Category Archives: Hanafi Fiqh

Refuting the Deviant Assim al-Hakeem about the Hanafi View of Delaying Salaat al-Fajr

The timing of the morning prayer (fajr) according to the Hanafi school. A certain Jahil “Shaykh” named Assim al-Hakeem said during his program on Huda tv and his disgraced Q&A Site:

“In the Hanafi Madh-hab, they tend to delay the fajr until it is a little bit light before sunrise of course… This is against the majority of the scholars and this is against the sunna of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).”

This “Shaykh” declared the Hanafi practice, in no uncertain terms, as contrary to the Sunnah. But, what evidence do the Hanafis use for this practice?

I checked out the most basic of the Hanafi books such as al-Ikthiar (volume 1 page 44) and I found that the Hanafi scholars based their view on ahadith narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Al-Tabarani and Imam Ahmad.

If you look at Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, you will see chapter 117 called “Narrations about delaying the fajr until it starts to get lighter ( ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺠﺮ ﺍﺍﻟﺴﻔﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﺏ .“(al-Tirmidhi narrates a hadith (number 154) on the authority of Rabi’ bin Khadeej who said:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: “Delay the fajr towards the end of its time [when it starts to get lighter] for there is more reward”.

Al-Tirmidhi goes on to say that this hadith was also narrated by Shu’ba and [Sufyaan] al-Thawri from Muhammed bin Ishaaq. It is also narrated by Muhammed bin Ajlaan on the authority of Aasim bin ‘Umar bin Qatada. There are also other ahadith regarding this subject from Abu Barza Al-Aslami, Jaabir and Bilal. al-Tirmidhi said this is a fair and authentic hadith (haadha hadithun hasanun saheeh). 

Imaam Anwar Shah Kashmiri has more to say on this subject in his commentary on Jami’ al-Tirmidhy called “Al-Urf al-Shadhy” on page 177 of volume 1. It can be found here.

In addition, Al-Hafidh al-Suyuti al-Shafi’i included the above hadith of al-Tirmidhi among the mutawatir hadith (unanimously authentic) in his booklet called “Al-Azhaar al-Mutanathira fi al-ahadith al-mutawatira” as was recorded by the author of I’ila al-Sunan volume 2 page 24. His brilliant research can be found here.

In summary, the Hanafi scholars’ point of view is based on multiple narrations (see Nasb al-Raya of Hafidh al-Zaylai volume 1 pages 304-313 for more details.):

1. Hadith of Rabi’ bin Khadeej narrated by al-Tirmidhy. He declared it a fair and authentic hadith (haadha hadithun hasanun saheeh). Al-Hafidh al-Zaylai, Al-Muhaqqiq al-Kamal bin Al-Humaam agreed with al-Tirmidhy. Al-Hafidz Al-Suyuti declared this hadith mutawatir (unanimously authentic).

2. Al-Nasa’i narrated a hadith similar in meaning and he did not comment on its authenticity. Al-Hafidh Al-Zaylai declared the chain authentic (I’ila al-Sunnan volume 2 page 24-25)

Now, how can someone declare a practice based on a mutawatir (unanimously authentic) and a saheeh (authentic) hadith (not to mention the rest of the evidence) to be against the sunnah? Even if the “Shaykh” believes that hadith is not mutawatir but only authentic (saheeh), I still cannot fathom how a “Shaykh” would dismiss all of the above evidence and label the Hanafi practice as “contrary to sunnah.” Just like his teacher, this Shaykh never even bothered to glance over the Hanafi books before he gave his fatwa. One wonders if these people really believe it themselves wholeheartedly when they say they are following the daleel (evidence). How can someone claim they are following the daleel when time and time again we see that they do not collect all the evidence in a given subject before they make up their minds? They are either delusional or dishonest. I cannot think of a third possibility, can you?

(The from a book of Dr. Sadi Kose).

No Possibility of Error in Hanafi Fiqh

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (392–463) narrates in Tarikh Baghdad: Al-Khallal informed me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri informed me that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: Najih ibn Ibrahim narrated to us: Ibn Karamah narrated to us:

We were with Waki‘ [ibn al-Jarrah, one of the teachers of Imam Ash-Shafi’i] (126–196) one day and a man said: “Abu Hanifah erred!” Waki‘ said: “How can Abu Hanifah err when with him are the likes of Abu Yusuf (113–182) and Zufar (110–158) in their logic;

and the likes of Yahya ibn Abi Za’idah (120–182), Hafs ibn Ghiyath (117–194), Hibban (111–171) and Mindal (103–169) in their memorisation of hadith;

and the like of al-Qasim ibn Ma‘n (100–175) in his knowledge of language and Arabic;

and Dawud al-Ta’i (105-162) and Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad (107–187) in their asceticism and their scrupulousness?

The one whose sitting partners are such, he does not come close to erring, because if he erred they would correct him.”
[Tarikh Baghdad 16/365]

Al-Kawrhari Academy


[By Darul Uloom Trinidad & Tobago]

With respect to the fast of Shawaal (that is, the six days of Shawaal), this has been authentically established from a few traditions of the Prophet ﷺ. In this regard, it is narrated from Abu Ayoob (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Whoever fasts the month of Ramadhan and then follows it with six fasts of shawaal, then it is like if he fasted for the whole year’.

(Recorded by Imam Tirmidhi who said that the hadith of Abu Ayoob is Hasan and Saheeh (good and sound), and similar narrations have come from Jabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu), Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) and Thawban (Radhiyallahu Anhu). (Jame Tirmidhi – Chapter of what is mentioned about the fasts of six days of Shawwaal.

Based on this and other similar traditions, Imam Shafi  and Ahmad (Rahmatullah Alayh) have considered it Mustahab to fast the six days of Shawwaal.

With respect to the Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayb), most of the latter day Hanafi scholars have seen no harm/objection in observing the six fasts of Shawwaal. In fact, in the famous Hanafi book ‘Nurul Idhaah’ and its commentary ‘Maraqi’ ul Falah’, it is stated that it is Mandoob (commendable) to observe these fasts.

However, it has been narrated in some books that according to Imam Abu Hanifah and his student Imam Abu Yusuf, it is Makrooh (disliked) to observe the Shawwaal fasts of six days as identified in certain traditions.

While discussing this position of these two great Hanafi Imams, the renowned scholar of Hadith, Shaikhul Hadith, Shaikh Muhammad Zakariya Kandhalawi (Rahmatullah Alayh), writes in his famous work, ‘Awjaz Al Masalik’ (commentary of Muwatta Malik), ‘As for the Hanafi scholars, different narrations have been transmitted from them. In ‘Al Bahr Ar Ra’iq’, it is mentioned, ‘And from the Makrooh acts, is the fast of the six days of Shawwaal according to Imam Abu Hanifah, whether it is done separately or consecutively. Imam Abu Yusuf considered it Makrooh if the fast is done consecutively, not separately. However, most of the latter day scholars do not see any harm in observing the six fasts of Shawwaal. In ‘Nurul Idhaah’ and its Sharh (commentary), it has been considered ‘Mandoob’ (commendable). In ‘Al Bada’i, it is mentioned, ‘From the Makrooh fasts is to follow Ramadhan with six fasts of Shawwaal. This has been stated by Imam Abu Yusuf. These scholars disliked following the month of Ramadhan with fasting, fearing that such fast would be attached/joined with the compulsory Ramadhan fast. The same has been narrated from Imam Malik’. The author of ‘Al Bada’i further writes, ‘Fasting immediately after Ramadhan, becomes Makrooh when a person observes fast on the day of Eid and then observes five days afterwards. But if one does not fast on the day of Eid, and then observes the fast for six days (after Eid), this will not be Makrooh. Instead, it will be Mustahab and Sunnah’. [(End quote of Al Bada’i). (Awjaz Al Masalik Vol.5 pg.173 – Idara Taleefat Ashrafiya Multan Pakistan)].

The renowned Hanafi Jurist, Ibn Abideen Shami (Rahmatullah Alayb) has also explained this matter in his famous work ‘Hashiya Raddul Muhtar’, and stated, ‘The author of Al Hidaya has written in his famous book ‘At Tajnees’ that with respect to the six fasts (of Shawwal ) after Eid-ul-Fitr consecutively, some scholars have disliked it, however, the preferred opinion is that there is no objection in it (and there is nothing wrong in observing this fast), because the dislike occurs when one cannot differentiate it from the Ramadhan fast, (that is, it becomes disliked when one may consider it to be connected to the Ramadhan fast). However, this understanding does not take place now. Similar statements to that of ‘At Tajnees’ have been mentioned in ‘Kitab An Nawazil’ by Abu Laith; in ‘Al Waqiaat’ by Husaam Ash Shaheed; in ‘Al Muheet Al Burhani’ and ‘Adh Dhakheerah’. However, in ‘Al Ghayah’, it is narrated from Hasan bin Ziyad that he did not see anything wrong in observing the six fasts of Shawwaal. He explained that the day of Eid-ul-Fitr was sufficient to separate between the Ramadhan fasts (which was compulsory) and the Shawwaal fasts (which was not compulsory). (Hence, there was no possibility of one becoming confused about the both types of fast). It is also mentioned in ‘Al Ghayah’ that most of the latter scholars do not see anything wrong on observing the six fasts of Shawwaal’. [(Hashiya Raddul Muhtar/Ibn Abideen Vol.2 pg. 435 H.M Saeed Karachi 1406 A.H)].

Allamah Ibn Abideen further indicated to a detailed discussion of this topic and said, ‘A complete explanation of this discussion is to be found in the treatise ‘A Record of the statement regarding the six fasts of Shawwaal’ by Allama Qasim bin Qutlobogha تحرير الاقوال فى صوم الست من شوال.

In this treatise, the great Hanafi Jurist, Allaama Qasim bin Qutlobogha (Alayhi Rahmah) has refuted the didactic poetry/treatise of Allamah Al Jalal At Tabani Al Hanafi, in which he attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah that fasting the six fasts of Shawwaal was generally Makrooh (disliked). (End Quote). (Hashiya Raddul Muhtaar Vol. 2 pg. 435 H.M saeed Karachi 1406 A.H).

The great scholar, Allamah Yusuf Al Binnori (Alayhi Rahmah) has also spoken about this matter in his famous work, ‘Ma’arif As Sunnan’ and said, ‘With respect to the six fasts of Shawwaal, it has been ascribed to Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik (Rahmatullah Alayh) that they regard it as Makrooh, and Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad have considered it Mustahab (commendable). However, the information which has been transmitted and narrated by the latter scholars from Ibn Nujaim, Al Kamal, Ibn Al Kamal and others from among our scholars is confused/mix-up (ةبرطضم Mudhtaraba). The great researcher and investigator, Allama Hafiz Qasim bin Qutlobogha has written a separate/ unique treatise on this topic entitled ‘Tahreer Al Aqwal Fi Sawm As Sitt Min Shawwaal)’. In this, he has established from the clear texts of the Hanafi Madhab that the six fasts of Shawwaal is Mustahab (commendable) according to Imam Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullahi Alayhim)’. (Ma’arif As Sunnan Vol.5 pg. 443 H.M Saeed Karachi 1407 A.H).

From the above discussion, we see that reference has been made by these great scholars to the ‘Risala’ (treatise) written by the great 9th century Hanafi Jurist, Hafiz Allamah Qasim bin Qutlobogha. In this famous ‘Risala’, Allamah Qasim refuted statements which were written by another Hanafi Jurist, Shaikh Imam Jalal At Tabani in his ‘Mandhooma’ (treatise). That which was written in At Tabani’s ‘Mandhooma’, showed that observing the six fasts of Shawwaal was Makrooh according to the great scholars of the Hanafi Madhhab. For example, the following was mentioned:-

‘ لاضفلأا ىلوا دنع ةه ارك لاوش نم تسلا مايص ىف و ‘

And in the fasting of the six days of Shawwaal’ ‘There is Karahah (dislike) according to the people of virtues and knowledge’.

Then, in the Sharh (commentary) of his ‘Mandhoomah’ (treatise), Shaikh At Tabani went on to say, ‘Fasting the six days of Shawwaal consecutively or separately is Makrooh according to Imam Abu Hanifa, and according to Imam Abu Yusuf it is Makrooh to fast consecutively. Imam Malik says that it is Makrooh in all conditions, and this is the practice of the ignorant ones’. (Sharh of the treatise of Shaikh At Tabani).

In response to these statements made by Shaikh At Tabani, the great Jurist and scholar Allamah Hafiz Qasim bin Qutlobogha (died 879 A.H) wrote, ‘This person has gone towards nullifying that which has great blessings, with an untrue claim, and without any evidence. He has relied upon that which is weak and subjected to interpretations, and has neglected/left out that which is relied upon (in the Madh-hab)’.

‘He has gone further to regard as being sound and correct, that which no one before him has regarded as sound, and no one has relied upon it’.

Allamah Qasim (Rahimahullah) further writes, ‘as for the Shaikh Tabani’s statement that it is Makrooh to fast the six days of Shawwal according to Imam Abu Hanifa, this is mentioned in Al Muheet Al Burhani and in Adh Dhakheerah Al Burhaniyah with such wording which indicates that the narration is in conflict with the well-established principles ‘Al Usool’ (لوصلاا فلاخ هنا). The author of Adh Dhakeerah has afterwards mentioned that the correct and sound position is opposite to what has been mentioned’.

Allamah Qasim bin Qutlobogha went on to explain that Shaikh Tabani’s statement that it is Makrooh according to Imam Abu Yusuf also, is a transmission which is in error’. The reason is that all the classical texts with their explanations and statements, are unanimous, and in agreement, that what has been transmitted from Imam Abu Yusuf, is that which has been mentioned in the narration of ‘Al Karkhi’ (died in 340 AH) which states, ‘they (the jurists) used to dislike (consider it Makrooh) that people should follow Ramadhan with fast, (that is, they disliked that people should begin to fast immediately after Ramadhan), fearing that they join /attach the optional fasts with the compulsory ones. Based on this statement, the author of Al-Haqaa’iq thought that fasting in Shawwal consecutively (i.e. the six days) is Makrooh’.

Allamah Qasim further clarified the statement of Imam Abu Yusuf and said, ‘the act of fasting consecutively and immediately after Ramadhan which is Makrooh is that one observes fast on the day of Eid, and then fasts for 5 days afterwards (which will result in six days fast of Shawwal)’.

He stated, ‘so this is the meaning of the statement of Imam Abu Yusuf’.

He further mentioned the statements of some of the greatest Fuqaha of the Hanafi madhhab, including the companions of Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) and those who came after in the succeeding generations, to show that they were all unanimous on the ruling that fasting the six days of Shawwal was not Makrooh. In fact, the karahah (dislike) was due to a specific reason / cause, and it was not general. From among the statements, he quoted the following:

1. Imam Muhammad (died in 189 AH), the student and companion of Imam Abu Hanifa, said that it was not Makrooh.

2. Imam Hasan bin Ziyad (died in 204 AH), a student and companion of Imam Abu Hanifa, said that it was not Makrooh.

3. Imam Tahawi (died in 321 AH) who was one of the grand jurists of the Hanafi madhhab quoted the hadith regarding the virtues of the six fasts of Shawwal and showed that it was well-established.

4. The great Faqeeh, Mufassir and Muhadith, Abu Laith As Samarqandi (died in 373 AH), stated in his book ‘An Nawazil’, ‘with respect to the fasting of the six days of Shawwal consecutively after the day of Eid ul Fitr, some stated, that it is Makrooh, however, the preferred opinion / ruling is that there is no objection to it’.

5. The great Hanafi jurist, As Sadr Ash Shaheed (died in 526 AH), stated in his book ‘Al Waaqiaat’, ‘with respect to fasting the six days of Shawwal consecutively after the day of Eid, some have stated that it is Makrooh, however, the preferred opinion is that there is nothing wrong in observing that fast’.

In this way, Allamah Qasim bin Qutlobogha (Rahimahullah) went on to quote the most famous works of some of the greatest jurists of the Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa, whose works have been accepted as the most reliable and authentic, in giving the official rulings of the Madhhab of Imam Hanifa. These included:

– ‘At-Tajnees’ by Allamah Marghinani (author of Hidaya died in 593 AH).

– ‘Al Haqaaiq’ by Muhammad Mahmood Bin Muhammad Al Lul’ui Al Bukhari.

– ‘Al Fatawa Al Khaniya’ by Qazi Khan Hasan Bin Mansoor Al Awzjandi, mujtahid of Masail. in the Hanafi Madhab (died in 592 AH).

– ‘Al Yanaab’ee’ by Allamah Isfara’niee

– ‘Umdatul Mufti’ by As Sadr Ash Shaheed (died 536 AH).

– ‘Al Mubtaghi’ by Isa Bin Muhammad Al Qarshahri died in 734 AH.

– ‘Adh Dhakheerah Al Burhaniyah’ by Burhanudeen Abdul Azeez Bin Umar Bin Mazah.

– ‘Al Waafi’ ‘Al Kaafi’, and Al Mussafa, by Abul Barkaat Ahmad bin Abdullah An Nasafi. (died 710 AH).

– ‘Majma Al Bahrain’ by Ibn Saa’ati died (694 AH).

In all these references, Allamah Qasim quoted directly from the statements given by these great Hanafi jurists in which they all mentioned that fasting the six days of Shawwal was not Makrooh, and that there was no harm in observing these fasts.

In concluding the discussion, Allamah Qasim then wrote, ‘This is what is clear to me at present from the texts of the books of our Ulama’. From these statements, it is evident that no one from among those who preceded Shaikh Tabani said that the dislike (the karahah) was general’ Here, Allamah Qasim explained that no one from among the great Hanafi jurists who came before him, considered it generally Makrooh to observe the six fasts of Shawwal. Instead, the statement attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu Yusuf and others after them, was that it was specific to the following states:

1. When there was a fear that people may consider the fast of Shawwal to be like the compulsory Ramadhan fast, when they begin to fast immediately after Ramadhan,

2. When a person fasted on the day of Eid (1st Shawwal) and then observed five days of fast afterwards to complete six days of Shawwal.

These were the only situations in which some scholars regarded observing the six fasts of Shawwal to be makrooh. It therefore means, that when these situations are absent, and there is no such fear, then according to these scholars, the six fasts of Shawwal will remain as being Sunnah/Mustahab, as pointed out in the treatise of the grand Jurist, Allamah Qasim bin Qutloboga (Rahimahullah).

The scholars of the Maliki Madhhab have also clarified the stance adopted by Imam Malik (Rahmatullahi Alayh) regarding the fasts of Shawwal where he stated that it was makrooh. The position of the Imam is recorded in his Muwatta, which reads, Yahya said, ‘I heard Malik saying in regards to the six days of fasting after the completion of Ramadhan (i.e. of Shawwal), that he did not see anyone from among the people of knowledge and fiqh observing these. He further said, ‘the fasting for six days in Shawwal has not reached me from anyone from the pious predecessors. The people of knowledge disliked this (they consider it makrooh), and they fear that it becomes a Bidah (an innovation). They also fear that the ignorant ones may attach it to Ramadhan if they see the people of knowledge observing these fasts. (Muwatta of Imam Malik page 256 Mir Muhammad Kutub Karachi).

While explaining the opinion of Imam Malik as highlighted above, the great Maliki scholar, Allamah Al Zarqani Al Maliki (died 1122 A.H), says, ‘Imam Malik disliked the fasts of Shawwal for this reason (that is, the ignorant people may attach it and join it to Ramadhan, while these are not a part of Ramadhan.) As for those who observe the fasts of Shawwal, desirous of the rewards in them, then there is no dislike in it’. (It is not Makrooh) (End Quote).

Allamah Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf Al Zarqani Al Maliki further writes, ‘Our Shuyukh (great teachers and scholars) have stated, ‘Imam Malik considered the six fasts of Shawwal to be Makrooh only due to the fear that the ignorant people may attach / connect it to Ramadhan. As for observing these fasts based on what the Shariah requires, then it is not Makrooh.’

‘It has also been said that the Hadith concerning the six days of Shawwal did not reach him, or it was not evident according to him, or he found the people of Madina not observing the fasts of Shawwal’.

Allamah Zarqani further states, ‘It is also possible that Imam Malik disliked that the fasts of Shawwal be joined directly with the fasts of Ramadhan. It is for this reason, he said, ‘fasting for six days (immediately) after Eid Ul Fitr was disliked’. Therefore, if one observes the six days of fasting during the month, it will not be Makrooh’.

Allamah Zarqani then cited the statement of the great Maliki scholar, Ibn Abd Al Barr (died in 463 AH) regarding Imam Malik’s approach in religious matters and stated, ‘Abu Umar Ibn Abd Al Barr said, ‘Imam Malik was protective and very cautious in religious matters, and fasting was a great act of goodness. As such, he did not see that the fast of Shawwal should be observed, fearing that the ignorant people may connect it to the Ramadhan fast’. (End quote – Sharh Muwata Malik by Allamah Zarqani).

Another great Maliki jurist, Ibn Rushd Al Maliki (died 595 AH) wrote the following regarding Imam Malik’s position on the fasts of Shawwal. He wrote, ‘as for the six fasts of Shawwal, it is evident that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, ‘whoever observes the fast of Ramadhan and then follows it with six fasts of Shawwal, then it is like fasting for the year’.

‘However, Imam Malik considered this to be Makrooh. The reason for his opinion is that he either feared that people may connect to Ramadhan what does not belong to it (like the six fasts of Shawwal), or the hadith did not reach him, or the hadith is not sound in his opinion, and this is the better opinion’ (Bidayatul Mujtahid Ibn Rushd Maliki Vol 1 pg 319. Manshoorat Ar Radha Qum Tehran 1406 AH).

The famous 7th century Maliki scholar, Allamah Ibn Shaas Maliki (died 616 AH) writes the following regarding Imam Malik’s position. He states, ‘The six days of fasts in Shawwal has been mentioned in sound / authentic narrations. However, Imam Malik feared that the ignorant people may connect / join to the compulsory fast what is not from it. Hence, he considered it disliked (makrooh), but he regarded the six days fast of Shawwal to be Mustahab (commendable) when these are observed at another time besides Shawwal’.

Ibn Shaas (Rahimahullah) further explained and said, ‘the fixing of the time of fasting in the month of Shawwal after the fasts of Ramadhan was done for ease upon the believers, and it was not done to make the ruling of fasting specific only to the month of Shawwal. Therefore, there will be no harm if one observes the six days in the month of Dhul Hijjah’ (Aqd Al Jawahir Ath Thameena Fi Madhhab Alim Al Madinah).

The great Maliki jurist, Imam Al Qarrafi (died in 684 AH), has also given a similar explanation and said, ‘Imam Malik considered it Mustahab (commendable) to observe the six fasts of Shawwal at another time besides Shawwal, fearing that these be joined with Ramadhan (fast) by the ignorant ones. The Shariah has only fixed it in Shawwal to be an ease upon the followers, since it is close to the fasting in Ramadhan’. (It means that they have already become accustomed to fasting in Ramadhan, therefore, it will be easy for them to fast in Shawwal’).

‘The objective of these six fasts in Shawwal however, can be achieved in another month. As such, delaying the six fasts of Shawwal to another month, will be permissible in order to achieve the benefits’. (Adh Dhakheera by Imam Al Qarrafi Al Maliki.)

The 13th century great Maliki jurist Allamah Dardeer Maliki (died 1201 AH) also explained the Maliki’s position on the fast of Shawwal and said in his famous work, ‘Ash Sharh As Sageer’, ‘it is Makrooh to observe the six fasts of Shawwal if one attaches it to Eid in order to make it manifest and apparent. It will not be Makrooh if it is separated from Eid or it is delayed. Similarly, if one observes it immediately after Ramadhan in a secret manner. In all these cases, it will not be Makrooh, since the cause for believing that it is wajib (essential) is negated. (Ash Sharh As Sageer by Imam Ahmad Dardeer Maliki.)

It is therefore evident from these explanations, that Imam Malik (Rahmatullahi Alayh) did not consider the six days of fast in Shawwal to be generally Makrooh. His dislike was on account of a specific reason which has been explained in details by the Maliki scholars.

And Allah knows best,

Mufti Waseem Khan.

Hanafi Proof for using Money to Pay Zakat al-Fitr

In this post, we are responding to a  misleading article circulated by the deviant Salafis claiming that cash or currency cannot be used to pay Zakat al-Fitr.

Although the Salafis are brain-dead deviants, what prompted this response is that they are claiming through their post that those who use money for paying zakat al-fitr are “blind following of some schools of thought”.

The Salafi Jaahils out of their hatred for Hanafi Madh-hab have gone to an extent that they have even ignored the proofs where the Salaf have accepted money as an option for the payment of Zakat al-Fitr.

In their personal enmity towards the Hanafi Madh-hab, whatever daleel the followers of the Madh-hab present are termed by them as mere “blind-following” as if like the Hanafi Madh-hab doesn’t have proofs for their practices at all. May Allah save the Ummah from the dajjalism of the Salafi Sect. Aameen.

First we will present their moronic arguments (in red) and then the brief response will follow:



The blind following of some schools of thought, ignorance of the Prophetic Sunnah, and making frivolous excuses—such as using money to pay Zakāt al-Fiṭr is much more beneficial to the poor, or using money to pay it is easier upon a person—have caused many people to pay their Zakāt al-Fiṭr using money.
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ ibn Fawzān al-Fawzān ( ﺣﻔﻈﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ) said: “As for paying the value of Zakāt al-Fiṭr, then it is in opposition to the Sunnah. This is unacceptable as there are no reports of the Prophet (ﷺ ) or the Companions ( ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ) ever paying its value.” 78 (Al-Mulakkhaṣ al-Fiqhī, pg. 353.)

Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn (ﺭﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ) was asked: “Many poor people say currently that they prefer money over food for their Zakāt al-Fiṭr because money is more beneficial to them then food, so is using money to pay Zakāt al-Fiṭr permissible?”

He (ﺭﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ) said: “In my opinion, using money to pay Zakāt al-Fiṭr is impermissible in any circumstance. Food should be give instead. If the poor person wishes, he may sell the food and benefit from the money. As for the one paying Zakāt al-Fiṭr, then he must give food.
79 Majmū‘ Fatāwá wā Rasāʾil al-ʿUthaymīn, vol. 18, pg. 277

He (ﺭﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ) was also asked: “What is your view concerning the statement of Imām Mālik (ﺭﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ): ‘Verily, Zakāt al-Fiṭr is only payed in food, not money?’”
He (ﺭﺣﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ) responded: “The opinion of Imām Mālik is that of Imām Aḥmad and Imām al-Shāfi‘ī (ﺭﺣﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ), and it’s correct.”

80 Majmū‘ Fatāwá wā Rasāʾil al-Uthaymīn, vol. 18, pg. 279. (End of the Salafi deception)


The view that it is permissible to give the cash equivalent of Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr is established from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (21 – 110 H), and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (63 – 101 H). These are both great imāms of the Salaf who came a generation before Imām Abū Ḥanīfah. Moreover, the Kūfan imām, Abū Isḥaq al-Sabī‘ī (33 – 127 H), said he found his seniors (from the ṣaḥābah and senior tabi‘īn) giving the cash equivalent for Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr.

Ibn Abī Shaybah reported: “Wakī‘ narrated to us from Qurrah (ibn Khālid) (d. 155): A letter of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz came to us about Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr: a half ṣā‘ on behalf of every person, or its value of half dirham.” (Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, 6:508)

He also reported: “Wakī‘ narrated to us from Sufyān (al-Thawrī) from Hishām (ibn Ḥassān) from al-Ḥasan (al-Baṣrī): ‘There is no problem with giving dirhams for Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr.’” (ibid.)

He also reported: “Abu Usāmah narrated to us from Zuhayr: I heard Abū Isḥāq (al-Sabī‘ī) say: ‘I encountered them and they would give the Ṣadaqah of Ramaḍān in dirhams according to the value of food.’” (ibid.)

Note, Abū Ishaq al-Sabī‘ī was, like Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī, one of the most learned companions of the students of Ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu). He learnt from several ṣahabah including Mu‘āwiyah, Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Barā’ ibn ‘Ᾱzib, Zayd ibn Arqam and ‘Abdullah b ‘Amr b al-‘Ᾱṣ (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum). It is said he heard from a total of about 40 ṣaḥābah. Hence, this testimony from Abū Ishaq al-Sabī‘ī proves the practice of giving money as Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr was something established from the early Salaf.

In terms of evidence from the Sunnah, there is a narration of Bukhari where Mu’adh (radiyallahu anhu) took Zakat of the people of Yemen not from the actual wealth on which it was due but from the equivalent of the price from commodities, and sent this to Madinah to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Hanafis understand the obligation to be for the purpose of benefiting the poor, which is a comprehensible purpose, which can be fulfilled by money. This is different from the Udhiyah (Qurbani) or animal slaughter in Hajj, as the purpose there is essentially a ritual: to spill the blood of the animal, so it cannot be replaced by money. (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, 2:364-9)
Answered by Mufti Zameelur Rahman (The beginning of the post is our comment).

The Mas’alah of the Determination of Tashabbuh bil Kuffar (emulating the Kuffaar)


Is there any encompassing rule to determine whether something is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar wal fussaaq) or not, especially with regards to clothes, eating, etc.?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

There is no comprehensive principle regarding Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar. The times and norms play a prominent role. Also, the wijdaan and baseerat of the Aalim of Haqq is important for determining this issue.

To correctly understand the mas’alah of Tashabbuh, there are three essentials: Ilm, Ikhlaas and Baseerat. Baseerat is the effect of Taqwa. Minus Taqwa, one’s ikhlaas will be contaminated. This contamination will eliminate Baseerat. The importance of Baseerat could be understood from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s fatwa on the impurity of Maa-e-Musta’mal (used water). With his Baseerat he observed the spiritual filth in maa-e-musta’mal, hence his view is the strongest on this issue.

Without Ikhlaas and Baseerat, the view on an issue will be the emotion of the mufti maajin (a moron ‘mufti’ whose ‘fatwas’ are the products of his bestial nafs). Consider the example of western clothes. To which extent does Tashabbuh apply? The mufti maajin who himself may be wearing western fashionable dress styles will argue that the dress has become universal (aam) and there is no longer any religious connotation attached to it, e.g. the tie, hence it is permissible to wear shirt, pants, jeans, skippers, ties and all the miserable artefacts of shaitaan and his western progeny. Just imagine the level of jahaalat and mental convolution of even Ulama who argue that the satanic bermuda pants monstrosity is permissible simply because it is below the knees.

The baatini corrosion has blighted the intellectual perception so thoroughly that the mufti maajin fails to realize that a dress such as the bermuda pants is a pure western kuffaar fashionable dress item just recently introduced. Even prior to it assuming the decrepit and apodalic attribute of being aam, the maajin character proclaims it permissible simply on just one count, namely, the covering of the knees. Well, your wife’s ijaar and her burqah offer greater concealment of satr than the bermuda pants, and at the same time it is Tashabbuh bil Muslimah (emulation of a Muslim female), which rationally is better than Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Notwithstanding this fact, Tashabbuh bil Muslimah is also mal-oon (accursed). Thus, to a greater degree will a male who adopts kuffaar dress be mal-oon because of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar.

However, the Mufti who focuses on the Aakhirat and who understands the maqsood (objective) of life on earth, ruminates with his Baatini (Spiritual) Heart and asks: Why does a Muslim want to wear shirt, pants, jacket, jeans, T-shirts and ties and strut about with a bared head, when Islamic dress is available, and when millions of Muslims are wearing such dress by which one can recognize from a mile away that the person is a Muslim? Careful reflection will convince one that there is the thief, shaitaan lurking in his nafs or it is the deception of his nafs which constrains him to proffer the ‘aam’ argument.

Since his nafs craves to don kuffaar garments because it is stylish and appealing to the desire, and it blends suitably with the kuffaar environment in which we live, he presents spurious arguments to justify such kuffaar dress. Little does he realize that in so doing he is according preference to kuffaar dress over and above Islamic dress which is easily available to him. This attitude thus confirms the element of Tashabbuh in kuffaar dress.

Someone may raise the argument that items such as jerseys, socks, shoes, raincoats and other necessary items of dress which all of us wear, are also of western origin. Does Tashabbuh apply here too? The response to this ishkaal (conundrum) is as follows:

Yes and no! At times it will be Tashabbuh and at times it will not be. In our environment and the circumstances in which Muslims work and live, these items are necessary. There is no suitable Islamic substitute for these items of dress. The idea of Tashabbuh is furthest from the mind. In this scenario the argument of the dress being universal is valid. Nevertheless, this still precludes such of these items which have entered society as the latest fashions. It also precludes footwear on which appears logos and the like.

But, in a different setting such as India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are perfectly at home with a chaadar (shawl) thrown around the shoulders. They are comfortable in it and it does not interfere with their activities. Thus, for Muslims in those lands the element of Tashabbuh will be even in jerseys, and to a degree even in the type of shoes which we wear in the western world. The type of jooties worn in India and Pakistan suit them well although it is unsuitable for us here due to the flimsiness of the shoes and due to the feminine appearance.

A daleel for us is the amal of Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh). After he became the Qaadhi and he had to do considerable walking, he changed his style of shoes and adopted the style of the Ajam. When someone objected, he explained that because of the toughness of these shoes he has adopted them.

In conclusion: In our environment, shirts, suits, ties, jeans, T-shirts and the like are Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar without the least doubt, and furthermore it borders on kufr because it is preferred over Islamic dress which is readily available. Preferring a kuffaar style over an Islamic style is a major sin of kufr proportions.

Regarding the practice of eating from tables and eating with knives and forks, the element of Tashabbuh is too glaring for the need to cudgel brains for the determination of the Shar’i Hukm. The argument of its ‘permissibility’ on the basis of this practice having become universal is contemptuously baatil. Abandonment of the Sunnah is haraam whether it is abandoned by a few or by the entire population. After fourteen centuries of the Ummah eating on the floor, suddenly the table and chair practice becomes ‘halaal’ on the decrepit and deceptive basis of ‘universality’. If this has to be accepted as a standard ‘principle’ for abrogation of Shar’i and Sunnah practices, the same fate which has destroyed the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will mangle and mutilate the Sunnah which this Ummah of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has followed since the inception of Islam.

Those who have adopted tables and chairs for eating, after abandoning their original Sunnah practice, are hovering on the brink of kufr for having preferred a kuffaar practice over and above the Sunnah practice. Those who have been eating in western style since birth, whilst not perpetrating haraam as the former group, nevertheless, are under Waajib obligation to abandon the kuffaar style and to adopt the Sunnah style. If, after having been made aware of this essentiality, they refuse, then they will be guilty of the haraam practice of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. And, Allah knows best.  

Hanafi Scholars from Ahlul-Bayt

“Mukhtaṣar A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt”

Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt

In this thread In-shā’-Allāh, I shall post my translation and abridgment of the book “A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt” by Muḥammad Wā’il al-Ḥanbalī.

Objective of the book:

This book is a research done in some books of history and biographies in which the author gathers the names of all famous and iconic men who have two things in common:

1- They belong to the Ḥanafī Madhab.
2- They are from the progeny of Ahl-ul-Bayt.

What the original Arabic book contains that my summary does not contain:

1- Short introduction to the Ḥanafī Madhab and its most important figures.
2- Brief overview of the historical ties between the Ḥanafī Madhab and Ahl-ul-Bayt and which of the Ḥanafī scholars wrote books about Ahl-ul-Bayt.
3- Much more detail about each scholar discussed, such as their teachers and students and books and where they traveled and more…
4- Useful footnotes with sources and comments and opinions by the author.
5- List of books used for this research.
6- Comprehensive index.


– This thread shall only contain names of scholars of Ahl-ul-Bayt who belong to the “Ḥanafī” Madhab, not the average people or the laypeople from that Madhab.
– We shall list those we came across and we cannot claim that we managed to gather all of the Ḥanafī scholars of prophetic descent.
– We have only gathered the names of those who are authentically proven to be from Ahl-ul-Bayt, not those who are said to be from them, or those who claim it without solid proofs from proper sources.
– The Ḥanafī Madhab spread in areas such as Bukhara and Persia and it is known that there was no presence for Ahl-ul-Bayt in those areas in the first couple of centuries.

Who are Ahl-ul-Bayt according to the Ḥanafī Madhab?

They are the children of: `Alī, al-`Abbās, Ja`far, `Aqīl, al-Ḥārith the children of abī Ṭālib. All the rulings of Ahl-ul-Bayt are applicable to their children except the children of abū Lahab.

Example of how each man shall be presented in the list:

– Name (Date of birth – Date of death) Famous for:
Long Name and Lineage.


– abū Ḥanīfah (b.80 – d.150 AH) Imām al-Madhab al-Ḥanafī, Faqīh, `Ābid, Amīn:
al-Nu`mān ibn Thābit ibn Zūṭā ibn Marzubān, al-Farisī, al-Taymī.

Glossary of some terms in the research:

Faqīh = Jurist.
Muḥaddith = Scholar of Hadith.
Naqīb al-Ashrāf = Head of the order of the prophetic progeny.
Mudarris = Teacher.
Mu’arrikh = Historian.
Qādi = Judge.
Qādi al-Qudat = Head of judges.
Wālī = Governor.
Wajīh = Reputed.
Muftī = Legislator.
`Allāmah = High ranking scholar.
`Ālim = Scholar.
Zāhid = Ascetic/Pious.
Nassābah = Genealogist.
Lughawī = Linguist.
Musnid = Reference in Hadith.
Amīn = Faithful.
Adīb = Writer.
Fāḍil = Virtuous.
Mufassir = Interpreter of Qur’anic text.
Shā`ir = Poet.
Faraḍī = Knowledgeable in matters of inheritance.
Khaṭṭāṭ = Calligrapher.
Khatīb = Speaker.
Naḥawī = Knowledgeable in Arabic grammar.
Raḥḥālah = Traveler.

Transliteration help for special characters:

ا = ā
و = ū
ح = ḥ
ط = ṭ
ي = ī
ص = ṣ
ض = ḍ
ظ = ẓ
غ = gh
آ = aa
ء = ‘
ث = th
خ = kh
ذ = dh
ع = `


In the name of Allāh, most merciful, the list is as follows:

-5th century Hijrī-

– abū al-Faḍl al-Ḥasanī (d.448 AH) / Faqīh, Muḥaddith:
abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Dāwūd bin `Alī bin ` Īsā ibn Muḥammad bin al-Qāsim bin al-Ḥasan bin Zayd bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.

– Ṭirād al-Zaynabī (b.398 – d.491 AH) / Muḥaddith, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Fawāris, Ṭirād bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Zaynabī, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Baghdādī.

– al-Sayyid abū Shujā`(b. beginning of fifth century – d. middle of fifth century AH) / Faqīh, Imām:
Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.

– abū al-Waḍḍāḥ al-`Alawī (b.438 – d.491 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib.

-6th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah (b.501 – d.566 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Mu’arrikh:
abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah bin Ibrāhīm bin al-`Abbās bin al-Ḥasan bin al-`Abbās bin al-Ḥasan bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib, al-Maṣrī, al-Dimashqī.

– Nūr al-Hudā al-Zaynabī (b.420 – d.512 AH) / Qādi, Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
abū Ṭālib Nūr al-Hudā,  al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Sulaymān bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Imām bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin `Abdullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Abdul-Muṭalib, al-Hāshimī, al-Zaynabī.

– al-Akmal al-Zaynabī (b.477 – d.543 AH) / Qādi al-Quḍāt:
abū al-Qāsim, `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.

– ibn Nāṣir al-Ḥusaynī (b.515 – d.599 AH ) / Mudarris, Faqīh:
abū al-Majd, `Alī bin `Alī bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ja`far bin al-Ḥasan, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Baghdādī.

– al-Amīr al-Sayyid (b.521 – d.588 AH) / Faqīh, Wajīh:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin al-Murtaḍā bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin al-Dā`ī bin Zayd ibn Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-Saylaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ja`far bin al-Ḥasan bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Aṣbahānī, al-Baghdādī.

– Aqḍā al-Quḍāt al-Zaynabī (b.529 – d.563 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi:
al-Qāsim bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin`Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.

– Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d.556 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Nāṣir al-Dīn, abū al-Qāsim, Muḥammad bin Yūsuf bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad ibn `Alī, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Samarqandī.

-7th century Hijrī-

– Burhān-ul-Dīn al-Ḥanafī (d.689 AH) / al-`Allāmah al-Muftī, al-Zāhid:
Burhān-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad bin Nāṣir bin Ṭāhir, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Imād-ul-Dīn al-Mūṣilī (b. around 562 – d.648AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Imād-ul-Dīn, abū Naṣr, Aḥmad bin Yūsuf bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Mūṣilī.

– abū Ṭālib `Azīz-ul-Dīn (b.572 – d.614 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Nassābah, Lughawī:
`Azīz-ul-Dīn, abū Ṭālib, Ismā`īl bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin `Azīz bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abi Ṭālib.

– Iftikhār-ul-Dīn al-Hāshimī (b.539 – d.616 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Faḍl bin `Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Malik bin Ṣāliḥ bin `Alī bin `Abdullāh bin al-`Abbās, al-Hāshimī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Niẓām-ul-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī (d.691 AH) / Amīn, Wajīh:
Niẓām-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, al-Ḥusaynī.

– al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb al-Shurūṭī (d.635 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Wajīh:
al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.

-8th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad al-Sijazī (b.673 – d.762 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Imām al-Hanafiyyah bi-Makkah:
Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Yūsuf bin Abū Bakr bin abī al-Fatḥ bin `Alī, al-Sijazī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad al-Haytī (d.784 AH) / Lughawī, Adīb:
Muḥammad bin `Arab, al-Haytī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, al-Ḥamawī.

– Mūsā al-Mūsawī (b.628 – d.715 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid:
Mūsā bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib bin abū `Abdullāh bin abū al-Barakāt, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

-9th century Hijrī-

– `Abdul-Salām al-Baghdādī (b.776 – d.859 AH) / Fāḍil, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Abdul-Salām bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Mun`im bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Kaydūm ibn `Umar bin abū al-Khayr Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāhirī, al-Ḥanafī.

– `Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (lived at the end of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
`Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī.

– `Alī ibn al-Naqīb (b.852 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Lughawī, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Alī bin Muḥammad bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin `Adnān bin Ja`far bin Muḥammad bin `Adnān  bin Nāṣir al-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– Muḥammad bin abī al-Ṣafā (died in the end of of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, abū Yūsuf, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, al-Qāhirī.

-10th century Hijrī-

– `Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (b.853 – d. tenth century AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt, Muḥammad bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil bin Mas`ūd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī, al-Ḥanafī.

-11th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad al-Ḥamawī (d.1098 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Makkī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥamawī, al-Maṣrī.

-Ṣabghatullāh  al-Barwajī (d.1015 AH) / Faqīh, Murabbi:
Ṣabghatullāh bin Rūḥullāh bin Jamālullāh, al-Barwajī, al-Madanī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh Qaḍīb al-Bān (b. beginning of eleventh century – d.1096 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Adīb:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ḥijāzī bin `Abdulqādir bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥalabī.

– Muḥammad al-Kawākibī (b.1018 – d.1096 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī, Adīb, Shā`ir:
Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn ibn Ḥamzah (b.1024 – d.1085 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh:
Muḥammad bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

-12th century Hijrī-

– Ibrāhīm al-Murādī (b.1118 – d.1142 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Mūsā bin Ṣāliḥ al-Qādī bin Muḥammad bin `Umar bin Shu`ayb bin Hūd bin `Alī al-Hādī bin Muḥammad al-Jawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.

– Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1054 – d.1120 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Muḥaddith, Naḥawī:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥusayn bin Ḥāfiẓ al-Muḥaddith bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Iz-ul-Dīn Ḥamzah bin abī al-`Abbās Aḥmad bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin al-Ḥāfiẓ Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin Muḥammad bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Ismā`īl al-Ḥarrānī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-‘A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.

– Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1130 – d.1197 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Shā`ir:
Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn Mūsā bin Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn Isḥāq bin Amīn-ul-Dīn Jibrīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Quṭb-ul-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn Rashīd bin Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ bin `Awḍ al-Khawwaṣ bin Fayrūz-Shāh al-Bukhārī bin Mahdī bin Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥasan bin abī al-Qāsim Muḥammad bin Thābit bin Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Amīr Dāwūd bin `Alī bin Mūsā al-Thānī bin Ibrāhīm al-Murtaḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.

– Aḥmad al-Sa`īd al-Murādī (b.1150 – d.1170 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb:
abū al-Majd, Aḥmad al-Sa`īd bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Kawākibī (b.1054 – d.1124 AH) / `Allāmah, Muftī, Adīb:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Ḥusayn al-Murādī al-Kabīr (b.1138 – d.1188 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb:
Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī, al-Murādī, al-Ḥanafī.

– Sa`dī ibn Ḥamzah (b.1075 – d.1132 AH) / Faraḍī, Muḥaddith, Muhandis:
Sa`dī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– abū al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1090 – d.1137 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī:
abū al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– `Abdul-Rahmān al-Sulaymānī (d. 1165 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Ṭabīb:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad Aslam bin `Abdul-Rahmān, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī, al-Sulaymānī, al-Makkī.

– `Abdul-Karīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1051 – d.1118 AH) / Naqīb lil-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
`Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh Bāshā al-Jitjī (b.1115 – d.1174 AH) / Faqīh, Wālī, `Ālim, Mushārik:
`Abdullāh Bāshā bin Ibrāhīm, al-Jitjī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Jarmakī.

– `Abdul-Mun`im ibn al-Ashraf (d.1160 AH) / Muftī, Muhandis:
`Abdul-Mun`im bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥumṣī.

– `Alī al-`Ajlānī (b.1127 – d.1183 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
`Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Alīmullāh al-Hindī (d.1176 AH) / Murabbi, `Ālim, Mudarris:
`Alīmullāh bin `Abd-ul-Rashīd, al-`Abbāsī, al-Hindī.

– Muḥammad Amīn al-Mīrghanī (d.1161 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Amīn bin hasan bin Muḥammad Ameeen bin `Alī, al-Mīrghanī,al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makkī.

– Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd al-Ḥusaynī (d.1172 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Su`ūd bin `Alī bin `Alī bin abī al-Khayr Iskandar, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī, al-Sayyid al-Sharīf.

– Muḥammad al-Murādī (b.1094 – d.1169 AH) / `Ālim, Qādi, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Murād al-Murādī (b.1050 – d.1132 AH) / `Allāmah, Raḥḥālah, Mufassir, Muḥaddith:
Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ṣāliḥ bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Yūsuf al-Naqīb (b.1073 – d.1153 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Jamāl-il-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ḥusayn bin Darwīsh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

-13th century Hijrī-

– `Ārif Hikmat (b.1201 – d.1275 AH) / Shaykh-ul-Islam, `Allāmah, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad `Ārif bin Ibrāhīm `Iṣmatullāh bin abī al-Walīd Ismā`īl bin Ibrāhīm Bāshā, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Istānbūlī.

– Aḥmad al-`Ajlānī (d.1277 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Aḥmad bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, ibn `Ajlān.

– Ismā`īl Ḥamzah (b.1183 – d.1222 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā:
Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muhamamd al-Ḥusaynī, ibn Ḥamzah.

– Amīn al-Jundī al-Muftī (b.1229 – d.1295 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb, Khatīb, Shā`ir:
Amīn bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Isḥāq bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Jundī, al-Mu`arrī, al-Dimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Ḥasan Taqī-ul-Dīn (d.1264 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Ḥasan bin Taqī-ul-Dīn bin Ḥasan bin Muṣṭafā bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ismā`īl bin Muhibb-ul-Dīn bin Shams-ul-Dīn bin Zayn-ul-Dīn bin Ḍiyā’-ul-Dīn Humaydah bin Zayn-ul-Dīn `Umayrah, al-Būṣilī, al-Balqawī, al-Ḥuṣnī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥusayn al-Murādī (b.1200 – d.1267 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Faqīh:
Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Murād, al-Naqshabandī, al-Bukhārī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥusayn Ḥamzah (b.1161 – d.1203 AH) / `Ālim, Shā`ir, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Badr-ul-Dīn abū al-Luṭf Ḥusayn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm bin Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥamzah al-`Ajlānī (d.1228 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Ḥamzah Ḥamzah (b.1142 – d.1217 AH) / Naqīb Ashrāf Dimashq, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin hasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Muḥammad, al-Hamzawī, al-Ḥanafī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Darwīsh al-`Ajlānī (b.1228 – d.1297 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Darwīsh bin Ḥusayn bin `Umar bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Darwīsh Ḥamzah (b.1200 – d.1249 AH) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Rāghib al-`Ajlānī (b.1236 – d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Rāghib bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Sa`īd al-Ḥalabī (b.1188 – d.1259 AH) / Shaykh al-Hanafiyyah, Marji` Bilād al-Shām:
Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥalabī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Abdul-Rahmān al-Murādī (d.1218 AH) / Muftī:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.

– `Abdulqādir Ḥamzah (b.1235 – d.1279 AH) / `Ālim Mushārik, Amīn lil-Fatwā:
`Abdulqādir bin Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh al-Maḥjūb (d.1207 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Afīf-ul-Dīn, abū al-Siyādah `Abdullāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad Amīn ibn `Alī Mīrghanī bin Ḥasan bin Mīrkhūrd bin Ḥaydar bin Ḥasan bin `Abdullāh ibn `Alī bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin `Īsā bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl bin Mīrkhūrd al-Bukhārī bin `Umar ibn `Alī bin `Uthmān bin `Alī al-Muttaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī al-Hādī bin Muḥammad al-Jawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makki, al-Ṭā’ifī, al-Ḥanafī, al-Maḥjūb.

– `Abdullāh al-Murādī (b.1160 – d.1212 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ṭāhir bin `Abdullāh bin Muṣṭafā bin Muhamamd Murād, al-Murādī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdul-Muḥsin al-`Ajlānī (d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn al-Bukhārī (b.1154 – d.1200 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Faḍl, Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Khayrullāh, al-Atharī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Muḥammad Kamāl Ḥamzah (d.1258 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Wajīh:
Muḥammad Kamāl bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Nasīb Ḥamzah (b.1201 – d.1257 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Adīb, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-`Ajlānī (b.1170 – d.1250 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, `Ālim, Niḥrīr:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Muḥammad Tillū (d.1282 AH) / `Ālim Jalīl, Faqīh:
abū al-`Irfān, `Alam-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin `Abdullāh bin `Umar bin Muṣṭafā, ibn Tillū, al-Dimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Muḥammad Khalīl al-Murādī (b.1173 – d.1206 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn, abū al-Faḍl, Muḥammad Khalīl bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād ibn `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Muhamamd Amīn `Ābidīn (b.1198 – d.1252 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Muḥaqqiq, Marji` al-Hanafiyyah fīl-Shām:
Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabaydī (b.1145 – d.1205 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Muḥaddith, Mu’arrikh, Lughawī, Imām, Nassābah:
abū al-Fayḍ, Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Razzāq bin `Abdul-Ghaffār bin Tāj-ul-Dīn bin Ḥusayn bin Jamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin abī al-`Izz bin abī al-Faraj bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm ibn Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn, al-Murtaḍā, al-Zabaydī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Shihāb-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1217 – d.1270 AH) / Mufassir, Muḥaddith, `Allāmah:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-Thanā’, Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-Baghdādī.

– Yūsuf al-Maghribī al-Ḥasanī (d.1279 AH) / Raḥḥālah, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Makārim, Sayf-ul-Dīn Yūsuf bin badr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin `Abdullāh bin `Abdul-Malik bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Umar bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin `Abdul-`Azīz al-Tabbā` bin Hārūn bin Junūn bin `Allūsh bin Mindīl ibn `Alī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Īsā bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar, al-Ḥasanī, al-Marākishī, al-Maghribī, al-Dimashqī.

-14th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad Shākir al-Kabīr (d.1315 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Dā`iyah:
Aḥmad Shākir bin Khalīl, al-Za`farānbūlī, al-Jūlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad `Ābidīn (b.1239 – d.1307 AH) / Amīn lil-Fatwā, Zāhid:
Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn ibn Najm-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Kamāl ibn Taqī al-Dīn bin Muṣṭafā bin Ḥusayn bin Raḥmatullāh bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin `Izz-ul-Dīn `Abdullāh bin Qāsim bin Ḥasan bin Ismā`īl ibn Ḥusayn al-Mantūf(Maftūn) ibn Aḥmad bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Ḥalabī (b.1252 – d.1304 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Ḥasībī (d.1357 AH) Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad Ḥasīb bin Muḥammad, al-`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.

– Aḥmad Rāfi` al-Ṭahṭāwī (b.1275 – d.1355 AH) /  `Allāmah, Faqīh, Mufassir:
Aḥmad Rāfi` bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Rāfi`, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāsimī, al-Ṭahṭāwī.

– abū al-Ashbāl Aḥmad Shākir (b.1309 – d.1377 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, `Allāmah, Muḥaddith:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Shākir bin `Abdulqādir, Shams-ul-A’immah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī.

– Ḥusayn al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1300 – d.1395 AH) / `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Salīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Nasīb bin Ḥasan bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Riḍā al-Ḥalabī (b.1279 – d.1329 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Mushārik, Faqīh:
Riḍā bin Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Shākir al-Ḥamzāwī (d.1328 AH) / Qādi, Wajīh:
Shākir bin As`ad bin Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ṭāhir Ḥamzah (d.1335 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā, Faqīh:
Ṭāhir bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Aalūsī (b.1232 – d.1324 AH) / `Ālim:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī.

– `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Ḥawāṣilī (b.1311 – d.1389 AH) / Ṣāliḥ, Zāhid:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥawāṣilī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdul-Muḥsin al-Murādī (d.1332 AH) / Mudarris, Amīn al-Fatwā:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.

– `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Ābidīn (b.1244 – d.1306 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Mushārik:
`Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Alī al-`Aṭṭār al-Ḥasībī (d.1341 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim:
`Alī bin abī Mas`ūd  bin Aḥmad bin `Alī, al-`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.

– Muḥammad abū al-Khayr `Ābidīn (b.1269 – d.1344 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Faqīh:
Muḥammad abū al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad ibn `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Mas`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1281 – d.1348 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Su`ūd, Muḥammad Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad Bahā’ī bin Muḥammad Su`ūd al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥalabī, al-`Alawī.

– Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (b.1248 – d.1307 AH) / Amīr, `Allāmah, Nābighah:
abū al-Ṭayyib, Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Khān bin Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Luṭfullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī, al-Qinnawjī.

– Muḥammad Khalīl al-Qāwiqjī (b.1224 – d.1305 AH) / Faqīh, Mufassir, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Muhamamd bin Khalīl bin Ibrāhīm, al-Ḥasanī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1313 – d.1398 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Ra’īs Jam`iyat al-Hidāyah al-Islāmiyyah:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Darwīsh Aal-Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Bānī (b.1294 – d.1351 AH) / Faqīh, Mufakkir:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Mūṣilī, al-Ḥasanī.

– Muḥammad `Ārif al-Jūyjātī (b.1317 – d.1395 AH) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Maḥmūd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1236 – d.1305 AH) / `Allāmat-ul-Shām, Muftī-ul-Shām:
Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Nu`mān Khayr-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1252 – d.1317 AH) / `Allāmah, Wā`iẓ:
abū al-Barakāt, Nu`mān bin Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-`Irāqī.

– Yāsīn al-Jūyjātī (b.1301 – d.1384 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Qāri’:
Yāsīn bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

-15th century Hijrī-

– Ibrāhīm al-Ya`qūbī (b.1343 – d.1406 AH) / `Allāmah, Muḥaddith, Faqīh Mālikī, Faqīh Ḥanafī:
Ibrāhīm bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīq bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-`Arabī bin Aḥmad bin BāBā Ḥabīy bin al-Khiḍr bin `Abdulqādir bin Mizyān bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaghīr ibn Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin Aḥmad bin Ṣāliḥ bin Idrīs ibn abī Ya`qūb bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin al-Jūdī bin Aḥmad bin `Abdulqādir bin `Arabī bin Ṣāliḥ bin Sa`īd bin `Umar bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin Ḥusayn bin `Alī ibn Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar bin `Abdullāh al-Maḥḍ bin al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Ya`qūbī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Dimashqī.

– abū al-Ḥasan al-Nadwī (b.1333 – d.1420 AH) / Dā`iyah `Ālamī, Mufakkir Kabīr, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin `Abdulḥay bin Fakhr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-`Alī bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Nadwī.

– Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn al-Qudsī (b.1321 – d.1400 AH) / Kutubiyy, Nāshir:
Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Shafīq bin Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qudsī.

– Muḥammad abū al-Yusr `Ābidīn (b.1307 – d.1401 AH) / Ṭabīb, `Allāmah Mushārik, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Yusr bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Murshid `Ābidīn (b.1327 – d.1428 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, Mu`ammar:
Muḥammad Murshid bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī al-Jūyjātī (b.1315 – d.1411 AH) / Faqīh, Muṣliḥ, `Allāmah Mushārik, Qāri’ Mutqin:
Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.


Praise be to Allāh, this book was finished in ‘2011’ by the original author from “مبرة الآل والأصحاب” . The abrigement was written in English in ‘2013’ by Hānī al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭarābulsī al-Shāfi`ī.

خون نکل کر بہ جائے تو وضوء ٹوٹ جاتا ہے کی ایک دلیل پر اعتراضات کے جوابات

باسمہ تعالیٰ

✍ حافظ محمود احمد عرف عبدالباری محمود

حامداً و مصلیا و مسلما!

محترم قارئین! حنفیہ کے نزدیک خون نکل کر اپنی جگہ سے بہ جائے تو وضوء ٹوٹ جاتا ہے اور اس طرح سے وضوء ٹوٹ جانے پر حنیفہ کے یہاں کئی دلائل ہیں جن میں سے ایک دلیل یہ بھی ہے کہ:

سیدنا زید بن ثابت رضی اللہ عنہ بیان کرتے ہیں کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم  نے فرمایا:

«اَلْوُضُوءُ مِنْ کُلِّ دَمٍ سَائِلٍ»

”ہر بہنے والا خون ناقض وضو ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال]

لیکن حنیفہ سے بغض و تعصب میں ایک غیر مقلد عالم غلام مصطفے ظہیر صاحب اور ایک عامی غیرمقلد کامران الٰہی ظہیر نے اس دلیل کو ناقابلِ عمل باور کرانے کے لئے چند اعتراضات کیے ہیں۔ ذیل میں وہ اعتراضات اور ان کے جوابات ملاحظہ فرمائیں۔

نوٹ: واضح رہے کہ غیر مقلد عالم غلام مصطفے ظہیر صاحب نے اعتراضات لکھ کر کیے ہیں جبکہ کامران الٰہی ظہیر غیرمقلد نے اپنی ایک آؤڈیو میں یہی اعتراضات کہہ کر کئے ہیں۔

اعتراض اول اور اس کا جواب:

”سند “سخت ضعیف” ہے۔
امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ کے استاد عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی، کے حالات زندگی نہیں مل سکے، نا معلوم اور لاپتہ افراد کی روایتیں کون قبول کرتا ہے؟“

غلام مصطفے ظہیر اور کامران الٰہی ظہیر صاحبان! امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ کے استاد عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی، کے حالات زندگی آپ دونوں کو نہیں مل سکے، اور نا آپ دونوں کو معلوم ہو سکا تو اسکا مطلب یہ نہیں یہ مجہول و نا مقبول شخصیت ہیں اور ان کا انکار کر دیا جائے۔

ارے حضرات یہ شخصیت لا پتہ و نہ معلوم کی نہیں ہے بلکہ اہل علم کی نظر میں ثقہ شخصیت ہیں۔ البتہ آپ صاحبان جیسی کم علمی و جہالت سے پر شخصیات ہی کا کام ہو سکتا ہے جو ان کی روایتیں قبول کرنے سے بھاگتے ہیں۔

جبکہ عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی رحمہ اللہ کو کئی محدثینؒ نے ثقہ مانا ہے۔ نمونہ کے طور پر چند ایک ملاحضہ ہو:

١) محدث قاسم بن قطلوبغاؒ نے انہیں ثقات میں شمار کیا ہے۔

٢) امام ابن مسلمہ بن قاسمؒ بھی انہیں ثقہ مانتے ہیں-

٣) امام ضیاء الدین المقدسیؒ نے ان کی روایت کو صحیح کہا ہے وغیرہ۔

[حوالہ جات: کتاب الثقات للقاسم: ج۶، ص٢٨. الاحادیث المختارۃ: ج ٣، ص١١٢]

اور محدثین کا کسی حدیث کی تصحیح و تحسین کرنا غیرمقلدین کے نزدیک اس حدیث کے ہر راوی کی توثیق ہوتی ہے۔ [دیکھیں: نماز میں ہاتھ باندھنے کا حکم اور مقام۔ از زبیر علی زئی: ص١۷۔ انوار البدر۔۔۔از کفایت اللہ سنابلی: ص٢۷، ۲۴۶-٢۴۸]

لہٰذا اس ثقہ راوی کو نامعلوم و لاپتہ کہنا آپ صاحبان کا اپنی جہالت و فریب کو آشکارہ کرنا ہے۔

اعتراض دوم اور اس کا جواب:

”بقیہ بن ولید تدلیس تسویہ کے مرتکب ہیں۔ سماع بالمسلسل درکار ہے!“


محترمین! بقیہ بن ولیدؒ کے بارے میں فیصلہ کن قول یہی ہے کہ وہ جمہور کے نزدیک ثقہ ہیں جب وہ سماع کی تصریح کردیں۔ [الکاشف: ص٦١٩]

اور اس روایت میں بھی انہوں نے سماع کی تصریح کی ہے۔ لہذا وہ یہاں پر ثقہ ہیں۔

اور دوسری بات، اگر بقیہ بن ولیدؒ  کا کوئی ثقہ راوی متابع یا شاہد مل جائے تو اس صورت میں بھی بقیہ بن ولیدؒ پر تدلیس کا الزام مردود ہوگا اور وہ ثقہ ہونگے۔ اور اس روایت میں بھی انہوں نے سماع کی تصریح کی ہے اور ان کے شیخ بھی ثقہ ہیں۔

تفصیل و حوالہ جات کے لئے ملاحظہ کریں۔ [دوماھی مجلہ الاجماع، شمارہ: ۴، ص ۳ اور صفحہ ۴ کا حاشیہ]

اعتراض سوم اور اس کا جواب:

”بقیہ یہ روایت امام شعبہ سے بیان کر رہے ہیں۔ خود امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ فرماتے ہیں:

«وَلِبَقِیَّۃَ عَنْ شُعْبَۃَ کِتَابٌ وَّفِیہِ غَرَائِبُ وَتِلْکَ الْغَرَائِبُ یَتَفَرَّدُ بِہَا بَقِیَّۃُ» “بقیہ کے پاس امام شعبہ رحمہ اللہ کی کتاب تھی۔ اس میں کچھ غریب روایتیں ہیں، جنہیں بیان کرنے میں بقیہ منفرد ہیں۔” [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال : ٢/٢٦٨]۔“


امام شعبہ مشہور ثقہ، حافظ الحدیث، امیر المومنین فی الحدیث ہیں۔ [تقریب: رقم ١۷۹۰]

امام سمعانی وغیرہ محدثینؒ نے صراحت کی ہے کہ بقیہ بن ولید جب ثقہ سے روایت کریں تو ثقہ ہیں، ان پر کلام مجہولین سے روایت کرنے کی وجہ سے کیا گیاہے۔ [دیکھیں: تہذیب التہذیب: ج۱، ص۴۷۶۔ اکمال تہذیب الکمال: ج۳، ص۷]

لہٰذا آپ صاحبان کا یہ اعتراض فضول ہے۔

اعتراض چہارم اور اس کا جواب:

”عبد الرحمن بن ابان بن عثمان کا سیدنا زید بن ثابت رضی اللہ عنہ  سے سماع و لقا نہیں، لہٰذا یہ متکلم ومرسل ہے۔ امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ  فرماتے ہیں: وَإِنْ کَانَ فِي إِسْنَادِہٖ بَعْضُ الْـإِرْسَالُ۔ ”اگرچہ اس کی سند میں ارسال بھی ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال : ٢/٢٦٨]

عبد الرحمن بن ابان کا کسی صحابی سے سماع و لقا ثابت نہیں۔ حافظ ابن حجر رحمہ اللہ  نے تقریب التہذیب میں طبقہ سادسہ میں ذکر کیا ہے۔ اس طبقہ کے رایوں کی کسی صحابی سے ملاقات ممکن نہیں۔“


آپ دونوں حضرات اس اعتراض کے دو جواب ملاحظہ فرمائیں:

جواب نمبر١۔

بطور الزام کے عرض ہے کہ نذیر رحمانی صاحب (غیر مقلد) مقتدا عبدالعزیر بن رفیعؒ کے ایک اثر کو رد کرنے کے لئے تقریب کے حوالے سے لکھتے ہیں کہ یہ چوتھے طبقے کے راوی ہیں اور چوتھا طبقہ وہ ہے جو تابعینؒ کے طبقہ وسطی کے قریب ہے جنکی اکثر روایتیں تابعینؒ سے لی گئی ہیں صحابہؓ سے نہیں۔ [انوار المصابیح: ص 280]

جبکہ عیسی بن جاریہؒ جو آٹھ رکعات تراویح کے راوی ہیں جنہیں تقریب ہی میں چوتھے طبقہ کا راوی قرار دیا گیا ہے۔ لہٰذا غیرمقلدین کس اصول سے آٹھ رکعات تراویح کے اثبات میں عیسی بن جاریہؒ کی روایت لیتے ہیں؟؟؟

فما ھو جوابکم فھو جوابنا

جواب نمبر٢ـ

بےشک ہم کہتے ہیں کہ یہ مرسل ہے۔ اور مرسل کے بارے میں امام شافعیؒ اور ان کے ہم فکر محدثینؒ اور غیر مقلدین علماء کا کہنا ہے کہ اگر مرسل کی تائید میں کوئی دوسری مرسل یا ضعیف مسند روایت آجاۓ تو وہ مرسل سب کے نزدیک حجت ہوگی۔ [دیکھیں: شرح مسلم للنووی: ج۱، ص۳۰ ۔ نزہۃ النظر لابن حجر: ۲۲۰۔ ابکار المنن لعبد الرحمٰن مبارکفوری: ص۲۷۱، ۲۷۲۔ نیل الاوطار للشوکانی: ج۷، ص۹۲۔ نماز جنازہ اور اس کے مسائل از محمد رئیس ندوی: ص۴۶۔ صلاۃ الرسول اور القول المقبول وغیرہ]

تو یہاں اس مرسل کی تائید میں دوسری حدیث موجود ہے لہٰذا خود غیرمقلدین کے اصول کے مطابق یہ روایت قابلِ قبول ہوتی ہے۔

نوٹ: (((بقیہ بن ولیدؒ نے الکامل کی اس روایت میں حدثنا کے ساتھ سماع کی تصریح کردی ہے۔ الکامل لابن عدی ج 1 ص 313)))

کیونکہ سنن الدار قطنی کی روایت میں بقیہؒ نے یزید بن خالد سے عن کے ساتھ روایت کی ہے تو وہاں غیرمقلدین کہتے ہیں کہ یہ روایت بقیہؒ نے عن کے ساتھ کی ہے لہٰذا ضعیف ہے جبکہ بطور الزام کے عرض ہے کہ غیرمقلد عالم نذیر رحمانی صاحب ابن حجرؒ کے حوالے سے لکھتے ہیں کہ عن میں معاصرت کا ثبوت شرط ہے اور ابن الصلاحؒ کے بقول ملاقات کا ثبوت شرط ہے۔ [انوار المصابیح: ص 295]

لہٰذا عرض ہے عیسی بن جاریہؒ نے بھی تو آٹھ رکعات تروایح والی روایت میں حضرت جابرؓ سے عن کے ساتھ روایت کی ہے وہاں ذرا عیسی بن جاریہؒ کی ملاقات حضرت جابرؓ کے ساتھ ثابت کرکے دکھائیں؟؟؟

اعتراض پنجم اور اس کا جواب:

اس حدیث کے بارے میں امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ  فرماتے ہیں: «وَہُوَ مُنْکَرٌ» ”یہ “منکر” روایت ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال: ٢/٢٦٨]

فائدہ: احمد بن الفرج بن سلیمان ابو عتبہ حمصی جمہور کے نزدیک ”حسن الحدیث” ہے۔


اس کا آسان جواب یہ ہے کہ اگر یہ روایت امام ابن عدیؒ کے نزدیک منکر ہے تو اس سے یہ لازم نہیں آتا کہ حقیقت میں بھی یہ روایت منکر ہو… کیونکہ ایک حدیث ایک محدث کے نزدیک صحیح ہوتی ہے جبکہ وہی حدیث دوسرے محدث کے نزدیک ضعیف ہوتی ہے…بات بعض دفعہ اس سے بھی آگے بڑھ جاتی ہے ایک حدیث ایک محدث کے نزدیک صحیح ہوتی ہے وہی حدیث دوسرے کے نزدیک موضوع بناوٹی ہوتی ہے… اس وقت ہم کیا کریں گے تو ایسے وقت میں فقہاءؒ اس حدیث کے بارے میں کیا فرماتے ہیں یہ دیکھنا ضروری بھی بہت ہے کیونکہ وہ حدیث کی مراد اور مطلب کو بہتر جانتے ہیں…اگر فقیہ اس سے استدلال کرتا ہے تو ہم کہیں گے یہ روایت اگرچہ سند کے لحاظ سے ضعیف ہے لیکن مفہوم کے لحاظ سے صحیح ہے… اور کتب احادیث میں ایسی کئی مثالیں مل جاتی ہیں… (مثلاً:
حضرت علیؓ و حضرت عمارؓ سے مروی حدیث میں ہے:
«كَانَ يُكَبِّرُ يَوْمَ عَرَفَةَ صَلاةَ الْغَدَاةِ وَيَقْطَعُهَا صَلاةَ الْعَصْرِ آخِرَ أَيَّامِ التَّشْرِيقِ» [سنن الدارقطنی: ج2، ص390. كِتَابُ الْعِيدَيْنِ ، رقم الحديث 1734. بتحقیق شعیب الارنؤوط]

”(نبیﷺ) یوم عرفہ کی صبح کی نماز کو تکبیر پڑھتے اور ایام تشریق کے آخری دن کے عصر کے نماز پر بند کردیتے۔“

اس کو امام حاکمؒ نے ”المستدرک علی الصحیحین“ میں صحیح الاسناد قرار دیا ہے جبکہ علامہ ذہبیؒ نے ”التلخیص“ میں موضوع کہا ہے۔ [دیکھیں: مستدرک علی الصحیحین مع التلخیص للذہبی: ج1، ص 439۔ کتاب صلاة العيدين، حاشیۂ رقم الحديث 24/1111. دارالکتب العلمیۃ بیروت-لبنان]

لہٰذا اس حسن / مقبول روایت کا انکار کرکے اسے شدید ضعیف باور کرانا یہ آپ جیسے غیرمقلدین کا عوام کو دھوکہ دینا ہے۔

✍ خاکپاۓ اکابرِ اہل السنّۃ والجماعۃ علمائے دیوبند:

حافظ محمود احمد عرف عبدالباری محمود