah, Qad qamatis salat’ul llahu akbaru-llahu akbar. La ilaha
ill Allah
In sahih
Muslim, the hadith just before the one quoted above, its states:
Anas
said: Bilal was ordered to double the adhan and pronounce the iqama
only once. (Muslim 4:739)
Imam ash-Shafi’i
and Ahmad have interpreted this hadith to mean the manner of calling
the ‘iqama which is well known, proof of which lies in both Muslim
and Bukhari, which state:
Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Bilal was ordered to pronounce the wording of Adhan
twice and of Iqama once only." The sub narrator Isma'li said,
"I mentioned that to Ayyub and he added (to that), "Except Iqama
(i.e. Qad-Qamatis-Salat which should be said twice)." (Bukhari
1:11:58)
and
Anas
reported: Bilal was commanded (by the Apostle of Allah) to repeat
(the phrases of) Adhan twice and once in Iqama. The
narrator said: I made a mention of it before Ayyub who said: Except
for saying: Qamat-is-Salat [the time for prayer has come].
(Muslim 4:736)
But on the
basis of the ‘amal of ahl al-Madina, the Malikis have come
to a slighty different conclusion. Which is an explanation of the statement
in the Muwatta’, "I have heard nothing about the adhan
and iqama except what I have seen people do." So in this case,
the ‘amal serves as a ta’wil to the proper understanding
of the hadith in order to derive the Sunnah of the Prophet
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, as well as a criterion to prefer one
text over another.
Case
Study Two: Contradiction
There is
a ahadith that is recorded in both Sahih Mulim and several
other collections which states:
He who
fast Ramadan and six days of Shawwal, it will be as if he had fasted the
whole year.
But however,
it is narrated in the Muwatta’ that:
Yahya
said that he heard Malik say, about fasting for six days after breaking
the fast at the end of Ramadan, that he had never seen any of the
people of knowledge and fiqh fasting them. He said, "I have
not heard that any of our predecessors used to do that, and the people
of knowledge disapprove of it and they are afraid that it might become
a bida and that common and ignorant people might join to Ramadan
what does not belong to it, if they were to think that the people
of knowledge had given permission for that to be done and were seen
doing it. (Muwatta’, 18.22.60)
In this instance,
both the ‘amal and ijmaa’ of the people of Madina contradicts
the outward import of the above ahadith. Because of this, and the
reason that Imam Malik gave in response to the question, there is a principle
in Maliki fiqh that something is which is inherently permissible
can be declared makruh, if affirmed by other proofs, in order that
people do not take it to be a wajib. Thus we find in the Bidiyat
al-Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd that Malik disapproved of the fasting of
Shawwal:
[E]ither
because people might associate with Ramadan what is not a part of
it, or either because the tradition had not reached him or it did
not prove to be authentic for him, [the latter of] which is more likely.
This incident
of refraining or disapproving something in order that the people don’t
mistake it for a fard is in essence an extension of sadd adh-dhara’a,
blocking the means, at a less forceful level, and incidentally, this principle
is a point of ikhtilaf by the Shafi’is and Hanafis who do not agree
with it. However, this can be seen in the seerah of the Prophet,
when during Ramadan, the Prophet came out for tahujjud three nights
in a row, but failed to come out the forth night. When they asked him
why, he sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam replied: "I did not want
the people to think that it was an obligation upon them."
So thus,
in the Maliki madhhab, the fasting of the six days of Shawwal
is makruh, immediately following Ramadan. The hadith is
instead interpreted to mean that fasting the full Ramadan, and any six
days out of the year, is like fasting the whole year, and Shawwal was
just an example that was mentioned, when it is even considered at all.
Another example
of a contradiction is in reference to fasting on Jumah. The other
three schools consider to haram to fast on Fridays specifically,
based on the hadith,
Muhammad
ibn ‘Abbas narrated, "I asked Jabir, ‘Did the Prophet forbid fasting
on Fridays?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’
and the
hadith
Abu Hurayra
narrated that, "I heard the Prophet saying, ‘None of you should
fast on Fridays unless he fasts a day before or after it."
But however,
we find in the Muwatta’:
Yahya
said that he heard Malik say, "I have never heard any of the people
of knowledge and fiqh and those whom people take as an example
forbidding fasting on the day of jumah. Fasting on it is good,
and I have seen one of the people of knowledge fasting it, and it
seemed to me that he was keen to do so. (Muwatta’ 18.22.60)
And hence,
the rule of the prohibition of fasting only on Friday is not upheld by
the Malikis.
Case
Study Three: Contradiction/Affirmation and Speaking When Silent
In regards
to the tasleem, there are many ahadith that narrate the
Prophet making tasleemat in a variety of ways. It is narrated in
various collections
that the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam is reported to have
made tasleem on both sides, saying "As’salam ‘alaykum rahmatullah",
or "As’salamu ‘alaykum rahmatullah" on the right and
"As’salamu ‘alaykum" on left, or "As’salamu ‘alaykum"
on both sides, or "As’salamu ‘alaykum" once to the right
(Tirmidhi). But, Muhammad ‘Illiyish sums up the position of the Maliki
madhhab by stating in Mawahib Al-Qadir:
Adding
'wa rahmatu-l-lahi wa barakatuh' after the final salam
of the prayer is against preferable, as it contradicts the Practice
of Medina, although the hadith which indicates it is a confirmed
hadith (sahih).
Thus we find
written in the Muwatta’:
He (Ibn
‘Umar) then said, "As’salamu ‘alaykum" to his right, and would
return the greeting to the imam, and if anyone said "As’salamu
‘alaykum" from his left he would return the greeting to him.
Even though
the ahadith alluded to above are all sahih, with the exception
of the one which states he merely said, "As’salam ‘alaykum"
to the right, the position of the Maliki tariqa is that saying
"As’salamu ‘alaykum" is enough, and adding anything to
it is against what is preferable, i.e. it is best to leave it. The exact
position of the Malikis is stated by Ibn Abu Zayd, who states in his Risala:
Then
you say, "As-salamu 'alaykum" once, starting to the front and
turning to the right a little as you say it. This is what the imam
does or anyone doing the prayer by themselves. If you are doing the
prayer behind an imam you say the salam once, turning a little
to the right, then you return the salam of the imam towards
the front and then, if there is anyone on your left who has said the
salam, you greet them in return. You do not say the salam
to the left if no one has said it to you.
Even though
the hadith in Tirmidhi is da’if, and from what I know, there
are no hadith substantiating the salam said to the imam.
The people of Madina, during the time of the Tabi’een had never
heard of any hadith which stated other than their adopted method.
Hence, the story is told by Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi that a man came
into the masjid during the time of Ibn al-Shihab al-Zuhri, and
he did two tasleema. Ibn al-Shihab saw this and went up to the
man and asked where he was from. The man replied, ‘Al-‘Iraq." So
Ibn al-Shihab asked him, "Where do you get this two taslima
from?" So the man replied, "I heard from so-and-so, who heard
from so-and-so" giving the full isnad, "that Ibn Abbas said
that when the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, ended his salat,
he said "As’salamu ‘alaykum" turing to the right,
and then repeated it to the left." Ibn al-Shihab, replied to this,
"I have never heard of that hadith." Which shows that
the two taslima was not an adopted practice of Madina. And Ibn
al-Shihab was so emphatic about the imam only saying one tasleem that
when he was in Makkah, after finishing his salat, stood up and
said to the Qurashi imam:
Remove
‘wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu’. ‘As’salaam ‘alaykum’ is correct.
Due to this
fact, the hadith that state the Prophet only did taslima once
are preferred over all the rest of them, even though they are of a higher
grade, and adhering to the others is going against what is preferable.
The ‘amal raises the grade of the hadith to beyond sahih,
namely to the level of mutawatir, definite knowledge. And the sunnah
of a third tasleem by the follower is established, even though
there are no known hadith from the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi
wa salam, ordering it.
Concerning
Qabd, Malik and the Muwatta’
The above
should be more than enough examples to prove what I have stated about
Imam Malik and Madinan ‘amal. The only other issue left to deal
with is the fact that Imam Malik quotes two hadith in the Muwatta’
in support of qabd:
Yahya
related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-Karim ibn Abu al-Mukhariq al-Basri
said, "Among things the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam
said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever
you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer, being quick
to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn."
and
Yahya
related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sa’d
said, "People used to be ordered to place their right hands on
their left forearms in the prayer." Abu Hazim adding, "I’m
sure that Sahl traced it back to the Prophet."
It is known,
which I hope I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that Imam Malik
and much of the Salaf , preferred sadl to qabd. So
why did Malik place them in his Muwatta’?
Keeping in
mind what is narrated in the Mudawanna, as I stated above, all
of the possibilities can relate to this issue:
If contradicts
the ahadith, then Malik was simply acknowledging the fact that
the hadith do indeed exist, in the same manner that Imam Muslim
narrates ahadith in his sahih that he was known not to act
upon, entitling his chapters, "The Proof of Those Who Say Such-and-Such";
hence, he was showing his acceptance of the proof for qabd, acting
as a muhaddith as opposed to a mujtahid. Normally, Imam
Malik quotes in the Muwatta’ a couple of ahadith from the
Prophet, several athar from the Sahabah, and then states
what the ‘amal of the people is or the ijmaa’ of their scholars.
But in this case, he just quoted the ahadith, which may be an indication
of what I just stated.
Mujahid
said, "If the right hand is to be placed over the left, then
it should be on the palm or the wrist on the chest." The narrator
added from Mujahid, "and he hated that."
I
have not heard that any of our predecessors used to do that, and the
people of knowledge disapprove of it . . .
If it confirms
some of the ahadith and contradicts others, it would mean
that the ahadith are abrogated, and are references to an earlier
phase in the prophethood, which is the opinion that Shaykh al-Azhar
Muhamamd ‘Illiyish prefers. Part of the possible proof of this lies in
the past tense of the second hadith quoted in the Muwatta’.
Since the ahad are a dhanni and ‘amal is a qat’i,
there is no question that a qat’i can abrogate a dhanni.
The ‘amal obviously comes after ahadith, and therefore it
is understood that the Sahabah abandoned those hadith that
mentioned qabd, otherwise, the Tabi’een would not have adopted
it. The objection has been raised by some in order to cast doubt on the
possibility of this as spurious by suggesting that, "Was breaking
the fast early and delaying the sahur abrogated as well,"
in response to the idea that the command for qabd was abrogated
in the hadith quoted in the Muwatta’. The idea that only
part of a command is abrogated is very highly probable in light of another
hadith, namely the hadith that states: "The Imam was
only appointed to be followed. Therefore, stand when he stands, sit when
he sits, bow when he bows and prostrate when he prostrates." It is
agreed upon by the four madhhahib that the "sit when he sits"
command from that hadith was abrogated by amal of the Sahabah
that occurred during the illness of the Beloved of Allah, while the
rest of the hadith remains fully in tact.
Ibn Rushd
states in Bidiyat al-Mujahid: The reason behind their differing
is that there are some ahadith narrating the way the Prophet
prayed which did not mention him placing his right hand over his left,
and on the other hand, it was reported that the people were ordered
to do that.
I
do not know of this practice as far as obligatory prayers are concerned
(la a'rifu dhalika fl l-farida) . . .
Also, consider
the hadith, "Pray as you see me pray." In relation to
this idea. The Tabi’een imitated the Sahabah, and the Sahabah
adhered to this hadith. In light of this fact, the Tabi’een
would not have practiced sadl if they were not taught to do
such, and hence, if not the ‘amal alone, the ‘amal and this
well-known hadith both combine as a proof of abrogation.
Or, the ‘amal
affirms the ahadith in respects to qabd being mubah
in the nawafil, and as a result he placed them in the Muwatta’
as proof of his acceptance of qabd; after all, when asked about
qabd, he stated:
[B]ut
there is no harm in someone doing it in voluntary prayers (nawafil
), if he has been standing for a long time, in order to make things
easier for himself.
This is
what we do, and what I have seen the people of knowledge in our city doing.
Conclusion
and Summary
In reference
to qabd, the issue lies around the fact that Imam Malik and many
other Tabi’een and Tab’ut Tabieen were known to have preferred
sadl, which all the evidence which has been presented here more
than confirms as a historical fact. What is left to the reader is to be
able to step out of the ta’assal, the close-mindedness and leave
the ikhtilaf to the people who have more rights to it. Otherwise,
none of this will make sense and the only result in increased confusion
and hatred towards the ahl al-sadl, since I do not think that anyone
besides the Raafidiyya could allow themselves to come to the conclusion
that the 18 scholars from the Salaf that I mentioned had blatantly
deviated from the sunnah, or they were ignorant of something so
basic, even if they have the audacity to accuse the Khalaf of such.
As I stated
in the beginning, it is not my intention to convert people to the Maliki
madhhab, but merely to defend our ‘ulama and the ikhtilaf
of our heritage. Sadl was the dominant ‘amal of the
people of Madina as well as many of the scholars outside of it.
Allah
Almighty says in His Mighty Book, 'The outstrippers, the first of
the Muhajirun and the Ansar.' Allah Almighty says, 'Give good news
to My slaves who listen to the word and the follow the best of it.'
People follow the people of Madina, and the hijra was made
to it and the Qur'an was sent down in it, and the halal was
made halal and the haram was made haram there
since the Messenger of Allah was living among them and they were present
at the revelation itself. He commanded them and they obeyed him. He
made sunnah for them and they followed him until Allah made
him die and chose for him what is with Him, may the blessings of Allah
and His mercy and blessing be upon him.
Then
after him, the people followed those from among his community who
were given authority after him. Whenever something happened that they
had knowledge about, they carried it out. What they did not have knowledge
of, they asked about, and then took the strongest of what they found
regarding that by their ijtihad and the recentness of their
contract (with the Prophet). If someone disagreed with them or said
something else which was stronger than it and better, they left the
first statement and acted on this other one.
Then
the Tabi'un after them followed this path and they followed those
sunnan.
I would like
to conclude and summarize this discussion with a excerpt from Dr. Yasin
Dutton’s book relating to this issue:
It is
important to emphasize that 'amal and hadith are not
mutually exclusive, as Qadi 'Iyad's analysis indicates 'amal
may, or may not, be recorded by hadith; and hadith may,
or may not, record 'amal. Where they overlap they are a
strong
confirmation of each other; but where there is contradiction, 'amal
is preferred to hadith by Malik and the Madinans, even when
the sources of these hadith are completely trustworthy, as
indicated in the comment of Ibn Abi Zinad in the above passage.
Thus,
for example, the standard adhan in Madina, or the way of standing
for the prayer with one's hands by one's side (sadl, or irsal
al-yadayn), or reciting the prayer without beginning
with 'bismillah ir-rahman ir-raheem',
or the size of the sa' and the mudd, were matters that
were not recorded initially in the form of hadith but were
nevertheless known generally amongst the people and understood to
have originated in the time of the Prophet. Other practices, however,
although recorded in authentic hadiths and even transmitted,
for example, in the Muwatta’, were not acted upon by their
transmitters precisely because they did not represent the sunnah.
In other
words, they were either exceptional instances or earlier judgements
that had later been changed, or otherwise minority opinions that held
little weight, and which, even though they derived from the Prophet,
were nevertheless outweighed by other judgements also deriving from
the Prophet. It is for this reason that Ibn 'Uyayna could say that
hadiths were a source of misguidance except for the fuqaha',
and Malik that Sunnah ('amal) were a more reliable source
than hadith.
There
are a number of striking examples in the Muwatta' of 'amal
being preferred to hadith, even though the hadiths in
question are considered completely trustworthy. The following examples,
where Malik transmits hadiths which he does not consider should
be acted upon, serve to illustrate the point: (i) Malik relates two
hadiths whose overt import is that the prayer should be done
with the right hand holding the left at the wrist (qabd). He
makes no comment on this in the Muwatta', but in the Mudawwana
Ibn al-Qasim records him as saying: 'I do not know of this practice
as far as obligatory prayers are concerned (la a'rifu dhalika fl
l-farida), but there is no harm in someone doing it in voluntary
prayers (nawafil ), if he has been standing for a long time,
in order to make things easier for himself.'- The transmitter of the
Mudawwana, Sahnun, also records a hadith to the effect
that a number of Companions had reported seeing the Prophet doing
the prayer with his right hand placed over his left.
However,
despite this hadith and the similar reports in the Muwatta',
the madhhab of the Mudawwana, which became the major
source for later Malikis as summarized in Khalil's, Mukhtasar,
was that it was preferable in all circumstances to pray with one's
hands by one's sides since this was the predominant 'amal.
This way of doing the prayer was also preferred by al-Layth ibn Sa'd,
accepted by al-Azwa'i, and recorded from other important authorities
such as Sa'd ibn al-Musayyab, 'Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, and Ibn Jurayj.
It is, furthermore interesting to note that this practice, although
rejected by all the other surviving Sunni madhhahib, is nevertheless
that of the Zaidis, the Ithna 'Ashari Shi'a, the Isma'ilis and the
Ibadis, thus bolstering the argument for the 'ancient' (i.e. Prophetic)
origin of this 'amal, since the differences between these groups
and the main body of the Muslims arose at a very early date and on
questions of belief and political authority rather than on points
of fiqh. There can have been no reason for them inventing such
a detail of fiqh, and the obvious inference is that they were
merely continuing an established practice.
The totality
of the Shi’a and the Khawarij (Ibadis) with the exception of the Zaydi,
upheld the position of the Malikis in respect to sadl. Also, the
long gone madhhahib of al-Awza’i and Layth ibn al-Sa’d support
this adoption, along with a good portion of the Tabi’een from Madina
and al-‘Iraq. And thus, the attacks on the Maliki madhhab in this
day and time in relation to this issue are in reality attacks on our Salaf,
the Tabi’een of Madina in particular. If the only response to all
of this is: "Taqlid! Taqlid!" which I have seen the case
to be,
About
so many thousand Companions came with the Messenger of Allah sallallahu
‘alayhi wa salam from a certain expedition at such-and-such a
time. About 10,000 of them died in Madina, and the rest split up in
the cities. Which would you prefer to follow and whose words would
you prefer to take?
And for that
reason, some of the most authoritative works in the Maliki madhhab
uphold this established practice:
In the al-Mizan
of the Shafi’i faqih ash-Sha’rani states:
The
explanation of this matter – apart from being something the Legislator
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam provided – lies in the fact that
the person praying placing his hands below his chest generally distracts
him from fully concentrating on Allah. In such case, letting the arms
drop by the sides and occupying oneself and concentrating on Allah
is preferable to observation of form. Thus, whoever considers himself
unable to concentrate fully on Allah during the prayer due to qabd
should preferably let the arms drop by his sides.
In Risala
al-Qaywarani of Ibn Abi Zayd, it states:
Going
into the state of ihram as far as the prayer is concerned is
by saying Allahu akbar and no other expression is acceptable.
At the same time your raise your hands level with your shoulders,
or lower, and then begin the recitation. If you are doing Subh you
recite the Fatiha out loud. You do not say bismi'llahi-r-rahmani'r-rahim
for the Fatiha nor for the surah which comes after
it. If you are by yourself or behind an imam you say ameen
after the words, wala'd-daalleen, but you do not say it out
loud. An Imam does not say ameen if he is reciting outloud
but he does if the recitation is silent. There is, however, a difference
of opinion about whether the imam should say ameen when the
recitation is out loud. After that you recite one of the larger surahs
from the mufassal. If the surah you recite is longer
than that, that is good so long as it is not getting too light. The
surah is also recited out loud. When you have finished the
surah you say Allahu akbar as you go down into ruku'
- the bowing position of the prayer.
And therefore,
I wish to recall the statement of Imam Sufyan al-Thawri:
If you
see a man doing something over which there is a debate among the scholars,
and which you yourself believe to be forbidden, you should not forbid
him from doing it.
There
will always be a part of my Community firm before the truth in the Maghrib
until the order comes from Allah.
And
Allah knows best.
Appendix
III
The Fatwa of Shaykh al-Azhar, Muhammad ‘Illiyish
From al-Fath
al-'Alii al-Maalik fi-l-Fataawi 'alaa Madhab al-Imaam Maalik, vol
1, page 104 to 108.
In the
name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
May Allah
bless and grant peace to our Master Muhammad, his Family and Companions.
I was asked:
Praise
be to Allah who has made the Book and the Sunnah a way and the
‘Ulama a guide for this Community. Sir, please give us
a ruling on the act of letting the arms hang down ones sides while praying
(sadl). Is it related to the Sunnah? Was it transmitted
that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did so or ordered that it be done?
Is it the ijtihad by Ibn al-Qasim and his followers, not based
on any proof (dalil) of the Sunnah, so that the fuqaha
have continued to declare that placing one hand over the other (qabd)
is unadvisable (makruh) in prayer obiligatory (fard), or
do they have something on which to based this? Is the fact that the Prophet,
peace be upon him, did so near the end of his life, while ill, a sufficient
argument for it to be followed and to abrogate what came before? Please
answer us with firm, definitive proof and a convincing argument. Thus
you shall be granted absolute joy in Paradise in company of the Master
of the sons of Adam, alayhi salam.
I textually
replied as follows:
Praise be
to Allah, who has provided us the Book and the Sunnah and the straight,
accepted path of the schools (madhhahib) of the four high ranking
imams; who has conserved them (the schools), by his grace, until the Day
of Judgement. Who has made his followers (muqallidun) outstanding,
confirmed followers of the Sunnah and the Community (Ahl as-Sunnah
wa al-Jamaa).
May blessings
and peace be upon our Master Muhammad, who said: "When instability (fitan)
appears, along with innovations and my Companions are insulted, may the
‘ulama then demonstrate their science as, if he does not do so,
he shall be cursed by Allah, the angels and everybody. Allah shall not
accept any effort or justice at all from him." And he said: "When the
last of this community curse the first, he who hides a hadith shall
have hidden what Allah has revealed." And he said: "Innovators do not
appear without Allah making proof appear in the mouth of whom he wishes
among His creatures." And he said: "Innovators are the worst creatures
in the creation." And he said: "Innovators are hellish dogs". And he said:
"Whoever respects an innovator will have taken part in the destruction
of Islam." And he said: "Allah does not accept the innovator's prayer,
nor fasting, or charity, or pilgrimage, or umra, or jihad,
or effort, or justice. He leaves Islam just as a hair leaves the dough."
And he said: "When an innovator dies, Islam has triumphed."
May there
also be said blessings and peace upon his Family, Companions, Followers
(Tabi'in), Followers of the Followers (Tab' Tabi'in)
and the people of the Sunnah, among the followers (muqallidu)
of the Four Imams and Pillars of the Deen.
You must
know that letting the arms hang down ones sides (sadl) during prayer
is firmly established by the Sunnah. It was done by the Prophet
and he ordered that it be done by Consensus (ijma’) among the Muslims.
Moreover, there is consensus among the Four Imams that it is permitted
to do so during prayer. This is so widely known among the followers of
the said Imams that it forms part of the Necessary Knowledge of the Deen
(ma'lum mina d-din bi d-darura). This is the first and last way
in which the Prophet prayed and ordered others to pray, peace be upon
him.
The proof
that it is the first way in which the Prophet prayed and ordered others
to pray is recorded in the hadith selected and mentioned by Malik,
may Allah be pleased with him, in the Muwatta, transmitted by Sahl
b. Sa'd, to which Al-Bukhari and Muslim adhered, the text of which is:
"People were ordered to place their right hand on their left forearm during
prayer". The proof of this lies in the fact that they were ordered to
place their hands in the aforementioned manner (qabd) implies that
previously they let them hang by their sides (sadl). If this were
not so, it would be a superfluous and repetitive instruction, something
which is unthinkable of the Legislator, peace be upon him.
It is likewise
perfectly well known that the Companions would not have practiced sadl
if they had not seen the Messenger, peace be upon him, do so. It indeed
was he who ordered them to do so when telling them: "Pray as you see me
pray."
As to the
proof which demonstrates that sadl is the last way in which the
Prophet prayed and ordered others to pray, lies in its continued practice
by the Companions (Sahaba) and the Followers (Tabi'in).
This was to such an extent that Malik said - as transmitted by Ibn Al-Qasim
in the Mudawwana: "I do not know", referring to the qabd
in obligatory prayer (farida). As it is impossible for them not
to have known the last way in which the Messenger, peace be upon him,
prayed, or for them to have disobeyed him together, as they followed absolutely
everything he did and had a perfect knowledge of his ways of doing things,
imitating him in the prayer. Thus, Malik linked their Practice to the
legislatory aliya, to hadith sahih which does not
contradict the Practice and Consensus (Ijma’). He made these four
the fundaments of his method (madhhab).
As to qabd
in the obligatory prayer, there is a difference of opinion as to whether
it is unadvisable (karahah), advisable (nadab) or allowed
(ibahah). This is without there being any difference as to the
fact that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did so and ordered others to
do so.
Those in
favor of qabd being advisable and permissible disagree as to the
manner in which it is to be carried out. Thus, according to the school
of Malik, there are four opinions thereon, which are clearly expressed
by Imam Ibn 'Arafa and others. Among these opinions, the most widespread
(mashhur) and accepted by the majority of the followers of Malik
is that transmitted by Ibn Al-Qasim in the Mudawwana: that qabd
is unadvisable (karahah), which is thus a proof that qabd
had been abandoned by the Companions and by the Followers and that they
practiced sadl, just as mentioned. This indicates the abrogation
of the legal enforcement of qabd.
You should
know that Ibn Al-Qasim belongs to the generation of followers of the followers
(Tab'ut Tabi'in), one of the greatest generations, whose excellency
was prophesied by the Great Messenger, peace be upon him. Likewise, there
is Full Consensus (ijma’) as to the imamate, reliability, precision,
integrity, scrupulosity and rectitude of Ibn Al-Qasim. The Maliki school
has agreed that what Ibn Al-Qasim transmits from Malik in the Mudawwana
takes priority over other transmissions which contradict it. All of the
Imams of the other schools (madhhahib) have shown their acceptance
of the aforementioned transmission, adding as follows: "That is the posture
of the majority of the followers of Malik and it is the most widespread
opinion among them".
An-Nawawi
says (as to sadl) in his commentary of Sahih Muslim:
"Al-Laith b. Sa’d is of that opinion." Al-Qurtubi says, also commenting
on said Sahih: "Sadl is backed up by the fact that qabd
consists of resting one hand over the other while praying, which is prohibited
in the book by Abu Dawud". Ash-Sha'rani says in the Mizan: "The
explanation of this matter - apart from it being something the Legislator,
peace be upon him, provided - lies in the fact that the person praying
placing his hands below his chest generally distracts him from fully concentrating
on Allah. In such case, letting the arms drop by the sides and occupying
oneself and concentrating on Allah is preferable to observation of form.
Thus, whoever considers himself unable to concentrate fully on Allah during
the prayer due to qabd should preferably let the arms drop by his
sides." The same thing was stated by ash-Shafi'i in his book Al-Umm',
where he said: "There is no harm in letting the arms drop by your sides,
if you do not play about". Whoever considers himself able to fulfill both
conditions should place his hands below his chest, which would be preferable
for him. Thus, the opinions of the Imams are unified, may Allah be pleased
with them.
You may thus
appreciate that the way the question is made does not allow for necessary
acceptance of differences and that what is unanimously agreed must be
complied with (al-mujma' 'alaih), as it rejects it. You must know
that this is a contradiction and a lack of respect is committed, which
must be regretted by biting the tongue and knocking ones fingers.
As to the
contradiction committed, it is clear when he says that "Allah has made
the Book and the Sunnah a way for this Community." This implicitly
states that what the Imams and their followers said is not a way for this
Community. That is a Dhahiri (literalist) deviation. He later contradicted
himself by saying that "Allah has made the ‘ulama a guide for this
Community." He contradicts himself again when he asks whether "it is an
ijtihad by Ibn Al-Qasim and his followers, without being based
on any proof (dalil)." In this case, after encountering the ‘ulama,
he treats them as traitors and doubts whether to classify them as ignorant
or transgressors. Finally, he contradicts himself again by requesting
a legal finding from someone who is not even worthy to tread the ground
trodden by Ibn Al-Qasim and his followers.
As to the
lack of respect, this is what is stated when he asks whether "it is an
ijtihad by Ibn Al-Qasim, without it being based on any proof whatsoever,
so that the fuqaha have followed him." This suggests that Ibn Al-Qasim
is not an ‘alim and guide and that he makes ijtihad at random,
without basing them on any proof at all. He also suggests that the fuqaha
who thereafter followed him blindly, while wavering between ignorance
and lack of scruples.
How is this
possible, if the Messenger, peace be upon him, said: "This deen
shall be transmitted by the most spotless (adul) of each generation."
And he said: "My Community shall not agree as to an error." And he said:
"There will always be a part of my Community firm before the truth in
the West (maghreb) until the order comes from Allah." There are
also other hadiths.
This lack
of respect also arises in relation to other Imams who accept this transmission
from Ibn Al-Qasim, whether Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is or Hanbalis. Likewise,
you must know that lacking respect for Ibn Al-Qasim alone is a great disgrace
and scandal. How would you thus lack respect for him and his successors.
How would you thus fail to respect them and those who have confirmed them.
Moreover, in this case Ibn Al-Qasim does nothing other than to transmit
the words of Malik in the Mudawwana as follows: "Malik advised
not to place the right hand on the left during obligatory prayer and said:
'I do not know that; although there is no problem when performed during
supererogatory prayer which is lengthened in order to help oneself'."
The lack
of respect is really committed against Malik, just as stated in the hadith
which reads thus: "The son of Adam insults the vicissitude of destiny,
and I am those vicissitudes." And the hadith: "Do not insult the
vicissitudes of destiny, as Allah is said vicissitudes."
The hadith
which indicates "qabd" was taken by Bukhari and Muslim from the
hand of Malik, who transmits it in his Muwatta; however, he judged
it inadvisable, according to the transmission of Ibn Al-Qasim in the Mudawwana.
This transmission, by consensus of the people of the madhab, is
given priority over any which contradicts it. Thus, it is not allowed
to say that the hadith did not come to Malik's knowledge. Neither
is one allowed to say that Malik disregarded the hadith on his
own initiative, without any grounds, as there is Consensus among the Community
as to avoiding attribution of such behavior to Malik. This consensus was
by the Followers (Tabi'in), who are among the best generations.
The latter, in addition to having interpreted the hadith of "‘alim
of Medina" as if it referred to Malik. The same happened to the Followers
of the Followers (Tab' at-Tabi'in) down to our days. Thus, there
is nothing else to believe than that Malik confirmed the abrogation of
said hadith. So he returned to "sadl", the original practice.
This is shown in the words of the transmission in the Mudawwana
where it says "I do not know of it", that is: I do not know of "qabd"
being a practice of the Followers (Tabi'in).
The real
intention of these dogs is to slander Malik, the Imam of the Imams in
hadith, fiqh, ‘amal and scrupulousness (wara’),
according to the consensus of the Followers (Tabi'in) and those
who succeeded them right down to our days. However, as they knew that
slandering Malik is an unbearable act and would be like hurling stones
against their own roofs, they took Ibn Al-Qasim as a scapegoat to carry
out their intentions, believing he was not important at all and that they
could slander him without anything coming of it. This is not so, by Allah!
His status is similar to that of Imam Ash-Shafi'i and near to that of
Malik.
How right
Imam An-Naj'i was when he said: "If I had seen the Companions (Sahaba)
do wudu up to the wrists, that is what I would have done, although
it literally says, ‘up to the elbows’". Likewise, I also say that
as Malik said in the transmission by Ibn Al-Qasim in the Mudawwana
"as he said qabd was not recommendable in obligatory prayer" I
have decided not to practice it, in spite of the fact that, if we were
to base ourselves on the hadith set forth in the Muwatta
and the two Sahihs, we would have to practice it.
My success
depends on none other than Allah. I seek refuge in Him and to Him I return.
May Allah bless and grant peace to our master Muhammad, the Beloved and
all his family.
The Messenger
of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "There are three types of person Allah
hates most: atheists who are in the Haram, those who wish to establish
a custom from the Jahiliyya in Islam and those who demand a man's
blood without reason, for the mere wish for it to be spilt." (Transmitted
by Al-Bukhari from Ibn 'Abbas.) And he said, peace be upon him: "Have
you indeed any consideration in denouncing the shameless? Denounce them,
so the people know them!" (Transmitted by Al-Lhatib, according to the
transmission by Malik). And he said, peace be upon him: "Are you worried
that people discover who is a scoundrel? Denounce the shameless and their
wicked deeds and let the people beware of them!" (Transmitted by
Ibn Abi Dunya, Al-Hakïm, Al-Häkim, Ash-Shirazi, Ibn 'Udayy,
At-Tabarani, Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Katib de Bahz Ibn Hakïm from the father
of his grandfather.) And he said, peace be upon him: "He who makes the
worst transaction is the one who spends his life hoping that time will
not bring reality about, abandons this world with no provision at all
and comes before Allah without any justification at all." (Transmitted
by Ibn Al-Bukhari from Amir Ibn Rabi'a.) And he said, peace be upon him
"There are three things I fear for my Community: failure by a wise man,
hypocritical argumentation with the Qur'an and denying Destiny." (Transmitted
by At-Tabarani from Abu Darda.)
Appendix
IV
References
Audio
Tapes:
Abdullahi
Ould Boye. Usul al-Fiqh. Translated by Hamza Yusuf - Foundations
of Our Methodology. (Audio) California: al-Hambra Productions, 1999.
Hamza Yusuf
Hanson. Commentary on the Fatwa of Muribtal Hajj Concerning the Issue
of Taqlid. (Audio) California: al-Hambra Productions, 1999.
Books:
‘Ahmad ibn
Naqib al-Misri. ’Umdat al-Salik. Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
- Reliance of the Traveller. Maryland: Amana Publications, 1991.
Bilal Phillips.
The Evolution of Fiqh. Saudi Arabia: International Islamic Publishing
House, 1996.
Malik ibn
Anas. al-Muwatta’. Translated by Aisha ‘Abdu-r Rahman Bewley and
Ahmad Thompson. London: Diwan Press.
Muhammad
ibn Ishma’il. Sahih al-Bukhari. Translated by Muhammad Khan. Saudi
Arabia: Dar us-Salam, 1994.
Muhammad
Hashim Kamali. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Cambridge:
Islamic Texts Society, 1994.
Imam Muslim.
Sahih Muslim. Translated by Abdul H. Siddiqui. Pakistan: Sh. Muhamamd
Ashraf, 1990.
Qadi ‘Iyad
al-Yahsubi. Ash-Shifa. Translated by Aisha Abdur-Rahman Bewley-Muhammad:
Messenger of Allah.
Sayyid Saabiq.
Fiqh us-Sunnah. Translated by Muhammad Sa’eed Dabas and Jamal ad-Din
M. Zarabozo. Saudi Arabia: American Trust Publications, 1985.
Taha Jabir
al-‘Alwani. Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami. Translated by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo
and Anas al Shaikh-Ali - Source Methodology of Islamic Jurisprudence.
Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1994.
Yasin Dutton.
The Sources of Islamic Law; The Qur’an, Muwatta’ and Madinan
‘Amal. London: Curzon Press, 1999.
Internet
Resources:
‘Abdal-Hakim
Murad. Understanding
the Four Madhhabs: the Problem with Anti-Madhhabism.
London: ISLAMICA Magazine, 1995. (Masud Ahmed Khan’s Homepage: http://www.masud.co.uk/)
Aisha ‘Abdur-Rahman
Bewley. The
‘Amal of Madina. (Aisha Bewley’s Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/)
Qadi ‘Iyad
al-Yahsubi. Tartib al-Madarik. Translated by Aisha ‘Abdur-Rahman
Bewly-Selections
from the Tartib al-Madarik of Qadi ‘Iyad. (Aisha Bewley’s
Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/)
Muhammad
Abu Zahrah. Usul al-Fiqh. Translated by Aisha ‘Abdur-Rahman Bewley
- The
Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik’s Fiqh. (Aisha
Bewley’s Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/)
|