Post by Zameel on Sept 17, 2017 5:14:06 GMT
Lies of Abu Layth
It has been established from the numerous refutations of Abu Layth that his unsubstantiated claims cannot be trusted. The following are some examples where upon investigation, Abu Layth was found to have made false claims:
• Abu Layth claimed that according to Imām al-Ghazālī in his work Naṣīḥat al-Mulūk, the Caliphate is “long dead”. Al-Ghazālī says no such thing. In fact, in another work, Faḍa’iḥ al-Baṭiniyyah, al-Ghazāli says the Caliphate is alive and well.
• Abu Layth claimed that al-Ghazāli lived in “the Buyid era.” The Buyid era had ended before al-Ghazālī was born. Al-Ghazālī lived under Seljuk rule.
• Abu Layth claimed that when Imām al-Shāfi‘ī arrived in Egypt, such prominent and long-time students of Imām Mālik as Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb were present. This is clearly false as both Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb had passed away by the time al-Shāfi‘ī arrived to settle in Egypt at around the year 199 H or 200 H. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “In Egypt, al-Shāfi‘ī encountered only Ashhab and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam from the [major] disciples of Mālik.”
• Abu Layth claimed that al-Sakhāwi did not accept the ḥadīth “man tashabbaha biqawmin fa huwa minhum” (whoever resembles a people is from them) as authentic. Al-Sakhāwi mentions the different sources of the ḥadīth, and states one version has “some weakness”, but does not state anywhere that he does not accept the ḥadīth as authentic. In fact, al-Zurqānī who summarised al-Sakhāwi’s work concludes that according to al-Sakhāwi (based on his overall discussion on the ḥadith), the ḥadīth is “ḥasan li ghayrihi” i.e. authentic. See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people
• Abu Layth claimed “Countless scholars...including Juwayni...clearly highlight that any hadith regarding Caliphs/Imams was simply referring to a community/region or province and not speaking about one Caliph for the whole world.” Al-Juwaynī did not say the ḥadīths relating to the caliph refer only to a single region/community/province. He said a single ruler is necessary for all Muslim-dominated regions unless it becomes practically impossible. See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/post/1501
• Abu Layth claimed that Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī denied punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. Al-Nakha‘ī believed in the death penalty for apostasy but only argued that an apostate’s repentance will be accepted indefinitely. That is, if a Muslim apostatises and repents, his repentance will be accepted; and if he apostatises again and repents a second time, his repentance will again be accepted; and this can go on indefinitely. However, if he does not repent, al-Nakha‘ī states clearly that he will be executed. For documentation, see: theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
• Abu Layth claimed that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) denied punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) only denounced not affording apostates the opportunity to repent, and there are clear authentic reports from him in favour of the death penalty for apostasy. See above link.
• Abu Layth claimed that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdil Azīz did not believe in punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. ‘Umar ibn Abdil Azīz only said of new Muslims who did not know the basic teachings of Islām and then apostatise that they should not be killed; but if they apostatise despite knowing of the basics of the religion, he favoured the death penalty. See above link.
Someone who distorts and misrepresents the teachings of the dīn and the statements of the ‘ulamā’ so shamelessly is of course no less than a mendacious liar.
Heresies of Abu Layth
Some of the views that Abu Layth has recently espoused reveal that he also has no regard for some of the basic teachings of the religion. His belief that ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) will not be returning and that in an Islāmic context, ḥudūd (fixed Islāmic punishments like cutting the hand of a proven thief) should be replaced with monetary penalties or custodial sentences, are beliefs bordering on zandaqah (heresy/apostasy), if not actually zandaqah.
As explained previously, his careless attitude towards religious rulings may also demonstrate a disregard for, and belittling of, the dīn, which also amounts to zandaqah. (See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth).
Abu Layth’s Distortion of al-Burzulī’s View on Ḥudūd
A recent claim he has made is on Imām al-Burzulī’s view on ḥudūd laws. [1] Abu l-Qāsim/Abu l-Faḍl al-Burzulī (741 – 843 H) was a major Mālikī imām of North Africa (not to be confused with al-Birzālī (665 – 738 H), the Shāfi‘ī friend/student of Ibn Taymiyyah). Towards the end of his life, al-Burzulī argued in favour of monetary penalties for certain crimes. The general, preponderant, view of the Mālikī madhhab is that monetary penalties are not permissible. That is, if a person commits a crime, it is not allowed for the state to fine him or confiscate any of his money as punishment. Naturally, therefore, al-Burzulī’s was a controversial view. He dictated a fatwā to his students on the subject, which was then shared amongst the ‘ulamā’ in the year 828 H. In the same year, a major Mālikī contemporary, Qāḍī Abu l-‘Abbās al-Shammā‘ (d. 833), wrote a lengthy refutation of al-Burzulī’s work, called Maṭāli‘ al-Tamām wa Naṣā’iḥ al-Anām, in which he made a point-by-point refutation of al-Burzulī.
An eleventh century Mālikī authority, Shaykh Mayyārah (d. 1072 H), explains:
Al-Burzulī’s View
Al-Burzulī’s view was that in places where the ruler has no power to enforce ḥadd punishments on criminals, but is able to impose monetary penalties, rather than leave such crimes unpunished, it would be permissible for him to resort to imposing monetary penalties. He said:
Note, if al-Burzulī was advocating a change in ḥudūd penalties to “reflect the time” as Abu Layth claims, why did he limit his discussion to places where there is widespread ignorance and the Sharī‘ah is not spread? Why is his discussion limited to desert-dwellers and Bedouins and those who live far-away from centres of civilisation?
A contemporary of al-Burzulī mentions that he witnessed the records of the latter’s debates on the subject with Qāḍī Ibn al-Shammā‘. Summarising al-Burzulī’s position as stated in these records, he states: “Imām Abu l-Faḍl al-Burzulī, Allāh have mercy on him and be pleased with him, supported the permissibility of monetary punishment when corporal punishment is difficult/impossible.” (Nawāzil al-‘Alamī, 3:154) [4]
Statements of Clarification from other Mālikī Authorities
A later Mālikī authority, Shaykh Muḥammad al-‘Arabī al-Fāsī (d. 1052 H), explains:
Shaykh Mayyārah explains that the situation al-Burzulī was speaking about is when the imām/ruler is present and able to carry out the ḥadd punishments. He further states that there is no doubt that in such a case, in places where the imām is able to implement the ḥadd punishments, to substitute them with something else would amount to altering Shar‘ī rulings and to “rule by other than what Allāh has revealed.” (ibid. p. 40) [6] Thus, al-Burzulī’s statement is referring to such places where the imām is not able to implement these rulings, as the people in these isolated areas would probably violently remove anyone who even made an attempt to do so.
It is true that some misunderstood al-Burzulī’s view as advocating the permissibility of replacing ḥudūd with monetary penalties under normal circumstances, but this misunderstanding has clearly been refuted.
Imām Abu l-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-Salām ibn ‘Alī al-Tusūlī (d. 1258 H), a Mālikī imām from western north-Africa who lived more than two hundred years ago, explains:
Note, al-Tusūlī clearly states that it is not possible that al-Burzulī would be advocating the position that Abu Layth ascribes to him. Moreover, he states that such a view is misguidance, tantamount to kufr.
Those who advocated al-Burzulī’s opinion clearly described his view as it being allowed to replace ḥadd punishments for monetary fines only when it is impossible or extremely difficult (ta‘adhdhar) to carry out corporal punishment. Mūsā ibn ‘Alī al-Wazzānī (d. 970 H) said:
In brief, Abu Layth’s claim that Imām al-Burzulī believed the ḥudūd punishments should be changed to reflect the time is a clear distortion. Al-Burzulī never mentioned that his ruling is based on the evolved ethics of his time as Abu Layth would have us believe. His fatwā was rather based on a situation where he believed that if monetary fines were not enforced, people of certain locations would remain undeterred from crime. The purpose of al-Burzulī’s fatwā was to counter this possibility, not to substitute ḥudūd punishments with something different.
EDIT: The above was reviewed/checked over by some Mālikī scholars and students.
[1] Abu Layth said: “The way Islam has taught us, the way I understand, Islam has come for each day, for all eras, for all times and places, and it is the Shariah itself that demands to reflect the time of its era. So this is not something I’m saying. This is my understanding, that the Shariah wants this. So today that Islam would have, and I’ve spoken of this before, a trajectory ethics, that the ethics, or trajectory hermeneutics, would change as the ethics of the people change…Several of the ‘ulama’, namely people like Abu l-Qasim al-Burzuli, especially from the Maliki madhhab, in the seventh century, seven-hundreds and so on, around that era, and people who come after him as well, had written that according to the maqasid of the Shariah, the hudud would reflect the day and age. So, Abu l-Qasim al-Burzuli wrote on this and he actually taught it and this became the view in several parts of the Maghreb during his time, that they substituted the hudud for financial penalties in their time, for what they called ‘gharamat maliyyah,’ and they said this is what the Shariah wants. There was this famous debate in front of a Tunisian king as well. The Tunisian king, first of all, adopted al-Burzuli’s view; there’s another Maliki, Ibn Shamma, who debates him, doesn’t accept his view, and then the king says I’m going to go to Ibn Shamma’s view now, and the public go mad, and say no, we’re not going back to hudud, so then he says ok, I’ll just go back to Burzuli’s view. It’s a famous story. Imam Burzuli was not speaking about if there was no sultan; some other Malikis said if there was no sultan; he was speaking about, the day and age has changed.”
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
It has been established from the numerous refutations of Abu Layth that his unsubstantiated claims cannot be trusted. The following are some examples where upon investigation, Abu Layth was found to have made false claims:
• Abu Layth claimed that according to Imām al-Ghazālī in his work Naṣīḥat al-Mulūk, the Caliphate is “long dead”. Al-Ghazālī says no such thing. In fact, in another work, Faḍa’iḥ al-Baṭiniyyah, al-Ghazāli says the Caliphate is alive and well.
• Abu Layth claimed that al-Ghazāli lived in “the Buyid era.” The Buyid era had ended before al-Ghazālī was born. Al-Ghazālī lived under Seljuk rule.
• Abu Layth claimed that when Imām al-Shāfi‘ī arrived in Egypt, such prominent and long-time students of Imām Mālik as Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb were present. This is clearly false as both Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb had passed away by the time al-Shāfi‘ī arrived to settle in Egypt at around the year 199 H or 200 H. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “In Egypt, al-Shāfi‘ī encountered only Ashhab and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam from the [major] disciples of Mālik.”
• Abu Layth claimed that al-Sakhāwi did not accept the ḥadīth “man tashabbaha biqawmin fa huwa minhum” (whoever resembles a people is from them) as authentic. Al-Sakhāwi mentions the different sources of the ḥadīth, and states one version has “some weakness”, but does not state anywhere that he does not accept the ḥadīth as authentic. In fact, al-Zurqānī who summarised al-Sakhāwi’s work concludes that according to al-Sakhāwi (based on his overall discussion on the ḥadith), the ḥadīth is “ḥasan li ghayrihi” i.e. authentic. See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people
• Abu Layth claimed “Countless scholars...including Juwayni...clearly highlight that any hadith regarding Caliphs/Imams was simply referring to a community/region or province and not speaking about one Caliph for the whole world.” Al-Juwaynī did not say the ḥadīths relating to the caliph refer only to a single region/community/province. He said a single ruler is necessary for all Muslim-dominated regions unless it becomes practically impossible. See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/post/1501
• Abu Layth claimed that Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī denied punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. Al-Nakha‘ī believed in the death penalty for apostasy but only argued that an apostate’s repentance will be accepted indefinitely. That is, if a Muslim apostatises and repents, his repentance will be accepted; and if he apostatises again and repents a second time, his repentance will again be accepted; and this can go on indefinitely. However, if he does not repent, al-Nakha‘ī states clearly that he will be executed. For documentation, see: theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
• Abu Layth claimed that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) denied punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) only denounced not affording apostates the opportunity to repent, and there are clear authentic reports from him in favour of the death penalty for apostasy. See above link.
• Abu Layth claimed that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdil Azīz did not believe in punishment for apostasy in an Islamically governed territory. ‘Umar ibn Abdil Azīz only said of new Muslims who did not know the basic teachings of Islām and then apostatise that they should not be killed; but if they apostatise despite knowing of the basics of the religion, he favoured the death penalty. See above link.
Someone who distorts and misrepresents the teachings of the dīn and the statements of the ‘ulamā’ so shamelessly is of course no less than a mendacious liar.
Heresies of Abu Layth
Some of the views that Abu Layth has recently espoused reveal that he also has no regard for some of the basic teachings of the religion. His belief that ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) will not be returning and that in an Islāmic context, ḥudūd (fixed Islāmic punishments like cutting the hand of a proven thief) should be replaced with monetary penalties or custodial sentences, are beliefs bordering on zandaqah (heresy/apostasy), if not actually zandaqah.
As explained previously, his careless attitude towards religious rulings may also demonstrate a disregard for, and belittling of, the dīn, which also amounts to zandaqah. (See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth).
Abu Layth’s Distortion of al-Burzulī’s View on Ḥudūd
A recent claim he has made is on Imām al-Burzulī’s view on ḥudūd laws. [1] Abu l-Qāsim/Abu l-Faḍl al-Burzulī (741 – 843 H) was a major Mālikī imām of North Africa (not to be confused with al-Birzālī (665 – 738 H), the Shāfi‘ī friend/student of Ibn Taymiyyah). Towards the end of his life, al-Burzulī argued in favour of monetary penalties for certain crimes. The general, preponderant, view of the Mālikī madhhab is that monetary penalties are not permissible. That is, if a person commits a crime, it is not allowed for the state to fine him or confiscate any of his money as punishment. Naturally, therefore, al-Burzulī’s was a controversial view. He dictated a fatwā to his students on the subject, which was then shared amongst the ‘ulamā’ in the year 828 H. In the same year, a major Mālikī contemporary, Qāḍī Abu l-‘Abbās al-Shammā‘ (d. 833), wrote a lengthy refutation of al-Burzulī’s work, called Maṭāli‘ al-Tamām wa Naṣā’iḥ al-Anām, in which he made a point-by-point refutation of al-Burzulī.
An eleventh century Mālikī authority, Shaykh Mayyārah (d. 1072 H), explains:
Fining offenders with money to deter them from what they are upon is from the subject of monetary penalties. The well-known position is it is impermissible. Shaykh Abu l-Qāsim al-Burzulī gave fatwā on its permissibility, drawing evidence for it from [several] angles, and dictated a small volume (juz’) on it. His contemporary, Shaykh Abu l-‘Abbās al-Shammā‘ refuted him and wrote a compilation against him, dismantling everything that al-Burzulī had drawn together. (Ajwibat al-Tusūlī, 152) [2]
Al-Burzulī’s View
Al-Burzulī’s view was that in places where the ruler has no power to enforce ḥadd punishments on criminals, but is able to impose monetary penalties, rather than leave such crimes unpunished, it would be permissible for him to resort to imposing monetary penalties. He said:
That which I now assert about the desert-dwellers and Bedouins of Africa, and lands distant from centres of civilisation which are the places where Sharī‘ah is spread, [such places where] ignorance is widespread, [people’s] properties are disturbed, lives are taken, [men] flee with women, money is taken by cheating, fraud, banditry and bad dealings, that that which cuts off these harms like intercepting part of the wealth of offenders, or his person, and imprisoning him, is done. (Quoted in Maṭāli‘ al-Tamām, 133) [3]
Note, if al-Burzulī was advocating a change in ḥudūd penalties to “reflect the time” as Abu Layth claims, why did he limit his discussion to places where there is widespread ignorance and the Sharī‘ah is not spread? Why is his discussion limited to desert-dwellers and Bedouins and those who live far-away from centres of civilisation?
A contemporary of al-Burzulī mentions that he witnessed the records of the latter’s debates on the subject with Qāḍī Ibn al-Shammā‘. Summarising al-Burzulī’s position as stated in these records, he states: “Imām Abu l-Faḍl al-Burzulī, Allāh have mercy on him and be pleased with him, supported the permissibility of monetary punishment when corporal punishment is difficult/impossible.” (Nawāzil al-‘Alamī, 3:154) [4]
Statements of Clarification from other Mālikī Authorities
A later Mālikī authority, Shaykh Muḥammad al-‘Arabī al-Fāsī (d. 1052 H), explains:
The situation asked about is premised on the absence of the imām/his inability to establish Shar‘ī ḥudūd. In that case, either people will be abandoned and not be deterred from the things that necessitate ḥudūd, and the harm in that is major…or one who has some ability will deter them with some degree of deterrence; and that is going by what is known in the Sharī‘ah of giving importance to repelling harms and carrying out commandments as far as possible. Corporal punishments are familiar in Sharī‘ah, but the visible reality now is that villages to which the judgements of the sultan do not reach, corporal punishment on them is not possible, as they will not accept those who intend to do that amongst them; and there is certainty that intending to enforce them will lead to something catastrophic in terms of strife and corruption/violence. The ‘ulamā’ say that evil should not be altered when it is not assured that condemning it will not lead to something worse than it. What is visible at the present is that the villages are far from the enforcement of punishments in a Shar‘ī manner, and banning them without punishment has no effect; furthermore, people of influence in such villages attempting to change the evil, the most they can do to deter the corrupt is [to enforce] monetary penalties, and if even that is not done, and that is the most that can be done, it will lead to the prevalence of corruption. (Quoted in Ḥukm al-Gharāmat al-Māliyyah fi l-Fiqh al-Islāmī by ‘Iṣām Anas al-Zaftāwī, p. 39) [5]
Shaykh Mayyārah explains that the situation al-Burzulī was speaking about is when the imām/ruler is present and able to carry out the ḥadd punishments. He further states that there is no doubt that in such a case, in places where the imām is able to implement the ḥadd punishments, to substitute them with something else would amount to altering Shar‘ī rulings and to “rule by other than what Allāh has revealed.” (ibid. p. 40) [6] Thus, al-Burzulī’s statement is referring to such places where the imām is not able to implement these rulings, as the people in these isolated areas would probably violently remove anyone who even made an attempt to do so.
It is true that some misunderstood al-Burzulī’s view as advocating the permissibility of replacing ḥudūd with monetary penalties under normal circumstances, but this misunderstanding has clearly been refuted.
Imām Abu l-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-Salām ibn ‘Alī al-Tusūlī (d. 1258 H), a Mālikī imām from western north-Africa who lived more than two hundred years ago, explains:
You know from what has passed that when a person commits zinā, steals or commits highway robbery, for example, and that is proven incontrovertibly, and the imām captures him, then he will not be imprisoned in order to [merely] give money, but in order to establish the ḥadd on him…
Someone who imprisons adulterers, slanderers and assassinators, for example, and those guilty of banditry and theft, to extract money [from them] after that has been proven by its Shar‘ī requirement, and then releases them, he has altered the Shar‘ī rulings, and whoever alters them is included in His (Exalted is He) saying: ‘Whoever does not rule according to what Allāh revealed, those are from the disbelievers.’ It is not possible that al-Burzulī and those with him advocated such alteration, far removed are they from saying such! The meaning of their statement is that the adulterer, bandit etc. who was not himself captured because he fled or because of his inflexibility or the like, but the imām only got hold of his wealth, then [in such a case] he will be punished by taking [some of his money]…
Their prominence precludes them from what has been presumed about them. How [is it possible], when it is known by absolute necessity to be part of Dīn that the one who alters what Allāh has legislated or makes ḥalāl what Allāh has made ḥarām, that he is a kāfir, and that establishing the ḥudūd of Allāh is obligatory without distinction between a low and high class person?!...That in which Allāh has legislated a fixed ḥadd, it will not be moved away from to money by agreement, rather by consensus, unless it is not possible [to establish]…Be aware of what has been mentioned, because feet have slipped here, giving fatwā on money unconditionally, arguing from what al-Burzulī and those with him have said; and by this they have entered into denial (kufr) of the explicit text of the Qur’ān, and thus they are misguided and misguide others; we ask Allāh for safety from holding the speech of the imāms against its [true] meaning. (Ajwibat al-Tusūlī, 164-6) [7]
Note, al-Tusūlī clearly states that it is not possible that al-Burzulī would be advocating the position that Abu Layth ascribes to him. Moreover, he states that such a view is misguidance, tantamount to kufr.
Those who advocated al-Burzulī’s opinion clearly described his view as it being allowed to replace ḥadd punishments for monetary fines only when it is impossible or extremely difficult (ta‘adhdhar) to carry out corporal punishment. Mūsā ibn ‘Alī al-Wazzānī (d. 970 H) said:
Know that Imām Abu l-Faḍl al-Burzulī is one whose piety you are aware of, and his rank and imāmate in knowledge is established, and his fatwā on the permissibility of monetary penalty when bodily punishment is impossible has been clearly proven….Encourage…all those who have power from the spiritual leaders, headmen, generals and rulers to establish bodily ḥudūd on whoever it is necessary due to offences (committed); and if that is not possible, he should carry out monetary punishment implementing the fatwā of one whose fatwā is a saving boat [i.e. al-Burzulī]. (Nawāzil al-‘Alamī, 3:162) [8]
In brief, Abu Layth’s claim that Imām al-Burzulī believed the ḥudūd punishments should be changed to reflect the time is a clear distortion. Al-Burzulī never mentioned that his ruling is based on the evolved ethics of his time as Abu Layth would have us believe. His fatwā was rather based on a situation where he believed that if monetary fines were not enforced, people of certain locations would remain undeterred from crime. The purpose of al-Burzulī’s fatwā was to counter this possibility, not to substitute ḥudūd punishments with something different.
EDIT: The above was reviewed/checked over by some Mālikī scholars and students.
[1] Abu Layth said: “The way Islam has taught us, the way I understand, Islam has come for each day, for all eras, for all times and places, and it is the Shariah itself that demands to reflect the time of its era. So this is not something I’m saying. This is my understanding, that the Shariah wants this. So today that Islam would have, and I’ve spoken of this before, a trajectory ethics, that the ethics, or trajectory hermeneutics, would change as the ethics of the people change…Several of the ‘ulama’, namely people like Abu l-Qasim al-Burzuli, especially from the Maliki madhhab, in the seventh century, seven-hundreds and so on, around that era, and people who come after him as well, had written that according to the maqasid of the Shariah, the hudud would reflect the day and age. So, Abu l-Qasim al-Burzuli wrote on this and he actually taught it and this became the view in several parts of the Maghreb during his time, that they substituted the hudud for financial penalties in their time, for what they called ‘gharamat maliyyah,’ and they said this is what the Shariah wants. There was this famous debate in front of a Tunisian king as well. The Tunisian king, first of all, adopted al-Burzuli’s view; there’s another Maliki, Ibn Shamma, who debates him, doesn’t accept his view, and then the king says I’m going to go to Ibn Shamma’s view now, and the public go mad, and say no, we’re not going back to hudud, so then he says ok, I’ll just go back to Burzuli’s view. It’s a famous story. Imam Burzuli was not speaking about if there was no sultan; some other Malikis said if there was no sultan; he was speaking about, the day and age has changed.”
[2]
قال [الشيخ ميارة]:...إغرام أهل الجنايات المال لزجرهم وردعهم عما هم عليه من باب العقوبة المالية، والمعروف عدم جوازها. وقد أفتى الشيخ أبو القاسم البرزلي بجوازها، واستدل عليه بوجوه، وأملى في ذلك جزءا. ورد عليه – ما ذهب إليه من جوازها – عصريه الشيخ أبو العباس الشماع وألف عليه تأليفا ونقض كل ما عقده البرزلي (أجوبة التسولي، ص١٥٢ – ١٥٣)
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]