Recent Posts

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari al-Hanafi Apr 5, 2019 8:08:09 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Apr 5, 2019 8:08:09 GMT

The Life and Thought of

Imām Zāhid al-Kawtharī (d.1371AH)

By Mufti Muntasir Zaman

“What cosmic soul is imprisoned in that human body?” mused the learned Abū Zahrah (d. 1974) in utter admiration—indeed, “it is the soul of al-Kawtharī!” he proclaimed.[1] In recent memory, relatively few scholars have managed to synthesize expertise in, not merely acquaintance with, the vast majority of Islamic sciences. Shaykh Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (or Mehmet Zahit Kevsari) is arguably the foremost contender for that accolade; his polymathic oeuvre leaves one hard-pressed to pinpoint his forte,[2] from the intricacies of philosophy[3] to the minutiae of Arabic grammar,[4] not to mention his undisputed command of theology,[5] Hadīth,[6] and Islamic law.[7] The ripple effect of his peerless intellectual contributions is strongly felt in Islamic seminaries throughout the world till this day.

A modest amount of literature is available on the life and thought of al-Kawtharī (henceforth Kawtharī), To add to the existing material, particularly for an English-speaking readership, the present article aims to delineate the most salient features of his scholarly career, provide a synopsis of his modus operandi vis-à-vis prophetic and non-prophetic reports, and examine the merits of two major points of contention. Relevant details on certain passages have been relegated to the footnotes for the purpose of brevity.

Curriculum Vitae

Born in the year 1296 AH/1879 CE in Düzce,[8] Turkey, Kawtharī was of Circassian decent with an ancestor bearing the name Kawthar—hence the sobriquet al-Kawtharī. He received his elementary education from local scholars, and then moved to the vibrant capital of the Ottoman Caliphate, Istanbul, where he attended lessons in the prestigious medrese complex of the Fatih Mosque.[9] After successfully completing the fifteen-year curriculum in 1325 AH/1907 CE,[10] he enjoyed a distinguished career as a lecturer at his alma mater and was appointed Deputy of the Office of Shaykh al-Islam.[11] Fleeing from the Republican militias of Ataturk, in the winter of 1922 he emigrated, with a heavy heart, from his homeland to the unfamiliar soil of Egypt, leaving behind a once-proud empire that now stood on the brink of collapse. The following thirty years were tirelessly spent in Cairo, a hotbed for competing paradigms of Islamic thought; the first decade of his sojourn was punctuated with two year-long visits to Damascus.[12] He was married to a woman of proverbial piety and patience who stood by his side through thick and thin until their last moments; together they had four children, one son and three daughters—sadly, they were laid to rest before their father. After struggling with poor health for several years, he breathed his last in Dhul Qa‘dah 1371 AH/August 1952 CE (Allah have mercy on him).[13]

The raison d’être of his repertoire was his gifted memory.[14] He would effortlessly quote from memory “vanished pages from the imperial libraries of Istanbul.”[15] Shortly before his demise, while breaking fast with a close pupil, he dictated from memory insights from his readings at the Topkapı Library—he had not visited the library since his emigration well over a quarter-century earlier.[16] His extensive knowledge of rare manuscripts, Arabic and non-Arabic, from libraries throughout the Muslim world was a novelty due to which he eclipsed others in his league.[17] Fortunately, he left behind a wide-ranging oeuvre that comprised of books, treatises, biographies, articles,[18] and annotations in Arabic, Persian, Turkish,[19] many of which have yet to see the light of day.[20] His legacy was carried on by his students,[21] notable among whom are Ahmad Khayrī Efendi (d. 1967),[22] Husām al-Dīn al-Qudsī (d. 1980), ‘Abd al-Fattāh Abū Ghuddah (d. 1997),[23] and Muhammad Amīn Sirāj (b. 1932),[24] apart from droves of others who received authorization from him.[25]

His exile in Cairo was riddled with impoverished living conditions; despite the odds, his self-sufficiency and contentment were truly commendable. Affluent well-wishers incessantly proffered monetary gifts, but he would politely refuse even though at times he was pressured by circumstances to sell his books—his lifeblood—to make ends meet.[26] When the India-based research center, al-Majlis al-‘Ilmī,[27] gifted him four copies of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Zayla‘ī’s magnum opus, Nasb al-Rāyah li Ahādīth al-Hidāyah, as a token of appreciation he compensated them with fifty copies of his book al-Nukat al-Tarīfah; he could not bear the thought of receiving a gift without returning the favor.[28] Pandering to the wealthy and ruling class was a Faustian bargain he was not prepared to make. His courageous opposition to modern curricular reform[29] and gratuitous government intervention[30] in Turkey is reminiscent of legendary anecdotes of al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam (d. 660 AH)[31] and Muhyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH).[32]

Cairo’s volatile scholastic and socio-political milieu was diametrically opposite to the relatively stable intellectual homogeneity in Ottoman Turkey during his tenure as Deputy of the Office of Shaykh al-Islam. This geographical shift sparked within him a new-found zeal.[33] In an unflinching commitment to preserve the traditional teachings of Islam, which he believed were slowly sinking in quicksand, he engaged with schisms of all sorts: he minced no words in his forceful disagreement with modern thinkers who drank from ‘the brackish waters of the West;’[34] he raged against liberal reformists who championed vague slogans of common good as a panacea to all conceivable ills;[35] and he administered the coup de grace to anti-madhhab advocates.[36]

The highlight of his intellectual career was the stimulating dialogues and correspondence with scholars of varying orientations, such as the Ottoman Shaykh al-Islām Mustafā Sabrī (d. 1954),[37] the Moroccan polymath Ahmad al-Ghumarī (d. 1961),[38] and the Yemeni Hadīth scholar ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Mu‘allimī (d. 1966).[39] Given their diverse background, it is not surprising that these exchanges often brimmed with scholarly fury, but, in the same breath, were not bereft of the mutual decorum characteristic of Islamic dialogues of yesteryear.[40] After disagreeing with Yūnus ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā (d. 264 AH) on a given issue, Imām al-Shāfī‘ī (d. 204 AH) gently held his hand and asked, “Can we not remain brothers even though we differ on this issue?” [41]

Methodology & Contentions

In the arena of polemics, even the victor seldom exits unscathed—every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Kawtharī, who was in the midst of Cairo’s heated intellectual feuds, was no exception. His damaging critique of not a few groups earned him the ire of detractors who criticized him for a number of perceived flaws, chief among them an excessive partisanship for his legal school and methodological inconsistency. The proceeding explanation, to be sure, is not to say he was absolved of errors—that is intrinsic to human nature. But many of Kawtharī’s supposed shortcomings can be assuaged to a large extent by better understanding his methodology. As such, a word on his modus operandi vis-à-vis prophetic and non-prophetic reports is in order.

An unwavering adherence to the widely-transmitted practice of Muslims is a theme that pervades his works.[42] Time and again, he assures his readers that the legitimacy of his stance is supported by the inherited practice of the vast majority of Companions and Successors.[43] He considered it paramount to gauge the reliability of isolated reports against constants drawn from the aggregate ethos of Islamic teachings; this is typified by his fellow Cairene Hanafī scholar Abū Ja‘far al-Tahāwī (d. 321 AH), who had formulated his unique Hadīth-cum-legal hermeneutics a millennium earlier.[44] More specifically, he advised that a report about/from someone should be studied in light of what is established about him.[45] Moreover, an in-depth reading of history was the sine qua non of his methodology as he took great pains to contextualize and note factors that may have influenced a scholar’s Weltanschauung.[46] To recapitulate his modus operandi in one word: nuance.

Critics derided him for an alleged slavish attachment to the eponym of his legal school and an equally stubborn refusal to accept any critique against him.[47] At the outset, it should be noted that partisanship (ta‘assub) is not a categorically negative quality. That many a prestigious scholar was extolled by the likes of al-Dāraqutnī (d. 385 AH)[48] and al-Hākim (d. 405 AH)[49] for partisanship for noble causes like the Sunnah is quite telling. But in order for it to be praiseworthy, one should be convinced of the veracity of his cause (with the possibility of error in probable issues) and substantiate it with cogent evidence. Given that partisanship (ta’ssaub) in common parlance carries a derogatory connotation, an appropriate substitute would be firm adherence (tamassuk).[50] Kawtharī himself warned of the dangers of odious fanaticism to one’s school since, inter alia, it prompts one to dismiss persuasive arguments as flimsy casuistry, and vice versa.[51] Leading by example, he had no qualms in abandoning the position of Imām Abū Hanīfah in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary, as in the issue of endowments.[52] With this mind, he is to be excused, even commended, for an unflinching devotion to his legal school, because ultimately he was defending a tradition that like others exercised legitimate judgment to arrive at the most accurate interpretation of the foundational sources of Islam. In many cases, his firmness was accentuated by the vehemence of the criticisms, which drove him to reciprocate accordingly.[53]

That a considerable amount of his oeuvre relates to the Hanafī school, in one way or another, was not an act of fanaticism. Rather, given his undisputed proficiency in the school, he was the most qualified to undertake such projects, which he accomplished with competence. He also penned a number of works on other schools, such as a biographical tract on al-Layth ibn Sa‘d (d. 175 AH), who founded an independent legal school, and he encouraged the publication of Ibn Abī Hātim al-Rāzī’s Adāb al-Shāfi‘ī wa Manāqibuhū, for which he also wrote a forward, to name a few.[54]

The second contention raised against him is methodological inconsistency. In other words, he is guilty of criticizing a narrator in one place while deeming him reliable elsewhere. This contention, however, stems from an inadequate understanding of Kawtharī’s methodology. Given that nuance placed an important role in his methodology, he would apply his discretion as a Hadīth expert when employing the reports of a narrator as per the context. This approach is in line with pioneering scholars of Hadīth like Imāms al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH)[55] and Muslim (d. 261 AH) [56] who would assess the reports of a narrator based on the context through a rigorous selection process.[57] Kawtharī’s treatment of the narrator Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Rāzī (d. 248 AH) is a striking case in point. In a discussion on intersession, he faults Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī (d. 744 AH) for citing only those who impugned al-Rāzī; as counterweight to this one-sided expose, he highlights the opinions of those who spoke approvingly of him.[58] Contrast this with an article where he exposes the flawed and disingenuous approach of Orientalists who cast doubts on Islam by misconstruing certain reports from books of history and Sīrah; here he states that al-Rāzī’s probity is disputed, but many have vehemently impugned him.[59] Prima facie this may seem inconsistent: in one place, he points out the positive of the narrator while in another other he points out the negative. Far from inconsistency, this demonstrates deep insight. In both scenarios, he openly acknowledges that opinions vary regarding al-Rāzī, but as per the demands of the context—one a rejoinder to a one-sided intra-Islamic polemic while another a response to biased anti-Islamic criticism—he accentuates one opinion over the other.[60]

In a similar manner, he would emphasize an aspect regarding an otherwise unreliable narrator that may have caught the attention of a scholar and prompted him to overlook the narrator’s shortcomings. Consider the case of al-Mughīrah ibn Ziyād (d. 152 AH) where Kawtharī states that although his probity is disputed, since a number of authorities have deemed him reliable and the compilers of the Sunan works transmitted from him, “it is not surprising that a mujtahid would employ his narrations.”[61] In this example, he is clearly not giving the green light of categorical acceptance; instead, he is drawing attention to one dimension that, in tandem with external factors, may have caught the attention of a scholar who ipso facto employed his reports.[62] It is therefore paramount to bear in mind the distinct, multifarious methods scholars devised in developing their views.[63]

Conclusion

Like other prominent figures whose lives decorate the annals of Islamic history, Kawtharī led an enviable life, one that serves as an example par excellence for the scholarly fraternity, in particular. It is tempting to exhaust the many inspirational episodes that fill his biography. This brief expose, however, does not pretend to be an exhaustive study of his life and thought; that would require an encyclopedic, albeit highly appreciated, undertaking. In the foregoing, we momentarily walked in the shoes of Kawtharī, from his humble beginnings in Düzce to his ascendancy in the upper scholarly echelons of the Ottoman Caliphate to his life-changing exile in Cairo. His self-sufficiency, humility, and generosity only enhanced the value of his peerless scholarly acumen. Charges of methodological inconsistency and partisanship for his school of law stem from an inadequate understanding of his modus operandi. Be that as it may, with the passing of Kawtharī, the Muslim world not only mourned the loss of an irreplaceable scholar, but, more precisely, it also sounded the death knell for the remnant of an age gone past.

[1] Abū Zahrah, al-Imām al-Kawtharī in al-Maqālāt, p.15.

[2] Surprisingly, his forte appears to have been Qur’ānic studies, based on the following reasons. First, Ibrāhīm al-Akīnī, his primary teacher, was a specialist, inter alia, in the science of Qirā’ah; see: al-Kawtharī, al-Tahrīr al-Wajīz, p.43. Second, he was part of the faculty of specialization in Hadīth and Qur’ānic exegesis where he taught Qur’ānic studies for a lengthy period; see: Ibrāhīm al-Sarrāwī, Introduction to Tabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, sec. dāl. Finally, his most celebrated book is a two-volume introduction to Qur’ānic studies—it was left behind in Istanbul prior to his migration and is yet to be located; see: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī in al-Maqālāt, p.451; al-Kawtharī, al-Maqālāt, p.22.

[3] For instance, he critically edited and annotated ‘Abd Allah al-Batalyawsī’s (d. 521 AH) al-Haqā’iq fī al-Matālib al-‘Aliyah al-Falsafiyyah al-‘Awīsah, an explanatory treatise on certain delicate philosophical concepts.

[4] In fact, his first work was a Persian poem on Arabic grammar entitled Nazm ‘Awāmil al-I‘rāb. He also wrote a one-volume critique on Muhammad al-Akīnī’s gloss on al-Fawā’id al-Diyā’iyyah (that is, ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Jāmī’s [d. 998 AH] renowned commentary, commonly known as Sharh Mullā Jāmī fi al-Nahw, on Ibn Hājib’s [d. 646 AH] al-Kāfiyah). This is in addition to a ten-page treatise where he resolves the ambiguity of a passage from al-Muharram’s supercommentary on Jāmī’s aforementioned book. See: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī in al-Maqālāt, p.450. For a glimpse into the sophisticated nature of Jāmī’s commentary, see: Moosa, Ebrahim (2015), What Is a Madrasa?, pp.117-18.

[5] Among the theological works he critically edited and annotated were Ibn Qutaybah’s al-Ikhtilāf fī al-Lafż, al-Bayhaqī’s al-Asmā’ wa al-Sifāt, Imām al-Haramayn’s al-‘Aqīdah al-Niżāmiyyah, and a number of treatises attributed to Imām Abū Hanīfah, such as al-Alim wa al-Muta‘allim and al-Fiqh al-Absat.

[6] This is clear to anyone who even reads his books out of curiosity. His marginal comments on his personal copy of ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Kattānī’s Fahras al-Fahāris are brilliant examples—among countless others—of his precision in the transmission of Hadīth. Muhammad Al Rashīd reproduced these comments in: al-Imām Zāhid al-Kawtharī wa Ishāmātuhū fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah wa al-Isnād, p. 74 ff.

[7] See: Abū al-Hājj, Athar al-Imām al-Kawtharī fī Nusrat wa Ta’yīd al-Madhāhib al-Fiqhiyyah al-Sunniyyah, p.30 ff.; al-Bayūmī, Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī Rāwiyat al-‘Asr wa Amīn al-Turāth al-Islāmī in al-Muqaddimāt, p.19; al-Bannūrī, Introduction to al-Maqālāt, pp.7-8.

[8] To be precise, he was born in a village called al-Hājj Hasan Efendi, named after his father who had founded it, situated three miles south of Düzce. See: al-Kawtharī, al-Tahrīr al-Wajīz, p.43.

[9] Classical Ottoman scholarship for the most part was shaped by three seminaries of learning: (1) the first seminary in Nicea in 1331 CE by Orhan Gazi; (2) the Fatih Mosque and Complex with its Sahn-i Seman (lit. eight courtyards, or, madrasas) by Mehmet the Conqueror in Constantinople in 1471 CE; and (3) the Süleymaniye Mosque under the instruction of Sultan Süleyman in 1557 CE. See: Ozervarli, Sait (2016), Theology in Ottoman Lands in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology (ed. Sabine Scmidtke), Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.570. On the vibrant scholarly activity in Ottoman lands during the 17th century, see Khaled El Rouayheb’s phenomenal study “Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly Current in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb.” By examining the works of various scholars in the Ottoman Empire and North Africa, the author argues against the notion that the 17th century was a period of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim world, a notion that “risks reinforcing the impression that on the one side of the Mediterranean in the seventeenth century one encounters Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, and Leibniz, whereas on the other side one encounters popular chroniclers, Sufi diarists, popularizers of medical or occult knowledge, and the like” (p.3).

[10] At the medrese complex, a prospective student would select a teacher of his choice with whom he would spend the following 15 years learning all the sciences. The teacher would deliver only two lessons daily, for which he would prepare throughout the day. Upon graduation, a student would in effect become a carbon copy of his mentor. The teacher would then restart the cycle with a new batch of students for another 15 years. Kawtharī’s teacher at first was Ibrāhīm Haqqī al-Akīnī (d. 1318/1901) and after he passed away he completed the course with ‘Alī Zayn al-‘Abidin al-Alasūnī (d. 1329/1911) in compliance with al-Akīnī’s bequest; this was apart from select books he studied privately with other teachers. On the intriguing pedagogy employed at the Fātih Mosque, see: al-Kawtharī, al-Tahrīr al-Wajīz, pp.9, 32-33. For a light hearted, yet miraculous, incident that occurred during preparation for his final exam, see: ibid., p.38.

[11] In the Ottoman Caliphate, the office of Shaykh al-Islām, the highest scholarly position, was designated to the head of religious affairs. This title was used earlier unofficially to refer to a scholar of great repute and an authority in religious matters. See: Abū Ghuddah, al-‘Ulamā’ al-‘Uzzāb, p.46. Since the Shaykh al-Islām was often preoccupied with political affairs, he was appointed three deputies: one to pass legal verdicts; a second to head the department of education (i.e. pedagogy, scholars, and religious institutes); and a third to oversee judicial affairs. Kawtharī occupied the second post known as Wakīl al-Dars, akin to the post of Shaykh al-Azhar in Egypt. See: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.437; al-Kawtharī, al-Tahrīr al-Wajīz, p.38.

[12] His trips to Damascus were for purely academic reasons. He spent his time buried in the rare manuscripts held in the vaults of the Zāhiriyyah Library—days would go by without food. See: Wahbī Sulaymān, Introduction to al-Imām Zāhid al-Kawtharī wa Ishāmātuhū, p.6; Mutī‘, Tārīkh ‘Ulamā’ Dimashq, vol.3, p.417.

[13] Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.429-433, 438.

[14] Interestingly, Kawtharī personally told ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Ghumārī that his memory was such that with one glance at a passage from a book, he would not forget the line, let alone the page; that was until a near-death experience while in Turkey where he almost drowned, after which his memory was not the same. See: al-Ghumārī, al-Safīnah, vol.1, 169; cf. Al Rashīd, al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid, p.193. This near-death experience is described in: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.435. Now, with this in mind consider the story in reference before his demise.

[15] Brown, Jonathan (2014), Misquoting Muhammad, London: Oneworld Publication, p.15.

[16] Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.433.

[17] See: al-Bayūmī, Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, p.20.

[18] This is in addition to the forwards and introductions he wrote for a wide-range of books and treatises that are significant works in their own right. That many of articles and introductions were posthumously printed for a broader readership demonstrates the value these writings held in the sight of scholars. It should be noted that the present compilation of his articles is not exhaustive; Iyād al-Ghawj wrote a piece on the articles that were not included. See: al-Sarhān, Footnotes on Rasā’il al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, pp.107-8.

[19] He appears to have written only one book in Turkish: a biography of Mujaddid Alf-e Thānī (d. 1034 AH) entitled “al-Rawd al-Nādir al-Wardī fī Tarjamat al-Imām al-Rabbānī al-Sarhindī.” See: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.451.

[20] For a list of his writings, see: Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, pp.450-59. His writings were characterized with a succinct and lucid literary style that allowed him to write in one volume what would otherwise require several volumes. See: ‘Awwāmah, Forward to al-Musannaf, vol.20, p.10.

[21] During his tenure as professor at the Fātih Mosque, he lectured the largest class, and hundreds of students graduated under his auspices. See: al-Sarrāwī, Introduction to Tabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, sec. dāl.

[22] He was one of Kawtharī’s closest post-migration students, whose authoritative biography is cited throughout this article. For a short biography of Ahmad Khayrī, see: Al Rashīd, al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, pp.149-53.

[23] He enjoyed a close relationship with Kawtharī during his studies at al-Azhar. He even took on the sobriquet ‘al-Kawtharī’ and named his eldest son Muhammad Zāhid out of love for his teacher. See: Al Rashīd, al-Imām al-Muhammad Zāhid, p.164. Kawtharī gave him the agnomen Abū al-Futūh and highly praised him. See: Al Rashīd, Imdād al-Fattāh, p.146; al-Kawtharī, Introduction to Manāqib wa Adāb al-Shāfi‘ī, p.541. However, he had no qualms in openly disagreeing with his teacher on certain issues with due respect. See, for instance: Abū Ghuddah, Kalimāt fī Kashf Abātīl wa Iftirā’āt, p.38.

[24] See: Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, p.160.

[25] For a well-prepared list of his students and those who received authorization from him, see: Al Rashīd, al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, p.147 ff.

[26] Al-Kawtharī (2013), Rasā’il al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī ilā al-‘Allāmah Muhammad Yūsuf al-Bannūrī, ed. Su‘ūd al-Sarhān, Jordan: Dār al-Fath, p.45. Kawtharī developed a close bond with Shaykhs Yūsuf al-Bannūrī (d. 1977) and Ahmad al-Bijnawrī (d. 1997), two exceptionally talented scholars from Deoband, when the latter arrived in Cairo in the Spring of 1938 for scholarly work at the behest of the newly founded al-Majlis al-‘Ilmī. During their short stay, they sought out Kawtharī and enjoyed his companionship; Kawtharī would later reminisce over the fruitful time they had spent together. In the following year, Kawtharī and Bannūrī began corresponding via letters—from April, 24, 1939 until February, 3, 1952 shortly before the former’s demise. After more than a decade of correspondence, Kawtharī concludes his final letter with the following tear-inducing words, “My deteriorating health prevents me from continuing this correspondence with you and with Mawlānā Abū al-Wafā’ [al-Afghānī; d. 1975]—every beginning has an end. My soul is with you, praying for you every goodness. And upon you [peace] and Allah’s mercy and blessings.” See: Ibid., pp.24, 32, 222. This page turning correspondence, of which only Kawtharī’s letters are published, is a first-hand account into many less known aspects of his life.

[27] On the history and activities of al-Majlis al-‘Ilmī, see: al-Bannūrī, Introduction to Nasb al-Rāyah, vol.1, p.2.

[28] Al-Kawtharī, Rasā’il, pp.168-69.

[29] Khayrī, al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.430.

[30] An attempt was made to demolish a madrasah built by Sultan Mustafa III (d. 1187/1774) to make way for a shelter for disaster victims. In a bold act that cost him the leadership post as Wakīl al-Dars, Kawtharī vehemently protested the intervention on religious grounds. See: Ibid., p.437.

[31] See, for instance: Ibn Hajar, Raf‘ al-Isr, vol.1, p.240.

[32] See his letters to al-Zāhir Baybars (d. 676/1277) in: al-Sakhāwī, al-Manhal al-‘Adhb al-Rawī, p.30 ff.

[33] ‘Awwāmah, Manhaj al-Imām Muhammad Zājid al-Kawtharī fī Naqd al-Rijāl, p.5.

[34] See: al-Kawtharī, al-Maqālāt, p.203.

[35] See, for instance: ibid., p.233 ff.

[36] See, for instance: ibid., p.129.

[37] See: al-Kawtharī, al-Istibsār fī al-Tahdduth ‘an al-Jabr wa al-Ikhtiyār, p.3; Sabrī, Mawqif al-‘Aql wa al-‘Ilm wa al-‘Alam ‘ind Rabb al-‘Alamīn, vol.3, p.390 ff./cf.vol.4, p.51. Kawtharī heaps praises on him before engaging in the discussion while Mustafa Sabrī calls him “My honorable friend Shaykh Zāhid.” Also, see Muhammad Amīn Sirāj’s comments in: ‘Awwāmah, Adab al-Ikhtilāf, pp.83-84.

[38] Whatever the misunderstanding that caused the subsequent furor, Ahmad al-Ghumārī eventually ceased his critique and personally went to Kawtharī to apologize and reconcile, and he described him as a “verifying hadith scholar with expansive research;” this was verified by al-Ghumārī’s close student ‘Abd Allah al-Talīdī. See: ‘Awwāmah, Manhaj al-Imām al-Kawtharī, p.24.

[39] The to-and-fro that ensued between the two scholars stemmed from Kawtharī’s book Ta’nīb al-Khatīb, a critique on al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī’s treatment of Imām Abū Hanīfah in Tārīkh Baghdād. See: Mamdūh, Sa‘īd (2009), al-Ittijāhāt al-Hadīthiyyah fi al-Qarn al-Rābi‘ ‘Ashar, Cairo: Dār al-Basā’ir, pp.148-49; ‘Awwāmah, Manhaj al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī fī Naqd al-Rijāl, p.49 ff.; ‘Abd al-Mālik, al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth, p.170. In several places, al-Mu‘allimī praised Kawtharī and thanked him for directing him to the location of numerous manuscripts. See: al-Mu‘llimī, Introduction to al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dīl, vol.1, sect. kāf/wāw; idem, al-Anwār al-Kāshifah, p.175.

[40] See, for instance: al-Subkī, Qā‘idah fī al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dīl in Arba‘ Rasā’il fī ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth, p.23 ff.; ‘Awwāmah, Adab al-Ikhtilāf, pp.79-94, 148-57.

[41] Ibn ‘Asākir, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, vol.51, p.302.

[42] He writes, “I have always called towards an adherence of the sharī‘ah of Allah by mobilizing under the flags of these imams (Allah be pleased with them all), without paying heed to dissenters on the peripherals and fundamentals.” See: al-Kawtharī, al-Sirā‘ al-Akhīr bayn al-Islām wa al-Wathaniyyah in al-Maqālāt, p.306.

[43] See, for instance: al-Kawtharī, al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, vol.2, p.539.

[44] See: al-Kawtharī, al-Hāwī, pp.20-21; al-Bakrī, Hamzah (2015), Introduction to al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, Jordan: Dār al-Fath, p.34; Shamsy, The Canonization of Islamic Law, pp.205-7.

[45] For instance, one should examine negative reports about Imām Abū Hanīfah against what is widely transmitted about him. As Kawtharī says, “authentic isolated reports cannot overrule what is widespread (al-mustafīd al-mashhūr), let alone what is concurrently transmitted (mutawātir).” See: al-Kawtharī, Ta’nīb al-Khatīb, p.31. A practical example is reports concerning Ibn Mas‘ūd’s exclusion of the mu’awwidhatayn in his copy of the Qur’ān. Reports of this nature cannot be accepted as they conflict with what is widely related that Ibn Mas‘ūd taught these sūrahs to his students, as is transmitted via six of the ten modes of Qur’ānic recitation. See: al-Kawtharī, Masāhif al-Amsār in al-Maqālāt, p.16; ‘Awwāmah, Footnotes on al-Madkhal, vol.1, p.349.

[46] Kawtharī describes this as the dakhā’il of narrator criticism, a monumental task reserved exclusively for experts in the field. See: al-Kawtharī, Fiqh Ahl al-‘Irāq, p.77; Abū Ghuddah, Mas’alat Khalq al-Qur’ān; ‘Awwamah, Athar al-Hadīth, p.32. For instance, he explains that Ibn Qutaybah’s earlier critique of Imām Abū Hanīfah was due to the ubiquitous resentment in his circles towards the Imām. This was because during the Qurānic Inquisition, some Hanafī Mu‘tazilī theologians who held judicial positions vetted Hadīth scholars vis-à-vis their beliefs; thus the latter retaliated by criticizing, unfairly, the eponym of the former’s legal school. See: al-Kawtharī, Introduction to al-Ikhtilāf fī al-Lafż, p.4; cf. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihī, vol.2, p.1087 ff.

[47] See: al-Ghumārī, ‘Abd Allāh (1986), Bida‘ al-Tafsīr, Casablanca: Dār al-Rashād al-Hadīthah, p.179; cf. Mamdūh, al-Ittijāhāt al-Hadīthiyyah, pp.148-49.

[48] Al-Dāraqutnī praised the piety of the grammarian Ismā’īl al-Saffār (d. 341 AH) and said he was partial towards the Sunnah. See: al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, vol.7, p.301.

[49] Al-Hākim said regarding Abū al-Fadl al-Tūsī (d. 348 AH), “In Khurasān, he was one of the pillars of Hadīth in addition to his religiosity, asceticism, generosity, and partisanship for the People of Sunnah.” See: Ibn ‘Asākir, Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, vol.62, p.45.

[50]As Ibn Mullā Farrūkh (d. 1061 AH) aptly points out, scholars from all the schools of law “expressly state the impermissibility of ta’assub but the correctness of firm adherence (salābah) to the madhhab.” In this context, ta‘ssub, he continues, is a desire-driven inclination to support one’s school and to interact with another school condescendingly. See: Ibn Mullā Farrūkh, al-Qawl al-Sadīd fī Ba‘d Masā’il al-Ijtihād wa al-Taqlīd, p.46.

[51] See: al-Kawtharī, Fiqh Ahl al-‘Irāq wa Hadīthuhum, p.10.

[52] See: al-Kawtharī, Muhādathah Qadīmah Hawl al-Waqf al-Ahlī, p.192; al-Bakrī, Introduction to al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, vol.1, p.36 ff.

[53] In his critique of Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī (d. 478 AH), he writes, “God willing, I will a tread a moderate path between gentleness and harshness as per the demands of the argument I will critique, proportionate to its veracity and the lack thereof, giving according to his ‘measurement scale’ without meekness and virulence.” See: al-Kawtharī, Ihqāq al-Haqq, p.15; cf. idem, Rasā’il, p.92.

[54] Al-Bayūmī, Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, pp.30-31.

[55] Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) explains al-Bukhārī’s reason for narrating the hadiths of ‘Abd Allah ibn Sālih, which is his modus operandi vis-à-vis narrators of this class, “Whatever he transmits from his hadiths is authentic since he sieved them from [the corpus of] his hadiths.” See: Ibn Hajar, Hudā al-Sārī, vol.1, p.415.

[56] In justifying Muslim’s transmission from Matar al-Warrāq, a narrator with questionable memory, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzī (d. 751 AH) writes, “There is no fault on the part of Muslim for relating his hadiths, because he selected from the hadiths of this class what he believed they remembered just as he abandoned from the hadiths of a reliable narrator where he believed that narrator erred.” See: Ibn al-Qayyim, Zād al-Ma‘ād, vol.1, p.353.

[57] An interesting example is al-Bukhārī’s alternating between the active and passive voices as per the context when prefacing the incident of Jābir ibn ‘Abd Allah’s month’s journey to acquire one hadith. See: Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bārī, vol.1, p.73/vol.13, p.453; cf. ‘Awāmah, Footnotes on Tadrīb al-Rāwī, vol.4, p.542.

[58] Al-Kawtharī, Mahq al-Taqawwul in al-Maqālāt, p.351. That he pointed out al-Subkī’s error too, with whom he agreed overall on the subject, and that he mentioned additional criticism on al-Rāzī demonstrate his sincere search for the correct position.

[59] Al-Kawtharī, Kalimah ‘an Khālid ibn al-Walīd wa Qatl Mālik ibn Nuwayrah in al-Maqālāt, p.400.

[60] ‘Awwāmah, Manhaj al-Imām Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, pp.20-21.

[61] Al-Kawtharī, al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, vol.1, p.220. This is brought under a hadith al-Mughīrah narrates that supports Imām Abū Hanīfah’s position on making vinegar out of wine.

[62] Al-Bakrī, Introduction to al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, vol.1, p.25.

[63] Kawtharī explains that all Sunnī scholars accepted the Prophet’s hadīths as the second source of law, but in so doing each scholar formulated his respective techniques of text-based and isnād-based analysis. See: al-Kawtharī, al-Hāwī fī Sīrat al-Imām Abī Ja‘far al-Tahāwī, p.19. Even the Companions employed various methods of verifying the reliability of hadiths, like juxtaposing it with the Qur’ān. See, for instance: Ibn Mansūr, Sa‘īd (1982), al-Sunan, ed. al-A‘żamī, India: al-Dār al-Salafiyyah, vol.1, p.268.

Biography taken from HERE

Last Edit: Apr 5, 2019 8:23:20 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Kamal al-Din ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi Mar 19, 2019 9:28:34 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 19, 2019 9:28:34 GMT

The Life and Works of
al-Kamāl Ibn al-Humām

By Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah

Translated by Mufti Muntasir Zaman

[The following excerpt is an abridged translation of the biography of Ibn al-Humām, the 9th century Ḥanafī legal theorist and jurist, whose erudition was acknowledged in countless fields like language, law, and Ḥadīth. For the entire piece, see Shaykh ʿAwwāmah, Dirāsah Ḥadīthiyyah Muqāranah, pp.221-37]

Introduction

His name was Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Humām al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, better known as al-Kamāl ibn al-Humām. His ancestry was from [the Turkish province of] Sivas, but he was born in Alexandria and grew up and passed away in Cairo. His student al-Sakhāwī writes, “He was possibly born in the year 790 AH, as I have read from his own writing.”[1] He hailed from a family of knowledge and repute. His father was a judge in Sivas who later became a judge in Alexandria and married the daughter of the Maliki judge of Alexandria; she gave birth to al-Kamāl [lit. perfection].[2]

Academic standing

He studied the rational and transmitted sciences from the scholars of Alexandria and Cairo. He studied Qurʾānic exegesis under al-Aqṣarāʾī, Islamic law under Qārīʾ al-Hidāyah, and the sciences of Ḥadīth from Abū Zurʿah al-ʿIrāqī, among others. He was recognized for “remarkable brilliance, intelligence, and composure” from a young age. Al-Sakhāwī writes, “He would frequent the class of al-ʿIzz ibn Jamāʿah, who would pause the class when he sensed Ibn al-Humām’s coming because of his brilliance.”[3]

Al-Sakhāwī then enumerates Ibn al-Humām’s academic qualifications, “He was a learned Imām, well versed in the principles of theology, Qur’ānic exegesis, Islamic law, legal theory, inheritance law, math, spirituality, Arabic grammar, rhetoric, logic, literature, and the art of debate. He was a sign [of excellence] for people and the leading researcher of his time, who possessed evincive proofs, many personal views, and robust preferences. He was the most articulate, sharp, and meticulous scholar I have seen. He had no qualms in retracting his views when he erred even if a novice corrected him.”[4] This is his standing in the sight of the Ḥadīth expert, al-Sakhāwī, who studied with more than 1,200 teachers, among whom was Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar. The abovementioned description indicates several qualities.

First, they demonstrate Ibn al-Humām’s polymathic erudition and grasp of multiple sciences that few adequately grasped. His books, albeit few in number, testify to this.

Second, he was articulate unlike others who were described as “his writing is clearer than his speech.” He possessed both forms of clarity: clarity of the pen and clarity of the tongue. Al-Abnāsī states, “Although our teacher al-Bisṭāmī was more knowledgeable, al-Kamāl possessed better memory and was more articulate.”[5]

Third, he was patient and tolerant, qualities that are essential for a student to achieve full potential. This brings to mind an episode from the life of Ibn al-Humām. In 813 AH, he frequented the company of Muḥibb ibn al-Shiḥnah in Cairo. Thereafter, he accompanied Ibn al-Shiḥnah as he returned to Aleppo, leaving behind his family and home, until the latter’s demise in 815 AH.

Fourth, he possessed a noble academic trait: the search for truth regardless of its source. This was a trait that characterized many a scholar, but the fact that al-Sakhāwī specifically highlighted it in Ibn al-Humām indicates that it was pronounced in him. When Ibn al-Humām became an instructor of Fiqh at al-Qubbah al-Munṣūriyyah, he assembled a large scholarly gathering where he invited his teachers, such as Ibn Ḥajar, al-Sirāj al-Qāriʾ, al-Bisṭāmī, and al-Aqṣarāʾī. The attendees acknowledged his academic prowess. He achieved this as a young adult. This was the only issue his critics raised against him—what a despicable reason to criticize!

Ranking among the Ḥanafī scholars

His own statement serves as the best testimony to this, bearing in mind that he was recognized for his humility. Al-Sakhāwī writes, “Ibn al-Humām would state expressly that he would have reached the rank of ijtihād were it not for incessant health issues.” His student al-Suyūṭī quotes him, “I do not follow anyone’s opinions in the rational sciences.”[5] Ibn ʿĀbidīn’s and al-Laknawī’s observation that he reached the rank of ijtihād refers to ijtihād in the Ḥanafī legal school—not unrestricted ijtihad—which is also the category of Imām al-Marghīnānī.

Character

His most notable trait was humility and respect for his teachers. While describing the aforementioned scholarly gathering, al-Sakhāwī writes, “Out of respect for his teachers, he refused to sit in the instructor’s seat despite the attendees’ persistence; instead, he sat in the reciter’s seat.”[6] He possibly felt that “respect is better than obeying commands (al-adab khayr min imtithāl al-amr).” Upon returning from Ḥajj, he first visited his teacher Saʿd al-Dīn al-Dīrī to convey his greetings before going to his own home.

Even the titles of his books portray humility. He titled his commentary on al-Hidāyah “Fatḥ al-Qadīr li al-ʿAjiz al-Faqīr (The Opening from the All-Powerful for the Feeble Destitute).” Other titles include “al-Musāyarah (The Pursuit)” and “Zād al-Faqīr (Provisions for the Destitute).” His books do not give off an air of accomplishment nor do they make claims of being masterpieces of research and perfection; he lets the contents of his books do the talking. His academic traits can be gleaned from his largest and most prominent book, Fatḥ al-Qadīr. Some of these traits are as follows.

First, Ibn al-Humām’s primary objective was the search for truth and abiding by the demands of the evidence, which was also the objective of all Muslim scholars. At times, the truth becomes apparent for him in another legal school and he follows it. In Fatḥ al-Qadīr, he cites the ḥadīth of Anas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told the barber to cut, and he gestured to his right side and then to the left. He then states, “This demonstrates that the Sunnah of shaving the head [after the rituals of stoning and sacrifice] is to begin with the right side. This position is contrary to what is mentioned in the books of the [Ḥanafī] madhhab, and this is correct.”[7] Imām al-Kashmīrī commends Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd for his spirituality and abstinence from partiality. He then states, “In our ranks (i.e. the Ḥanafīs), Ibn al-Humām, the researcher and author of Fatḥ al-Qadīr, is similar to him as regards to harmonizing the path of the people (the Ṣūfīs) and the sciences of the Sharīʿah and in impartiality.”[8] That being said, he maintained his affiliation with the legal school and its founder. It is incorrect to exclude him from the scholars of the Ḥanafī legal school.

Second, he was not affectatious in deducing proofs. He disliked when his fellow Ḥanafī scholars were affectatious in responding to the proofs of the opposition, because they have adequate proofs that would suffice them from doing so. He equally disliked such behavior when it came from the opposing legal schools. Third, he avoids delving into anomalous views that contradict the position of mainstream scholarship. When he occasionally cites such a view, he ensures that he explains its flaws.[9]

Fourth, a reader of Fatḥ al-Qadīr will notice his manners in dealing with earlier scholarship. Imām al-Marghīnānī relates from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah that he suspended his view on the temporal limitations of the word “dahr” in the scenario where a person vows not to do something for the period of a dahr. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah states, “I am not sure about it.” Ibn al-Humām annotates, “His hesitation in maintaining a stance is evidence of his acumen, religiosity, and humility. May Allah have mercy on us through him.”[9] The reader will also notice his manners in his phraseology and selection of words.

Spirituality

He was among those who illuminated their knowledge with piety and their piety with knowledge—that is true perfection (kamāl). His understanding of taṣawwuf was not one of outward appearance or sanctifying personalities. He understood it as a practical application of Islam in all areas and adopting the practices of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Al-Suyūṭī writes, “He experienced a great deal of illuminations and miracles that the spiritual masters experience. At first, he chose absolute seclusion, but masters of the path counseled him: return, for indeed the masses need to benefit from your knowledge.”[10] A reader of Fatḥ al-Qadīr will see many passages where the author’s spirituality becomes evident. At times, he relates their [the Ṣūfīs] opinions, personal habits, and methods of spiritually training their disciples.[11] Under the discussion of drinking Zamzam water, he quotes Ibn Ḥajar “Countless scholars drank it and achieved what they sought” and then adds, “This feeble slave asks Allah to make this drink a source of steadfastness and death upon the reality of Islam.”[12]

Students

He was passionate about teaching at every given moment. Students flocked to him because he offered what others did not. The following are some of his students: [1] Sirāj al-Dīn ʿUmar al-Shāfiʿī (d. 861 AH), [2] Muḥammad Ibn al-Fālātī (d. 870 AH), [3] Sharaf al-Dīn Yaḥyā al-Munāwī (d. 871 AH)—Ibn al-Humām’s son in law, [4] Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Aqṣarā’ī (d. 872 AH), [5] Ibn Amīr Ḥājj (d. 879 AH), [6] Qasim ibn Quṭlūbughā (d. 879 AH), [7] Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī (d. 902 AH), [8] Ibn Abī Sharīf (d. 905 AH), [9] Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911 AH)—Ibn al-Humām was one of his caretakers after his father’s demise, and [10] Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī (d. 926 AH). The names of the last six are well-known in the world of knowledge and research, which is no surprise given that their teacher was Ibn al-Humām.

Works

For his age, Ibn al-Humām did not write extensively, but his books demonstrate his erudition. The following are some of his books:

- Iʿrāb Ḥadīth Kalimatān Khafīfatān.
- Taḥrīr al-Uṣūl, his famous book on legal theory that concisely synchronizes between the legal principles of the Ḥanafīs and the Shāfiʿīs.
- Risālah fī Taʿāruḍ al-Nafy wa al-Ithbāt, a response to a query presented in the gathering of Barsbey in 838 AH.
- Zād al-Faqīr, a treatise on the rulings of prayer and purification.
- A commentary of Ibn al-Sāʿātī’s Badīʿ al-Niẓām in legal theory.
- Fatḥ al-Qadīr li al-ʿĀjiz al-Faqīr, a commentary on al-Hidāyah vis-à-vis Fiqh and Ḥadīth. Upon his demise, he only completed until the chapter of Representation (al-Wakālah), i.e. roughly three-fourths of the book.
- Fatḥ al-Afkār fī Sharḥ Lamaʿāt al-Anwār.
- Mukhtaṣar al-Uṣūl. Ibn al-Humām cites this in Fatḥ al-Qadīr, but further investigation is required because he may have just called his book al-Taḥrīr a summation (Mukhtaṣar).
- Al-Musāyarah fī al-ʿAqāʿid al-Munjiyah fī al-Ākhirah, a theological treatise that follows the sequence of Imām al-Ghazālī’s theological tract; hence, the name al-Musāyarah (The Pursuit).

These books demonstrate expert scholarship and impartial research. May Allah reward him on behalf of Islam and knowledge.

[1] Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʿ al-Lāmiʿ, vol.8, p.127.

[2] Al-Laknawī, al-Fawāʾid al-Bahiyyah, p.180.

[3] Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʿ al-Lāmiʿ, vol.8, p.128.

[4] Ibid., p.131.

[5] Ibid., p.129.

[5] Al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-Wuʿāh, vol.1, p.167.

[6] Al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʿ al-Lāmiʿ, vol.8, p.129.

[7] Ibn al-Humām, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, vol.2, p.177.

[8] Fayḍ al-Bārī, as cited in the introduction to Naṣb al-Rāyah, vol.1, pp.8, 107.

[9] See, for instance, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, vol.3, p.174.

[9] Ibid., vol.4, p.72.

[10] Al-Suyūṭī, Bughyat al-Wuʿāh, vol.1, p.167.

[11] See, for instance, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, vol.1, p.174.

[12] Ibid., vol.2, p.191.

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Mar 19, 2019 18:53:31 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Al-Tahawi: Life & Works - Shaykh Dr Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed Mar 16, 2019 22:17:35 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 16, 2019 22:17:35 GMT

The Life & Works of

Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi al-Hanafi (d.321AH)

By Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed

This lecture took place in February 2019 at As-Subah Academy, London.

A brief biography of the Shaykh can be found on www.darultahqiq.com/about/

For more information and to keep up with our latest events and courses subscribe & follow.

Website: www.assubah.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/assubahacademy/
Instagram: www.instagram.com/as_subah/
Twitter: twitter.com/as_subah

Last Edit: Mar 16, 2019 22:23:38 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Jamal al-Din al-Zayla'i al-Hanafi Mar 15, 2019 11:48:30 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 15, 2019 11:48:30 GMT

The Life & Works of Hāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī,

Author of Nasb al-Rāyah

By Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah

Translated by Mufti Muntasir Zaman

Name and lineage

He is the Imām, prolific Hadith memorizer, and authority, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū Muhammad ‘Abd Allāh ibn Yūsuf ibn Yūnus Ibn Muhammad al-Zayla‘ī[1] al-Hanafī, one of the leading Hadīth experts of the 8th century, which brimmed with experts of Hadīth who revived the path of the earlier scholars vis-à-vis memorization, scope, and analytics. Biographers disagree on his name and his father’s name: is it ‘Abd Allāh ibn Yūsuf or Yūsuf ibn ‘Abd Allāh? The first opinion is more preferred, and Allāh knows best.[2]

Birth

Biographers have not specified the year of his birth, and neither have I come across any information to specify it either, but it is, nonetheless, safe to provide a rough estimation. Hāfiẓ al-Suyūtī writes, “the place of his entry is in the following generation. I mentioned him earlier only because his demise was earlier.” The “following generation” referred to in the quotation is the generation of Hāfiẓ Ibn Rajab (736-795 AH), Ibn Musallam (724-792 AH), Ibn Sayyid al-Nās (729-792 AH), and others. It is therefore not farfetched to assume that Hāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī was born in the vicinity of 720 AH. A further indication of this estimation is that Hāfiẓ al-‘Irāqī would accompany him in research while sourcing the hadīths of al-Ihyā, and they would even assist one another; al-‘Irāqī was born in 725 AH.[3]

In Nasb al-Rāyah, al-Zayla‘ī frequently quotes Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd’s al-Imām, and in each case, he mentions “the Shaykh said” and not once does he say “our Shaykh said.” Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd passed away in 702 AH in Cairo, al-Zayla‘ī’s hometown. Furthermore, in several places he quotes al-Sarūjī, who passed away in Cairo in 710 AH, and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, who passed in 724 AH, from his ‘Uyūn al-Athar; not once does he refer to them as “our Shaykh.” However, he frequently quotes Hāfiẓ al-Mizzī (d. 742 AH) and Hāfiẓ al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) and refers to them as “our Shaykh.” To the best of my knowledge, Hāfiẓ al-Mizzī was the first of his teachers to pass away.

Teachers

Al-Zayla‘ī acquired knowledge from the senior scholars of Fiqh and Hadīth in his time.

The following are some of his teachers in Fiqh: (1) Imām Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Alī al-Zayla‘ī (743 AH), the commentator on al-Kanz, one of the most authoritative texts in Hanafi jurisprudence. Hāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī quotes him in Nasb al-Rāyah and describes him as “Imām Fakhr al-Dīn.” (2) Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn ‘Adlān (d. 749 AH), described by Ibn Fahd as the Shaykh of the Shafi‘īs. (3) Shihāb al-Dīn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Qays al-Ansārī (d. 749 AH), the jurist of Cairo and Alexandria. (4) Bahā’ al-Dīn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ibn ‘Aqīl (d. 761 AH), the commentator on Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik.

The following are some of his teachers in Hadīth: (1) Imām Abū al-Hajjāj al-Mizzī (d. 742 AH), the teacher of the Hadīth experts of his time, who al-Zayla‘ī quotes in Nasb al-Rāyah on a number of occasions. (2) Imām Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī (d. 747 AH). Al-Zayla‘ī repeatedly cites his book, Mizān al-I‘tidāl, and at times even critiques him. (3) Imām ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Māridīnī (d. 750 AH), who al-Zayla‘ī quotes frequently, but critiques every time.

Acquaintance with, and praise in, the field of Hadīth

Al-Zayla‘ī developed a deep acquaintance with the field of Hadīth and frequently consulted the relevant books. He collected popular and rare, classical and new – relatively – Hadīth works until he developed proficiency in the science. He managed to locate hadīths other experts in the field were unable to locate; Nasb al-Rāyah is a clear testimony to this.

While enumerating those who wrote takhrīj works on al-Hidāyah, the learned Hadīth expert Qāsim [ibn Qutlūbughā] (d. 879 AH) describes al-Zayla‘ī as “the most expansive in scope and wide-ranging in collection.”[4] The erudite scholar al-Laknawī (d. 1304 AH) writes, “His takhrīj work is indicative of his depth in the field of Hadīth and narrator criticism, and his encompassing vision in the branches of Hadīth to the highest extent.”[5] The teacher of our teachers, the authoritative expert, Shaykh Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (d. 1371 AH) writes, “His takhrīj works bear testimony to his depth and expansive scope in the disciplines of Hadīth in terms of commentary, narrator criticism, texts, and routes.”[6] The Imām of this era, Shaykh Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī (d. 1352 AH) went as far as saying, “In my opinion, Hāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī has better memory than Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar.”[7] This is the opinion of Shaykh al-Kashmīrī, and Allāh knows best.

Works

His works are few in number. This is possibly because he lived a short life. Despite this, the written legacy he left behind is a sufficient source of provision and pride. The biographers mention only two books, and I came across a third.

The first is al-Is‘āf bi Ahādīth al-Kashshāf where he sourced the hadīths of al-Zamakhsharī’s Tafsīr al-Kashshāf. In Nasb al-Rāyah, he expressly mentions this book with the aforementioned title, and in several places, he alludes to it without naming it. That he mentions the book in the first volume of Nasb al-Rāyah demonstrates that it is an earlier work, or alternatively, he began writing both books simultaneously.

In his annotation on al-Maqāsid al-Hasanah, our teacher, the learned Hadīth scholar, Shaykh ‘Abd Allāh al-Siddīq al-Ghumārī describes this work as “a beneficial and lengthy takhrīj work.” This is the description of one who is well versed with its contents, because he was in possession of a manuscript of the book. I wrote to him, requesting that he describe the book, so he replied (may Allāh reward him):

I have a copy of the takhrīj of the hadīths in al-Kashshāf. It is in one volume and does not have a preface. The author exhausted all the prophetic hadīths in al-Kashshāf, but left out many Companion reports because his primary focus was to source the prophetic hadīths. He does not pass a judgment on the authenticity, soundness, or weakness of a hadīth unless he quotes someone else. My copy of the book is new, and in the Egyptian National Library there is a good quality, antique manuscript.

Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar summarized this book – just as he summarized al-Zayla‘ī’s takhrīj on the hadīths of al-Hidāyah – entitled al-Kāf al-Shāf bi Takhrīj Ahādīth al-Kashshāf. In 1354 AH, Mustafā Muhammad publishing house printed the book alongside Tafsīr al-Kashshāf under the guidance of our teacher, the prolific Hadīth memorizer, Shaykh Ahmad al-Siddīq al-Ghumārī.

The second book is Mukhtasar [summation of] Ma’ānī al-Āthār by Imām al-Tahāwī. While discussing the scholarly activity surrounding Sharh Ma‘ānī al-Āthār, ‘Allāmah al-Kawtharī mentions this and writes, “Hāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī is also among those who summarized the book. His summary is preserved in Ruwāq al-Atrāk library (in Azhar) and Köprülü Library in Istanbul.”[8] The third book is Nasb al-Rāyah li Ahādīth al-Hidāyah, which will be studied in detail shortly [not translated here], with the help of Allāh.

Academic honesty

Many biographers note a noble academic trait that was pronounced in al-Zayla‘ī: impartiality and the abandonment of madhhab fanaticism. While describing al-Zayla‘ī and his book Nasb al-Rāyah, Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar writes, “In every chapter, he cites the evidence of the opposition, and in so doing, he exhibits a great deal of fairness. He quotes what he finds without objection…”[9] ‘Allāmah al-Kashmīrī traces the cause of al-Zayla‘ī inculcating this trait to the fact that he was from “the Sūfī mentors whose souls were trained through spiritual exercises and seclusion…”[10]

This trait is manifest in Nasb al-Rāyah. The author was rooted in the Hanafī legal school and then cross-pollinated his knowledge by studying under Ibn ‘Adlān, the teacher of the Shāfi‘ī jurists, and others besides him. Furthermore, he was deeply influenced by al-Imām of Ibn Daqīq al-Īd, who was a Mālikī and Shāfi‘ī scholar, and by Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Tahqīq and Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī’s al-Tanqīh, both of whom were Hanbalī scholars.

While we are at it, it is important to clarify that some people are surprised by al-Zayla‘ī’s abandonment of madhhab fanaticism in light of his repeated usage of the phrase “the hadīths of the khusūm (opposition)” whereby he intends the hadīths adduced as proof by the other legal schools; he calls them the khusūm! How does one reconcile the two? The answer is the word khasm is not used as per the common parlance of the general masses, i.e. the enemy or similar usages. In this context, it is in reference to those disagreeing on a given topic. Here is the quote from al-Qāmūs al-Muhīt under the roots khā’, ṣād, and mīm, “Al-khusūmah: debate…a khasim person – on the scale of farih – is a debater.” As such, the intent of al-Zayla‘ī’s statement “the hadīths of the khusūm” is the hadīths of those who hold an opinion contrary to the Hanafīs – it does not mean the hadīths of the enemies! Hence, correct understanding is integral.

Demise

In the closing of al-Zayla‘ī’s entry, Ibn Fahd writes, “He (Allāh have mercy on him) passed away on the 11th of Muharram in 762 AH” and that was in Cairo. No one specified the location of his grave.[11] Based on the estimation I postulated for the year of his birth, he lived for 40 years. Allāh have mercy on us, him, and all the Muslims.

[1] Al-Zayla‘ī is an attribution to Zayla‘ from the port cities of Ethiopia [present day Somalia]. A group of scholars are attributed to this place. Most prominent among them are two: the scholar under discussion and his teacher Fakhr al-Dīn al-Zayla‘ī (d. 743 AH), the commentator on al-Kanz.

[2] The following scholars have preferred the former opinion: Hafiẓ Ibn Hajar in al-Durar al-Kaminah (2:417), Ibn Fahd and al-Suyūtī in their respective addendums on Tadhkirat al-Huffaẓ (pp.128 and 362), al-Suyūtī in his Tabaqāt al-Huffāẓ (p.531) and Husn al-Muhādarah (1:359), and al-Laknawī in al-Fawā’id al-Bahiyyah (pp.229-230 – here he relates the disagreement- and p.237 – here he authenticates the former opinion). That the second opinion (Yūsuf ibn ‘Abd Allāh) is preferred is indicated by the fact that his title is unanimously Jamāl al-Dīn, which predominantly is the title of a person whose name is Yūsuf.

[3] Ibn Hajar, al-Durar al-Kāminah, vol.2, p.417.

[4] Ibn Qutlūbughā, Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p.9.

[5] Al-Laknawī, al-Fawā’id al-Bahiyyah, p.227.

[6] Al-Kawtharī, annotations on Dhuyūl Tadhkirat al-Huffāẓ, p.129.

[7] Al-Kashmīrī, Fayd al-Bārī ‘alā Sahīh al-Bukhārī, vol.1, p.368.

[8] Al-Kawtharī, al-Hāwī fī Sīrat Abī Ja‘far al-Tahāwī, p.33.

[9] Introduction to Nasb al-Rāyah, pp.6-7, quoting Tabaqāt al-Tamīmī.

[10] Al-Kashmīrī, Fayd al-Bārī, vol.1, p.107 in the footnotes.

[11] Ibn Fahd, Dhayl Tadhkirat al-Huffāẓ, p.130.

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Mar 15, 2019 13:00:28 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Review: Hukm al-Iqtida' bi 'l-Mukhalif fi 'l-Madhab Mar 13, 2019 14:23:13 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 13, 2019 14:23:13 GMT

﷽

Review: Ḥukm al-Iqtidā’ bi l-Mukhālif fi l-Madhhab

Note: Just to ensure everything is clear from the start, this is not your usual book review, nor will we be discussing the paper quality, the typesetting, etc. The purpose of writing this brief review is to inform the readers (whether they are students or scholars) of the disingenuous nature of the “taḥqīq” of this risālah.

Dār al-Moqtabas (Beirut, Lebanon) has recently published[1] a risālah of the great ḥanafī scholar, Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī: Ḥukm al-Iqitidā’ bi l-Mukhālif fi l-Madhhab. The risālah discusses the ḥanafī stance on performing ṣalāh behind an imām who adheres to another madhhab. We will not go into details on the mas’alah. One may read the risālah itself to find out more. The “muḥaqqiq” of the book is: Aḥmad Manṣūr al-Shabīb al-Jabūrī. Not much is known about him. One of the contributors to this review has requested Dār al-Moqtabas to provide a detailed biography, but they have not yet responded. However, we understand that he is from ‘Irāq[2] and he seems to be pushing for an anti-ḥanafi/pro-salafī agenda in his “taḥqīq” of the risālah. In his muqaddimah, he clearly gave away his stance by stating that one should not be too “narrow-minded” in this mas’alah.

Hereunder are some examples of the “muḥaqqiq’s” disingenuous agenda in publishing the work:

1. Page 32, footnote 2: Shaykh Raḥmatullah al-Sindhī points out that by adopting a contrary position one has left the ḥanafī madhhab (i.e. on this issue). In the footnote, the “muḥaqqiq” attempts to refute Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī by forwarding a very simple-minded objection, asking: “Does someone leave the madhhab by opposing it in a few masā’il?” He answers: “If a shaykh reaches a level of ijtihād and realises that what is correct regarding a mas’alah and in accordance with the sunnah is what opposes the madhhab, then the madhhab is what is in accordance with the sunnah and by doing so he supports the opinion of his imām.” This is similar to the silly lay-salafi argument where they believe it is incumbent for a madhhab to abandon a stance because there is an evidence which seemingly contradicts the madhhab. This argument is based on ignorance of the fact that the imāms of the madhhab are well aware of such evidences but have their own evidences, which they deem stronger, to the contrary.

2. Page 35-36, footnote 2: The “muḥaqqiq” opposes the ḥanafī view on Raf‘ al-Yadayn and proceeds to educate the ḥanafīs on why their madhhab got it wrong for over a millennium by narrating two narrations from al-Bukhārī and Muslim. He then alleges that the ḥanafīs have abandoned the sunnah for the statement of a faqīh, who we should have made an “excuse” for and assumed he had not come across those narrations.

3. Page 38-41, footnote 5: The “muḥaqqiq” accuses the ḥanafīs of opposing the Ahl al-Sunnah and being in line with the murji’ah on the mas’alah of al-‘Amal min al-Īmān and saying: Ana Mu’minun in-shā Allāh. This is standard salafī rhetoric against the ḥanafīs. The “muḥaqqiq” dedicates over three full pages of nothing but footnotes in an ill-attempt to refute Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī and all ḥanafīs in general by claiming they oppose ijmā‘ (i.e. what he falsely claims to be ijmā‘) and asserts that they are nothing but muta‘aṣṣib (fanatics).

4. Page 42, footnote 1: Once again refers to a ḥanafī stance as ta‘aṣsub (fanaticism).

5. Page 42, footnote 2: Here he decides to throw a mini tantrum and presents a childish attack on Faqīh Abū l-Layth al-Samarqandī for (as quoted by Shaykh Rahmatullāh al-Sindhī) making it a condition to not act contrary to the ḥanafī madhhab. From his little rant, it is crystal clear that he does not understand the framework of the madhhab.

6. Page 43, footnote 1: Another false claim. This time he criticises the ḥanafī view on shakk in īmān and claims that it contradicts the “ijmā‘” of the salaf and takes this opportunity to promote ibn Abī l-‘Izz’s unreliable sharḥ on al-Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah.

7. Page 48, footnote 2: He attacks the author on the issue of tamadhhub and seizes the opportunity to once again educate the ḥanafīs on how they oppose the sunnah by not doing Raf‘ al-Yadayn.

8. Page 49, footnote 3: Yet again, he accuses the ḥanafīs of ta‘aṣṣub madhmūm (reprehensible fanaticism) because Shaykh Raḥmataullāh al-Sindhī mentions a number of ḥanafī imāms who did not practice Raf‘ al-Yadayn.

9. Page 52, footnote 1: Dedicates almost a full page of “footnotes” in an attempt to refute Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī’s entire book, promoting Abū Bakr al-Rāzī’s isolated opinion on a ḥanafī performing witr behind a shāfi‘ī despite Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī explaining why this opinion cannot be accepted.

10. Page 54, footnote 5: He attacks Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī for his conclusion on what is the aḥwaṭ (most cautious) view.

11. Page 55, footnote 1: Boldly claims: “We shall refute him … (naruddu ‘alayh)” because Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī concludes: “Thus it is apparent that cautiousness lies in not praying behind him, under any circumstance, without any disagreement”.

Besides the above issues, there are also numerous i‘rāb (diacritical) mistakes and some typing errors.

Despite the obviously disingenuous “taḥqīq” of this book with its not-so-hidden agenda, the muḥaqqiq deserves some amount of credit for providing:

- A brief biography of the author: Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī

- Brief biographies of the scholars that have been mentioned

- Nuqūl (texts) from some ḥanafī books

In conclusion, if one wishes to benefit from the work, then they must be careful when it comes to the muḥaqqiq’s kalam as he has clearly undertaken the task of publishing this book with an agenda to refute the author Shaykh Raḥmatullāh al-Sindhī and forward a very salafi-esque ideology. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident and there is a trend in the publishing world where reliable works are published with unreliable taḥqīq. We hope and pray that an actual reliable ḥanafī scholar decides to take up work on this risālah in the future and reprint it with some beneficial taḥqīq and do justice to this excellent work.

وما علينا الا البلاغ

Abu Nusaybah

Abu Dawud ibn 'Abd al-Karim

03 Rajab 1440 – 10 March 2019

This review can be downloaded as a pdf HERE

For a detailed read up on the issue of “al-Iqtidā’ bi l-Mukhālif” (by Mufti Zameelur Rahman) refer to:

An English summary HERE

The complete Arabic article can be found HERE

[1] Printed in 1439 (H) - 2018

[2] On page 50, footnote 4 under the ibārah quoted from al-Fatāwā al-Ghiyāthiyyah on not performing ṣalāh behind the imām who does qunūt in fajr ṣalāh, he says: Alḥamdulillāh, we do not hear this from the ḥanafīs in Baghdad.

Last Edit: Mar 29, 2024 4:37:52 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Kamal al-Din al-Bayadi al-Hanafi Mar 12, 2019 8:12:41 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 12, 2019 8:12:41 GMT

Imām Kamāl al-Dīn al-Bayāḍī al-Ḥanafī (d.1097AH)

‘Allāmah Kamāl al-Dīn al-Bayāḍī al-Ḥanafī (1044 – 1097 AH) was a prominent scholar of the Ottoman Empire. He studied under his father who was Qāḍī of Makkah, and under other scholars of Ottoman Europe and Makkah. He became Qāḍī of Aleppo in 1077 AH and was revered by its people. At Aleppo, he engaged in many debates and discussions with its Muftī, ‘Allāmah Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan al-Kawākibī. He then became Qāḍī of Bosnia, and then of Makkah in the year 1083 AH. At Makkah, he taught his work Ishārāt al-Marām. He became Qāḍī of Constantinople in the year 1086 AH. He then became Qāḍī of the Ottoman Army. The historian ‘Allāmah al-Muḥibbī states:

“I saw him in Europe and benefited from him…He arrived at Damascus and I met him there. I found him to be a mountain of knowledge, firmly grounded.” (Khulāṣat al-Athar, 1:181)

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Mar 12, 2019 8:14:22 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Qasim ibn Qutlubugha al-Hanafi Feb 28, 2019 16:14:21 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 28, 2019 16:14:21 GMT

Imam Qasim ibn Qutlubugha al-Hanafi (d.879AH)

Abū al-ʿAdl Zayn al-Dīn Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā ibn ʿAbd-Allāh al-Sūdūnī al-Jamālī (frequently referred to as Ibn Quṭlūbughā, al-Shaykh Qāsim, or Qāsim al-Ḥanafī) [39] was born in Cairo in Muḥarram of either 801/1398 or 802/1399.[40] His father, Sayf al-Dīn Quṭlūbughā ibn ʿAbd-Allāh, was one of a number of Mamluk bondsmen freed by the Amir Sūdūn al-Shaykhūnī, a vicegerent of the Sultan, and from whence the family received the name ‘Sūdūnī’.[41] The father was himself a Ḥanafī faqīh in his time, but died a little over a year after the birth of his son Qāsim, in mid-Jumāda i 803.[42] Ibn Quṭlūbughā thus grew up an orphan; in his youth, he memorised the Koran as well as a number of books that he then recited to the famous Shāfiʿī jurist, al-ʿIzz Ibn Jamāʿa,[43] all whilst supporting himself as a tailor (at which, Sakhāwī remarks, he became quite accomplished and skilful). He soon turned himself over completely to his studies with a number of teachers, of whom his most long-standing fellowship was with the Ḥanafī jurist Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn al-Humām.[44]

Ibn Quṭlūbughā studied a wide array of linguistic and traditional religious sciences with a number of scholars. After beginning his studies with ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn Jamāʿa, he learnt the science of Koran recitation from Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Zarātītī; Koranic exegesis (tafsīr) with ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī; the sciences of hadith with Tāj al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Farghānī al-Nuʿmānī, the judge of Baghdād; fiqh with Ibn Jamāʿa, Sirāj al-Dīn Qāriʾ al-Hidāya, Majd al-Dīn al-Rūmī, al-Naẓẓām al-Sayrāmī, ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Salām al-Baghdādī, and ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Kirmānī; legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh) with the aforementioned Bukhārī, Qāriʾ al-Hidāya, and Sharaf al-Dīn al-Subkī; the principles of religion (uṣūl al-dīn) with Bukhārī and Shams al-Dīn al-Bisāṭī; theology under Saʿd al-Dīn Ibn al-Dayrī, with whom he studied the master’s commentary on the ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafī; inheritance law and timekeeping (mīqāt) with Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Bārnabārī; arithmetic (ḥisāb) with al-Sayyid ʿAlī al-Azharī, a student of Ibn al-Majdī;[45] Arabic with Bukhārī, al-Farghānī al-Nuʿmānī, Rūmī, and Subkī; morphology (ṣarf) with Bisāṭī; the sub-disciplines of Arabic rhetoric (al-maʿānī and al-bayān) with Bukhārī, Naẓẓām, and Bisāṭī; and logic with Subkī. He spent time reading collections of poetry and literature, and memorising great amounts therefrom. However, he benefitted most as a scholar from his fellowship with Ibn al-Humām. He audited the majority of Ibn al-Humām’s lessons in a range of disciplines, from the year 825/1421–1422 until Ibn al-Humām’s death in 861/1457. He read with him the first fourth of the master’s commentary on al-Hidāya, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, a portion of the Tawḍīḥ in scholastic jurisprudence of Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa al-Maḥbūbī, and the entirety of the master’s own work on the Muslim creed entitled al-Musāyara.[46]

He also embarked upon the study of hadith, studying under Ibn Ḥajar al- ʿAsqalānī, Ibn al-Jazarī, Shihāb al-Dīn al-Wāsiṭī, Zayn al-Dīn al-Zarkahsī, Shams al-Dīn Ibn al-Miṣrī, Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn al-Buṣīrī, Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Fāqūsī, Tāj al-Dīn al-Sharābīshī, Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī, ʿĀʾisha al-Ḥanbaliyya, and others of that generation of narrators of hadith. In his early years, he travelled with his teacher Tāj al-Dīn al-Nuʿmānī to the Levant, hearing from his teacher Khwārazmī’s Jāmiʿ Masānīd Abī Ḥanīfa, with the master’s chain of transmission from Muḥyī al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥasan Ḥaydara ibn Abī al-Faḍāʾil Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al-ʿAbbāsī (the lecturer of the Mustanṣiriyya in Baghdad) < Ṣāliḥ ibn ʿAbd-Allāh ibn al-Ṣabbāgh < the author, Abū al-Muʾayyad Muḥammad al-Khwārazmī. On the same trip, he studied the ʿUlūm al-ḥadīth of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and other works, after which Nuʿmānī granted him a licence of scholarship in 823/1428–1429. He also spent time in Alexandria, studying there under Kamāl al-Dīn ibn Khayr and Qāsim al-Tarūjī.[47]

He travelled to Damascus, performed the Hajj-pilgrimage multiple times, and visited Jerusalem; during these travels, he accumulated a number of licences to teach, from as early as the year 816/1413. Sakhāwī reports that Ibn Quṭlūbughā began authoring works in 820/1417–1418, at approximately the age of 19.[48] He soon became known for his strong memory and sharp intelligence, and began to draw attention for the breadth of his knowledge, and received the licence to give fatwas and to teach (ijāzat al-iftāʾ wa-al-tadrīs) from an array of scholars. He was soon being described by his own teacher al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Dayrī as ‘the sheikh, the scholar, the most intelligent (al-shaykh al-ʿālim aldhakī)’, and by 835/1431 was praised by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī as ‘the imam, the most learned, the hadith-master, the jurist, the memoriser of hadith (al-imām al-ʿallāma al-muḥaddith al-faqīh al-ḥāfiẓ)’, and—after completing a recital of Ibn Ḥajar’s work al-Īnār bi-maʿrifat ruwāt al-āthār—as ‘al-shaykh al-fāḍīl al-muḥaddith al-kāmil al-awḥad’, noting that the master had himself benefitted from the student in many instances during their classes together. (Sakhāwī even mentions that the phrase ‘some of our brethren’ and the loving, almost humble, words which follow in the introduction to Ibn Ḥajar’s work is a reference to Ibn Quṭlūbughā.)

Upon being given the licence, and after returning from his travels, he began to teach a number of students ‘beyond count’ in Cairo.[49] He was teacher of hadith to the Mamluk al-Nāṣirī Ibn al-Ẓāhir Juqmuq, brother of the future al-Malik al-Manṣūr ʿUthmān (r. 857/1453), who became a long-standing fellow of the scholar, and to members of the family of Muḥibb al-Dīn Muḥammad Ibn al-Shiḥna, all of whom attended his narration of the Jāmiʿ Masānīd Abī Ḥanīfa of Abū al-Muʾayyad al-Khwārazmī.[50] Both the Shāfiʿī judge Sharaf al-Dīn Yaḥyā al-Munāwī (d. 871/1467), and the Ḥanafī judge Badr al-Dīn Ḥusayn ibn al-Ṣawwāf benefitted most in the period of their studies from Ibn Quṭlūbughā. Sakhāwī relates that he himself studied under Ibn Quṭlūbughā in hadith and its sciences, after which they formed a lasting friendship.[51]

Ibn Quṭlūbughā was a prolific author, having begun writing at approximately the age of 18 according to Sakhāwī, authoring over a hundred works over his lifetime. [52] What is noticeable, nonetheless, is the breadth of his involvement in a large number of disciplines, most prominent of which were fiqh and hadith. A number of the works are apologetic works vindicating the Ḥanafī madhhab’s principles, particular jurists, or their works, against historical or contemporary critiques.[53] Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s participation in juristic and social debates as to the changes in the structure of the economy of the Mamluk realm has begun to be studied by Baber Johansen and by Martha Mundy and Richard Saumarez Smith,[54] based upon works of the Mamluk jurist such as Ijārat aliqṭā ʿ.[55] The sciences of the Koran, lexicography, prosody, biography, Sufism, hadith-narration criticism, comparative madhhab-law, jurisprudential theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), ethics, worship, logic, inheritance law, and other disciplines all feature prominently. The breadth of the genres in which he wrote is equally wide: he authored fourteen works of takhrīj of hadith (the editing of an existing work in order to attribute hadiths cited therein to their primary sources); five taʿlīqas (legal-reports and notes taken from law-professors’ classroom disputations); [56] redactions and summaries of popular scholarly works; various epistles on a range of legal and other scholarly problemata; and a large number of commentaries and super-commentaries, reflecting his involvement with the tradition of juristic and other scholarly debates spanning centuries and continents.

[39] The principal sources of Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s biography are Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 12 vols. in 6 (Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥayāt, n.d.), 6:184–190; idem, Wajīz al-kalām fī al-dhayl ʿalā tārīkh al-Islām, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, ʿIṣām Ḥarastānī, and Aḥmad Khuṭaymī, 4 vols. (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1416/1995), 2:859; Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda fī tarājim al-aʿyān al-mufīda, ed. Maḥmūd al-Jalīlī, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1423/2002), 21–22; Burhān al-Dīn al-Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-zamān fī tarājim al-shuyūkh wa-al-aqrān, ed. Ḥasan Ḥabashī, 5 vols. (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub wa-al-Wathāʾiq al-Qawmiyya, 1430/2009), 4:144–145; and, its redaction, ʿUnwān al-ʿunwān bi-tajrīd asmāʾ al-shuyūkh wa-baʿḍ al-talāmidha wa-al-aqrān, ed. Ḥasan Ḥabashī (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1423/2002); Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī wa-al-mustawfī baʿd al-Wāfī, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, 13 vols. (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub waal-Wathāʾiq al-Qawmiyya, 1984–2009), 9:10–12; idem, al-Dalīl al-shāfī ʿalā al-Manhal al- ṣāfī, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt, 2 vols. (Mecca: Jāmiʿat Umm al-Qurā, Markaz al-Baḥth al-ʿIlmī wa-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, 1983), 2:527; Ibn al-Ḥimṣī, Ḥawādith al-zamān wa-wafayāt al-shuyūkh wa-al-aqrān, ed. ʿUmar al-Tadmurī, 3 vols. (Ṣaydā: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya, 1999), 1:205–206; Shawkānī, al-Badr al-ṭāliʿ bi-maḥāsin man baʿd al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, ed. Muḥammad Ḥasan Ḥallāq, 2 vols. in 1 (Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1427/2006), 600–602; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, ed. Maḥmūd al-Arnaʾūṭ, 11 vols. (Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1989), 9:487–488; Kattanī, Fihris al-fahāris wa-al-athbāt wa-muʿjam al-maʿājim wa al-mashyakhāt wa-al-musalsilāt, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1982–1986), 972–973; Ibn Iyyās, Badāʾiʿ al-ẓuhūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr, 3 vols + index (Būlāq: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kubrā al-Amīriyya, 1311ah), 2:151; Fawāʾid, 297 n. 4 (in the biographical entry for Ibn Kamāl); Hadiyyat, 1:830–831. From the modern period, entries for Ibn Quṭlūbughā are provided in Kaḥḥāla, Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn, 8:112; Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, 5:180; Brockelmann, ii 99f., Suppl. ii 93; ei2, s.v. ‘Ibn Ḳuṭlūbughā’ by F. Rosenthal. Interestingly, neither Qinālīzāda in Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyya nor Laknawī in Tāj al-tarājim make any mention of Ibn Qūṭlūbughā.

[40] Sakhāwī states that he learnt Ibn Quṭlubughā’s date of birth, which he gives as 802ah, directly from the jurist (see Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmīʿ, 184). This date is given as approximate by Biqāʿī in ʿUnwān al-zamān (4:144), though, in his later redaction, ʿUnwān al-ʿunwān, he reiterates that this date is approximate, with the source likely being Ibn Quṭlūbughā himself, but that the jurist had later related, from his mother, that he had been born on ‘Āshūrā’ (10 Muḥarram) of 801ah (Biqāʿī, ʿUnwān al-ʿunwān, 139–140). Suyūṭī, in Ḥusn al-muḥāḍara fī tārīkh Miṣr wa-al-Qāhira (ed. Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, 2 vols. [Cairo: ʿIsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1387/1967–1968]), 1:478–489, has an entry for one ‘Sayf al-Dīn al-Ḥanafī Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn Quṭlūbughā al-Baktamarī’, who despite sharing some similarities with our author, is clearly not the same person.

[41] Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda, 22; Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 184. On Sūdūn ibn ʿAbd-Allāh al-Shaykhūnī (d. 798/1396), see Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī, 6:104; and idem, al-Dalīl al-shāfī, 1:328.

[42] Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira, 13:23.

[43] On Abū ʿAlī Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, al-ʿIzz Ibn Jamāʿa (759/1357–819/1416), see Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 7:171–174; and Brockelman, gal, 2:94 and Suppl. ii 111–112.

[44] Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 6:184–185.

[45] ‘al-Azharī’: Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 5:197.

[46] Ibid., 6:184–185.

[47] Ibid., 185.

[48] Ibid., 186.

[49] Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, 9:487.

[50] Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 6:185–186.

[51] Ibid., 189.

[52] Ḍiyāʾ Yūnus, the editor of al-Taṣḥīḥ wa-al-tarjīḥ, has produced what seems to be the most complete catalogue of Ibn Quṭlūbughā’s output, citing 123 works; he has organised them according to discipline, and referenced the bibliographical source for every work he attributes to Ibn Quṭlūbughā (Taṣḥīḥ, editor’s introduction, 53–66; compare with the editor’s introduction to Tāj, 16–38, where he lists 116 titles). See also Maqrīzī, Durar al-ʿuqūd al-farīda, 22; and esp. Sakhāwī, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ, 6:186–187, where Sakhāwī presents brief insights into the motives behind the authoring of the work, and short assessments.

[53] For example, al-Ajwiba ʿan iʿtirāḍāt Ibn Abī Shayba ʿalā Abī Ḥanīfa; Ajwiba ʿan iʿtirāḍāt Ibn al-ʿIzz ʿalā al-Hidāya; Ajwiba ʿan iʿtirāḍāt al-ʿIzz ibn Jamāʿa ʿalā uṣūl al-Ḥanafiyya; Tabṣirat al-nāqid fī kayd al-ḥāsid. See Tāj, editor’s introduction, 16.

[54] Baber Johansen, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent (London: Croom Helm, 1988); and Martha Mundy and Richard Saumarez Smith, Governing Property, Making the Modern State (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007), 12–13.

[55] Tāj, editor’s introduction, 16.

[56] On the taʿlīqā, see George Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); and idem, ‘The Diary in Islamic Historiography: Some Notes’, History and Theory 25/2 (1986), 173–185, esp. 178.

Biography taken from HERE

Last Edit: Feb 28, 2019 18:04:10 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Qasim ibn Qutlubugha al-Hanafi Feb 28, 2019 14:02:15 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 28, 2019 14:02:15 GMT

The Life & Works of
The Hanafī Jurist & Hadīth Scholar
Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā

By Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah

Translated by Mufti Muntasir Zaman

Introduction

His name is Zayn al-Dīn Abū al-‘Adl Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā al-Jamālī al-Hanafī, better known as ‘Allāmah Qāsim. He was born in Cairo in 802 AH where he lived until his demise in Rabī‘ al-Ākhir 879 AH. Growing up as an orphan, he began his studies at a tender age and would occupy himself with tailoring, but eventually focused on acquiring knowledge – after exerting himself therein, he shone and showed brilliance. He began his literary career early, authoring his first book at the age of 18 on inheritance. From a galaxy of teachers, his most prominent teacher in Hadīth was Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar and in Fiqh and legal theory Sirāj al-Dīn Qāri’ al-Hidāyah and al-Kamāl Ibn al-Humām. His student Hāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī said:

His dedication increased by frequenting the company of Ibn al-Humām. From 825 AH to Ibn al-Humām’s demise in 861 AH, he studied every book that was taught in his circle and learnt the most from him. The books he studied include the first quarter of his commentary on al-Hidāyah, part of Tawdīh of Sadr al-Sharī‘ah, and the entire al-Musāyarah (of Ibn al-Humām). […] He also studied books of Arabic literature and poetry, memorizing a significant portion thereof.[1]

Academic standing

His teachers respected him due to his academic excellence. For instance, Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar authored al-Īthār bi Ma‘rifat Rijāl al-Āthār upon his request to compile a book on the transmitters in Imām Muhammad’s Kitāb al-Āthār. He then – at the age of 33 – studied it under Ibn Hajar, who authorized and described him as, “The eminent Shaykh, the qualified and unique Hadīth scholar. He contributed [to the class] and shared his observations on several places that were noted down and further illuminated the book.”[2] Later on in another occasion, he described him as “The authority, the learned, the Hadīth scholar, the jurist, and the prolific memorizer.” Bear in mind that the one conferring these accolades is Hāfiẓ Ibn Hajar, who requires no introduction. Al-Sakhāwī said:

A learned scholar with a significant command of the various sciences, who has a repertoire of memorized literature and is skillfully aware of the legal rulings of his school – including the many finer detail therein – and advanced in the field; he is articulate and proficient in debating and silencing his interlocutors […] I heard him say that he collected the unique narrations or narrators from [Sunan] al-Dāraqutnī that are not found in the six major Hadīth books from memory.[3]

His books bear testimony to his expertise in Fiqh and Hadīth. He supplemented what the likes of Imāms al-Zayla‘ī, al-‘Irāqī, and Ibn Hajar – whose memory and scope is well-known – were unable to locate. In Munyat al-Alma‘ī, he located the narrations al-Zayla‘ī missed in his takhrīj of al-Hidāyah; in Ithāf al-Ahyā’, he located what al-‘Irāqī missed in his takhrīj of al-Ihyā’; and in his notes on al-Dirāyah and parts of Munyat al-Alma‘ī, he located what Ibn Hajar missed in al-Dirāyah, which is an abridgment of Nasb al-Rāyah.

“Despite his prestige, he did not assume a suitable post; he spent most of his life in the Ashrafiyyah Sūfī lodge. At times, he was sought after by kings and emirs, but he would not allow that to affect him; instead he would hasten to spend.”[4]

Works

‘Allāmah Qāsim was a prolific writer: between short treatises and voluminous compendia, he penned over 80 books, some of which he never managed to complete. His student and chief biographer Hāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī enumerated 87 books in various fields, mostly in Hadīth, its branches, and transmitters, and then in Fiqh. That is only the number he came across, not the total number. Unfortunately, only a fraction of these books was published even though most of them deserve to be published for specialists in Hadīth and Fiqh, particularly his takhrīj works on the famous books in circulation. [At the time of writing this biography] Three of his works were published: (1) Tāj al-Tarājim, brief biographies of Hanafī authors; (2) a gloss on Ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāyarah – al-Sakhāwī did not mention this; and (3) Munyat al-Alma‘ī fī mā Fāt min Takhrīj Ahādīth al-Hidāyah li al-Zayla‘ī.[5]

Students

He did not have many students. This was a result of his scholarly feud with his contemporaries that forced him into seclusion; he was even harmed by the few who studied and benefitted from him. But this seclusion allowed him to write and contribute extensively. Some of his students are: (1) Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Maghribī, who studied Fiqh and legal theory from him; (2) Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sakhāwī, the well-known Hāfiẓ who said, “I sat in his company early on and heard from him – with my father – the musalsal, which he heard from al-Wāsitī, noted many of his poetry and observations, and I read to him Sharh Alfiyyat al-‘Irāqī;” (3) Sharaf al-Dīn Yahyā al-Munāwī, who is mentioned among the students of Ibn al-Humām; (4) Badr al-Dīn al-Hasan ibn ‘Alī al-Sawwāf al-Hamawī al-Qāhirī al-Hanafi; and (5) Muhibb al-Dīn ibn Muhammad Ibn Shihnah.

These five were also his classmates when they studied under Ibn al-Humām and others; yet they studied under him, and among them are those who are older than him, which is a sign of his excellence and brilliance. As a result, Ibn al-Humām chose him to be his successor. In Fayd al-Bārī, ‘Allāmah al-Kashmīrī writes, “Near his demise, Ibn al-Humām was asked who would take his seat after him, so he replied: ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Qutlubughā.”

Demise

Hāfiẓ al-Sakhāwī said:

For a long time he suffered from severe sickness, urinary obstruction, kidney stones, and other illnesses; he moved to several places for treatment […] until he passed away on the night of Thursday 4th of Rabī‘ al-Ākhir 879 AH. His funeral prayer was conducted the following day in a large congregation, and he was buried by the gravesite attributed to ‘Uqbah near his parents and children. People grieved over his passing. Allah have mercy on him and us.

Allah have mercy on him, reward him, and beautify his abode in the hereafter. And may He facilitate for scholars and researchers to publish the works of this Imām in a beautiful form that fits his academic stature, so that his desire to benefit and serve this pristine religion be fulfilled – that is not difficult for Allāh.

(Shaykh ‘Awwāmah, Dirāsah Hadīthiyyah Muqāranah, pp.299-303)

[1] Al-Sakhāwī, al-Daw’ al-Lāmi‘, vol.6, p.185.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., p.188.

[5] After writing this, many of his other books were published.

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Mar 15, 2019 12:58:32 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Zafar Ahmad al-'Uthmani al-Thanawi al-Hanafi Feb 24, 2019 11:53:01 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 24, 2019 11:53:01 GMT

Imam Zafar Ahmad al-'Uthmani al-Thanawi al-Hanafi (d.1394AH)

He was the authoritative scholar of the Islamic sciences, the Qur’anic exegete, Hadith expert, jurist, and Sufi, Zafar Ahmad ibn Latif ‘Uthmani al-Thanawi. He was born the 13th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1310 ah. His mother died when he was only three, so his grandmother raised him. She was a righteous woman who had performed the hajj. She raised him well, and he benefited from her rectitude and piety (taqwa).

At the age of five, he began studying and memorizing the Qur’an with the principal reciters. At age seven, he began studying Urdu and Persian, as well as mathematics, with the great scholar and author, Mawlana Muhammad Yasin, the father of Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ ‘Uthmani. Later, he studied the various Islamic sciences with the foremost scholars of India under the direct guidance and supervision of his uncle, Imam Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi. He gave particular emphasis to Sacred Law (fiqh) and hadith studies, became highly proficient in both, and distinguished above other students by his intellectual ability, and the benefit of his great uncle’s tutelage.

After gaining his authorization [ijāza] in the Islamic sciences, he moved to Saharanpur and attended the hadīth classes of the knower of Allāh, hadīth master and jurist, Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad al-Saharanpuri. Following a period of close study with this great scholar, Mawlānā Zafar ‘Uthmānī received the Certificate of Completion in Higher Studies in 1328 AH, when he was 18; a certificate only awarded the most brilliant students at such a young age.

Given Mawlānā Zafar ‘Uthmānī’s talent and intellectual skill, he was appointed teacher at the madrasa in Saharanpur. There he remained for seven years, teaching Sacred Law, fundamentals of jurisprudence [usūl], logic, and philosophy. He then moved to Madrasa Imdād al-‘Ulūm in Thānā Bhāwan, where he taught all the hadīth works on the curriculum. He also taught Qur’ānic exegesis. Being a gifted teacher, a vast number of distinguished scholars graduated under his guidance, and went on to spread sacred knowledge in the lands.

At this point, Imām Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī commissioned him to write I’lā’ al-Sunan, answer legal questions, and teach in his stead. It took Imām Zafar roughly twenty years to author the eighteen large volumes of the I‘lā’ al-Sunan. He also wrote a two-volume preface and added a volume in which he compiled detailed biographies of Imām Abū Hanīfa, his students, and the scholars of the Hanafī school, limiting himself to the jurists who were recognized hadīth specialists.

He wrote many other great works, both in Arabic and Urdu. These include a large collection of legal verdicts [fatāwā], Ahkām al-Qur’ān, and a legal exegesis [tafsīr] of the Qur’ān in praise of which scholars and jurists said, “Reading it is a lasting blessing; authoring it is like a tremendous feat [fath].”

When the subcontinent gained independence and India was divided, he moved to Pakistan and became head-teacher at Dār al-‘Ulūm, Hyderabad, Sind, benefiting students with his speech, spiritual state, and righteous works.

During the last years of his life, he remained constant in his remembrance and invocations, despite weak health and sickness. He performed all obligatory prayers in the mosque even though this required extreme physical exertion. In the month of Ramadān, 1394 ah, he fell very ill and doctors forbade him from fasting. He turned down their advice, saying, “Our master ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) did not leave fasting when he was ninety, and would undergo many hardships to be able to fast.” Allāh took his soul that very year. May Allāh be well pleased with him.

(Courtesy of whitethreadpress.com)

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Feb 24, 2019 11:58:46 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imam Zafar Ahmad al-'Uthmani al-Thanawi al-Hanafi Feb 24, 2019 9:09:49 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 24, 2019 9:09:49 GMT

The Author of I’la al-Sunan:

Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani al-Thanawi

By Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah

& Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

Translated by Muzzammil Husayn

From the Introduction to I’la al-Sunan

As for the biography of Mawlana Shaykh Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani (Allah Almighty have mercy on him), we will suffice here with quoting what our teacher, the great and perceptive scholar, the verifier, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah (Allah preserve him), wrote in the introduction to his book Inha’ al-Sakan ila man Yutali‘u I‘la al-Sunan which the Shaykh published with the title Qawa‘id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith. Mawlana Shaykh al-‘Uthmani (Allah have mercy on him) was alive at that time, so we will firstly quote the statement of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah (Allah preserve him), and then add to it a few lines:

He is the erudite scholar, verifier, researcher, scrutiniser, firm proof, exegete, hadith-master, proficient and skilled jurist and theoretician, historian, man of letters, scrupulous, ascetic and insightful Sufi, Zafar Ahmad ibn Latif al-‘Uthmani al-Thanawi, born on the 13th of Rabi‘ al-Awwal in the year 1310 H (October, 1892 CE), in the land of his forefathers near Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband, the greatest of the institutes of learning in the Indian lands. His mother died when he was three years old, so his grandmother brought him up with the most excellent upbringing. She was a pilgrim and righteous woman. Thus, he received her righteousness and her piety from her. When he was five years old, he began to recite the Noble Qur’an with its senior memorisers in Deoband, like Hafiz Namdar, a teacher at Dar al-‘Ulum, and his deputy, Hafiz Ghulam Rasul, and Mawlana Nadhir Ahmad, who was the brother of his grandmother. When he was seven years old, he began to read Urdu and Persian books and the textbooks of numeracy and mathematics with the magnificent scholar Mawlana Muhammad Yasin who was the father of the leading scholar of Pakistan today, our master, the great scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Shafi‘ al-Deobandi, the Grand Mufti at Karachi, and the founder of Dar al-‘Ulum al-Islamiyyah there (his lofty shadow be extended).

Then he moved from Deoband to Thana Bhawan to [join] the circle of his maternal uncle Mawlana Muhammad Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah sanctify his secret), and he began to read Arabic books on morphology, syntax and literature with the able scholar Mawlana Muhammad ‘Abd Allah al-Gangohi, and he received from his uncle Hakim al-Ummah something of the science of Tajwid, and a selection of his al-Talkhisat al-‘Ashr and [some] volumes of al-Mathnawi by al-Jalal al-Rumi, and he read with his brother, Mawlana Sa‘id Ahmad, part of al-Talkhisat.

Then, when his uncle Hakim al-Ummah became occupied with compiling his immense work Bayan al-Qur’an in Urdu, he brought him to Kanpur and admitted him into the school called Jami‘ al-‘Ulum which Shaykh Hakim al-Ummah had founded when he resided in Kanpur, and he consigned its teaching to the most upright of his students, Mawlana Muhammad Ishaq al-Bardawani and Mawlana Muhammad Rashid al-Kanpuri. Thus, he read with them the books of hadith that have been set in the curriculum of those lands, which are: Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan al-Nasa’i, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah and Mishkat al-Masabih, along with what strengthens their study from the books of nomenclature and hadith principles. He also read with them the books of jurisprudence, exegesis and literature which are all part of the curriculum, and also some of the rational sciences.

When he attained the sanad in the Shari‘ah and rational sciences, and was distinguished from amongst the noble students by the talents he possessed, he moved to Saharanpur and sat in the school Mazahir al-‘Ulum and attended the lessons of hadith with the knower of Allah, the Imam, the hadith-scholar, the jurist, Mawlana Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri, the author of Badhl al-Majhud fi Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud. After a period of close companionship with this gnostic, hadith scholar and Imam, he gave him authorisation (ijazah) in hadith and its sciences and in all the remaining rational and transmitted sciences, and he attained a sanad for the completion of higher studies in the year 1328. His age at this time was 18 years, which is a young age, none reaching the pinnacle of this level at such except the most brilliant and exceptional [students]. In this period he also attended [lectures on] some texts of logic and engineering and higher mathematics with their instructors in the aforementioned school, from them was Mawlana ‘Abd al-Latif the administrator of the school, and Mawlana ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Punjabi.

In view of his superiority and his incredible intelligence and his brilliance, he was appointed as a teacher in the aforementioned school. He taught there for a period of seven years the sciences of jurisprudence, [jurisprudential and hadith] principles, logic, philosophy and other [subjects]. Then he moved to the school Imdad al-‘Ulum in Thana Bhawan and was occupied with teaching the books in the curriculum of the [final] year there, which are the seven books mentioned previously, and teaching jurisprudence and exegesis. Thus, he benefited and excelled, and a multitude of exceptional [scholars] graduated at his hands, and they propagated knowledge in those lands and they lit the paths of the Shari‘ah for people.

Then Mawlana Hakim al-Ummah delegated to him the compilation of the book I‘la al-Sunan along with issuing fatwa and teaching, so he did all of this in the most excellent way. He remained compiling I‘la al-Sunan for around 20 years. He compiled it in 18 parts, rather volumes, and he further compiled for it two introductions in two volumes, so this amazing book was completed in 20 volumes, and he added to it another book called Inja’ al-Watan ‘an al-Izdira’ bi Imam al-Zaman in which he wrote brilliant and extensive biographies of Imam Abu Hanifah and his students and their students and so forth, restricting [himself] therein to the jurists and hadith-scholars. The first part of this book was published in Karachi in the year 1387.

Then Mawlana Hakim al-Ummah instructed him to write Dala’il al-Qur’an ‘ala Masa’il al-Nu‘man in the style of Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas, and he compiled two large volumes of it ending at Surah al-Nisa’. It is a book that is fitting to be said of it in the language of the jurists and scholars: “Studying it is a lasting bliss, and attaining the like of it is a great victory.”

He wrote a number of books in Urdu when he stayed in Thana Bhawan. From them is al-Qawl al-Matin fi al-Ikhfa bi Amin and Shaqq al-Ghayn ‘an Haqq Raf‘ al-Yadayn and Rahmat al-Quddus fi Tarjamati Bahjat al-Nufus and Fatihat al-Kalam fi al-Qira’ati Khalf al-Imam in which he verified that it is not obligatory to recite behind the imam in all prayers especially the audible ones, and as far as the silent ones are concerned, it is permissible as is a narration from Imam Abu Hanifah as well. I said to the Shaykh (Allah Almighty preserve him) during my visit to him, when he mentioned this to me: “It is also the opinion of Imam Muhammad,” and he said: “Yes, even if al-Kamal ibn al-Humam denied it!” He has Kashf al-Duja in Arabic, printed independently and as part of al-Fatawa al-Imdadiyyah in which he would answer the questions of fatwa-seekers which reached his uncle Hakim al-Ummah, of that which relates to jurisprudence and other [subjects], until it became seven large volumes. Shaykh Hakim al-Ummah called it: Imdad al-Ahkam fi Masa’il al-Halal wa al-Haram.

Then he moved to Madrasah Muhammadiyyah in Rangoon, Burma, and was occupied there with propagation and admonition and lecturing for a period of two years. Later, he returned to Thana Bhawan and carried on writing Dala’il al-Qur’an along with issuing fatwa and educating people. Then he travelled to Dacca in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh] before the existence of Pakistan, and he was appointed at its university as a teacher of hadith, jurisprudence and [jurisprudential and hadith] principles. Subsequently, he was appointed as the head teacher in Madrasah ‘Aliyah of Dacca, and he remained so for 8 years. There, he founded al-Qur’aniyyat al-‘Arabiyya University which is now the highest quality school in East Pakistan for learning the sciences of Qur’an, hadith, jurisprudence etc.

Afterwards, he moved to West Pakistan where he now lives in Ashrafabad of Hyderabad, Sind, to Dar al-‘Ulum al-Islamiyyah, as the head teacher there, teaching hadith and assuming responsibility of issuing fatwa to questioners and fatwa-seekers, and benefiting by his state, his speech and his good deeds students and seekers of benefit. May Allah extend his noble life and bless his good deeds and his sciences, and perfect upon him the garment of safety so his benefit multiplies and his achievements are complete and he attains the great pleasure of Allah.

End quote from our teacher ‘Allamah Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah (Allah preserve him) from the introduction to his edition of the book Qawa‘id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith.

Mawlana Shaykh Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani (Allah have mercy on him) was alive when his book Qawa‘id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith was published in the edition of our teacher, ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah (Allah preserve him), when he was the primary teacher of hadith at Dar al-‘Ulum al-Islamiyyah in Ashrafabad, in which he taught Sahih al-Bukhari, despite his old age and his ongoing illnesses and his decreased strength. He once said to me: “Whenever I feel an increase in my illness, I intensify my teaching of Sahih al-Bukhari, and Allah Almighty makes it a [means to] cure my illness.”

Despite his weakness and illness, he would be constant in dhikr and optional prayers. He attended all the prayers in the mosque and would endure great suffering because of this. Towards the end of his life, his tongue was moist with the remembrance of Allah in most times. In the month of Ramadan of the year 1394 H, the doctors forbade him to fast due to his ongoing illnesses, however he did not agree to this and said: “‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) did not stop fasting when he was ninety years old, and he faced hardship and suffering due to fasting, such that he would sit in a container of water, and he was not happy with [paying] compensation (fidya), so how can I be happy with [paying] compensation?” This is how he lived, Allah have mercy on him, until Allah Almighty took his [soul] in Dhu al-Qa‘dah of the year 1394 H (1974 CE), may Allah Almighty give him rest in the safety of His mercy and pleasure. His son extracted the date of his death from [the numerical value of]: Verily, he is in “comfort and fragrance and a garden of bliss” (Qur’an, 56:89).

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Feb 24, 2019 12:05:47 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

Recent Posts

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Apr 5, 2019 8:08:09 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 19, 2019 9:28:34 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 16, 2019 22:17:35 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 15, 2019 11:48:30 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 13, 2019 14:23:13 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Mar 12, 2019 8:12:41 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 28, 2019 16:14:21 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 28, 2019 14:02:15 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 24, 2019 11:53:01 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Feb 24, 2019 9:09:49 GMT

© Copyright Ahlus Sunnah, 2015. All rights reserved.