“Divorce, a divorce with three [issuances], in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar was [counted as] one. Then ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: ‘Verily, the people have hastened in a matter in which they used to have patience, so if only we were to enforce it on them.’ So he enforced it on them.” (Sahih Muslim)

When a man issues three divorces to his wife in one sitting^[1] or with one statement^[2], do they all occur? There are three positions on this question:

First, the position of the four Imams and the vast majority of the scholars from the salaf and the khalaf, and that is that all three occur thereby and the woman becomes mughallazah (permanently irrevocably divorced)^[3] by means of it, so she is not lawful for her previous husband until she marries [and consummates the marriage with] a husband besides him. This was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr, Ibn Mas‘ud and Anas, and it is the opinion of the majority of the people of knowledge from the Tabi‘in and the imams after them, as mentioned in al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (7:104). It was also narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali and ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (Allah be pleased with them) as will come.

Second, that nothing occurs thereby, and this is the position of the Ja‘fari Shi‘ah, as stated by al-Hilli al-Shi‘i in Shara‘i al-Islam (2:57), and al-Nawawi also related it from al-Hajjaj ibn Artah, Ibn Muqatil and Muhammad ibn Ishaq.

Third, the position of some of the literalists and Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim (Allah have mercy on them), which is that only one revocable divorce occurs thereby. Ibn Qudamah related it also from ‘Ata’, Tawus, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Abu al-Sha‘tha’ and ‘Amr ibn Dinar, but it is not authentic from Tawus and ‘Ata’. As for Tawus, because of what al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Karabisi transmitted in Adab al-Qada’: ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd Allah (Ibn al-Madini) reported to us from ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Ma‘mar from Ibn Tawus that he said about Tawus: “Whoever narrates to you from Tawus that he would narrate three divorces as [being] one, he has lied upon him.” And as for ‘Ata’, because of what Ibn Jurayj narrated, he said: I said to ‘Ata’: “Did you hear Ibn ‘Abbas say: ‘Divorcing a virgin thrice is one [divorce]?’ He said: ‘That did not reach me from him.’” ‘Allamah al-Kawthari (Allah have mercy on him) cited these in his treatise al-Ishfaq ‘ala Ahkam al-Talaq (p. 33, Matba‘ah Majallat al-Islam, Egypt)

The literalists adduce the hadith of the chapter as proof, since Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) stated explicitly that three divorces used to be counted as one in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace); and [they adduce] what Ahmad and others narrated from the story of Rukanah ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abd Yazid: from ‘Ikrimah, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, he said: “Rukanah ibn ‘Abd Yazid, the brother of al-Muttalib, divorced his wife thrice in one sitting, and he became extremely grieved over it.” He said: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) asked him: ‘How did you divorce her?’ He said: ‘I divorced her thrice.’” He said: “Then, he said: ‘In one sitting?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Those are [counted as] only one so take her back if you wish.’” He said: “So he took her back.” This is how Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted it in his Fatawa (3:22).

They do not have [any proofs] besides these two hadiths.

The Proofs of the Majority on Three Occurring Together

As for the majority, they have many hadiths that prove the occurrence three divorces, even if a man pronounces them in one sitting, and here are some of them:

1. Al-Bukhari transmitted in Bab man Jawwaz al-Talaq al-Thalath from ‘A’ishah that a man divorced his wife thrice, and she remarried and was divorced, so the Prophet (Allah bless hm and grant him peace) was asked: “Is she permissible for the first [husband]?” He said: “No, until he tastes her honey^[4] just as the first tasted [it].” Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] in al-Fath (9:321) inclined towards [the view] that this incident is different from the incident of the wife of Rifa‘ah [in which three divorces were issued separately]. Hafiz said: “The proof is in the apparent [meaning] of his statement: ‘he divorced her thrice,’ as it is apparent in them having been issued together.”
2. Al-Bukhari also transmitted in that chapter the story of ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani regarding li‘an, where ‘Uwaymir said therein after the mutual imprecation: “I would have lied upon her, O Messenger of Allah, if I keep her,” so he divorced her thrice before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded him. ‘Allamah al-Kawthari said: “And it has not come in a narration from the narrations that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) condemned him for this, so it proves the occurrence of three together, because the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have left the people to understand the occurrence of three with one issuance if this understanding was incorrect, and the entire ummah understood that from it, even Ibn Hazm, since he said: ‘He only divorced her when he assumed that she was his wife, and were three not to occur together, he would have condemned him for that.’” End [quote] from al-Ishfaq ‘ala Ahkam al-Talaq.
3. Al-Bayhaqi transmitted in his al-Sunan al-Kubra (7:336) from Suwayd ibn Ghafalah, he said: ‘A’ishah al-Khath‘amiyyah was with al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him)^[5]; when ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was killed, she said: “May you take joy in the caliphate!” He said: “You are expressing glee over the death of ‘Ali?! Go, for you are divorced,” meaning “thrice.” He said: So she covered [herself] with her garment and she sat [in waiting] until her waiting period ended, and then he dispatched to her the leftover which remained of hers from her dowry, and ten thousand [coins] as charity. When the messenger came to her, she said: “A small commodity from a parting lover.” When her statement reached him, he wept, and then he said: “Were it not that I heard my grandfather,” or, “I heard my father that he heard my grandfather say: ‘Whichever man divorced his wife thrice in the periods,’” or “‘thrice’” ambiguously^[6], “‘she is not permissible for him until she marries a husband besides him,’ I would have taken her back.” Its chain is authentic. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali al-Hafiz said this after he quoted this hadith in his book Bayan Mushkil al-Ahadith al-Waridah fi anna l-Talaq al-Thalath Wahidah, as found in al-Ishfaq (p. 24), and al-Haythami cited it in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, (4:339 – Bab Mut‘at al-Talaq) from al-Tabari and he said: “And there is weakness in its narrators, and they have been declared trustworthy.”
4. That which al-Nasa’i transmitted from Mahmud ibn Labid has passed, about the one who divorced his wife thrice, so the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) became angry at him. Ibn al-‘Arabi mentioned it in opposition to the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas in the chapter, and he said: “It is opposed by the hadith of Mahmud ibn Labid, since there is an explicit mention in it that the man issued divorce thrice together, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not reject it, but he enforced it.” ‘Allamah al-Kawthari said: “Perhaps, he intended the narration of other than al-Nasa’i (because there is nothing in the narration of al-Nasa’i which states clearly that he enforced it), and Abu Bakr al-‘Arabi is a hafiz, extremely vast in narration, or he intended that had he rejected it, it would have been mentioned in the hadith, and his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) anger also proves their occurrence, and this is sufficient [to prove] what he intended.”
5. Al-Tabrani transmitted the story of Ibn ‘Umar’s divorce of his wife while she was menstruating, and he added at its end: “O Messenger of Allah! Had I divorced her thrice, would it be [allowed] for me to take her back?” He said: “Then, she would have separated from you, and it would be a sin.” Al-Haythami said after citing it in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (4:336): “And al-Tabrani narrated it, and in it is ‘Ali ibn Sa‘id al-Razi. Al-Daraqutni said: ‘He is not that [strong], and [others] besides him glorified him, and the rest of its narrators are trustworthy.” The weak slave (may Allah pardon him) says: Al-Dhahabi wrote a biography of ‘Ali ibn Sa‘id al-Razi in Mizan al-I‘tidal (3:131 – Biography: 5850), and he said: “A hafiz, well-travelled, itinerant. Al-Daraqutni said: He is not that [strong], he was isolated in [narrating] things. I say: He heard Jubarahm ibn al-Mughallis and ‘Abd al-A‘la ibn Hammad. Al-Tabrani, al-Hasan ibn Rashiq and a group narrated from him. Ibn Yunus said: ‘He would understand and memorise.’” Hence it is clear that no one spoke ill of him besides al-Daraqutni, and he criticised him using only light words, and al-Dhahabi was not satisfied with them. Isra’il ibn Yunus declared him trustworthy, and al-Dhahabi considered him a Hafiz. Hence, the hadith of the like of him will not be rejected, and it is corroborated by what has preceded from the author [Muslim] (hadith 354) through the route of Nafi‘: He said: “Then, when Ibn ‘Umar was asked about a man that divorced his wife while she was menstruating, he would say: ‘And if you divorced her thrice, you would have disobeyed your Lord in that which He commanded you in terms of [the procedure of] divorcing your wife, and she would become separated from you.” The outward of it [suggests] that he heard that from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).
6. Al-Nasa’i drew proof for the occurrence of three [divorces issued] together from the story of Fatimah bint Qays, in which it is mentioned that he sent to her [a messenger] with three pronunciations of divorce. She said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Maintenance and shelter is only for the woman when the husband has [the right of] revocation over her.” And it has occurred from al-Daraqutni (4:11,12) through the route of Abu Salamah: “Hafs ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Mughirah divorced Fatimah bint Qays with one statement thrice.” [This is] from that which proves that these three were [issued] together. Based on this, al-Nasa’i’s drawing proof from this story is correct. However, that which contradicts this was transmitted by Muslim, since it has come in it: “He divorced her with the last of three divorces” and in some narrations: “He divorced her with a divorce that remained from her divorce.” [This is] from that which proves that the three did not occur together. Hence, the weightier [view] is that it is not correct to use the story of Fatimah bint Qays as proof due to the contradiction in the narrations, or due to the narration of Muslim being stronger than the narration of al-Daraqutni. And Allah knows best.
7. ‘Abd al-Razzaq (2:393) and al-Tabrani – and the wording is his – transmitted from ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (Allah be pleased with him), he said: One of my ancestors divorced his wife a thousand times, so his children proceeded to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and they said: “O Messenger of Allah! Indeed, our father divorced our mother a thousand times. Does he have any way out?” He said: “Verily, your father did not have fear of Allah (Exalted is He) such that He should make for him in his matter a way out! She is separated from him with three [divorces], not on [the way of] Sunnah, and the nine hundred and ninety seven are a sin on his neck.” Al-Haythmi said in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (4:338, Bab fiman Tallaqa Akthara min Thalath): “And in it is ‘Ubayd Allah ibn al-Walid al-Wassafi al-‘Ijli, and he is weak.” I say: Ahmad said of him: “His hadiths are written for knowledge,” as found in al-Mizan (3:17). This is why I mentioned this hadith of his, as support, not as independent [evidence].
8. ‘Abd al-Razzaq transmitted in his Musannaf (6:393 – hadith: 11340) through the route of al-Thawri from Salamah ibn Kuhayl from Zayd ibn Wahb that [the case of] a man who divorced his wife a thousand times was raised to ‘Umar, and he said: “I was only playing.” So ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) overcame him with the whip, and he said: “Only three of those would have been sufficient for you!” Al-Bayhaqi (7:334) transmitted it also through the route of Shu’bah from Salamah ibn Kuhyal, and both routes and their narrators are the narrators of the Group.
9. Al-Bayhaqi (7:334) transmitted through the route of Sa‘id ibn Mansur: Sufyan narrated to us from Shaqiq, he heard Anas ibn Malik say: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) said about the man that divorces his wife thrice before he penetrates her, he said: “They are three. She is not permissible for him until she marries a husband besides him.” And when he was brought to him, he would punish him.
10. ‘Abd al-Razzaq (7:394) transmitted from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad from Sharik ibn Abi Namir, he said: A man came to ‘Ali and he said: “Indeed, I divorced my wife the number of ‘arfaj [plants].” He said: “You take three from the [number of] ‘arfaj [plants] and you leave the rest.” Ibrahim said: Abu l-Huwayrith reported to me from ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan the like of that. Sharik ibn Abi Namr is “truthful, erring,” as found in al-Taqrib, but he is corroborated by what al-Bayhaqi (7:334) transmitted from two routes from ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) about the one who divorced his wife thrice before he penetrates her, he said: “She is not permissible for him until she marries a husband besides him.”
11. Malik transmitted in his Muwatta’ (Talaq al-Bikr, p. 207) from ‘Ata’ ibn Yasar, he said: A man came asking ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As about a man that divorced his wife thrice before he touches her. ‘Ata’ said: I said: “The divorce of a virgin is only one.^[7]” ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr said: “You are only a storyteller! One [divorce] separates her, and three makes her forbidden until she marries a husband besides him.”
12. ‘Abd al-Razzaq (hadith 11343) transmitted from Ma‘mar from al-A‘mash from Ibrahim from ‘Alqamah, he said: A man came to Ibn Mas‘ud and he said: “I divorced my wife ninety nine times, and I asked [the people of knowledge] and it was said to me: ‘She is separated from me.’” Ibn Mas‘ud said: “Indeed they love to separate you from her.” He said: “So what do you say, Allah have mercy on you?” He thought he will find a dispensation for him. Thereupon, he said: “Three separates her from you, and the rest is transgression.”
13. ‘Abd al-Razzaq (11344) transmitted from Ma‘mar from al-Zuhri from Salim from Ibn ‘Umar, he said: “Whoever divorces his wife thrice, she is divorced, and he has disobeyed his Lord.” And al-Bayhaqi transmitted through the route of ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar, he said: “When a man divorces his wife thrice before he penetrates her, she is not permissible for him until she marries a husband besides him.”
14. Malik transmitted in al-Muwatta’ (Bab Talaq al-Bikr, p. 208) from Mu‘awiyah ibn Abi ‘Ayyash al-Ansari that he was sitting with ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar. He said: Muhammad ibn Iyas ibn al-Bukayr came to them, and he said: “A man from the people of the desert divorced his wife thrice before he penetrated her so what do you two opine?” ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr said: “No statement has reached us on this matter, so go to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurayrah, for indeed I left them with ‘A’ishah, so ask them and then come to us and inform us.” He went and asked them, so Ibn ‘Abbas said to Abu Hurayrah: “Answer him, O Abu Hurayrah! For indeed a complicated [matter] has come to you.” Abu Hurayrah said: “One separates her, and three makes her impermissible until she marries a husband besides him.” Ibn ‘Abbas said the like of this.

This hadith instructs us that these five Sahabah (‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘A’ishah) were in agreement on the occurrence of three divorces with one statement. As for the position of Abu Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Abbas, [it is] manifest. As for ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar, then because they found this matter difficult in the non-consummated [marriage], so if the number three was meaningless in the consummated [marriage], they would not have found that [question] difficult and would have answered that the [divorces] do not occur in the non-consummated [marriage] by way of greater priority; and they only found the matter difficult because it was about the non-consummated [marriage]. As for ‘A’ishah (Allah be pleased with her), then because the apparent context of the story is that she was present when Abu Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Abbas answered with this [answer].

Thus, these jurists of the Sahabah, the likes of ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Ibn Mas ‘ud, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr, ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn al-Zubayr, ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar and ‘A’ishah are all agreed on the occurrence of three even if a man pronounces them in one sitting. And they are sufficient as proof and support.

Reply to Opposing Evidences

As for the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) in the chapter, the majority answered it using various replies, detailed by Hafiz in Fath (9:316-9), and the best of them according to me are two answers:

First, that this hadith was transmitted with respect to a particular scenario, which is that the man repeats the word “divorce” with the intention of emphasis not initiation, as he says: “You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced.” Initially, due to the soundness of their hearts, it was accepted from them that they intended emphasis. Then, when [the number of] people increased in the time of ‘Umar and deception and its like, of that which prevents acceptance of the one who claims emphasis, became common amongst them, ‘Umar interpreted the word according to the outward [meaning] of repetition, and he enforced it on them in judicial decree. This answer was approved by al-Qurtubi and he strengthened it with the statement of ‘Umar: “Verily, the people have hastened in a matter in which they used to have patience.” Likewise, al-Nawawi said: “This is the most authentic of answers.”

Second, that his statement, “three,” is interpreted, so that the intent of it is the word “albattah” (absolutely), as will come in the hadith of Rukanah, which is also from the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas. And this is a strong [possibility], and is supported by al-Bukhari’s inclusion in this chapter narrations in which is found “albattah” and hadiths in which there is a clear pronouncement of “three,” as though he is indicating that there is no difference between them, and that when “albattah” was used unqualifiedly, it is understood as three, unless the divorcer intends one, in which case it will be accepted [as one]. Hence, it as though some of the narrators of the hadith understood the word “albattah” as three due to the widespread understanding of the equality between them, so they narrated it with the word “three” although the intent was the word “albattah.” And [the meaning of the hadith is that] in the first period, they would accept [it as one divorce] from the one who said I intended one [divorce] in [saying] “albattah”, and then when it was the time of ‘Umar, he enforced all three in the outward judicial ruling. This is from Fath al-Bari.

The weak slave (Allah pardon him) says:

That the Sahabah reached consensus in the time of ‘Umar on the validity of what ‘Umar decreed, and none of them condemned that, supports this; and if his decree was an innovated decree – and refuge is from Allah – or was against the decree of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), not even one of the Sahabah would be satisfied with that, let alone all of them; such that Ibn ‘Abbas himself – and he is the one who narrates the hadith of the chapter and the hadith of Rukanah, both of them – would issue fatwa on the binding-ness of three as you just came to know. Abu Dawud transmitted with a chain authenticated by Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] in Fath al-Bari through the route of Mujahid, he said: I was with Ibn ‘Abbas, and a man came to him and said that he divorced his wife thrice, so he was silent until I thought that he would return her to him. Then he said: “One of you proceeds and commits a foolish deed, and then says: ‘O Ibn Abbas! O Ibn Abbas!’ Verily Allah said: ‘Whoever fears Allah, He brings forth a way out for him” (65:2), and indeed you did have fear of Allah, so I find no way out for you. You disobeyed your Lord and your wife is irrevocably separated from you.”

Thus it is inconceivable from Ibn ‘Abbas that he had in his possession a ruling from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and then he issued a fatwa in opposition to it, except for a reason that became manifest to him. And the narrator of a report is more learned than [those] besides him of what he narrated.

As for the hadith of Rukanah which Ibn Taymiyyah and others adduced as proof, it is what Ahmad and Abu Ya‘la transmitted, and authenticated, from Ibn ‘Abbas, he said: Rukanah ibn ‘Abd Yazid divorced his wife thrice in one sitting, so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “That is only one, so take her back if you wish,” whereupon he took her back.

The answer to this is that the reports on the story of Rukanah’s divorce are conflicting. Thus, it is narrated from him that he divorced his wife thrice as in the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas, according to Ahmad; and it is narrated from him that he divorced his wife with the word “albattah” as in the hadith of Rukanah himself according to Abu Dawud. This is why al-Bukhari found it defective due to the inconsistency, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr declared it weak in al-Tamhid as mentioned in al-Talkhis by Hafiz (3:213). The narration of Ibn ‘Abbas according to Ahmad was regarded as objectionable by al-Jassas and Ibn al-Humam due to its opposition to the narration of firm trustworthy narrators who narrated it with the word “albattah,” and Hafiz Ibn Hajar regarded it as defective in al-Talkhis al-Habir.

Abu Dawud (Allah have mercy on him) gave preference in his Sunan to [the interpretation] that Rukanah only divorced his wife with “albattah” due to what he transmitted through the route of the family of Rukanah, and the household is more aware of the story than others. Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] said in Fath al-Bari (9:316): “And this is a strong explanation as it is possible some of its narrators interpreted ‘albattah’ as three, so they said: ‘He divorced her three times.’ Drawing evidence from the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas is impeded due to this point.”

The weak slave (may Allah pardon him) says:

The upshot is that Rukanah (Allah be pleased with him) only divorced his wife with his statement: “You are divorced albattah,” and he did not intend by that but one divorce, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) considered him truthful and he allowed him to marry her again, and this is the intent of “he took her back” in the hadith. Some of the narrators thought that the intent of “albattah” is three divorces, so they narrated the hadith with the word “three.”

If it is conceded that the reality is the reverse of what we said, and that Rukanah issued three divorces to his wife, and then some of them narrated it with the word “albattah,” then the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not regard it as one divorce except after he made him swear an oath that he did not intend by that except one divorce; due to what Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and al-Darimi transmitted, in which it is [mentioned]: “He informed the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) of that and he said: ‘By Allah, I did not intend but one.’ So the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘By Allah, You did not intend but one?’ Rukanah said: ‘By Allah, I did not intend except one.’ So the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) returned her to him.”

Consider how the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) made him take an oath twice that he did not intend but one [divorce]. And we have mentioned earlier that the claim of the intention of emphasis was taken into consideration in judicial decrees in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) because that era was free of lying and deception. Were three divorces counted as one always, as Ibn Taymiyyah and those who agree him believe, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have made him take an oath that he intended one, because in that case there is no need for intention and no benefit in making him swear an oath, because Ibn Taymiyyah and those who agree with him do not make intention a condition in this, but they regard three as one even if the divorcer intended three. Thus, the most that the hadith of Rukanah (Allah be pleased with him) proves is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding him as truthful with respect to the intention of emphasis in judicial decree, which is accepted according to us, and there is nothing in it that proves that three is one even if a man pronounces them with the intention of initiating [new divorces]. Hence, adducing it as proof is totally invalid.

Then al-Qurtubi said: “And the proof of the majority for the binding-ness [of all three] from the perspective of reason is completely manifest. That is, the one divorced thrice is not permissible for the issuer of divorce until she marries a husband besides him, and there is no difference between them [i.e. the divorces] being together or separate, linguistically or in the Shari‘ah. And that which is conceived of, in terms of a difference [between them], is [only] in appearance. The Shari‘ah discards [this apparent difference], by agreement, in marriage, emancipating slaves and acknowledgements [of debt]. Hence, if a guardian was to say: ‘I wed you to these three [women],’ using one statement, it would be effected, just as if he were to say: ‘I wed you to this, this and this [woman].’ [The ruling] in emancipating and acknowledgement and other than them of laws is like this. Those who opine that when three occur together they are regarded as one argue that the one who says, ‘I swear by Allah thrice,’ his oath is not counted but as one oath, so the divorce ought to be the same as that. This is refuted by the difference between the two issues, as the divorcer initiates divorce of his wife and the maximum and the limit of her divorce has been stipulated as three, so when he says, ‘You are divorced thrice,’ it is as though he said, ‘You are divorced with all divorces.’ As for the one taking an oath, there is no limit to the number of his oaths. Hence, they [i.e. divorcing and taking an oath] are different.” This is from Fath al-Bari.

Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] said: “And in sum, that which has occurred in this matter is exactly equivalent to what occurred in the matter of temporary marriage (mut‘ah). I mean the statement of Jabir that it used to be practised in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abu Bakr and at the start of the caliphate of ‘Umar. He said: ‘Then ‘Umar forbade us, so we refrained.’ Thus, the weightier [view] in both places is the prohibition of temporary marriage and the occurrence of three [divorces issued in one sitting], due to the consensus that occurred in the time of ‘Umar on that, and it has not been recorded that any, in the time of ‘Umar, opposed him in either of them. Their consensus proves the presence of an abrogating [text] – even if it was hidden to some of them before that – until it became manifest to them all in the time of ‘Umar. Thus, the opponent after this consensus is in violation of it [i.e. consensus], and the majority are upon [the view of] not taking into consideration one who introduces a disagreement after an [earlier] consensus. And Allah knows best.”

Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, 1:162-71

1. That is, by saying: “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.”
2. That is, by saying: “I divorce you thrice.”
3. There are two types of divorce in the Shari‘ah: a revocable divorce and an irrevocable divorce. The first is the standard form of divorce. In a revocable divorce, the woman remains the man’s wife during the waiting period, and he may take her back in that period. If he does not take her back during the waiting period, they will have separated and the marriage is no longer intact, although the man and woman retain the option to renew the marriage contract. In an irrevocable divorce, the man and woman are immediately separated; nonetheless, just as is the case with the period following the waiting period of a revocable divorce, the man and the woman have the option to renew the marriage. This process may continue up to a maximum of three divorces, whether revocable or irrevocable. Once three divorces have been issued, the woman becomes permanently irrevocably divorced (mughallazah), which means the man and woman may not remarry unless the woman marries another man and consummates the marriage with him. This is the ruling with respect to a marriage that has been consummated. In an unconsummated marriage, there is no revocable divorce: there is an immediate separation with any type of divorce. However, as with a consummated marriage, the man and woman may renew the marriage, and just as in a consummated marriage, this may continue to a maximum of three divorces. (Translator)
4. An allusion to sexual intercourse
5. Meaning, she was married to him
6. That is, without qualifying it with “in the periods”
7. Before consummation, if the husband issues one divorce the wife becomes separated from the husband, and as the marriage is no longer intact, any further divorce issued will be futile. However, if three divorces are issued at once, as in he says, “You are divorced thrice,” all three will take effect, and she will become mughallazah. If, on the other hand, three divorces are issued together but separately, as in he says, “You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced,” she is separated from him after the first issuance of divorce, so he does not have the authority to issue the remaining two divorces. This is why unlike a consummated marriage, the latter sentence will result in only one divorce.

The Purpose of Man’s Creation

Know that Allah (Exalted is He) created man for His worship.

Thus, Allah (Exalted is He) states in the Noble Qur’an:

“I have not created jinn and humankind but to worship Me.” (Qur’an 51:56)

Meaning, I created jinn and man only for one purpose, which is My worship. The original purpose of man’s life and the original purpose of his coming into this world and residing in the world is that he worships Allah (Magnificent is His Glory).^[1]

Are not Angels Sufficient for Worship?

If this question arises in one’s mind, that Allah (Exalted is He) had already created Angels previously for this purpose, so what need is there now to create another creation, meaning mankind? The answer to this is that although Angels were created for the purpose of worship, they were created in such a fashion that by their nature they were compelled to worship, because only the substance of worship was placed in their innate natures. Besides worship, the substance of sin, disobedience and rebellion were not placed in them. However, humankind were created in such a fashion that the substance of disobedience was also placed within them, the substance of sin was also placed within them, and thereafter, they were given the command to worship. This is why it is easy for Angels to worship. But within people there are desires, emotions, temptations, and needs, and incitements to sin, and after this they were given the command to save themselves from those inclinations to sin and to control those urges and suppress those desires and worship Allah (Exalted is He).

Two Types of Worship (‘ibadah)

Here, another matter ought to be understood, because of not understanding which, people are often led astray. That is, from one perspective it can be said that every act of a believer is worship. Meaning, if the intention of the believer is correct, and his methods are correct, and he passes his life in accordance with the Sunnah, then his eating will also be worship, his sleep will also be worship, his to-ing and fro-ing will also be worship, his work will also be worship, his playfulness with his wife and children will also be worship. Now, the question arises that in the same way that all these acts are worship for a believer, Salah is equally worship, so what then is the distinction between these two types of worship? The difference between these two [types of worship] should be understood well, and because of not understanding this difference, some people have been led astray.

The First Type: Intrinsic Worship

The difference between these two types of worship is that one category of actions are those that are intrinsically worship, and have no other purpose besides servitude to Allah (Exalted is He), and those actions were only instituted for servitude to Allah (Exalted is He), like Salah. The purpose of Salah is only servitude to Allah (Exalted is He), that the slave by means of it worships Allah (Exalted is He) and bows his head before Allah (Exalted is He). This Salah has no other purpose or objective. This is why Salah is original and intrinsic worship. The same is the case with fasting, zakat, dhikr, recitation [of the Qur’an], supplication (du‘a), Hajj, and ‘umrah. All these actions are such that they were all instituted only for the purpose of worship, and they have no other objective or purpose. These are categorised as “intrinsic worship.”

The Second Type: Extrinsic Worship

In contrast to them are some activities which originally have another purpose like fulfilling worldly needs and desires. But Allah (Exalted is He), by His grace, said to the believer that if you fulfil your worldly activities with a good intention, within My prescribed limits, and in accordance with the Sunnah of My Noble Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), then I will give you such reward for those acts that I give to the first category [of worship]. This is why these are not intrinsic worship, but are extrinsic worship. This is the second category of worship.^[2]

Halal Earning is Extrinsic Worship

For example, if in order to fulfil the rights of one’s wife and children, while staying within the limited boundaries [of the Shari‘ah], you earn a living, and you earn it with the intention that my wife’s rights are from my responsibilities, and my children’s rights are from my responsibilities, and my body’s rights are from my responsibilities, and in order to fulfil these rights, I am earning a living, then this earning will also become worship of Allah (Exalted is He). However, earning a living was not originally instituted for worship, which is why it is not intrinsic worship, but extrinsic.

Intrinsic Worship is Superior

By this explanation is understood that those types of worship that are intrinsic worship are manifestly superior to that worship which is extrinsically worship, and it has a higher rank. This is why, that which Allah (Exalted is He) said, that I only created jinn and humankind for My worship, its intent is worship of the first category, which is intrinsic worship. The second category of worship, that is extrinsic worship, is not intended.

The Incident of a Doctor

Some days ago, a woman asked me about her husband who is a doctor.

[She said:] He keeps his clinic open and sees his patients, and when the time of Salah comes, he does not offer Salah at its time, and when he closes the clinic at night and returns home, he prays three Salahs at one time; so I asked him, why do you read all your Salahs at one time once you have come home, and why do you not pray there in the clinic so you do not have to make them up? In response, the husband said that the treatment I give to patients is work in service of creation, and service of creation is a great act of worship, and it relates to the rights of slaves, which is why I give it preference, and since offering Salah is my personal affair, this is why I pray them all at once when I reach home.

The woman asked me: What answer can I give to this reasoning of my husband?

Salah is not Forgiven in any Circumstance

In reality, her husband had a faulty understanding here because of not appreciating the difference in the grades that exist between the two types of worship. This difference is that the worship of Salah is intrinsic, regarding which Allah (Exalted is He) stated that even if you are in the battlefield, and the enemy is facing you, even then you must pray. Although some ease has been created in the method of Salah in such a circumstance, yet the obligation of Salah at this time is not waived. Thus, Allah (Exalted is He) has decreed the following verdict with respect to Salah : “Surely, Salah is an obligation on the believers at fixed times.” (4:103)

Now, ponder: Which act is greater than jihad? Yet this command has been issued, that even [while engaging] in jihad, Salah must be offered at its [set] time.

Service of Creation is Worship of the Second Category

Such that even if a person was to have fallen ill, and was so ill that he is unable to perform any action, even in this situation, his ruling is that he must not leave Salah, and he must offer Salah, but some allowance has been given, that if you are unable to pray standing you can pray sitting, and if you are unable to pray sitting you can pray lying down while gesturing; if you are unable to perform wudu, do tayammum, but you must certainly pray.

Salah has not been forgiven in any circumstance because Salah is intrinsic worship that is desired in itself, and is worship of the first rank. The treatment the doctor offers his patients is service of creation which is also a great act of worship, but is from the second rank of worship, not intrinsic worship. This is why if there is any disparity or opposition between these two types of worship, then in such a situation, that worship which is intrinsic worship will be given priority. Because the doctor did not recognise this distinction between the two types of worship, he was, as a consequence, afflicted by this error.

In Comparison to other Needs Salah is more Important

Ponder! When you are sitting in the clinic to serve creation, at this time you have to get up for other needs, like if there is a need to go to the lavatory or to take a bath, in such a circumstance you will eventually leave the patients and go [to fulfil these needs]. Similarly, if in this time, hunger is felt, and the time for eating comes, will you take a break for eating or not? Since you can pause for those acts, then if the time of Salah comes, what trouble is there if at that time you pause for Salah? And what barrier to the service of creation will be created? While in comparison to other needs, Salah is more important.

In reality, because of not understanding the difference between the two types of worship, this misunderstanding was created.  Although in terms of the second category of worship, a believer can make all his acts worship, as if a believer were to work with a good intention and in accordance with the Sunnah, his entire life would be worship, but this is worship of the second rank. Worship of the first rank, Salah, fasting, Hajj, zakat, dhikr of Allah etc. are intrinsic worship of Allah, and in actual fact, mankind was created for this worship.

Mankind is being Tested

Mankind was created for such worship in order to see that if the human being, in whom I [i.e. Allah] have placed various types of desires and urges, I have placed in him inclinations and attractions towards sins, despite all of this, will this human being come towards Me and remember Me, or will he go in the direction of the invitations to sin and will those urges overcome him? It was for this purpose that mankind was created.

Ramzan Kis Tarah Guzaren, pp. 9-16

1. ‘Allamah Shabbir Ahmad al-‘Uthmani wrote in his commentary of Sahih Muslim:

   “Indeed the single purpose of the creation of existence with all its constituent parts is worship alone. All that is besides this is only incorporated within its foundations, preliminaries, supplements and consequences. For indeed Allah (Exalted is He) only created the heavens and earth and all that is between them for mankind, and He did not create them but for worship. Thus, the material world was only created for us, and we were created for the next world and worship.

   “As for the first [statement], many [scriptural] texts announce it. He (Great and Glorious is He) said: ‘He created for you all that the earth contains; then He turned to the heavens and made them seven skies’ (2:29); and He said: ‘Allah has subjugated for you what is in the heavens and what is on the earth’ (31:20); and [other verses] besides these from uncountable and innumerable clear statements.

   “As for the second [statement], the clear text, ‘I have not created jinn and humankind but to worship Me’ (51:56) articulates it.

   “And indeed Allah combined both meanings in one verse where He said: ‘O people! Worship your Lord who created you and those before you, so that you may become vigilant [of Allah and His commands]. He is the One who made the earth a bed for you, and the sky a roof, and sent down water from the sky, then brought forth with it fruits, as a provision for you. So, do not set up parallels to Allah when you know.’ (2:21-22)

   “And the verifiers of this subject – as the likes of the teacher of our teacher [Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi] (his secret be sanctified) – strengthened it with proofs and arguments, and produced detailed explanations, so that argumentation and dispute will not reach to it.” (Fath al-Mulhim, 1:454)

2. Worship (‘ibadah) literally refers to the first category or “intrinsic worship,” while it is used for the second category or “extrinsic worship” only metaphorically. Mawlana Zakariyya Kandehlewi explains this in his polemic against Sayyid Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi as follows:

   “Even the most substandard student of hadith will certainly be aware of the distinction, that ‘ibadat (rituals/worship) and mu‘amalat (worldly dealings) are two separate things. The books of hadith and fiqh from beginning to end, in their entirety, are full [of indications] that worship and worldly dealings are two separate entities. It is another matter that if in worldly dealings the boundaries of Allah are observed and the pleasure of Allah is kept in view they will bring reward just like worship. And certainly [such reward] will be acquired. And because of this reward, in some texts they are called ‘worship’ as a metaphor. Merely because reward will be attained by means of them, will they now be included within the [primary] meaning of worship, or is it just as the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘One who prepares a fighter in the path of Allah, he has fought, and one who takes responsibility for a fighter over his family, he has fought.’ (Bukhari, Muslim)? Will even one with the least acquaintance with hadith understand from this hadith that assisting a mujahid or taking responsibility for his family is literally jihad?

   …

   “’Allamah Munawi wrote: ‘Worship (‘ibadah) is the utmost extent of submission, and it is used in the Shari‘ah for that which has been designated as a symbol of the peak of submission, like Salah and fasting.’

   …

   “I will now turn your attention to a few hadiths by way of example [to show that this is what is intended by ‘worship’]. It was narrated from ‘Ata’ (Allah have mercy on him): I said to ‘A’ishah: ‘Inform me of the most amazing thing that you saw from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).’ She said: ‘All of his affairs were amazing. He came to me at night, and he entered with me under my blanket, and then he said: “Leave me, so I can worship (ata‘abbadu) my Lord,” and then he got up, performed wudu and he stood and offered Salah .’ (Ibn Hibban)…The two shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim] transmitted from Anas that he said: ‘Three people came to the houses of the wives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) inquiring about the worship (‘ibadah) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and when they were informed [of his Salah and fasting] it was as though they deemed it less.’ What practices did these noble Sahabah regard as worship? And did not the pure wives understand the correct meaning of worship, since in response to this question they described only the ritual practices of worship?” (Fitnah e Mawdudiyyat, 35 – 39)

Question:

Today I happened to see a piece in Akhbar al-Jumu‘ah by Sayyid Sulayman Sahib Nadwi, in which the aforementioned Sayyid Sahib wrote [in response to the report] of the destruction of some birth places and shrines under the oppressive hand of the Najdis, which was publicised in some newspapers: firstly, this has not reached the level of certainty; secondly, the shrines and birth places mentioned are not the original [structures], but are the constructions of the caliphs of the Banu Umayyah and the Abbasids, and there is no difficulty in destroying them; thirdly, there are innovated traditions that occur at those shrines which must be blocked; fourthly, those graves appear similar to mosques.

If this explanation is correct, is not the blessed dome of the leader of existents (Allah bless him and grant him peace) included in this category, and if it is included [in it], is such conduct also permissible with it?

Inform [us] of the correct reply.

Answer:

Making an analogy of the master of graves, meaning the grave of the master of the inhabitants of graves – Allah bless him and grant him peace as long as the eastern and western winds alternate –, with other graves, is an invalid analogy. It is clearly stated in hadiths that his burial is commanded in the place of death^[1], and [his] place of death was a house that comprised of walls and a roof. It is inferred from this that there is permission for the construction of walls and a roof over his grave. The prohibition which has been transmitted on building over graves^[2] is when the structure is for the grave, and here this is not so.

What remains is [the question of] its persistence and conservation. Since after the burial, none of the rightly-guided caliphs condemned the persistence of this structure, rather, on one occasion when there was an extreme need to seek rain only a hole was made in the roof^[3], the legality of the persistence of this building is inferred. It is obvious that the persistence of these things without giving special attention to [their] conservation is not normally possible. Hence, the requirement of giving special attention to its conservation has also been established. And since strengthening the building is more effective for [the purpose of its] conservation, this being an objective [of the Shari‘ah] is also established.

[This is] especially [the case] since there are also other interests of the Shari‘ah in this:

For example, keeping the pure body of the holy Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) safe from the enemies of religion, as their authority [over it] – we seeking protection in Allah from it – will certainly be a cause for disrespecting [it], and respecting the blessed body being an objective [of the Shari‘ah] is from the most manifest of self-evident truths. And the scholars of the secrets [of the Shari‘ah] based the absence of a clear martyrdom for him on this wisdom^[4].

And for example, to keep his fragrant grave hidden from [his] lovers, as there is a possibility that in seeing it they may be overcome by love, leading to transgressing the bounds of Shari‘ah; just as in the illness of death, after some time, seeing the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) illumined face, the system of prayer was almost overturned^[5], the image of which was captured in this couplet by Hazrat Shaykh Dihlawi (Allah have mercy on him):

When in prayer the remembrance of the curve of your eyebrow comes,
The situation is reached that the prayer niche begins to cry out

And since these two matters cannot be preserved without giving special attention to the maintenance of the structure and [its] reinforcement, this attention [to the preservation of the structure] also became an objective because it is a prelude to objectives [of the Shari‘ah].

Furthermore, the illuminated grave is located in such a place that behind it is a portion of the mosque. Therefore, without a barrier, prostration would occur towards the grave. Hence, this structure also fulfils the function of a barrier.

Thus, it is established that just like “which of you is like me?”^[6] the decree, “the grave of which of you is like my grave?” has been given. And Allah knows best.

Subtle Point:

After writing this, taking Mathnawi Ma‘nawi, I prayed, “My lord, if what was written is correct, then bring out some meaning from the Mathnawi that supports its being correct,” and saying “bismillah,” I opened it, and these verses appeared at the start of the page, which very clearly support [my answer]:

You did not make this [intercession], for assuredly I made it,
O you whose qualities are buried in My qualities.
In this, you are the one employed to do the work, not the doer,
Inasmuch as you are borne by Me and are not the bearer.
You have become [the embodiment of] ‘You did not throw when you threw’ (Qur’an 8:17):
Like the foam, you have abandoned yourself in the wave.
You have become ‘no’; make your home beside ‘except.’ ^[7]
How strange, that you are both a prisoner and a prince.^[8]

Note: I believe it is possible to base this answer on knowledge [of the Shari‘ah]^[9]. Some believe it is based only on love.

1344 H, 20 Safar (September, 1925)

Eliminating Doubts about the Graves of the two Shaykhs

On this answer another question came from a different place, which is quoted with its answer in the following:

Question:

This doubt now remains that why are the graves of the two revered shaykhs not included in this [ruling on the prohibition of building structures over graves]? No answer to this comes to [my] mind besides this: that the dream Hazrat ‘A’ishah al-Siddiqah saw that three suns or three moons descended into her chamber (at this moment I cannot remember accurately whether it was suns or moons)^[10], and at the time of the death [of the Prophet (peace be upon him)], Hazrat Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (Allah, exalted is He, be pleased with him) said that one moon is the revered leader of existents (Allah bless him and grant him peace)^[11], and other tidings besides this, may be the reason why the two revered shaykhs were buried here. The upshot of this is that the two revered shaykhs were buried there secondarily, and the renovations of Hazrat ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (Allah have mercy on him), was in reality for the revered leader of existents, not primarily for the two revered shaykhs. Besides this, no other answer comes to [my] mind.

Answer:

The whole answer is correct and in agreement with the principles [of Shari‘ah]. It is [also] supported by other narrations. They are these:

1. [It is narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) came out one day and entered the mosque with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, one to his right and the other to his left, while holding their hands. Thereupon, he said: “This is how we will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection.” Al-Tirmidhi narrated it and he said: “This is an uncommon hadith.”
2. [It is narrated] from Ibn ‘Abbas, he said: “I was indeed standing amongst a group, and they were supplicating to Allah for ‘Umar, when he had been put on his bier, and suddenly a man from behind me had placed his elbow on my shoulder, saying: ‘Allah have mercy on you! Verily, I used to wish that Allah will place you amongst your two companions, because frequently I would hear the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: ‘I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were,’ ‘I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did,’ ‘I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar entered,’ ‘I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar exited.’’ I turned and, behold, it was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.” [This is] agreed upon [by Bukhari and Muslim] in the chapters on the virtues of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
3. And in Mishkat al-Masabih, Bab Nuzul ‘Isa ibn Maryam, [it is narrated] from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “‘Isa ibn Maryam will descend on the earth, marry and father [children], and he will remain for forty-five years, and then he will die and be buried with me in my grave, so I and ‘Isa ibn Maryam will stand in one grave in between Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” Ibn al-Jawzi narrated it in Kitab al-Wafa’.
4. And al-Tirmidhi narrated at the end of Abwab al-Manaqib from Abu Mawdud al-Madani: ‘Uthman ibn Dahhak narrated to us from Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam from his father from his grandfather, he said: “The description of Muhammad is written in the Torah, and ‘Isa ibn Maryam will be buried with him.” He said: Then Abu Mawdud said: “In the house, there yet remains the place of one grave.” This is a hasan and uncommon hadith.
5. And in Khulasat al-Wafa’ by al-Samhudi at the end of the tenth chapter on the aforementioned hadith, [it is written]: Al-Tabrani’s wording in one narration is: “‘Isa ibn Maryam (upon him peace) will be buried with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them). Thus, it will be a fourth grave.” ‘Uthman ibn Dahhak is in it. He was declared trustworthy by Ibn Hibban and declared weak by Abu Dawud.

The first narration is almost explicit that the three revered personalities will be buried in one place, and the report of the lawgiver is indisputably proof of permission. The interpretation that after the resurrection they will again be reunited is far-fetched due to the words: “this is how we will be resurrected.” This is an indication of the process of the resurrection itself [and not what will happen after the resurrection].

This meaning is extracted subtly from the second narration, which is an [authoritative] proof because it is supported by [other] texts.

The third narration is clear just like the first narration. In fact, it is clearer than that. The possibility of the metaphorical meaning in the phrase, “I will stand,” is even more far-fetched, and is unnecessarily [adopting something] that has not been transmitted.

The fourth and fifth narrations together inform [us] that the burial of the two revered shaykhs in the house is mentioned in the Torah too. Hence, this is also established in the scriptures of those who came before us.

And the most important matter is that this happened in the time of the Sahabah, and no one issued any condemnation. Hence, a consensus was achieved on its permission. Now, whatever is the force of this consensus, for us, the consensus is sufficient as an [authoritative] proof of exception.

27 Rabi‘ al-Awwal, 1344 H (October, 1925)

Bawadir al-Nawadir, Lahore: Idarah Islamiyyat, pp. 350 – 2

1. The hadith, “No prophet is buried except in the place he died,” was narrated from Abu Bakr (both as a marfu‘ hadith and a mawquf narration) with various wordings by Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘A’ishah, Salim ibn ‘Ubayd al-Ashja‘i and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Jurayj. It is authentic on account of its multiple routes which each strengthen the other, as stated by the editors of Musnad Ahmad. (see: Musnad Ahmad, Mu’assasat al-Risalah ed. 1:207) The hadith has been transmitted in Ibn Majah’s Sunan, al-Tirmidhi’s Jami‘ and al-Shama’il, Malik’s Muwatta’, Ahmad’s Musnad, ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s Musannaf, and other hadith collections. (Translator)
2. Muslim narrates in his Sahih from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade building over graves (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab al-Nahy ‘an Tajsis al-Qubur wa l-Bina’ ‘alayha). He (peace and blessings be upon) also gave instructions to level raised graves, which is also reported in Sahih Muslim (Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab al-Amr bi Taswiyat al-Qabr) on the authority of the companions, Fadalah ibn ‘Ubayd and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with them). (Translator)
3. Al-Darimi narrates in his Musnad from Abu l-Jawza’ that there was a severe drought in Madinah, so the people of Madinah complained to ‘A’ishah (Allah be pleased with her), who told them, “Look to the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and make an opening from it to the sky so that there is no barrier between it and the sky,” and when they did this, rain fell. (Musnad al-Darimi, Husayn Salim Asad al-Darani ed. 1:227) The editor comments: “Its narrators are trustworthy.” (Translator)
4. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) attained the rank of martyrdom, but not clearly or manifestly. His final illness was a result of the effects of partaking from poisoned food given to him by a Jewish woman at Khaybar. Here Mawlana Thanawi states that the ‘ulama’ on the science of “the secrets of the Shari‘ah” explained that the reason why he did not experience a clear and manifest martyrdom is that this would violate the sanctity of his body. (Translator)
5. As reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and other collections of hadith. (Translator)
6. These words, reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, were said by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in response to the question of why he performed uninterrupted fasts (wisal) although others from his nation were forbidden from it. (Translator)
7. A reference to the declaration of faith, “There is no god except Allah.” (Translator)
8. Amended from Reynold Nicholson’s translation of the Mathnawi (Book IV, stanza 2945) Perhaps this passage correlates with the answer given by Hakim al-Ummah as it refers to the hand of Allah over everything that emanated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and seeing as his death, place of burial, and the later structures built around it, all seemed to happen organically, there is an indication that this too happened by the will and choice of Allah and not by a manmade plan. Making his home besides “except,” meaning “except Allah,” may also support the answer by alluding to his final resting place being within the confines of one of the houses of Allah. (Translator)
9. It is disliked to be buried in houses due to its particularity with the Prophets (upon them blessings). Al-Kamal said: “Neither a minor, nor an adult, is to be buried in the house in which he died, because that is specific to the prophets (upon them blessings and peace). Rather, he is to be buried in the burial places of the Muslims.” (Maraqi al-Falah)
10. The narration mentions “three moons,” not suns. (Translator)
11. This dream of ‘A’ishah and the interpretation of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with them) can be found in Malik’s Muwatta’ (Awjaz al-Masalik, Dar al-Qalam ed. 4:510-2) (Translator)

He was born on the 8^th of Dhu l-Hijjah in the year 1196 H – and it was said 1197 H – in Delhi, and he grew up in the cradle of his aforementioned maternal grandfather. He read Sarf and Nahw up to al-Kafiyah by Ibn al-Hajib under Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy ibn Hibat Allah al-Burhanawi, and he took fiqh from him. He took hadith and then acquired a sanad from the aforementioned Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, and he was like a son to him. The aforementioned shaykh appointed him his successor and bequeathed to him all that he had of books and lands. Thus, he sat after him in his seat and instructed the people with the best of instruction. He travelled to the two noble Harams in the year 1240 H, and performed Hajj and Ziyarah. He acquired sanad in hadith from Shaykh ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ibn ‘Abd al-Rasul al-Makki (d. 1247 H). Then he returned to India and he taught in the city of Delhi for sixteen months, and then he migrated to the illuminated [city of] Makkah with his brother Ya‘qub and all his family in the year 1258 H. He chose residence at Makkah after performing Hajj and Ziyarah a second time. Sharif Muhammad ibn Nasir al-Hazimi took from him in the glorified [city of] Makkah.

He had outstanding students from the inhabitants of India, like Shaykh Muhaddith ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Abi Sa‘id al-‘Umari al-Dihlawi, the migrant to the illuminated [city of] Madinah, Sayyid Nadhir Husayn ibn Jawad ‘Ali al-Husayni al-Dihlawi, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Ansari al-Paniputi, Sayyid ‘Alim ‘Ali al-Muradabadi, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qayyum ibn ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Burhanawi, Shaykh Qutb al-Din ibn Muhyi al-Din al-Dihlawi, Shaykh Ahmad ‘Ali ibn Lutf Allah al-Saharanpuri, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Jalil al-Shahid al-Saku’ili, Mufti ‘Inayat Ahmad al-Kakurawi, Shaykh Ahmad Allah ibn Dalil Allah al-Anami, and a multitude besides them. Most of them excelled in hadith, and many people took from them, until no chain of hadith remained in India besides this chain, and that is the blessing of Allah He gives to whoever He pleases.

Shaykh Shams al-Haqq al-Diyanawi said in Tadhkirat al-Nubala’: “Shaykh ‘Abd Allah Siraj al-Makki would say after his death upon bathing him: ‘By Allah! Had he lived, and I read hadith unto him my entire life, I would not have acquired what he acquired.’” His teacher, Shaykh ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Karim (Allah have mercy on him) would attest to his perfection in the science of hadith and its narrators, and he would say: “The blessing of his grandfather, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dihlawi, has descended into him.” And his grandfather, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz would often recite this noble verse: “All praise to Allah, Who granted me, despite old age, Isma‘il and Ishaq.”^[1] (Qur’an 14:39) And our teacher, Nadhir Husayn, would say: “I have not accompanied a scholar more virtuous than him.” He (Allah have mercy on him) would often recite:

For the guidance of wicked men,
Isma‘il and Ishaq came again

He died in the noble [city of] Makkah in a pandemic, while fasting, on Monday, when three nights remained of Rajab, in the year 1262 H. He was buried in al-Mu‘allah next to the grave of our lady, Khadijah (Allah be pleased with her).

Nuzhat al-Khawatir, 911-2

1. This was the supplication of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when in old age Allah granted him two sons, Isma‘il and Ishaq (peace be upon them). Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz expressed his gratitude to Allah with the same words, intending his nephew, Shah Isma‘il Shahid, and his grandson, Shaykh Ishaq al-Dihlawi.

He was born in Nanotah in the year 1248 H (1832 CE). He came to Saharanpur at a young age. He read the short texts under Shaykh Muhammad Nawaz al-Saharanpuri. Then he travelled to Delhi, and he came under the tutelage of Shaykh Mamluk al-‘Ali al-Nanotwi. He read under him all the books of study. Then he took hadith from Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn Abi Sa‘id al-Dihlawi, and he stayed in his company for a period. He took the spiritual path from Shaykh Imdad Allah al-‘Umari al-Thanawi, and he accompanied him and was blessed with many spiritual effusions from him. He worked at the Ahmadi Press in Delhi under Shaykh Ahmad ‘Ali ibn Lutf Allah al-Saharanpuri, who was a great teacher at that time, and was working on preparing Sahih al-Bukhari and annotating it, so he delegated five sections from the end of the book to him, which were the most difficult sections, especially the areas in which al-Bukhari objected to Abu Hanifah. Thus, he expended his effort in preparing the book and annotating it, and he excelled in supporting the madhhab, and gave it its full due.

He was the most ascetic of people, the most pious amongst them, and the most frequent in dhikr and contemplation from them, and the furthest of them from the dress of the ‘ulama’ and clothes of the students of jurisprudence, like the turban, shawl etc. At that time he would not issue fatwa or preach, but engaged in the remembrance of Allah (Glorified is He) and His meditation, until the doors of the realities and sciences were opened to him. The aforementioned Shaykh Imdad Allah bestowed successorship to him, and praised him saying that “the like of Qasim is not found except in a bygone age.” Then he married under his noble direction. And he ascended the pulpit under instructions from Shaykh Muzaffar ibn Mahmud al-Kandehlewi, so he preached with an excellent preaching.

When the great civil war erupted in India in the year 1273 H, they accused him of rebellion against the English government. Thus, he hid from the people for a period of time. Then he emerged, and Allah (Glorified is He) saved him, and proved his innocence from what they said. He migrated to the Hijaz with Ya‘qub ibn Mamluk al-‘Ali al-Nanotwi and a group – in the year 1277 H – where he performed Hajj and Ziyarah. He memorised the Qur’an during that journey. He returned to India, and stayed in the city of Meerut for a period of time. He would earn his livelihood by editing books for the Mujtaba’iyyah Press of Mumtaz ‘Ali Khan. He was at the city of Meerut when Shaykh al-Hajj ‘Abid Husayn al-Deobandi founded an Islamic seminary at Deoband^[1]. He endorsed it and became one of the members of the seminary and supported it with full support. Then he travelled to the two noble Harams in the year 1285 H, and he performed Hajj and Ziyarah. He returned to India and settled in Meerut.

He had great displays in dialogue with the Christians and Arya Samaj. The most famous of them are the debates that occurred in the city of Shahajanpur in the year 1293 and 1294. Thus, he debated the priests of the Christians and the scholars of the Hindus multiple times, and he defeated them and erected proofs [against them] and he displayed his skill in debate. Shaykh Fakhr al-Hasan al-Gangohi detailed these [debates] in his book Intisar al-Islam and in Guftogowe Mazhabi and in Mubahathah Shahajanpur and other treatises.

From his writings are: a marvellous treatise in Urdu he called Qiblah Nama, and he has Taqrir Dilpazir, Ab Hayat, Hujjat al-Islam, al-Dalil al-Muhkam, Hadiyyat al-Shi‘ah, Tahdhir al-Nas, al-Haqq al-Sarih fi Bayan al-Tarawih, Tasfiyat al-‘Aqa’id, al-Lata’if al-Qasimiyyah, al-Tuhfat al-Lahmiyyah, and Qasim al-‘Ulum.

He died on Thursday, 4^th Jumada al-Ula, 1297 H (1880 CE), in Deoband, as recorded in a treatise by Shaykh Ya‘qub ibn Mamluk al-‘Ali al-Nanotwi.

Nuzhat al-Khawatir, 1067-8

1. This is what the historians mention, but it is understood from the book Sawanih e Qasimi by Shaykh Manazir Ahsan al-Gilani (Allah have mercy on him) that al-Hajj ‘Abid Husayn communicated with Mawlana Muhammad Qasim and agreed with him to found this seminary and informed him of this in Meerut, and asked him to come to Deoband and commence teaching. Mawlana Muhammad Qasim chose Mulla Mahmud al-Deobandi as a teacher for the seminary and fixed a monthly salary for him of 15 rupees. Then he came to Deoband and commenced teaching at the Chahtah Masjid. This is how the seminary of Deoband began, which after a while became the greatest of the Indian seminaries, and after a short period, Mawlana Muhammad Qasim came to Deoband and took responsibility for the administration of the seminary and he laid down the foundations of its independent building. (Mawlana Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali al-Nadwi)

Balakot, Pakistan

The sayyid, the valiant Imam, the proof of Allah amongst creation, the elucidator of the straight path of religion and Islam, the suppressor of disbelievers and heretics, a model of the righteous caliphs and the guided Imams, our master, the Imam, the warrior (mujahid), the martyr, the fortunate, Ahmad ibn ‘Irfan ibn Nur al-Sharif al-Hasani al-Barelwi. He was from the offspring of the great emir, the full moon of religion, Shaykh al-Islam Qutb al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Madani.

He was born on Safar of 1201 H (1786 CE) in the city of Rae Bareli at the Zawiyah of his ancestor Sayyid ‘Alam Allah al-Naqshbandi al-Barelwi. He was brought up with complete care and attention, and with moderation in clothing and eating. He remained on that [upbringing] as a righteous successor, upright and god-fearing, scrupulous, worshipping, devout, fasting, praying, remembering Allah Almighty in all affairs, turning to Him in all states and standing by His boundaries, His commandments and His prohibitions. His heart would find contentment in the service of widows and orphans; he would go to their homes and discover their needs, and he would [then] exert himself in drawing water, collecting firewood and acquiring the products from the market.

But despite this he was not interested in acquiring the well-known sciences. Hence, he memorised only a few chapters from the Noble Qur’an, and of writing [he only learnt] the transcription of [some] words and phrases, and that was in three years. His elder brother Ishaq ibn ‘Irfan al-Barelwi was grieved by this so he took responsibility for his education. Thereupon, his father said: “Leave him to his affair, and entrust him to Allah (Exalted and Glorious is He),” so he left him.

He remained like this until he gained great physical strength, whereupon he travelled to Lucknow with seven men from his family [seeking employment]. There was one horse on which they would take turns and he gave up his turn for them. When they reached the destination and needed a carrier to carry their load, they searched strenuously and could not find one, so seeing this, he said to them: “I have a need from you which I hope you will grace me in fulfilling.” They said: “Certainly!” He said to them: “Confirm your statements with oaths.” So they gave him their assurance. He said: “Gather your loads and place them on my head because I can bear them.” He carried them and entered Lucknow.

One of the politicians met him and honoured him. [The politician] was instructed by the administration to gather a hundred horse riders for the army, so he delegated two duties from the military duties to him. However, he wilfully gave them up to two of his travelling companions, while he travelled with the imperial armies. When he reached Badiyah Muhammad and the sultan wished to take a stroll and hunt, he became separated one day from his companions. They were heartbroken as they thought he was devoured by wild animals, whereupon a man from the village met them and related to them the story: “I saw a bright man, on whose forehead were signs of guidance and fortune, and on his head was a full load which he carried going about happily and with vigorous energy next to a knight from the army. The knight told [me]: ‘He found me on the road when I had a weak carrier who was unable to carry [my load] but with great difficulty, though he carried it for fear of me, so he began to cry and came to this man [i.e. Sayyid Ahmad]. When he interceded on his behalf, I said to him that I can’t carry this over my head, so if your heart has sympathy for him and you are grieved by his weakness then come forward and carry [it yourself], so he consented to this and carried it.’” His companions knew his habit so they recognised it was him.

Sayyid Muhammad ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Subhan al-Barelwi the author of Makhzan Ahmadi said: “Before his occultation, he would encourage me towards abstinence, stripping away [from the material world] and anticipation of the afterlife, and he would say: ‘Go to Delhi and stay in the company of Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Wali Allah al-Dihlawi and take advantage of him.’ When he thought I would not accompany him in that journey and I was not satisfied for him to go [by himself] and throw himself in danger, he hid from me and went himself until he entered Delhi. When the aforementioned Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz heard that he is the descendent of Shaykh Abu Sa‘id and the nephew of Sayyid Nu‘man, he greeted him with kindness and a warm heart, and he let him stay in the Akbarabadi Mosque with his brother [Shaykh] ‘Abd al-Qadir [al-Dihlawi] and he entrusted him to him. He took from him some trivial matters of knowledge. He pledged allegiance to Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and took the spiritual path from him until he acquired a large share in knowledge and gnosis. He excelled his peers and he produced in knowledge and gnosis that which the people of the land were astonished by. That was in the year 1222 H (1807 CE).”

Then the love of jihad in the Path of Allah overcame him and he proceeded to the army of the emir, the warrior, Nawab Amir Khan, and stayed with him for several years. He would encourage him towards jihad, and when he saw that he was wasting his time in raids and was content with booty, and he knew that he resolved to make peace with the British and Hindus, he left him and returned to Delhi and he became firm in his resolve to aid the pure Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, and he argued with proofs and premises and unprecedented matters, and he used expressions which the predecessors and successors avoided and feared, but he alone had the courage to use them; until Allah elevated his lighthouse and united the hearts of the people of piety on his love and supplication for him, and He crushed his enemies and guided men of the misguided religions and sects, and He disposed the hearts of the emirs to submit to him and follow him.

The first to enter into his pledge was Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy ibn Hibat Allah al-Burhanawi and Shaykh Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Dihlawi and many people from the family of Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. All this was in the lifetime of his shaykh. He went from Delhi with a group of supporters to Phalat, Lohari, Saharanpur, Godda Mokatsar, Rampur, Bareli, Shahajanpur, Shahabad and other villages and cities. A great multitude that cannot be counted by limit or number benefited from his gatherings, the blessing of his supplication, the purity of his breaths, the integrity of his intention, the purity of his outward and inward and the harmony between his speech and his knowledge and his turning to Allah (Glorified is He). In fact, a great many of the mashayikh resisted him with an endless resistance, calling him innovator, opposing him and belittling him, while he stood firm, not endeavouring to make peace [with them] or be partisan. He possessed courage, gallantry, and strength of spirit, placing him in difficult situations which Allah then removed from him. He was constantly in devotion [to Allah], frequently seeking [His] help, strong in reliance [on Allah] and not easily angered.

He had practices (ashghal) and litanies (adhkar) which he would always maintain with feeling and collectiveness in travel and residence. When he returned to his city of Rae Bareli, he married the widow of his deceased brother, Ishaq ibn ‘Irfan, and this was the first marriage with a widow amongst the higher class families of India, and then [this practice] passed down amongst them. The aforementioned Shaykh Isma‘il ibn ‘Abd al-Ghani and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy ibn Hibat Allah and a multitude of other ‘ulama’ and mashayikh from his followers took the spiritual path from him. He stayed in the city of Rae Bareli for a period. Then he travelled to Lucknow and he stayed there with Shaykh Pir Muhammad al-Lakhnawi by the bay of River Gomti with his disciples. Thousands of men pledged him allegiance. The minister Mu‘tamad al-Dawlah received him with [a warm] welcome and generosity and he hosted him, and he offered him five thousand coins. Sultan Ghazi al-Din Haydar, the king of Lucknow, almost met him, but the Shi‘ah feared he would change his sect so they plotted to stop [the meeting]. Then the sayyid and imam left Lucknow and toured the cities, and Allah benefited through him a great multitude of His servants.

Then he returned to Rae Bareli and travelled to the Hijaz, and with him were 757 of his disciples. He rode the ship from Dalmiu from the states of Rae Bareli which is on the banks of the River Ganges. He rode and spent whatever little was with him of wealth on the poor, and he said: “We are the guests of Allah (Glorified is He). We do not take recourse to dinar and dirham.” He went and passed by Ilahabad, Ghazipur, Banaris, Azimabad and other cities of India, and a multitude uncountable by limit or number entered into his pledge, until he reached Calcutta and he stayed there for a few days by permission of the ruler of India. Thousands of people repented from innovations and sins and drinking wine, and the taverns became empty and a wave of righteousness and piety flowed over [the people], and hundreds of people became Muslims and perfected their Islam.

Then he rode the ship and went to the Hijaz in the year 1237 H, and amazing visions, unveilings and miracles occurred to him in that fortunate and blessed journey, and a great multitude from the inhabitants of the two noble Sanctuaries benefited from him. He performed Hajj and Ziyarah, and returned after a year, and he reached Rae Bareli in the year 1239, and then stayed there for around two years. He sent the aforementioned Shaykh Isma‘il and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy to many cities to counsel and guide, so they toured the cities and Allah guided by means of them a great multitude of the servants.

The sayyid and imam was preparing for migration and jihad at this opportunity, so he came out with his disciples in the year 1241 H from his city and he travelled to the lands of Afghanistan. When he reached Panjtar he stayed there, and he encouraged the believers towards jihad, and he sent his disciples to Kabul, Kashgar and Bukhara to encourage their kings to participate and assist. Thus, the people pledged him allegiance for jihad and put him in charge of them, and thousands of men gathered under his banner. He fought against the armies of Rangit Singh, the king of Punjab, who was from the people with long hair [i.e. the Sikhs], so Allah (Glorified is He) opened many cities at his hands, until his name was recited in the [Friday] sermon in Peshawar. Allah elevated his lighthouse and He crushed his enemies, the enemies of religion, and He disposed the hearts of the emirs and rulers to submit to him and obey him.

He revived many dead sunnahs, and he brought to death many polytheistic and innovated practices. Hence, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger became extremely bigoted towards him and his followers until they attributed his path to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi and called them “Wahhabis,” and turned to the disbelievers [for support against him] and became their allies in secret, until they betrayed him in the battle of Balakot. He attained the lofty rank of martyrdom, and he attained the highest lot from amongst his peers. His life ended on the 24^th of Dhu al-Qa‘dah in the year 1246 (1831 CE), and many of his disciples were martyred with him. The people were divided over him, so some said he attained the rank of martyrdom and some said that he went into hiding and will emerge and fill the word with justice.^[1] In what they love, men adopt different paths.

Many of his disciples compiled detailed books on his states and stations. From them is al-Sirat al-Mustaqim in Persian by both Shaykh Isma‘il and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy, and the aforementioned Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hayy translated it to Arabic while in the Hijaz for the benefit of the people of the two noble Sanctuaries. From them is Manzurat al-Su‘ada by Shaykh Ja‘far ‘Ali al-Bastawi, a short book in Persian. From them is Makhzan Ahmadi by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Subhan al-Tuki. From them is Sawanih Ahmadi by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ja‘far al-Thanesari. From them is al-Mulhimat al-Ahmadiyya by Mufti Ilahi Bakhsh al-Kandehlewi in which he sufficed with what reached him from him [i.e. Sayyid Ahmad] of litanies (adhkar) and practices (ashghal). From them is Waqa‘i Ahmadi by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali al-Sadrpuri in several large volumes.

Nuzhat al-Khawatir, pp. 899-901

1. Shaykh Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali al-Nadwi adds: Then, after a short while, there was consensus that he had been martyred.

The definition of the shirk on which damnation and eternality in Hellfire is consequential upon is what is found in Hashiyat al-Khayali, quoting from Sharh al-Maqasid: “If the disbeliever (kafir) feigns faith he is a hypocrite (munafiq), and if his disbelief occurred after faith he is an apostate (murtadd), and if he believes in a partner in divinity (sharik fi l-uluhiyyah), he is a polytheist (mushrik).” (p. 124)

Thus, it should now be understood that there is a distinction between the Arabian polytheists who would worship idols and between the grave-worshipping Muslims who prostrate themselves before graves and mock tombs (ta‘ziyah). The Arabian polytheists would regard them as partners in divinity and would declare with their tongues that they are partners of Allah. This is proven by His (Exalted is He) statement: “They have assigned a portion for Allah from the tillage and the cattle created by Him, and then said, ‘This is for Allah,’ so they claim, ‘And this is for our associate-gods (shuraka’),’” (6:136) and His (Exalted is He) statement: “They have appointed the Jinn as partners with Allah,” (6:100) and His (Exalted is He) statement: “And you set up rivals with Him,” (41:9) and other such verses. Although those people would make favourable interpretations of this, nevertheless, they were estranged from the declaration of Tawhid, and would say: “Has he made the gods into One God? This is a very strange thing indeed!” (Qur’an 38:4) And while performing Tawaf, they would say: “We are here! You have no partner except a partner that You possess. You own him and all that he owns.”

On the other hand, those who worship graves or worship mock tombs are not like this. Neither do they deny the statement of Tawhid, nor are they estranged from it. On the contrary, they say without exception that Allah (Exalted is He) is the only object of worship, and they declare themselves Muslims. The Hindus regard their gods as partners in divinity, and they deny – and are estranged from – the statement of Tawhid, which is the same condition as the Arabian polytheists as understood from the above.

Thus, the difference between the two is that the shirk of the worshippers of graves and the worshippers of mock tombs is “practical polytheism” (shirk ‘amali) as long as they declare themselves Muslims and monotheists, while the shirk of the Hindus is comprised of both creedal (i‘tiqadi) and practical polytheism.^[1]

It should also be understood that prostrating to other than Allah is not unconditionally [creedal] shirk, but in some situations it is [only] a mark of shirk [i.e. practical shirk] and the remainder is actual shirk in the manner described above, meaning, to profess a partner in divinity, verbally, and in the heart. It says in Sharh al-‘Aqa’id: “There is no dispute that there are some sins which the lawgiver has assigned as signs of denial (takdhib), and they are known as such from proofs of the Shari‘ah, and do not depend on intention, like prostrating to an idol, throwing a mushaf into waste, and articulating words of disbelief.” (p. 148)

Prostrating to graves and mock tombs is not a sign of denying the Shari‘ah because worshipping them is not widespread amongst the disbelievers. Yes, that thing worshipping which is widespread amongst the disbelievers, prostrating to it will necessitate the ruling of disbelief judicially –as stated explicitly in the marginalia of Sharh al-‘Aqa’id on the aforementioned page – though, religiously, if there is no defect in [the person’s] faith and belief in his heart, he will be a believer with Allah.

See ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah’s book, al-Sirat al-Mustaqim (pp. 150 – 165), wherein the ‘Allamah wrote very harsh words against venerating graves and prostrating to them, but he did not call those people who were engaged in this “disbelievers” or “polytheists” [although, they were engaging in “practical polytheism”]. Yes, he certainly said it resembles the idolaters.

Moreover, it is found in hadith: “May Allah curse the people who adopted the graves of their prophets as places of prostration. O Allah! Do not make my grave an idol that is worshipped.” However, the jurists derived the prohibition of prostrating to graves from this [hadith]. None of them declared the one prostrating to a grave merely due to the prostration a disbeliever, unless he confessed that it was by way of worship and that the occupant of the grave is an object of worship, meaning, a partner in divinity. So understand! And Allah (Exalted is He) knows best.

[It says] in al-Fatawa al-Kamiliyyah^[2] :

I say: It is not hidden what [corruption] has occurred to many of the commoners due to glorifying the graves of the saints and draping them with curtains, of great danger in their beliefs, because they believe with respect to the saints [that they possess] effective agency (ta’thir) along with Allah (Exalted is He), such that they avoid vowing to Allah (Exalted is He) which is established in the Shari‘ah, and they make abundant vows to the saints and draw near to them; and they abandon taking oath by Allah (Exalted is He), such that it has become almost nonexistent amongst them. They do not dare to take oath by them [i.e. the saints] due to their belief that the one who swears by a saint and breaks it, it will cause harm to him in his body, his wealth and his offspring. This is from [creedal] shirk, and protection is from Allah (Exalted is He). Do you not see what the author of Hujjat Allah al-Balighah narrated from his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement: “Whoever swears by other than Allah, he has committed shirk”? He said: “Some of them have interpreted it as deterrence and severity, but that is not so, as it is upon its outward [meaning], since they take oath by them with the belief regarding them that they harm them in their bodies and their wealth.”

I heard from one of the judges of Rome, described as knowledgeable and pious, that he said: “If I had the ability to destroy the domes of the saints, I would destroy all of them just as ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab did with the tree under which the pledge occurred, due to what reached him that people attend it and pray near it, so he uprooted it for fear of harm to the laypeople because of it.”

[It is narrated] in the Sahih from Ibn ‘Umar that the tree was made hidden.^[3] They said: And the wisdom [in it being hidden] is so that temptation does not occur by means of it after the good that occurred beneath it, and had it remained, it would not be safe from the ignorant people glorifying it until they may believe that it has the power of causing benefit and harm, as we see today in what is less than it. Ibn ‘Umar alluded to this by his statement: “Its being hidden was a mercy from Allah (Exalted is He).” Ibn Sa‘d narrated with an authentic chain from Nafi‘ that it reached ‘Umar that people attend the tree and prayed near it, so he admonished them and then he ordered that it be uprooted, so it was uprooted. [This is] from al-Jamal ‘ala l-Jalalayn.

And because of what has occurred from some commoners, of the belief in causative agency from the saints, the Wahhabi sect has written with respect to the whole of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah numerous treatises on their polytheism such that they describe us, assemblies of Ahl al-Sunnah, as polytheists! And when they gain dominance over one of us, they say: “Kill the idolater.” And the greatest calamity is in the jurists of the towns, as they command the commoners when directing oaths at them [i.e. the Wahhabis] to swear by a saint, and they say that in this is manifestation of truth. So look how they seek to manifest a worldly right by uprooting religion from its source! And there is no power, nor might, except with Allah (Exalted is He). (pp. 264-5)

I say: The underlined sentences prove that glorification of other than Allah by vowing to him and swearing by his name and prostrating before him, if attached to the belief in his causative agency with Allah (Exalted is He), it is shirk and its participant is a mushrik, in creed and practice.

The great scholar, the knower [of Allah], Ibn al-Qayyim said in Sharh Manazil al-Sa’irin: “Worship brings together two principles: the utmost love with the utmost servility and humbleness.” The author of its marginalia said: “Worship comprises of the utmost love and humbleness just as he said, but this is not its full meaning, because the lover may combine these two properties but is not a worshipper of his beloved. Rather, worship is an expression about a belief and feeling about the object of worship having unseen power beyond the ordinary means by which He is able to cause benefit and harm. Thus, every supplication or praise or veneration accompanied by this belief and feeling is worship.” (1:40)

The upshot of these statements is that those from the worshippers of graves and mock tombs who hold the belief of the attribution of unseen causative agency to the inhabitants of the graves or mock tombs is a mushrik, and whoever, by way of outward veneration, prostrates etc. to them, but does not believe in their causative agency, he is an open sinner (fasiq) due to practical polytheism (shirk ‘amali), but not a disbeliever (kafir).

Hazrat Shaykh [Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi] explained the standard to determine the difference between the belief in causative agency (ta’thir) and the absence of this belief. That is, some have the belief that Allah (Exalted is He) granted a certain creature that is near to Him some independent power to bring benefit and harm in such a way that in order to bring benefit or harm to his advocate or opponent he is not dependent on a particular will of Allah. Although if He wanted to stop him, then again the power of Allah will become dominant. This is just as rulers give their representative governors specific volitions in such a way that their administration at that point in time is not dependent on the acceptance of the central ruler. However, if he wanted to stop them, then the ruler’s decree will become dominant. Thus, this notion is belief in causative agency (ta’thir). The Arabian idolaters had this belief with respect to their false gods.

Some have the belief that such independent power is not found in any creature, but some creatures were given such a rank of closeness and acceptance that they intercede on behalf of those who draw near to them, and then even after this intercession they were not given the choice to bring benefit and harm, but Allah (Exalted is He) is the One Who brings benefit and harm; nonetheless, this creature’s intercession is never rejected, and in order to acquire that intercession, he is treated directly or indirectly in a manner resembling worship. This is not a belief in causative agency. However, without any Shar‘i evidence, rather against Shar‘i evidence, having such a belief is a creedal sin, and behaving in a way resembling worship is practical sin. And due to this resemblance [of worship], in Shar‘i pronouncements, they are called “mushrik.”

Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali said: “This is what occurred to me, and Allah knows best. This is why our teachers and our elders did not anathematise the worshippers of graves (‘abidi al-qubur) and those who prostrate to them and their likes due to interpreting their condition according to the second scenario and not the first, and the proof for that is their claim to be Muslim and to believe in Tawhid and their disassociation from shirk, in contrast to the idolaters of Arabia and India who are estranged from Tawhid and from negating independent power from their gods, and they say: ‘Has he made the gods into One God?’ (Qur’an 38:4). And Allah knows best.”

13 Safar, 1348 H (July, 1929)

Addendum to the Treatise Called “The Peak of Comprehension on the Categories of Polytheism”

By my master, the physician of the ummah, the reviver of religion, [Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi] (may his glory and splendour remain)

The aforementioned account on the distinction between the two shirks which is derived from the universals of the Shari‘ah is in need of specific evidences with respect to both of my claims^[4] for more satisfaction, which despite a long period of time my mind was empty of deliberating on and exploring. All praise to Allah, the day before yesterday and yesterday, three evidences passed by my mind and sight in succession, which together negate any doubt about both claims.

The first evidence is based on the principles of the logicians, which due to being a specific proof is more satisfying than the universals. That is, that the matter of divine monotheism is a rational necessity, whether a priori or a posteriori – which is another discussion. When a certain matter is rationally necessary, it entails that its opposite is rationally impossible. Thus, the opposite of Tawhid is impossible. This opposite has two possibilities:

1. First, negation of God, which is disbelief.
2. Second, associating other gods with Him which is shirk.

The impossibility of divisibility necessitates the impossibility of all subdivisions. Thus, shirk entails belief in the impossible. The texts [of the Qur’an] also point to this impossibility, like His (Exalted is He) statement: “Say: Had there been other gods along with him, as they say, then they would have found a way to the Lord of the Throne,” (17:43) and His (Exalted is He) statement: “If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, they would both have become corrupted” (21:22) and His (Exalted is He) statement: “Neither has Allah chosen a son, nor is there a god with Him, otherwise every god would have gone away with his own creation, and some of them would have raised themselves above others” (23:91) and His (Exalted is He) statement: “Had Allah opted to have a son of His own, He would definitely have chosen anyone, as He wished” (39:4) and the like of them from the verses [of the Qur’an], according to what I explained in Bayan al-Qur’an.^[5]

Extraordinary powers (tasarruf) restricted by permission [from Allah] is not rationally impossible. Thus, that is not shirk. Although believing in any extraordinary power negated by the texts [of the Qur’an and Sunnah] is sin, disbelief, or heresy due to opposition to the texts, based on the varying degrees of the text and the degrees of opposition; nonetheless, it will not be [major] shirk in any situation. The ignorant Arabs being mushrikun is established by explicit texts [of the Qur’an]. Thus, they must have believed in extraordinary powers not restricted by permission [from Allah]. Hence, with praise to Allah, both claims are established.

The second evidence is transmitted [proof] from the statements of the learned scholars, which due to clear agreement with the major scholars is more satisfactory than rational evidence. They are the following:

‘Allamah Qadi Muhammad A‘la al-Thanawi said in his book Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun compiled in the year 1158 H on the definition of shirk (with kasr):

It is a verbal noun with the meaning of association and belief in a partner for the Lord Who has no partner, as mentioned in al-Muntakhab. The scholars said: Shirk has four types: shirk in divinity, shirk in the necessity of existence, shirk in management and shirk in worship. No one affirms a partner for Allah that is equal to Him in divinity, necessity, power and wisdom, except the dualists, since they affirm two gods, one of them wise, performing good, and the other foolish that performs evil, and they call the first by the name “Yazdan” and the second by the name “Ahruman” who is Satan in their belief.

As for a partner in worship and management, there are many who take that [path]. From them are the worshippers of stars and they are two groups. From them are those who say that Allah (Glorified is He) created these stars and entrusted the management of the lower world to them, so these stars are the managers of this world. They say, therefore, it is necessary for us to worship these stars in devotion to Allah, and to follow Him. These are the philosophers. From them are an extreme group that denies the Creator and say these heavenly bodies and stars are entities with an intrinsic necessary existence and non-existence is impossible for them, and thus, they manage the conditions of the lower world. These are pure atheists (or materialists).

From those who worship other than Allah are the Christians, who worship the Messiah, and from them also are the idol worshippers.

It is necessary to explain the reason for idol worship, since idol worship according to a large group of intellectuals is manifestly irrational. They [i.e. the scholars] mention [a number of] reasons for it [i.e. idol worship]:

The first reason is that when people saw that changes in this world were based upon and were connected to the changes in the conditions of the stars, as in terms of the nearness of the sun and its distance from the zenith the four seasons arise, by means of which different conditions are brought about in this world; and then the people observed the conditions of all the stars, and thus believed fortune and misery was distributed based on the form of their appearance in the horizons of man, according to different situations; when they believed this, it overcame their minds that the foundation of temporal events is the connections between stars, so they went into excess in glorification of them. From them are those who believe them to have intrinsic necessary existence, and that they created this world. And from them are those who believe in their temporality, and that they were created by the “Great God,” but they manage the conditions of this world, and they affirmed intermediaries between the “Great God” and the conditions of this world. Further, when they saw that these stars go out of sight for most of the time, they made for each star an idol from the material affiliated with it. For example, they made an idol of the sun from gold, pearl and diamond. Then they engaged in worship of those idols. Their objective in this was worship of those stars and seeking nearness to them. As for the prophets, they have two stations. One of them is erecting proof that these stars have no causative agency at all in the conditions of this world due to what Allah (Exalted is He) said: “His, indeed, is all creation and command,” (7:54) after having explained that they are subservient [to Him]. And the second of them is that assuming their causative agency, the signs of temporality are found in them, so it is necessary that they were created, and engaging in the worship of the Creator is more worthy than engaging in the worship of creation.

[It says] in al-Kashshaf under the commentary of His (Exalted is He) saying: “So do not set up rivals to Allah while you know” (2:22): “A rival is an equal in essence and an opponent in qualities, so if you say: They used to call their idols by His name and glorify them in the manner He is glorified with nearing acts, and they would not claim that they differ with Allah and oppose Him, I say: When they sought nearness to them and glorified them and named them ‘gods,’ their condition became similar to the condition of one who believes that they are gods equal to Him, able to oppose Him and go against Him, so that was said to them by way of deriding [them].”

The second reason is what Abu Ma‘shar mentioned that many of the people of China and India would affirm God and angels but they believed that He (Exalted is He) is a body with a beautiful form, and likewise the angels, but they are concealed from us in the heavens, so they made forms and statues. They made a form with extreme beauty and they say that it is the form of God and another form less than it in beauty and they regarded it as the form of angels and then they persisted in worship of them, seeking by that worship closeness to Allah and His angels. Thus the reason for idol worship based on this is the belief that Allah (Exalted is He) is a body and in a place, glorified is He!

And the third reason is that a group believe that Allah entrusted the management of all places to a specific angel and entrusted management of every part from the parts of the world to a particular heavenly spirit, and they say, the manager of the seas is an angel and, similarly, the manger of the mountains is another angel, so they made for each of the managing angels a specific idol and sought from each idol what is appropriate to that universal spirit. (p. 771-2)

I say: The exegete, ‘Allamah Nizam al-Din al-Naysaburi, mentioned the like of this in his commentary, Ghara’ib al-Qur’an. Thus, he said:

And know that there is no one in the world that affirms a partner for Allah equal to Him in necessity, knowledge, power and wisdom, although the dualists affirm two gods, a wise one that does good and a foolish one that does evil. As for taking a deity besides Allah, those who follow that [path] are many. The first group are the worshippers of stars, and they are the “Sabiites,” for they say that Allah (Exalted is He) created these stars and they are the managers of this world, so it is necessary for us to worship Allah and the stars in devotion to Allah. And the second group are the worshippers of the Messiah (upon him peace). And the third group are the worshippers of statues. We say: There is no religion older than the religion of the worshippers of statues, and the knowledge that these stones which were manufactured at this time are not the ones that created us and created the heavens and earth is a necessary knowledge, so it is impossible that a great multitude would have agreed on it. Therefore, they must have another objective besides this. The scholars mentioned [a number of] reasons for it [i.e. idol-worship]. The first is what Abu Ma‘shar mentioned.

Then he mentioned the like of what passed shortly, and likewise the second reason is what was mentioned [above], which is that the people saw the conditions of the world connected to the changes in the conditions of the stars, and so on.

And the third of them is that the astrologers would anticipate times over long periods, and they would claim that one who takes a talisman at that time in a specific way he will acquire benefit from it in specific ways, like fortune, fertility and safety from disasters. When they would take a talisman, they glorified it due to their belief that they would benefit from it, so when they went into excess in that glorification, it came to be like worship. When they forgot how this matter started, as time passed, they engaged in its worship.

The fourth of them is that when a prominent man from them died they believed about him that his supplication was answered and his intercession with Allah (Exalted is He) is accepted, so they adopted a statue on his form and worshipped it based on the belief that that man would be an intercessor for them on the Day of Resurrection with Allah (Exalted is He), and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.”

And the fifth of them is that they probably took them as a direction for their prayer and their acts of obedience and prostrated towards them not to them, just as we prostrate towards the qiblah not to it, and when this condition persisted, the ignorant [from them] thought that it is necessary to worship them.

       Sixth, perhaps they were from the anthropomorphists, so they believed in the possibility of the Lord becoming                  incarnate in them, so they worshipped them based on this interpretation.^[6] (1:181)

‘Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighathat al-Lahfan the upshot of which is that:

He (Exalted is He) said: “Or do they choose as intercessors other than Allah? Say: Even though they have no power at all and no intelligence? Say: Intercession belongs entirely to Allah. His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth.” (39:43-4) Thus, He explained that intercession is for the one who has dominion of the heavens and the earth, and that is Allah Alone, for He is the One Who intercedes by Himself with Himself to show mercy to His slave. Thus, He gives permission to whoever He wills to seek intercession on his behalf, so the intercession in reality belongs only to Him, and the one who intercedes with Him only intercedes by His permission and His command after His (Glorified and Exalted is He) intercession, which is His wish from Himself to show mercy to His slave. This is contrary to the polytheistic intercession which these idolaters and those who agree with them would affirm, which is what He (Glorified and Exalted is He) nullified in His Book by His statement: “And guard yourself against a day when no one shall stand for anyone in anything, nor shall ransom be accepted from anyone, nor shall intercession be of benefit to him,” (2:123) and His saying: “Before a day comes when there will be no trading, no friendship and no intercession,” (2:254) and His saying: “They have no guardian or intercessor besides Him,” (6:51) and His saying: “You have no guardian or intercessor besides Him.” (32:4) Thus, He (Glorified is He) explained that [His] slaves have no intercessor besides Him. Rather, when Allah (Glorified is He) wishes to show mercy to His slave, He gives permission to one who will intercede for him, just as He (Exalted is He) said: “There is no intercessor but after His permission,” (10:3) and He (Exalted is He) said: “Who can intercede with Him without His permission.” (2:255) Thus, intercession by His permission is not intercession besides Him, nor is an intercessor an intercessor besides Him, rather, [he is] an intercessor by His permission. The difference between the two intercessors is like the difference between a partner and a slave under instructions [from His master]. Thus, the intercession which [the Qur’an] negates is the intercession of a partner, for He has no partner. And the intercession which it affirms is the intercession of a slave under instruction, who does not intercede nor does he come before his Master until he gives him permission.

Until he said:

The difference between them is the difference between creation and Creator, Master and slave, Owner and property, the Independent and the dependent and the One Who has no need of anyone ever and the one dependent in every way on another. Thus, intercessors with creation are their partners, as their interests are maintained by them and they are their supporters, by means of whom the authority of kings and powerful men are upheld, and were it not for them their hands and their tongues would not spread amongst the people. Thus, because of their need for them, they need to accept their intercession, even if they did not permit it and are not happy with the intercessor, because they fear that if they reject their intercession their obedience of them will diminish, and they will go to others, so they find no alternative to accepting their intercession, whether against their will or wilfully.

As for the Independent, Whose independence is from the necessities of His being, and all that is besides Him is dependent on Him by its essence, and all who is in the heavens and the earth are His slaves, compelled by His power, He (Glorified is He) said: “To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who can intercede with Him without His permission?” (2:255) and He said: “Say: Intercession belongs entirely to Allah.” (39:44) Thus, He explained that the condition of His dominion of the heavens of the earth necessitates that intercession in its entirety belongs to Him alone, and that no one can intercede with Him except by His permission, as He has no partner, rather only slaves, as opposed to the intercession of the people of the world, some of them with others.

Until he said:

The secret of the difference between the two intercessions is that in the intercession of a creation with a creation and his request from the one interceded with, he does not depend therein on the one interceded with, neither in creation nor in command nor in permission. Rather, he is a cause moving him from the outside, like all causes which move natural means. And this cause that moves [natural means] often agrees with the thing which is moved by means of it, like one who intercedes with him in a matter he likes and approves, and often is opposed by him like one who intercedes with him in a matter he hates. Moreover, his request and intercession is sometimes stronger than the conflicting [element] so he accepts the intercession of the intercessor and sometimes the conflicting [element] in his view is stronger than the intercession of the intercessor so he rejects it and does not accept it. And sometimes the two matters are equal to him so he remains undecided between the conflicting [element] which requires rejection and the intercession which requires acceptance, so he waits until one of the two matters becomes favourable to him by means of something that gives [either side] preference. Thus, the intercession of a person with a creature like him is struggling in being a cause – separate from the one interceded with – by which he moves him, even if against his will, so the position of intercession for him is the position of one who orders other than him or compels him to do something either by force and authority or by means of what he desires. Thus, it is necessary that the one interceded with acquires from the intercessor either something he desires that will benefit him or something from him which he fears which is repelled thereby.

This is different from the intercession with the Lord (Glorified is He), since as long as He does not create the intercession of the intercessor and permit him therein and approve of it from him and accept the intercession, it could not come into existence. And the intercessor does not intercede with Him due to the Lord’s need for him or fear of him or desire for what he has, but his intercession with Him is due merely to submitting to His command and following Him, as he is commanded to intercede in obedience to the command. For none of the prophets and angels and all creation move to intercede or [do] anything else except by the wish of Allah (Exalted is He) and His creation. Thus, the Lord (Glorified and Exalted is He) is the One Who moves the intercessor so that he intercedes. The intercessor with creation is the one who moves the one interceded with until he accepts. And the intercessor with creation is free from him in most of his affairs and he is in reality his partner. Even if he is his property and his slave, the one interceded with is in need of him, in what he gains from him of benefit and help and support and other than that, just as the intercessor is in need of him in what he gains from him of sustenance, help and other than that, so each of them are in need of the other.

        Whoever Allah (Exalted is He) grants the ability to understand this explanation and recognise it, the reality of                   Tawhid and shirk and the difference between what Allah (Exalted is He) affirmed of intercession and what He                   negated and nullified will become evident to him. And he to whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no           light.^[7] (Summarised from pp. 115-8)

From these quotes, the first claim is established explicitly and the second claim implicitly.

The third is transmitted proof from the words of the Lord of the Worlds, Whose testimony, due to being Knower of the world of secrets and hidden things, is more adequate than everything else in terms of authority. That is, His (Exalted is He) saying: “Say: Call those Whom you assume [to be gods] besides Him, while they do not own [the power of] removal of distress from you and [do not own the power] to change [it],” (17:56) and His (Exalted is He) saying: “And those whom they invoke besides Him do not own [the right of]  intercession; but those who bear witness to the truth [may intercede for the believers],” (43:86) and similar verses that escape restriction.

The way this proves the first claim is that in these statements ownership of extraordinary powers has been negated, and the requirement, rather the reality, of “ownership” as per the nature of “ownership” is that these extraordinary powers are not restricted by permission [from Allah]. From the context, the objective is to nullify the beliefs of the idolaters. It is known from this that they used to believe in such volitions and extraordinary powers which were not restricted by permission [from Allah]. Thus, the first claim is established.

With respect to conditions used in a context of condemnation, the implied opposite meaning^[8] is taken into consideration. From this the second claim is also proven.

And all praise belongs to Allah for completing favours and inspiring wisdom.

Jumada al-Thaniyah, 1345 H (December, 1926)

Imdad al-Ahkam, 1:119-132

1. This is just like the difference between “practical hypocrisy” (nifaq ‘amali) and “creedal hypocrisy” (nifaq i‘tiqadi). The first is behaving in the manner of hypocrites, although internally the person believes in Islam; and the second is actual disbelief in Islam while pretending to be a Muslim. Shah Wali Allah discusses the difference between practical and creedal hypocrisy in al-Fawz al-Kabir (See: al-Fawz al-Kabir, tr. Salman Nadwi, Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, pp. 37-9) This also corresponds to the distinction between the two types of bid‘ah discussed by Imam al-Shatibi, “true bid‘ah” and “relative bid‘ah.” The first is when someone literally introduces something new into the religion without a sound basis, and the second is where one behaves as though a novel matter is part of religion. (See: Al-I‘tisam, Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, ed. Mashhur Hasan Al Salman, Maktabat al-Tawhid, 2:127-338) In all of these cases, “nifaq,” “bid‘ah” and “shirk” are used without qualification in the texts of the Shari‘ah for both types (practical and creedal), although their literal and primary usage is for the second type only. (Translator)
2. The author of this work is Muhammad Kamil ibn Mustafa al-Tarablusi, a jurist and mufti from Tripoli. He was born in Libya in the year 1244 H and was trained at Azhar University where he studied under some of its prominent scholars. He returned to Tripoli and taught at Masrasah ‘Uthman Basha. He authored a number of scholarly books and treatises, the most famous of them his collection of fatawa. He died in the year 1315 H (1897 CE).
3. I say: This and what has preceded from ‘Umar that he uprooted it can be reconciled [by saying] that the original tree was hidden and the common people took in its place another tree near to it and they believed it was [the original tree], so ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) uprooted that tree. And Allah knows best. (Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani)
4. First, that the mushrikun believed in such extraordinary powers (tasarruf) [with respect to their gods] that is not restricted by permission [from Allah] and, second, that the one who believes in extraordinary powers restricted by permission [from Allah] is not committing major shirk (al-shirk al-akbar) (Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi)
5. Since he explained them in such a way that the verses point towards an explanation of the aforementioned impossibility. (Mawlana) Zafar Ahmad.
6. I say: Thus, it is summed up for us from this explanation that the causes of shirk are many:
   1. First, belief of something being a partner with Allah (Exalted is He) in divinity and necessity and there is no one who claims this besides the dualists.
   2. Second, belief of something being manager of the world as a medium between it and Allah (Exalted is He), with intrinsic causative agency in the world, i.e. with volition without need for the will of Allah over it, as Allah entrusted that to him, as is the belief of the worshippers of stars and some of the idol worshippers.
      As for the belief of it being manager and a causative agent while dependent in its management and agency on the will of Allah and His intent, that is not shirk due to His (Exalted is He) statement: “And [I swear by] the [Angels] managing the affair” (79:5). And likewise the belief of it being a medium between it and Allah (Exalted is He) is likewise not shirk because the angels and messengers are mediums between the slaves and the Creator in terms of [gaining] knowledge [of Allah] and the laws [of Shari‘ah] and some of the angels being mediums in creative matters is not hidden to one who reads the texts [of the Qur’an] and hadiths.
   3. Third, prostrating to something while calling it “god” without belief of it having causative agency or intrinsic management, as is the case with some of the idol worshippers.
   4. Fourth, the belief of Allah (Exalted is He) being a body in a place. The belief that He has a son and a wife is included in this as they are from the concomitants of a body.
   5. Fifth, belief of something besides Allah (Exalted is He) causing benefit and harm intrinsically i.e. without need for the permission of Allah in that, as is the belief of the makers of talismans.
   6. Sixth, belief in the incarnation of the Lord into something.
   7. Seventh, belief in something being an intercessor for one before Allah (Exalted is He) and in this there is some detail which will come.

   Thus, worship is the demonstration of the utmost servility and humbleness to something along with one belief from amongst these beliefs concerning it [i.e. the object of worship], and its proof is what we mentioned earlier that worship is the utmost of love and the utmost of servility and humbleness, with the feeling that the objective of worship has unseen power beyond ordinary means by which he can effect benefit and harm.

   Prostration to something is not always worship as the angels prostrated to Adam and the brothers of Yusuf and his parents fell down in prostration to him, and it is apparent that the most correct [view] is that this prostration was by placing the head on the ground as comes to the mind from it linguistically, but it was not attached to a belief from the aforementioned beliefs, but was for mere greeting and kindness, which was allowed in earlier dispensations and was then abrogated in our Shari‘ah. This is why the scholars say that the prostration of greeting is haram and the prostration of worship is disbelief. Moreover, we ought to ponder over the conditions of those who prostrate to graves, which of the groups of idolaters are they similar to? It is apparent from their condition that they are similar to those who when a pious man from them died they believed about him that his supplication is answered and his intercession with Allah is accepted so they make a statue of him, on his form, and they worship it based on the belief that that person will be an intercessor for them on the Day of Resurrection with Allah (Exalted is He) and they say “these are our intercessors with Allah.” However, those [Muslims] who prostrate to graves do not make a statue of him on his form as opposed to the idolaters. Yes, they are equal in prostration to that man, outwardly, and in the belief of him being an intercessor, inwardly, and it has just passed that prostration to something is not always [creedal] shirk even if it is from the greatest of enormities [and practical shirk]. We should now explore the belief of intercession about someone, is it always shirk or is there detail to it? It is not hidden to the one who read texts [of the Qur’an] and has experience of hadiths that belief in intercession about someone is not always shirk, due to intercession being established for the Prophets and for the bearers of the Qur’an and the saints on the Day of Resurrection after His (Exalted is He) permission for them to do so. Thus, it is necessary that the idolaters who said about their idols “these are our intercessors with Allah,” the meaning of intercession according to them is a meaning beyond this, as will come, [quoting] from Ibn al-Qayyim. (Mawlana) Zafar Ahmad.

7. I say: After this it is not permissible to charge those who prostrate to graves with disbelief and major shirk (al-shirk al-akbar) due only to the belief about the inhabitants of graves that they are their intercessors with Allah, so long as they are not asked about the nature of this belief of theirs. Before asking [them about the nature of their belief], we must act on what the scholars said, that the statement of a speaker, “the spring produced vegetation,” is understood as a literal attribution if the one who said it is an atheist and a metaphorical attribution if the one who said it is a monotheist. Likewise, the statement, “these are our intercessors with Allah,” will be understood as the polytheistic intercession if the speaker is not a Muslim, and a Shar‘i intercession if he is a Muslim. Likewise, the statement that “so-and-so benefits and harms” will be understood as intrinsic benefit and harm if an open disbeliever, and benefit and harm by the permission of Allah and His grace which He endowed on him if a believing monotheist who accepts Islam. This is how this matter ought to be understood. And all praise belongs to Allah, the Gracious Sovereign.

   Perhaps you realised from the distinction which ‘Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim discussed that it is based on what Shaykh [Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi] said in explaining the difference in the belief of causative agency and its absence. Thus, the idolater believes that the intercession of his object of worship is effective due to what he has of independent power according to his belief, while the monotheist who glorifies graves does not believe it has causative agency, nor that an intercessor causes harm and benefit [intrinsically], but only believes that he will not be rejected in his intercession due to the position he holds before Allah. This is not shirk, although it is a sinful [belief]. So, understand! (Mawlana) Zafar Ahmad.

8. The implied opposite meaning here is: if it is not believed that extraordinary powers are unrestricted by permission from Allah, it is not shirk.

The cause of the error in this respect is that the westerners and their devotees analogise the slaves of Islam to the slaves of Greece, Rome and Europe who would live in the utmost debasement, difficulty and desolation. Their humanity was not recognised and no rights were afforded them and they hadn’t the slightest share in social intercourse.

The truth is that the slave in Islam differs from these slaves completely, and we ought to begin this study with the testimony of a well-known European Orientalist, Professor Gustave Le Bon, who wrote in his famous book known as The Civilisation of the Arabs:

When the word slavery is spoken to a European who is accustomed to reading American novels written over the last thirty years, he pictures the exploitation of those poor people shackled in iron chains, driven by whips; people who were barely fed enough to keep them alive, and were made to live in dingy cabins. It does not concern me whether this description is authentic and accords with the reality of what occurred from the English in America over a few short years, and whether it was even conceivable for a slave-owner to entertain the idea of mistreating them and making them suffer torture and humiliation since that will result in the loss of a valuable commodity which the negro was at that time. But there is no doubt the picture of slavery in Islam is absolutely different from the picture of slavery in Christianity.

Once this has been settled, know that Islam came, and slavery was widespread in the eastern and western parts of the globe, and slaves were treated with harshness and debasement for which the forehead of humanity drips [with sweat], so it was from the wisdom of Islam that it did not prohibit slavery completely, nor did it render it totally void, but it legislated rules for it and made boundaries for it in a way that made it contribute to human wellbeing and the development of human society.

Thus, Islam allowed the taking of slaves with the condition that it is in a jihad sanctioned by the Shari‘ah against the disbelievers. So while the Romans would force people into slavery because of committing some crimes, and while they would put the children of slave women into slavery, apart from the captives of wars, Islam announced that it is not permissible to put anyone into slavery except in a jihad sanctioned by the Shari‘ah. Furthermore, slavery is not the only option for a captive of a jihad sanctioned by the Shari‘ah. Rather, the Imam has four options with respect to them: either he orders their execution or puts them into slavery, or he frees them by taking ransom or he shows favour on them so releases them without taking anything [in return]. Thus, taking slaves is not something necessary in Islam. Rather, it is one of four options. That is because the matter of war is a multifaceted matter, and sometimes situations arise therein in which nothing is suitable besides taking slaves because if we executed all the captives there would be wastage of human power, and were we to free them in totality, that would encourage disbelief and encourage disbelievers to commit acts of aggression against the Muslims; and were we to imprison them for the entire period of their lives that would waste their talents and waste wealth on them without any benefit returning to the society. As for taking slaves – with its conditions and its limits – it is free from this and that, for in it is preservation of the human species and nurturing him with an Islamic nurturing, and strengthening it by employing the talents of the slaves for the wellbeing of the society. This is why Islam has left four doors open for the Imam to select from them what is appropriate to the situations and fitting to the conditions.

Moreover, Islam has afforded slaves rights that have no precedent in any other religion. Thus, He (Exalted is He) said: “And be good to parents and to kinsmen and orphans and the needy and the close neighbour and the distant neighbour and the companion at your side and the wayfarer and to what your right hands possess [i.e. your slaves]. Surely, Allah does not like those who are arrogant, proud.” (4:36)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Your brothers, your servants, Allah has placed them under your authority. So whoever’s brother is under his authority, he should feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears. Do not burden them with what overpowers them, and if you burden them, help them.” Al-Bukhari transmitted it in Kitab al-Iman, Bab al-Ma‘asi min Amr al-Jahiliyyah (1:9) and in Kitab al-‘Itq, Bab Qawl al-Nabi al-‘Abid Ikhwanukum (1:346).

And he said: “The one who is harsh to his slaves will not enter paradise.” They said: “O Messenger of Allah! Did you not inform us that this ummah is the ummah with the most slaves and orphans?” He said: “Yes! So honour them as you honour your children and feed them from what you eat…” Ibn Majah transmitted it in Kitab al-Adab, Bab al-Ihsan ila al-Mamalik (1:271). And he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, its compensation is to free him.” Abu Dawud transmitted it in Kitab al-Adab, Bab Haqq al-Mamluk (2:703).

It was from the intense concern of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) for slaves that the last word he spoke before his death was encouragement towards fulfilment of their rights. Thus, Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates: “The general will of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) when death came to him and he was giving up his soul was: ‘[Be steadfast on] prayer, and [take care of] what your right hands possess.’” Ibn Majah transmitted it in Abwab al-Wasaya (1:198), and he transmitted from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him): “The last statement of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was: ‘[Be steadfast on] prayer, and [take care of] what your right hands possess.’” Abu Dawud also transmitted it in al-Adab, Bab Haqq al-Mamluk (2:701), and his wording is: “[Be observant of] Salah, [be observant of] Salah! And fear Allah in what your right hands possess.”

Such hadiths are plenty. There isn’t enough space here to exhaust them. In sum, Islam changed the system of slavery in a manner that made it one of mutual love and brotherhood, and nothing remained in Islam except the name of slavery. In fact, Islam even changed the name of slavery, in what Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “One of you should not say ‘my male slave’ or ‘my female slave’ and the slave should not say ‘my lord’ or ‘my lady.’ The owner should say ‘my boy’ and ‘my girl,’ and the slave should say ‘my master’ and ‘my mistress.’” Abu Dawud transmitted it in al-Adab, Bab la yaqul al-Mamluk Rabbi wa Rabbati (2:680).

These laws were not merely inserted in the insides of pages. Rather, the Muslims in every period from the periods of their history put them into practice, and would treat their slaves as they treat their own brothers. So how many a slave in the history of Islam reached – despite being a slave – the peak of glory and leadership, and how many a slave became a resource for the freemen in knowledge and gnosis, and how many a slave lived a life envied by freemen?! Indeed our history is full of such examples which are sufficient to prove that the laws of good social behaviour with slaves were not neglected in a period from the periods [of history]. Rather, they were living laws, on which the Islamic society acted, and from which the wisdom of Islam in permitting taking slaves shone forth. Whoever studies the books of rijal and the conditions of the narrators of hadith and the scholars, he finds that most of them were freed slaves. Hence, this is ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah in Makkah, and Tawus ibn Kaysan in the Yemen, and Yazid ibn Habib in Egypt, Makhul in the Levant, al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim in the Hijaz; all of them were freed slaves, and all of them were in one period, and the leadership of knowledge and jurisprudence culminated in them in their lands.

Furthermore, Islam encourages freeing many slaves, along with the rights the slaves enjoy under its dominion. Thus it considers the freeing of prisoners a separate expenditure from the expenditures of Zakat, and it considers freeing slaves at the forefront of every compensation, such that it considers it a compensation for slapping the slave man and woman as has preceded, and it describes many virtues of emancipating slaves the like of which is not mentioned for other good deeds, and it considers it from those things that jesting in which is to be regarded as serious, and it orders making plenty of it at the time of solar and lunar eclipse, as al-Bukhari narrated in Bab ma Yustahabbu min al-‘Itaqah fi l-Kusuf.

This is why we see the Sahabah hastening towards freeing slaves, and seizing opportunities for it. Thus it was narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave Abu al-Haytham ibn al-Tayhan (Allah be pleased with him) a slave and he said: “Accept the advice of kindness to him.” Abu al-Haytham proceeded to his wife and informed her of the statement of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), so she said: “You will not reach what the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said about him unless you free him.” He said: “He is free.” Al-Tirmidhi transmitted it in Abwab al-Zuhd, Bab ma ja’a fi Ma‘ishat Ashab al-Nabi sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam.

And it is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) that when he came with the intention to accept Islam and he had with him a slave, they were each parted from the other. Afterwards, he came while Abu Hurayrah was sitting with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “O Abu Hurayrah! This is your slave who has come to you.” He said: “Take notice, verily I make you witness that he is free!” Al-Bukhari transmitted it in Bab idha qala li ‘abdihi huwa liLlahi wa nawa l-‘itq (1:343). And the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave Abu Dharr a slave, and he said: “Accept the advice of kindness to him,” so he freed him. Al-Bukhari transmitted it in al-Adab al-Mufrad, Bab al-‘Afw ‘an al-Khadim (no. 163).

Whenever Ibn ‘Umar became overly attracted to some form of wealth, he would take it [i.e. emancipating slaves] as a means of attaining closeness to Allah (Exalted is He), and his slaves would know this of him. Once, one of them stayed constantly in the mosque, so when Ibn ‘Umar saw him in that beautiful condition, he freed him. His companions said to him: “They are deceiving you.” He said: “Whoever deceives us by means of Allah we will fall prey to him.” Al-Nawawi narrated it in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa l-Lughat (1:280), and Ibn Sa‘d transmitted it in the biography of Ibn ‘Umar in his Tabaqat (4:167). And from what is known about ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) is that he would free a slave from the slaves every Friday.

Thus, these are a few examples from those beautiful incidents which adorn Islamic history, which we cannot exhaust in this place. We only cited them so a picture of the Islamic society may be gleaned. We should relate here what ‘Allamah al-Nawwab Siddiq Hasan Khan narrated from al-Najm al-Wahhaj that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) freed 63 people, the number of years of his life, and he enumerated their names. He said:

And ‘A’ishah freed 69, and she lived for that number of years, and Abu Bakr freed many, and al-‘Abbas freed 70 slaves. Al-Hakim narrated it. ‘Uthman freed twenty when he was besieged, and Hakim ibn Hizam freed a hundred loading them with silver, and ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar freed a thousand, and he performed a thousand ‘umrahs, and he performed sixty Hajjs, and he kept 1000 horses for [fighting] in the path of Allah, and Dhu l-Kala‘ al-Himyari freed 8000 slaves in one day, and ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf freed 30,000 people. See: Fath al-‘Allam Sharh Bulugh al-Maram, Kitab al-‘Itq (2:332).

These are only eight men, who had freed 39322 slaves! You can deduce from this the extent of the generosity of the Muslims in freeing their slaves. And those whose condition this was with respect to freeing, how is it possible that their treatment of slaves would not be one of noble brotherly behaviour?

This is slavery in Islam and these are its consequences! We should cite here some testimonies from some of the westerners who observed the conditions of the slaves in Islam. A French writer said:

Slavery is not a blemish in the Islamic lands. All the sultans of Constantinople who were Muslim rulers were all born from the wombs of slave women, and that did not diminish their bravery and their courage…The rulers of Egypt would often purchase slaves, educate them and nurture them, and then marry them to their daughters. When you examine the rulers of Cairo and its leaders and the generals of its armies, you will find that most of them were from those who were sold [into slavery] in their young age for a price between 800 to 1,200 [coins].

And Lady Blunt, an English woman who travelled to the Arab lands, documents in the chronicles of her visit to Najd a conversation she had with an Arab man:

There was something that the man did not find comprehensible, which is why the English empire banned slave trade. We said to him: “That is the requirement of humanism.” He replied: “There is no oppression in trading slaves, and has anyone seen us mistreating our slaves?” And the reality was that this answer dumbfounded us, as we were not able to show the man a single example of mistreatment of slaves in what we saw for the entire period of our stay in Arabia. The truth is that the slave for the Arabs is not a servant of theirs, but a beloved child of theirs.

These statements and the likes of them were quoted by Gustave Le Bon in his book called The Civilisation of the Arabs, and then he said in conclusion:

Those Europeans who wish to ban slave trade in the Eastern lands, although they have goodwill towards mankind and have good intention, the Eastern people will not accept that, and will say: “What is it with these ‘well-wishers’ having affection for the Ethiopians, yet forcing the Chinese people with their machine guns and their bombs to sell opium, and have caused the death of men and have shed more blood in one year than slave owners have not done in tens of years?!”

See the Urdu translation of The Civilisation of the Arabs (p. 348).

Refutation of those who Claim that Slavery is Abrogated

In recent times, many of the Europeans objected to the rule of slavery in Islam, ignorant or feigning ignorance of its conditions and its limits, and its wisdoms and its powerful effects in history. Then a group stood from amongst the Muslims apologising on behalf of Islam, and distorting it based on the whims of the Westerners. Thus, they said that slavery is not permissible in Islam today, and it was only allowed in the beginning of Islam; then, this permission was abrogated in the latter parts of the life of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). From those in India who defended this weak and false claim is the famous writer Chiragh Ali, who was a colleague of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. He wrote an article in his book The Greatest Statement on the Ascension of Islam to prove this claim and he produced therein weak evidences which will make even the bereaved laugh. We have no need to cite these evidences and refute them as they are such that all who have the slightest grasp of religion and knowledge will regard them as baseless, but he produced a doubt in this book which may be confusing to some people, so we wish to discuss it and refute it.

He cited His (Exalted is He) statement in Surah Muahmmad: “When you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly [on them]. Then, it is either (imma) generosity or ransom.” (47:4) And he said: “Allah (Exalted is He) mentioned only two options for the prisoners of war: generosity or ransom, and He did not mention execution or enslavement. Thus it is evident that they were commands at the start of Islam, but this verse abrogated it thereafter.”

Since this doubt has confused the matter for some people, we should respond to it in some detail.

Know that there is no evidence in this verse whatsoever for the prohibition of taking slaves and the abrogation of its permissibility, and that is for a number of reasons:

1) If we were to look at the words of the verse we see that they do not negate enslavement because the word “imma” (either/or) does not prove restriction at all, and this word is used in the meaning of excluding the possibility of combining the options (man‘ al-jam‘)^[1] as in their statement, “Sit either with Hasan or Zayd,” which does not negate sitting with others. Ibn Hisham said:

Imma has five meanings. First, doubt, like: “Either Zayd or ‘Amr came to me,” when it is not known which of them came. Second, ambiguity, like: “And there are others whose matter is deferred till the command of Allah [comes]. Either He would punish them or relent towards them.” (9:106) Third, to give choice, like: “Either punish them or adopt good behaviour with them” (18:86) and: “Either you throw, or shall we be first to throw?” (20:65)… Fourth, permission, like: “Either you learn jurisprudence or grammar,” and: “Sit either with Hasan or with Ibn Sirin.” Fifth, elaboration, like: “Either grateful or ungrateful” (76:3). This is from Mughni al-Labib of Ibn Hisham (1:60)

It is thus evident that imma does not have the meaning of restriction. Yes, when this word is used in between two opposite entities, it comes for restriction, not because it is from the meanings of the word imma, but because of the opposition between the two entities rationally. And since rationally a third thing can be added to generosity and ransom in the verse, it is evident that the word imma is not for restriction in the verse, but is in the meaning of permission by way of negating the possibility of combining between the various options, not actual exclusion [of any one of the options].

Once you are aware of this, the verse only mentions two options with respect to the captives without negating anything else. It is silent about other options and does not negate them. So when enslavement or execution are established by other Shar‘i proofs, the verse does not conflict with them or deny them, and enslavement is established by other decisive evidences as will come later if Allah wills, so it cannot be rejected based on this verse.

As for the wisdom in Allah (Exalted is He) sufficing here with generosity and ransom, and not mentioning execution and enslavement, it is that execution and enslavement were widespread and known, and no one would doubt their permissibility when the Qur’an was revealed, but there was doubt only in the permissibility of granting favour and ransom, so Allah (Glorified is He) explained their ruling.

Imam al-Razi answered it in another way, as he said in his Tafsir (7:508): “Imma and innama are for restriction^[2] and their condition after captivity is not restricted to these two matters. Rather, execution, enslavement, generosity and ransom are all permissible. We say: This is a counsel, so He mentioned a general command applicable to all categories [of captives]. Enslavement is not permissible for the Arab captives, as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was from them, thus he did not mention enslavement. As for execution, [it is not mentioned] because the apparent [condition] of those who are thoroughly subdued is that they are crippled [and so cannot inflict any harm], and because killing was mentioned in His statement ‘smiting the necks’ (47:4). Hence, only the two options remain.”

2) When we consider the word generosity (mann), it may also include enslavement, as generosity is to release the captive without any monetary exchange and without killing [him] and that is also achieved by enslavement. This is why al-Zamakhshari said in al-Kashshaf (4:316): “It is possible that by ‘generosity’ is meant that he favours them by not killing them and they are put into slavery, or he favours them by releasing them after their acceptance of jizyah and [their acceptance of] being from the people of the covenant (dhimmah).” So if this explanation is taken and there is no obstacle to it at all^[3], enslavement is [in fact] mentioned in this verse and is not negated or unmentioned.

3) Many verses were revealed after this verse which prove the permissibility of enslavement, and if the verse of generosity and ransom abrogated slavery, these verses would not have been revealed after it. The explanation of this is that Surah Muhammad is Meccan according to some Tabi‘in, like Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, al-Dahhak and according to al-Tha‘labi as al-Qurtubi related in his Tafsir (12:323); and it is Medinan according to the majority, but was revealed around the time of the Battle of Badr, either before the battle as indicated by the explanation of Ibn ‘Abbas in Tanwir al-Miqbas^[4], or after the Battle of Badr as mentioned in Tafsir Ibn Kathir (4:173). Hence, the time of its revelation did not go beyond 2 H. And after that the following verses were revealed:

He (Exalted is He) said in the verse of unmarriagable women (muharramat): “Also [prohibited are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess,” (4:24) and this verse was revealed about the captives of Awtas, as has preceded in Bab Jawaz Wat’ al-Masbiyyah ba‘d al-Istibra from this book. Muslim transmitted the hadith from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the Day of Hunayn sent an army to Awtas, whereupon they faced the enemy and fought them and overcame them and captured prisoners from them. People from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) believed it was sinful to have intercourse with them due to their husbands from the idolaters, so Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) revealed about that: “Also [prohibited are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess” i.e. they are permissible for you, when their waiting period finishes.

Hence, Allah (Glorified is He), in this verse, allowed enslavement and taking captives as concubines, even though it was revealed after the verse of generosity and ransom, so if enslavement was abrogated by the verse of generosity and ransom, how could this permission have been revealed in the year 8 H?

He (Exalted is He) said in Surah al-Ahzab: “O prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has given to you as spoils of war.” (33:50) Hence, Allah (Glorified is He) allowed for His Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to take captives from the spoils of war as concubines, and it is known that no captive came as spoils of war in the Battle of Badr or Uhud or Ahzab but they came in the Battle of Khaybar and other later battles, so this ruling is definitely later than the verse of generosity and ransom.

And then He (Exalted is He) said after that: “No women are lawful for you after this, nor is it lawful that you replace them [i.e. the present wives] with other wives, even though their goodness may attract you.” (33:52) Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir (3:501): “Many scholars, like Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, al-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarir and others, mentioned that this verse was revealed as a reward for the wives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and in approval of them for their beautiful conduct in their choosing Allah and His Messenger [over worldly pleasures]. Their reward is that Allah restricted him to them, and He forbade him from marrying others, or to replace them with other wives even if their goodness attracts him, except slave women and captives, as there is no harm for him in them. Then He (Exalted is He) removed the burden from him in this and He abrogated the ruling of this verse and He allowed him to marry [others], although he did not marry thereafter, as a favour of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) over them.”

Thus the statement of Ibn Kathir proves that these verses were revealed after the choice given [to the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned in Qur’an 33:28-9], and the choice was given [to them] in the year 9 H, as al-Hafiz verified in al-Fath, Tafsir al-Ahzab (8:401), and in Bab Maw‘izat al-Rajul ibnatahu min al-Nikah (9:250), so this verse was certainly revealed in 9 H or afterwards, and there is permission of enslavement and taking slaves as concubines in it. From another perspective, the statement of Ibn Kathir clearly proves that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not marry a woman after the revelation of this verse, and the last woman the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) married was Maymunah, who he married in 7 H during the make-up ‘umrah, as Ibn Sa‘d mentioned in his Tabaqat (8:132), so this verse was revealed after 7 H. In all cases, the verse was revealed long after the verse of generosity and ransom, and there is permission in it of enslavement and taking concubines.

4) It is established from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he took slaves in more than one instance after the revelation of this verse, as he enslaved the women and children of Banu Qurayzah, which was shortly after Ahzab, and he enslaved the women of Khaybar – and from them Safiyyah, the Mother of the Believers (Allah be pleased with her) – and he enslaved Banu al-Mustaliq – and from them Juwayriyah, the Mother of the Believers – and he enslaved the women of Awtas, as has preceded, and the women of Hawazin and he distributed them amongst the fighters.

The last word spoken by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is: “[Be observant of] Salah, and [be good to] those your right hands possess,” as has preceded from the narration of Ibn Majah and Abu Dawud. The permissibility of slavery, and recognition of right-hand ownership, is evident in this. Hence, there is no ruling more decisive than this, and there is no possibility of abrogation therein at all, as it is the final word of the Noble Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Thereafter, slavery remained an institution practiced by the ummah in the time of the Sahabah and those after them, and no one condemned it. Were they all – and protection is from Allah – ignorant of the verse of generosity and ransom? Was there none amongst them who understood the Qur’an?! Would they not give attention to the laws of Allah (Glorified is He)?! Can anyone conceive of this from the Sahabah, Tabi‘in, jurists and hadith-masters who spent their lives and wealth in the path of conveying the pure religion, and did not fear in that the blame of a blamer?

Thus, the clear manifest truth is that taking slaves is permissible in Islam, with its laws and its limits which have preceded, and nothing has abrogated it, and there are wisdoms in this which we have explained, and the opinion of its abrogation is rejected and is against consensus, and has no proof from the proofs of the Shari‘ah.

Note:

Here something important should be kept in mind, which is that most of the nations of the world have today formed a pact between them, and have agreed that a prisoner from the captives of war will not be put into slavery, and most of the Islamic lands today are participants of this agreement, particularly the members of the United Nations, so it is not permissible for an Islamic country today to put a captive into slavery as long as this pact remains. As for the question of whether this pact is allowed, I have not seen its ruling explicitly in [the writings of] the early scholars, and it is apparent that it is permissible because taking slaves is not something obligatory, rather it is an option from four options, and the option therein is for the Imam. And it is apparent from the texts on the virtue of emancipation and other [texts] that freedom is more desirable in the Islamic Shari‘ah [than slavery], so there is no harm in making such a pact, so long as other nations conform to it and do not violate it. And Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best the truth, and to Him is the return and destination.

Takmilah Fath al Mulhim 1:260-269

1. Meaning, negating the possibility of taking all of the options at once. Instead, one of the options must be taken at the expense of the other options.
2. It has passed that imma is not for restriction, so Imam al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) erred here. (Mufti Taqi Usmani) 
3. This interpretation can be derived from the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basri, because he disliked executing the captive and he recited “either generosity or ransom” and he derived from this [verse] that the Imam does not have the right to execute the prisoners that come under his authority, but he has three choices: either freedom, ransom or enslavement, as mentioned in Tafsir al-Qurtubi (16:228). This entails that he included enslavement in “generosity,” and this is what became apparent to me in carefully reading Tafsir Ibn Jarir (26:24-5), as his speech indicates that generosity includes enslavement, and Allah knows best. (Mufti Taqi Usmani)
4. Tanwir al-Miqbas, printed in a collection of four Tafsirs (5:592), and it is known that the chain of transmission of Tanwir al-Miqbas is not authentic to Ibn ‘Abbas, but I mentioned it as a possible interpretation. (Mufti Taqi Usmani)

The Question of Economics in Islam

Before discussing the forms of livelihood and economics, a point distinguishing Islamic economics from other economic theories must be kept in mind, and that is that although Islam opposes monasticism in terms of its abstention from worldly amenities and its abhorrence of indulging in the acquisition of sustenance, and it [i.e. Islam] deems human activity in the field of economics permissible, rather it often regards it as favourable or obligatory; nonetheless, despite all of this, Islam does not regard economics as a fundamental concern for humanity, just as it does not deem economic advancement as the objective of human life.

And by this, the great and fundamental divide between Islamic economics and materialistic economics becomes evident, which is that materialistic economics regards livelihood as a foundation for humanity, and it opines that wealth and pleasure are the desired objective and the foundational goal for all of what a human being does in this worldly life, and he has no other goal besides bringing pleasure to himself or pleasure to other children of Adam.

As for Islamic economics, it recognises on the one hand, that seeking a livelihood and acquiring sustenance is from that which humanity cannot do without; but on the other hand, it does not allow him to make seeking a livelihood his greatest concern or the limit of his knowledge or the peak of his ambition. This is why we see that the Qur’an, on the one hand, condemns monasticism and enjoins seeking the bounty of Allah, and refers to trade as “seeking the bounty of Allah” and wealth as “goodness” and nutrition as “the pure things of sustenance” and dress as “the adornment of Allah” and shelter as “tranquillity,” but on the other hand we see that it refers to the worldly life as “the tool of deception” and it condemns the material world in many of its verses.

This is not a contradiction or inconsistency at all. Rather, the secret behind this is that the Qur’an regards all means of livelihood as stages through which humanity passes in his path towards the objective which he aims towards, which is the virtuous traits which pave the way towards the pleasure of Allah and eternal happiness in the afterlife. There is no doubt that the real concern for humanity and his desired objective boils down to the acquisition of this happiness; and since it is not possible without passing through the thorny paths of the material world, it is necessary to acquire everything that we are in need of from the worldly life.

Thus, as long as the means of livelihood occupy the place of a bridge in a person’s life which he adopts as a crossing-point to his true destination, they represent the properties of “the bounty of Allah” and “goodness” and “adornment of Allah” and “tranquillity.” But, when a human being loses his way and the glitter of this life attracts him and he falls prey to dreams and fantasies, and he adopts the means as an end and he forgets his fundamental objective, these [very] means transform into a “tool of deception” and “temptation” and “enemy” just as the Noble Qur’an states.

Allah (Glorified is He) expressed this meaning in His (Great and Exalted is He) statement: “And seek with what Allah has given you the Latter Abode, and do not forget your share of the material world.” (Qur’an 28:77)

The Reality of Wealth and Ownership

The second fundamental issue which carries great importance in the topic of Islamic economics is that whatever form wealth takes, it is but the creation of Allah and His property, and that which human beings own is an endowment from Allah to him. Allah (Glorified is He) says: “And give to them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.” (24:33)

And indeed the Noble Qur’an has alluded to the reason for this in another place, and that is that humanity is not able to obtain anything more than expending his efforts in eliminating obstructions. As for his efforts bearing fruits and bringing about results, it is not possible but with the command of Allah, since it is not in the capacity of humanity but to sow the seeds in the earth and to remove from it stones and other hurdles. As for making the seeds sprout and transforming them into a plant and then a tree, it is not possible but with the power of Allah (Glorious is He). Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) says: “Have you seen what you sow? Is it you that causes it to grow or are the Ones Who cause it to grow?” (56:63-4) And He says: “Do they not see that We have created for them, of what Our hands have created, cattle, and then they becomes their owners?” (36:71)

These verses shed brilliant light on the fundamental axiom regarding the reality of wealth and its ownership, which is that whatever form wealth takes, it is owned exclusively by Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and it is His provision to humanity, and since wealth is the property of Allah, humanity do not have autonomy in this ownership but through the specific path He has instituted in the Islamic Shari ‘ah, and since Allah (Glorified is He) is the One Who bestows humanity the right of disposition therein, humanity must submit in his dealings to the laws of Allah. This is why humanity owns things and disposes therein, but he does not have complete freedom in his disposition of it and his usage thereof, but it is necessary for him to submit to the law of Allah and His command and stop at His boundaries and follow His laws. Thus, he may not spend this wealth but in accordance with what Allah has commanded, and he must withhold from what He has forbidden. Allah (Glorified is He) has clarified this in His statement: “And seek with what Allah has given you the Latter Abode, and do not forget your share of the material world. And do good as Allah did good to you, and do not seek corruption in the earth.” (Qur’an 28:77).

This verse explains the philosophy of ownership in Islam. The following principles can be derived from it:

1. All that humanity possesses of wealth is purely Allah’s bestowal to him.
2. Man must not forget his destination, which is the afterlife, when dealing with it.
3. And since wealth is from that which Allah has given him, he must dispose of it in accordance with the commands of Allah, and that is in two ways:
   1. firstly, that Allah has commanded him to give his wealth to others, and this is a command which must be obeyed, because Allah (Glorified is He) has done good to him in His bestowal of ownership over His wealth, thus it is His prerogative to order him to do good to others;
   2. and secondly, that He forbids him from any dealings with this wealth, and that is because He does not permit him to spend the wealth in a matter which leads to societal corruptions or corruption in the earth.

This is the manifest particularity of ownership in Islam, which distinguishes it from capitalism and communism in terms of ownership. It is known that the foundation of capitalism is based on materialism, in reality and in practice, and it believes that humanity has monopoly over his wealth and his fortune without another power sharing with him in its disposition and usage, and he has every right to do with it whatever he pleases. The Noble Qur’an has condemned this idea where it points to what the people of Shu‘ayb would say to him: “Does your prayer command you that we should leave what our forefathers worshipped, or that we should cease doing what we like with our property?” (11:87)

Since they believed that wealth is their property in actuality without there being one who provided it to them, they unqualifiedly used the word “our property,” and they asserted therein their disposition and ownership in their statement “doing what we like with our property” and this is a necessary consequence of this ideology.

This ideology announced by the people of our master, Shu‘ayb (upon him be peace), is the basic spirit of capitalism, and indeed the Qur’an demolished this ideology of capitalism by changing the thinking which ascribes wealth to man to an understanding which announces that wealth is the property of Allah.

And that is followed by His statement: “which He has given you” (24:33) to strike at the foundations of communism which rejects individual ownership and does not concede it in any situation.

It will now be possible for us to distinguish between Islam and capitalism and communism and to designate each of these three by that which distinguishes it from the other; thus we say:

Capitalism creates individual ownership which is free from all restrictions and limitations.

Communism rejects individual ownership (at least in the means of production) and it does not concede it in any situation.

Islam recognises individual ownership but it does not free it of all restrictions and limitations, and it does not loosen its rein such that it causes corruption on the earth.

A Theoretical Comparison between Modern Economic Systems and Islam

After laying down these two introductory principles, we wish to explain the foundational difference between Islam and modern economic theories, and comment on the foundations of these systems and the extent of their error in the viewpoint of Islam.

A Summary of the Questions of Economics

Know that the primary questions of economics for every economic system are four, which every system must solve. In the convention of the economists, they are: the question of selecting [what to produce], the question of [which] resources to use, the question of distributing the wealth and the question of growth.

As for the question of selection, they mean thereby organising the desired products according to the needs of the society and the extent of their requirements, because every country owns lands for cultivating which are suitable for a variety of different types of yields and a range of natural resources which are capable of being used for a variety of products. Thus, every country must select some products over others in accordance with their needs and the requirement of those products, so that it uses its land for the required yields and its factories for the required products. One country, for example, can produce wheat and rice and it can also produce coffee and tobacco, thus it must prioritise these things and give preference to some of them over others in accordance with their needs, which will be more beneficial for the society.

As for the question of [which] resources to use, they mean the distribution of resources to produce the required things to a suitable extent, as it is necessary for every country – when it desires success in economics – to employ these resources according to what it has decided in the [process of] selection, and to divide its resources according to the various products in a manner that will be most beneficial and produce the most profit for the society, so it must specify how much land should be occupied in producing wheat? And how much should be used in cultivating rice? And how much in cultivating sugarcane? And how many factories should be erected to manufacture clothes? And how many to manufacture sugar and how many to produce pharmaceuticals? And other such [questions]. And that must be in accordance with the requirements of the society and in accordance with the priorities which it specified in the first question, so that it does not waste resources in producing something that is not required.

As for the question of [how to] distribute the wealth, they intend thereby, how should we distribute the range of material wealth that we acquire after employing the natural recourses to the citizens [of the country]? And what is the measure of distribution amongst them?

As for the question of growth, they intend thereby the need of every society to not stop at a limit in the work of production; instead, it must increase in this work such that it becomes possible for it to invent new things and devise beneficial techniques in every aspect of material crafts; thus, there should be a system which intrinsically encourages growth and stimulates novelty in the country.

These are the four elements of every economic system, and the contemporary theories differ in the method of solving these questions, and we will refer to these four questions as “economic organisation” in our following discussion.

The Theory of Capitalism

As for capitalism, it states that there is no route to economic organisation unless we give each individual from the individuals of society complete autonomy in acquiring a livelihood, in order that he struggles to acquire the most that he can in terms of profit and wealth, and when we do that these four problems will naturally be resolved, and economic organisation will be achieved automatically.

The explanation of this, according to what the capitalists describe, is that there are two natural forces on which economic organisation rests, and they are supply and demand. As for supply, it is the trader taking his goods to the market to sell them, and demand is the buyer coming to the market to purchase them. And from the well-known laws of economics is that every time supply is more than demand, prices decrease, and every time supply is less than demand, prices increase. Hence, when there are a thousand garments of one type in the market, for example, and there are only seven hundred who wish to buy it, the price of the garment will certainly decrease because the supply is high and the demand is low. But when the buyers are more than a thousand, the price of the garment will naturally increase because the demand is more than the supply.

Therefore, whenever man has complete autonomy in acquiring his livelihood, he will not bring to the market except what has high demand, so that he can acquire as much profit [as possible], because if he brings to the market goods that have little need, he will not be able to sell it for a high price and his profit will be low. This is why every man in society is forced to produce what the society needs and refrain from what the society does not need, and that is by the very nature of the forces of supply and demand.

Thus, the capitalists say that these two forces arrange all the economic activities, and the questions of selection, and the questions of employing resources, are solved thereby; for whenever the question of selection arises, for example, the man who enjoys complete autonomy in acquiring as much as possible in terms of profit will not select for production except what has highest demand and the most need, and when the question of employing resources arises, the man will not employ his resources except in the production of what has most profit, and something will not have more profit unless its demand is high and its demand will not be high unless the society is in need of it.

So, for example, when he manufactures more shoes with respect to the demand, their prices will decrease, and they may drop below the cost of production, and when the situation is such, some of the producers may stop production, and because of that the supply will drop and the prices will begin to rise; and when a large number of producers stop producing, the prices may increase to high levels such that it drives some producers outside the industry to enter into the industry again, and this process will continue until it reaches an equilibrium, where the supply of shoes in the market will be at the same level as its demand; and this is the objective.

As for the question of the distribution of wealth, the forces of supply and demand also organise distribution in the view of the capitalists. That is because only the elements of production – which are land, money, work and investment – are entitled to wealth. Thus, the land is entitled to hire, and money is entitled to interest, and work is entitled to wages and investment is entitled to profit. The quantity of hire or interest or wages or profit is not determined except by the forces of supply and demand, since when the demand of land is more than its supply it will be leased more, and when its demand is less it will be leased less; similarly, if the demand of wealth is more than its supply, the value of interest will increase and when it is the reverse, its value will decrease, and work is similar to this also, so if the demand of work – meaning, the demand of wages – is more than the number of available workers, wages will increase, and if its demand is less, it will decrease.

In similar fashion, the forces of supply and demand organise the distribution of wealth.

As for the question of growth, it is resolved in a similar way, and that is because since every person is free to acquire the most that is possible in terms of profit and fortune, he will strive to innovate new things, and invent novel instruments, in order that interest in them increases and their prices rise. Hence, the objective, which is growth, is acquired.

This is the basic philosophy of capitalism, and if you wish to summarise the principles of this philosophy, it is clear that it stands on the following foundations:

1. Autonomy of ownership, whereby the individuals own all commodities, whether produced or consumed, with a full and complete autonomy, without responsibilities and obligations.
2. Economic autonomy: Individuals have the right to establish their own projects and invest their own wealth without intervention of the state. Hence, the market is the operator, organiser and controller, and competition between the force of production and its elements on the one hand, and competition between the consumers in the path of acquiring commodities which they desire on the other hand, is manifestly what distinguishes a free economy, and it is at the same time what guarantees the organisation of the market and realisation of the interests of all.
3. The autonomy of profit: Profit in capitalism is recompense for a person of work and for an organiser, with respect to their work and their planning. Thus, it is not possible for the state to restrict this autonomy, because capitalism considers the instrument of prices and the forces of supply and demand as though they were operators that control [the market] which direct economic activity automatically, so there is no need for government intervention.

The Theory of Communism

As for communism, it opposed capitalism and says, we should not entrust the matter of economic organisation to the forces of supply and demand which have no mind and no understanding, as they are blind forces, and we will not achieve by means of them an equilibrium but after economic crises and great harm; while these two forces do not have in their hand an electronic switch by which the work of production will stop by switching it off or will restart by switching it on. Rather, altering the conditions of production is an effect that takes a long time, and during this long period of time resources will be lost in needless [ventures]. So when we wish for economic organisation according to the needs of society, we must not allow anyone to own the means of production with a personal ownership. Rather, the means of production should all be in the ownership of the state, and the state will put economic planning into action and it will decide the needs of the society and the extents of that need, and then it will organise the means of production to employ them in fulfilling those needs. Hence, every stage in the stages of production will be in accordance with this plan. Thus, the state is what determines the priorities, and it is what organises the resources, and it is what specifies the wages of the workers, because once all the resources are in the hands of the government, nothing remains for the people besides work. In lieu of it, they will be given wages in accordance with their work, so there is no need for profit, or interest, or leasing. Rather, wealth will be distributed between the populace in the form of wages, and profit, interest and leasing are all prohibited in the philosophy of communism because the price of goods according to them is only the price of work. As for what the seller or the leaser demands in a capitalist market above the value of the work in the form of profit, interest or rent, it is called “surplus value” according to them which is absolute injustice in their view.

Critique of Communism from the Perspective of Islam

As for communism, it has erred in the first step of its thought, and that is because such societal issues are not resolved by a plan from the government, and indeed entrusting them to a government plan is against human nature, as man’s volition in the economic sphere is something related to his natural aptness and his innate affinity, and if it was made to be compelled by governments, it would become something forced, against his nature and his disposition.

And this is, just as we see in every country, marriage occurs between a number of young men and women according to their personal suitability and the affinity of some of them to others, and often we see that this sporadic system of marriage leads to disagreements between them. However, a sane person will never think of blocking these disagreements by means of a government plan, so the government specifies that so-and-so boy will only marry so-and-so girl, and that so-and-so girl will not marry but so-and-so boy, and if the government were to do that, it would be something opposed to human nature; and this system only operates on the basis of suitability and affinity in which the government has no say, and there is no plan from the outside.

Similarly, economic organisation should operate in this way, and must not follow an external plan, because in that are the following corrupt consequences:

Firstly, it requires that all means of production are in the hands of the government, and the government is not made up of angels nor of infallible human beings, but is comprised of a small group of people who have the same emotions, desires and ambitions we find in the hearts of other people, so if this group wanted to employ these many resources to follow their desires and they pay no attention to the welfare of the populace, great corruption will appear on earth.

Secondly, this plan – however precise are its methods and innovative are its styles – can never guarantee the real needs of the society, as the needs change from day to day, and a plan is only made once or twice in a year, so how can this plan guarantee to fulfill the needs which arise during the year? And indeed knowledge of these changing needs and acting according to them requires a long time also, so the same objection which communism produced against capitalism falls back on them.

Thirdly, this planned system will not operate and cannot operate ultimately except by force from the government, for often it entails burdening the individual with what he does not approve, and forcing him into a service that he does not agree with; so as a result, conflict will arise between the interests of the individual and the interests of the plan.

Critique of Capitalism

As for capitalism, although it is correct in its foundational principle, nonetheless, it has erred in the application of this principle. As for its foundational principle, it is that economic stability is not achieved by planning, but is achieved only by the two natural forces of supply and demand. This is a natural law which we do not deny. However, it applies this principle by granting the individual complete autonomy in acquiring the most that is possible in terms of profit or fortune, and it does not place limits on this autonomy with any stipulation or restriction, and it is ignorant that this complete autonomy will lead to restricting the forces of supply and demand and will corrupt thereby the natural order which is determined by its foundational principle.

The explanation of this is that whenever an individual is completely free in acquiring the most that is possible in terms of profit and fortune, interest, gambling, hoarding (ihtikar)^[1], speculative transactions, and every path leading to acquiring more profit is open to him, so it is possible for the rich to take control of the market and control the prices therein, so there is no price in the market except what these affluent people approve, and there is no wages for the workers except what they stipulate, because they are the owners of the market and control it, due to their fortune, and they cause the forces of supply and demand to become paralysed, because these two forces only operate in the free market where the traders compete therein with full autonomy, and the buyer has a choice therein between buying an item from this [seller] and that [seller]. But when a single individual or a single company has monopoly over the market, there is no path for the buyer to this [freedom], as it determines the price, such that it makes the forces of supply and demand redundant in determining the prices.

This only arises due to complete autonomy, the flag of which capitalism raises with full pride, because man in this freedom acquires riches by whatever means he wishes, of interest, gambling, hoarding, or speculation, and by these riches, he establishes great industries and huge factories by which he takes control of the market, and he does not allow any of the small businessmen to reach his position, and even if another besides him reaches this level he will make a trade agreement with him so that the traders of a single commodity have consensus, and the buyers and consumers will no longer have a choice in using the force of their demand in determining the prices. So where is the free market in the capitalist system? And where is supply and demand? And where is the force of competition? These words in capitalism have only become ideas placed in the insides of pages, no trace of them is seen in practical life and no report of them is heard.

So it is clear that capitalism has applied it foundational principle with an application which ultimately puts an end to this very principle, and makes the forces of supply and demand redundant and weak, inoperative except in a very short area, as a result of which many corruptions arise:

Firstly, a small number of people begin to dominate the circulating wealth, and these small numbers of people do not remain restricted in their place. Rather, they transform and become a global force, and they begin to contribute to the external banks and the international companies, and by means of these companies and what they posses of the force of wealth, these small numbers begin to intervene in international politics, just as this small number begins to control the various media, until its financial transgression is employed in the path of influencing ideological currents and in directing them towards the interests of capitalism.

Secondly, individual autonomy in this system is a right only for the owners of wealth, and as far as the poor are concerned, they have nothing in this system but to submit to the laws of the owners of wealth.

Thirdly, production in this system is not directed towards what is for the good of society, and it is only directed towards what is best for most profit, so if there is more profit in erecting theatres and places of dance it will have most priority in terms of employing the resources for them, even if at the same time some necessary needs are neglected.

The Islamic Economic School

As for Islam, it follows a balanced methodology in economics that is free from this excess and that neglect; and since the expressions of “economic organisation” and the “forces of supply and demand” and “the role of the market” are modern expressions, we do not find any of these phrases in the Noble Qur’an or the Prophetic Sunnah. However, that which is derived from a study of the Qur’an, Sunnah and jurisprudence is that Islam is far removed from planning in economic organisation, and it posits that economic organisation has been entrusted by Allah (Glorified is He) to some natural forces. Thus, Allah (Glorified is He) says: “We have allocated among them their livelihood in the worldly life, and have raised some of them over others in ranks, so that some of them may put some others to work.” (43:32) Thus, Allah (Glorified is He) ascribed differences in livelihood to Himself (Great and Exalted is He). And this is something that proves that economic organisation is in the hand of Allah (Glorified is He), and there are some natural forces which organise the livelihoods of people, and we may refer to these natural forces as the forces of supply and demand, as Allah (Glorified is He) is the One Who connects the needs of some people with the needs of others. Thus, the seller is in need of the buyer and the buyer is in need of the seller, and each of them cannot do without the other. And Allah (Glorified is He) alluded to this by His statement: “so that some of them may put some others to work”

Likewise, we find in the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) what strengthens this, as Anas (Allah be pleased with him) narrated, he said: “The people said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! The price is high so fix the price for us.’ The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Verily, Allah is the One Who constricts, the One Who expands, the One Who provides. Verily I hope that I meet Allah while none of you will demand from me [the recompense of] an oppression [I committed] in [his] blood or wealth.’” Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and al-Darimi transmitted it, all of them in Buyu‘, and al-Tirimidhi declared it sahih. Ahmad also transmitted it in his Musnad (3:156, 286), and al-Hafiz said in al-Takhlis (no 1158, 14:3): “Its chain is on the condition of Muslim.”

In a narration of Abu Hurayrah according to Abu Dawud in Bab al-Tas‘ir – and the wording is his – and Ahmad in his Musnad (2:337, 373), a man came and he said: “O Messenger of Allah! Fix the prices.” He said: “Rather, I will supplicate,” and then another man came and he said: “O Messenger of Allah! Fix the prices.” He said: “Rather, Allah lowers and raises [the prices], and verily I hope that I meet Allah while no oppression issued from me.” Its chain is hasan as mentioned in al-Talkhis of al-Hafiz (3:14).

In a narration from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him), he said: “The price was high in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and they said to him: ‘If you were to fix for us our prices.’ He said: ‘Verily, Allah is the One Who fixes the price. Indeed I hope that I part from you while none of you demands from me [the recompense of] oppression [I committed] in [his] wealth or life.” Ahmad transmitted it in his Musnad (3:85) and its chain is hasan, as al-Hafiz stated in al-Talkhis (3:14, no. 1158).

And in the narration of al-Asbagh ibn Nabatah from ‘Ali, he said: “It was said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Fix the price for us.’ He said: ‘Verily, the highness and lowness of prices are in the hands of Allah. I wish that I meet my Lord while no one demands of me recompense for an injustice I did to him.’” Al-Bazzar transmitted it in his Musnad as in Kashf al-Astar from Zawa’id al-Bazzar (2:85 no. 1263) and al-Asbagh was declared trustworthy by al-‘Ijli although the imams declared him weak as mentioned in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (4:99), and this hadith of his is strengthened by what has passed of corroborants.

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) attributed pricing in these hadiths to Allah (Glorified is He). So this proves that the organisation of prices does not happen by a government plan, rather it is a matter governed by none besides Allah. And it is apparent that the intent of Allah (Glorified is He) fixing the prices is that He is the One Who created this natural system which specifies the prices automatically. Thus the hadith proves Islam accepts the market which is regulated by the forces of supply and demand, and that intervention in the market is against the natural course of the laws which Allah has put in place in this life, and that every intervention of this category is regarded as injustice by Islam, whether the intervention is from the government or from the traders working in the market.

This is also proven by another hadith, which is what Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) narrated, he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “A townsman should not sell on behalf of a villager. Leave people, Allah will sustain some of them by means of others.” Muslim, al-Tirmidhi and others transmitted it. The master of the eloquent ones (Allah bless him and grant him peace) clarified in this hadith that Allah (Exalted is He) sustained some people by others, meaning that He sustains the seller by means of the buyer and He sustains the buyer by means of the seller. Thus it is not permissible for anyone to intervene in this divine system and have monopoly over the prices therein. Thus, the hadith alludes to the system of the market being a natural system which must not be altered.

Hence, the first hadith – the hadith of fixing the price – prevents the intervention of the government in the market and the second hadith – the hadith of Jabir – prevents the intervention of some traders in the market in a way that will alter its natural course. Thus both of them are forbidden.

Thus it is apparent that Islam is the only system which makes it possible for the market to run its natural course, with nothing appearing therein that will block this course.

However, this natural course is not possible by allowing all possessors of wealth to be free to do whatever they wish, because such absolute autonomy will create monopolies that will corrupt the system of the market as we have stated previously. Rather, it will only be possible when their dealings are conditioned by limits and stipulations. Islam has placed these limits and conditions so that the autonomy of individuals does not have preference over the value of the free market and the freedom of the society, as is the reality of capitalism. Rather the individuals are considered secondary to the laws that guarantee the freedom of the market and the freedom of the society.

From these laws is the prohibition of interest, gambling and speculation, because all of these means lead to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the rich alone. History has proven that the transgression of capitalism only arose out of these causes, because they hoard heaps of wealth by these means, and take control of the market in a way that makes its natural forces paralysed.

And from these laws is the prohibition of hoarding and multiplying middle-men and a townsman being an agent for a villager and all corrupt or invalid sales, because they tend towards an alteration in the condition of the market and a negation of the forces of supply and demand, and a specific group having monopoly over the prices.

Al-Bazzar, Ahmad, Abu Ya‘la and al-Tabrani transmitted from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he said: “Whoever hoards food, he has freed himself of Allah and Allah is free from him.” And he said: “If a man from the Muslims becomes hungry amongst the people of a land, the protection of Allah is released from them.” See: Kashf al-Astar ‘an Zawa’id al-Bazzar (2:106, no 1311) and Majma‘ al-Zawa’id (4:100).

And from these laws is the prohibition of an economic agreement from the traders, as this agreement also puts the specification of prices in the hands of a few traders and contravenes its natural system, so the jurists have clarified that the traders are not to be left to conspire amongst themselves to control the prices. See Kitab al-Qismah from al-Hidayah. Whenever they take control of the prices it is allowed for the Islamic government to intervene in the market by fixing the price so that it returns to its original condition, as the jurists have determined in their books.

And from these laws are the laws of Zakah, charity, sacrifice, compensation, maintenance and inheritance, because they divert the flow of wealth from the owners of wealth to the poor from society. In this way, the doors of monopolisation are closed in Islam and the doors of spending are opened. And the wisdom behind this is what the Noble Qur’an alludes to where it says: “so that it may not circulate only between the rich among you” (59:7)

In sum, Islam observes the autonomy of the individual to a limit, but prefers the autonomy of society over him, and it wishes to employ the natural forces of supply and demand, and allow the free market to take its natural course and it puts a barrier to monopolies which place the rein of the market in the hands of a specific group and nullifies the actions of supply and demand, and it legislated for this laws prohibiting a variety of types of dealings, and it allowed the Islamic government to intervene in the market whenever it sees monopolies occurring.

We can summarise the school of Islamic economics in this respect, that it does not regard the freedom of acquisition as an absolute freedom in the way we find in capitalism.

Rather, it institutes three types of interventions in these economic activities:

1. The intervention of religion: thus, it is not permissible for any trader to acquire wealth by a means that is illegal like interest, gambling, speculation and all corrupt or invalid sales and dealings.
2. Intervention of government: Islam does not allow for the government to intervene in the market when it follows its natural course, as has preceded in the discussion on pricing, but when an individual wishes to take control of the market or have monopoly over it, it is permissible for the government to intervene in that case, as is established in jurisprudence. That is because of what Ma‘qil ibn Yasar narrated from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he said: “Whoever interferes in any of the prices of the Muslims in order to increase its price for them, it is a duty on Allah to throw him into the greater portion of the Fire while his head is at its bottom.” Al-Hakim, al-Bayhaqi, al-Tabrani, Ahmad and others transmitted it as in Kanz al-‘Ummal (4:56) Bab al-Ihtikar. And ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) ordered Hatib ibn Abi Balta‘ah to increase his price and he said to him: “Either you increase the price, or you leave our market.” Malik, ‘Abd ibn Humayd and al-Bayhaqi transmitted it as in al-Kanz (4:104, no. hadith 882). This proves the permissibility of government intervention when it sees what will corrupt the system of the market.
3. Intervention of ethics: furthermore, the ethical rules are not separated in Islam from economics, because acquiring the most that is possible in terms of profit and fortune is not from the foundational goals of man as we have stated earlier. And this is why Islam nurtures in the souls of the Muslims that they interact well with others, and they give them preference over themselves even if they have a need, and they compete in spending and do not compete in acquiring profits and fortunes. Such rules are plenty in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this is not the place to exhaust them. Thus, whenever Islam is established with all of its rules and its teachings, there will not remain any trace of the evil effects of capitalism, and there will then be no need for a communist or populist system, and economics will begin to take a moderate path free from oppression, cruelty and selfishness. And Allah (Glorified is He) grants accordance.

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, 1:293 – 305)^[2]

1. Meaning, hoarding food items until their prices rise so they can be sold at a higher price.
2. The commentary of Kitab al-Buyu‘ from Sahih Muslim of which this is an introduction was completed on the 2^nd of Rabi‘ al-Awwal, 1404 H (December, 1983)

It was said: he is one who met him [i.e. a Sahabi], although he did not accompany him, as was said on [the definition of] a Sahabi, and al-Hakim agrees with this. Ibn al-Salah said: “It is closest [to the truth].” The author [i.e. al-Nawawi] said: “It is most apparent.”

Al-‘Iraqi said: “The practice of the majority of the scholars of hadith is based on this, for indeed Muslim and Ibn Hibban included al-A‘mash amongst the generation of the Tabi‘in.” Ibn Hibban said: “We have included him in this generation because he had met [with a Sahabi] and had recollection [of that meeting]. He saw Anas although it is not authentic from him that he heard a connected narration from him.” Al-Tirmidhi said: “He did not hear any of the Sahabah.” Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi also counted him amongst them, and he counted Yahya ibn Abi Kathir amongst them as he met Anas, and Musa ibn ‘A’ishah as he met ‘Amr ibn Hurayth.

Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] said in Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikar:

This is the preferred view, as opposed to one who makes it a condition for a Tabi‘i to have accompanied [a Sahabi] for a period of time or that it is authentic he heard [from him], or that [he reached] the age of distinction (tamyiz).

Once this has been settled, we say:

Our Greatest Imam is undoubtedly a Tabi‘i according this preferred view and is included in His (Exalted is He) statement: “And those who follow them in excellence, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.” (9:100)

Imam ‘Ali al-Qari said in al-Tabaqat:

His sighting of some Sahabah has been established, and his narration from them has been disputed while the relied upon [position] is it is established as I explained in Sharh Musnad al-Imam regarding the condition of his chain of narration to some of the noble Sahabah. Hence, he is from the notable Tabi‘in as stated  by the scholars and luminaries.

Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned him in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, and he said:

His birth was in the year 80. He saw Anas ibn Malik more than once when he came to them in Kufah. Ibn Sa‘d narrated this from Sayf ibn Jabir that he heard Abu Hanifah say this.

This shows al-Dhahabi was sure of [the accuracy of] this narration from Ibn Sa‘d as is not hidden.

The Seal of the Huffaz, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (Allah have mercy on him), said in Tabyid al-Sahifah:

This question [of Abu Hanifah being a Tabi‘i] was raised to Hafiz Ibn Hajar and he replied with [a statement], the text of which is:

“Imam Abu Hanifah lived at the time of a group of Sahabah, as he was born in Kufah in the year 80 H, and at that time ‘Abd Allah ibn Abi Awfa [resided] therein, since he died after that by agreement; and in Basra at that time there was Anas ibn Malik who died in the year 90 or thereafter.

“Ibn Sa‘d narrated with an unproblematic chain that Abu Hanifah saw Anas. Other Sahabah besides these two were alive in the lands [of Islam] after this.

“One of them [i.e. the scholars] compiled a volume on what was transmitted of Abu Hanifah’s narration from the Sahabah. However, their chains of narration (isnad) are not devoid of weakness.

“The relied upon [position] on his being present [in the times of which Sahabah] is what has passed, and on his sighting of some Sahabah what Ibn Sa‘d narrated in al-Tabaqat. Hence, by this consideration, he is from the rank of the Tabi‘in, and this has not been established for any of the Imams of the towns contemporary to him, like al-Awza‘i in the Levant, the two Hammads [Ibn Salamah and Ibn Zayd] in Basrah, al-Thawri in Kufah, Malik in Madinah, Muslim ibn Khalid al-Zanji in Makkah and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d in Egypt. And Allah knows best.”

This is the end of what Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned.

The upshot of what he and others said is that the chains of those [reports on Abu Hanifah’s narration from the Sahabah] are graded weak and inauthentic, but are not baseless. Therefore, the matter of narrating them is flexible, because it is permissible to narrate a weak [narration] and to say without qualification that it has been narrated, as they have stated.

I say:

It is established from all of this that the Imam’s sighting of some Sahabah is established by [narrations] that are relied upon, and his narration from them has been narrated through weak transmissions, so if its weakness is due to the wickedness (fisq) of the narrators it will not rise by their sum total to the level of hasan, although because of the multiple paths, it will be excluded from having no basis as we mentioned previously from Tadrib al-Rawi in Bab Ahkam al-Da‘if from the introduction [to I‘la al-Sunan]; and if it is for other than wickedness it will rise from weakness to the level of hasan. It is not hidden that a man having narrated from someone is not from the subject of laws, rather from the subject of reports and virtues, so there is no stringency therein like the stringency in laws, since flexibility in the subject of virtues remains well-known amongst the hadith-scholars.

As for his sighting Anas, a great multitude of the hadith-scholars and the scholars of reports have confirmed it:

From them are Ibn Sa‘d, Hafiz al-Dhahabi and Hafiz Ibn Hajar as has passed.

Hafiz al-‘Iraqi said: “The narration from any one of the Sahabah is not authentic from Abu Hanifah, and he had indeed seen Anas.”

From them is al-Daraqutni. Hamzah al-Sahmi said: I heard al-Daraqutni say: “Abu Hanifah did not meet any of the Sahabah, although he did see Anas ibn Malik with his eyes, though he did not hear from him.” Al-Suyuti also cited these two [statements] in Tabyid al-Sahifah.

[From them is] Imam Abu Ma‘shar ‘Abd al-Karim ibn ‘Abd al-Samad al-Tabari al-Muqri’ al-Shafi‘i (d. 478 H), since he compiled a volume on that which Imam Abu Hanifah narrated from the Sahabah. Al-Suyuti also mentioned this.

From them is Hafiz al-Suyuti, since he mentioned the aforementioned statements and approved of them, and he regarded the narrations [of Abu Hanifah from the Sahabah] as not being baseless as has passed.

From them is Hafiz Abu al-Hajjaj al-Mizzi. He mentioned him in Tahdhib al-Kamal and he said: “He saw Anas.”

[From them] is Hafiz al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. He said in Tarikh Baghdad: “He saw Anas ibn Malik.”

[From them] is Imam al-Nawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa al-Lughat, for he quoted the statement of al-Khatib and he approved of it.

[From them] is Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi. He said in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanahiyah: “Abu Hanifah did not hear from the Sahabah. He only saw Anas ibn Malik.” (Tadhkirat al-Rashid, p. 281)

[From them] is Hafiz Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, since he said: “Muhammad ibn Sa‘d, the scribe of al-Waqidi, mentioned that Abu Hanifah saw Anas ibn Malik and ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Jaz’ al-Zubaydi.” He mentioned this and remained silent after it [indicating his approval]. [This is extracted] from al-Jawhar al-Mudiyyah fi Tabaqat al-Hanafiyyah (1:273).

From them are Imam al-Jazari, al-Turbushti, author of Kashf al-Kashshaf and the author of Mir’at al-Jinan, Imam al-Yafi‘i. ‘Ali al-Qari mentioned them in Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikar amongst those who state Abu Hanifah saw Anas and other Sahabah, as also mentioned in Tadhkirat al-Rashid, p. 280.

From them is Ibn Hajar al-Makki since he said in al-Khayrat al-Hisan: “It is authentic, as al-Dhahabi said, that he saw Anas ibn Malik when he was small, and in one narration [he saw him] multiple times.”

From them is ‘Allamah Ahmad al-Qastallani, since he said in the commentary of al-Bukhari in Bab Wujub al-Salati fi al-Thiyab: “And from the Tabi‘in, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Sirin, al-Sha‘bi, Ibn al-Musayyab and Abu Hanifah.”

From them is al-Azniqi since he said in Madinat al-‘Ulum: “It is established by this distinction that the Imam is from the Tabi‘in.”

From them is ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni al-Hanafi since he affirmed his narration from those Sahabah whose time he was present in, as mentioned in Tadhkirat al-Rashid (p. 281).

From them is Hafiz al-Sam‘ani since he said in al-Ansab: “Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit al-Taymi al-Kufi, the Imam of the champions of juristic opinion, and the jurist of Iraq. He saw Anas ibn Malik.”

From them is Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi. He said in al-Kamil fi Asma’ al-Rijal: “He saw Anas.” This is mentioned in Tadhkirat al-Rashid (p. 427).

As for his narration from the Sahabah, Imam Abu Ma‘shar ‘Abd al-Karim ibn ‘Abd al-Samad al-Tabari al-Muqri’ al-Shafi‘i (d. 478 H) affirmed it, and he compiled a volume on it, as has preceded. He is from the great scholars of the Shafi‘is. Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi and others narrated from him, as mentioned in Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah (3:243). Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] mentioned him in Lisan al-Mizan, and he said: “He narrated from a group and he resided in Makkah, and he taught recitation [of the Qur'an] to people for a long time. Abu Nasr al-Ghazi, Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Ansari, and Abu Tamam al-Damiri and others narrated from him…Ibn Tahir said: ‘I heard Abu Sa‘d al-Harami say in Herat: ‘Abu Ma‘shar’s audition of Juz’ Ibn Nazif is not authentic, and he only took a copy and narrated it.’ I say: This is not a valid criticism.” (4:50)

The Imam and hadith-scholar, ‘Abd al-Qadir ibn Abu al-Wafa’ al-Qurashi al-Hanafi al-Misri, the first to write on the ranks (tabaqat) of the Hanafis, also affirmed it. Hafiz al-Suyuti mentioned him in Husn al-Muhadarah, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Majma‘ al-Mu’assas and they praised him, as mentioned in al-Fawa’id al-Bahiyyah (p. 42). Al-Qurashi said: “Those from whom he heard, Allah Almighty be pleased with them all, are: ‘Abd Allah ibn Unays, ‘Abd Allah ibn Jaz’ al-Zubaydi, Anas ibn Malik, Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, Ma‘qil ibn Yasar, Wathilah ibn al-Asqa‘ and ‘A’ishah bint ‘Ajrud. I related from al-Khatib that he saw Anas ibn Malik, and I refuted the one who said that he did not see him, and I explained that with a satisfactory explanation and all praise is due to Allah.” This is from al-Jawahir al-Mudiyyah (1:28).

The Imam, Abu ‘Ali ‘Abd Allah ibn Ja‘far al-Razi narrated from Muhammad ibn Sama‘ah from Abu Yusuf: I heard Abu Hanifah say: “I performed Hajj with my father in the year 93 H when I was 16 [years old]^[1], when suddenly there was an old man around whom men had gathered, so I said to my father: ‘Who is this old man?’ He said: ‘This is a man who had accompanied the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) called ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Jaz.’ I said to my father: ‘What does he have?’ He said: ‘Sayings he heard from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).’ I said to my father: ‘Take me to him that I may hear from him.’ I came in front of him and the people parted until I came close to him, and I heard him say: ‘Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Whoever gains understanding in the religion of Allah, Allah will suffice him of his worries, and give him sustenance from where he did not imagine.”’”

Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrated it as follows: “It was reported to me from Abu Ya‘qub Yusuf ibn Ahmad al-Saydalani al-Makki: Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Musa al-‘Uqayli narrated to us: ‘Abu ‘Ali ‘Abd Allah ibn Ja‘far al-Razi narrated to us,” and he narrated it, and remained silent after it. This is in al-Jawahir al-Mudiyyah (1:273). The statement has preceded from Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr relating from Ibn Sa‘d that Abu Hanifah saw Anas and ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Jaz’ al-Zubaydi, indicating that he believed what Abu ‘Ali ‘Abd Allah ibn Ja‘far al-Razi related is authentic. Allah knows best.

It has another route transmitted by the chief judge, Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Khawarizmi, in Jami‘ al-Masanid from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Sama‘ah: Bishr ibn al-Walid al-Qadir narrated to us: Abu Yusuf al-Qadi narrated to us: Abu Hanifah narrated to us, and he mentioned it, although he said: “I performed Hajj with my father in the year 96.” (1:24)

Al-Khawarizmi said: “From his virtues and excellences which was not shared by anyone after him is that he narrated from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the ‘ulama are agreed on this, although they differ regarding their number.” (1:22) Probably the intent of “‘ulama’” is the Hanafis in particular, and by their “agreement,” the agreement of most of them, and it is not hidden that the owner of a house is more knowledgeable of what is in it. ‘Allamah Muhaddith al-‘Ayni also affirmed his narration from the Sahabah as has preceded, and ‘Allamah ‘Ali al-Qari, since he said: “The relied-upon [position] is it is established,” and it has preceded from al-Suyuti that he did not regard them as baseless.

Whoever denies Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah be pleased with him) is a Tabi‘i after this is either a deficient ignoramus or a pathetic fanatic.

(Abu Hanifah wa Ashabuhu l-Muhaddithun, Idarat al-Qur’an wa l-‘Ulum al-Islamiyyah, 1427 H, 6-11)

1. This is how it is in the original, and it is probably 96 [as the preferred view is he was born in 80 H] as in Jami‘ al-Masanid, and in all cases it is not free of problems, since ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Harith died in the year 86 or 87 and it was said 88 in Egypt; unless it is said that there was word-alteration (tashif) in the narration and the Imam saw him in the year 86 when his age was 6 years old, and this ‘Abd Allah died in this year or after it by one or two years after returning to Egypt. And Allah knows best. (‘Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani)