[avaiguite]

As salamu aleykum,

I know Hanafi scholars have made in the past lists with in order the reliablest Hanafi Fiqh books such as Allamah al-Luknawi.

Presenting these lists would be very usefull.

Was salaam

[citicroego]

Famous mufassir, faqih and mutakallim 'Allamah Abd al- Haq Haqqani Dahlawi has listed some reliable and unreliable Hanafi fiqh and fatawa books in Aqaid Islam p 114-116. This book of his has the approval of Qasim al-'Ulum Mawlana Nanautwi, Imam Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Mufti Kifayat Allah Dahlawi and Mawlana Habib al-Rahman 'Uthmani (may Allah have mercy on them).

He explains,

There are three ranks of Masa'il Hanafiyyah:

[1] In first rank are those masa’il that are established from Dahir al-Riwayah (manifest narrations), and Dahir al-Riwayah is a reference to these six books of Imam Muhammad:

1. Mabsut [also called the Al-Asl].
2. Ziyadat.
3. Jami' al-Saghir.
4. Jami' al-Kabir.
5. Siyar al-Saghir.
6. Siyar al-Kabir.

In these six books Imam Muhammad has written all agreed and differed upon masa’il from Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf and himself. These books are called Dahir al-Riwayah because these are mass-transmitted (tawatur) from the author or with well-known chains (mashur)..

[2] In second rank are those masa’il that are narrated from mujtahid imams from books beside Dahir al-Riwayah, like Muhit and Raqqiyyat meaning those masa’il that Imam Muhammad gathered while in the city of Raqiyyah. And Kaysaniyyat A’ni that Imam Muhammad had Ibn ‘Umru Sulayman bin Shuayb Kaysani write down. And Haruniyyat that were gathered during the reign of Harun Rashid and Kitab Amali that is copied from Imam Abu Yusuf, and other such books. And these are also known as Nawadir.

[3] In third rank are those masa’il that the later-day scholars (muta'akhkhirin) deduced according to the Hanafi principles as needed. These are also known as Fatawa and Waqi’at. And the first book in this rank, Al-Nawazil, was authored by Faqih Abu Layth al-Samarqandi who was a great muhaqqiq. After him many such books were authored in this rank, such as Majmu’ al-Nawazil wa al-Waqi’at al-Natifi by Sadr al-Shahid. Then the later-day scholars (muta'akhkhirin) mixed these masa’il from the first, second and third ranks, and compiled them in one place like Fatawa Qadi Khan.

Reliable Books

Following books are very reliable according to muta'akhkhirin:

1. Wiqayah. 2. Mukhtasar al-Quduri. 3. Kanz al-Daqa’iq. 4. Mukhtaar. 5. Majma’ al-Bahrayn. So, when masa’il in these books differ from other books then these should be relied upon; even though authors of these [above mentioned] books were [faqihs] of high rank, they only wrote masa’il from Dahir al-Riwayah in these books. And beside these books there are many other Fiqh books mutawan, commentaries and fatawa that are reliable but there is no room for their names here, e.g. 1 Sharh Wiqayah. 2. Hidayah. 3. Fath al-Qadir. 4 Bahr [al-Ra’iq]. 5 Fatawa Qadi Khan. 6 Fatawa Zahiriyyah. 7 Tanwir al-Absar. 8 Sharh Durr al-Mukhtar, etc. and other books by mutaqaddimin and muta'akhkhirin. But a general principle regarding the books of Fiqh is that any book which has masa’il of Dahir al-Riwayah and its author is well-known and accepted, that book is among the high rank in Fiqh. And that which doesn’t have this attribute is among the lower rank and there are many ranks among these. And according to these principles the following books are unreliable:

Unreliable Books

1. Quniyah. 2. Muhit Burhani. 3. Siraj Wahhaj. 4. Sharah Mukhtasar al-Quduri . 5. Mushtamil al-Akham by Fakhr al-Din Rumi. 6. Kanz al-‘Ibad authored by ‘Ali bin Ahmad Ghori. Mulla ‘Ali Qari has mentioned in Tabaqat al-Hanafiyyah that he has a book Mufid al-Mustafid which he has filled with makruhat of Madhhab and one Kanz al-‘Ibad which he has filled with many absurd hadiths that have no chains of narration anywhere. 7. Matalib al-Mu’minin, authored by Shaykh Badr al-Din Taj bin ‘Abd al-Rahim Lahori. 8. Khazanah al-Riwayat, authored by Qadi Juggan Hanafi Hindi of village Kun which is located in Gujarat. 9. Sharat al-Islam, authored by Muhammad bin Abi Bakr Choghi. Chogh is a village located near Samarqand. 10. Fatawa al Sufiya, authored by Fadhlullah Muhammad bin Ayyub. 11. Fatwa al-Tura. 12. Fatawa Ibn Nujaym. 13. Fatawa Barhanah, as mentioned in the books of Tabaqat. Beside these there are many other books that are unreliable so be careful when giving a fatwa. Whoever wishes to know more should look into the bigger books of this field.

[fount_pirat]

I like the discussion on this topic which appears in the first 20 or pages of Al Khulasatu al Bahiya fi Mathahib al Hanafia...

[TeNuaTe]

I like the discussion on this topic which appears in the first 20 or pages of Al Khulasatu al Bahiya fi Mathahib al Hanafia...

By who is it, and is this book perhaps available online?

[Calluffence]

Then he has listed some unreliable books including:
2. Muheet Burhani.

Some Ulama, including Ml. Abd al-Hay al-Laknawi have erroneously classified al-Muhit al-Burhani as a weak and unreliable book, when it is from amongst the most reliable books in the madhab.

When Moulana Abd al-Hay later on got hold of the book and had the chance to study it, he immediately retracted his previous ruling of weakness on the book.

It should be borne in mind that this issue of reliable and unreliable books, is a very delicate issue, which many Muftis haven't even properly grasped, never mind laymen.

There are a number of reasons why a book would be considered unreliable and the ruling on the use of the book would be based on this reason.
A book being unreliable, doesn't mean that it can never be quoted, instead there are rules regulating the usage of such books and the quoting of masail therefrom.

[Maydayvar]

السلام عليكم
When Moulana Abd al-Hay later on got hold of the book and had the chance to study it, he immediately retracted his previous ruling of weakness on the book. Mufti saheb can you provide a reference for this; its an important statement. And also what do think of allama Ibn Abidin's views on the Muhit.

and can you suggest any works which give a good analytical treatment of the works of the madhhab.
thanks

[Calluffence]

I like the discussion on this topic which appears in the first 20 or pages of Al Khulasatu al Bahiya fi Mathahib al Hanafia...

That discussion isn't part of the book. It is part of the "Muhaqqiqs" muqammimah to the Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah edition.
His muqaddimah is a copy and paste job, mainly from Sh. Ali Jumah's "al-Madkhal ila al-Madhahib al-Ara'ba'ah", which in turn is a copy and paste job from a few other works!
They copy exactly what is in their sources, with all the mistakes, without any mention of the source most of the time!

Ml. Abd al-Hay wrote a commentary to al-Jami as-Saghir titled "an-Nafi al-Kabir".

It is in this book that he mentioned al-Muhit to be a weak book, however he later retracted this statement and clearly mentioned his retraction in the footnotes of an-Nafi' al-Kabir.
Yet, Sh. Ali Jumah quotes Ml. Abd al-Hay's entire discussion on weak books, including the classification of al-Muhit as weak and does not mention the retraction!
Then the turkish "Muhaqqiq" of al-Khulasah al-Bahiyyah "Ilyas Qablan" comes along and copies exactly what Sh. Ali Jumah mentioned, without listing him as the source and he also didn't mention Ml. Abd al-Hay's retraction!

It is a sad mess.

[Calluffence]

Mufti saheb can you provide a reference for this; its an important statement.

It is mentioned in Ml. Abd al-Hays footnotes to an-Nafi' al-Kabir pg 28, as well as in al-Fawaid al-Bahiyyah pg 271.

النافع الكبير ص28 ونصه:
فقد وفقني الله بعد كتابه هذه الرسالة بمطالعة ((المحيط البرهاني)) فرأيته ليس جامعاً للرطب واليابس، بل فيه مسائل منقحة وتفاريع مرّصصة ثم تأملت في عبارة ((فتح القدير)) وعبارة ابن نجيم فعلمت أن المنع من الإفتاء منه ليس لكونه جامعاً للغث والسمين، بل لكونه مفقودا نادر الوجود في ذلك العصر وهذا الأمر يختلف بحسب اختلاف الزمان فليحفظ هذا

And also what do think of allama Ibn Abidin's views on the Muhit.

I am unaware of any view of Ibn Abidin concerning Muhit. He has quoted extensively from it, via other sources as he never had the book. Yes, towards the end of his life he acquired a copy of the mukhtasar of al-Muhit ie. az-Zakhirah.

If you are referring to what Mufti Taqi saheb attributed to the Sharh al-Uqud of ibn Abidin in his muqaddimah to the Idarah a-Quran print of al-Muhit, then that is an error on Mufti Taqi saheb's part.

Ibn Abidin never made such a statement and especially not in Sharh al-Uqud.
Mufti Taqi probably got mixed up with Ml. Abd al-Hay's stance on the book or ibn Nujayms stance.

I have clarified this issue in my Ta'liq on Sharh al-uqud.
Make dua I get the tawfiq to finish it of quickly.
Mufti Rafi' saheb has been asking me for it for a while, however it just can't seem to get it completed.

and can you suggest any works which give a good analytical treatment of the works of the madhhab.

There is nothing good written on the issue.
The best available is al-Madhab al-Hanafi of Ahmed an-Naqib, published in 2 volumes by Maktabah ar-Rushd in Saudia. It is out of print at the moment, but copies can be still found in the market.

I am working on a madkhal to the books of the madhab at the moment.
I teach this every weekend at the Dar al-Ifta in Camperdown.
I am trying to cover all the important works in the madhab, including a critical analysis of the status of each book, the different prints of them etc.
This will probably take a few years though!

[Maydayvar]

I have clarified this issue in my Ta'liq on Sharh al-uqud.
Make dua I get the tawfiq to finish it of quickly.
Mufti Rafi' saheb has been asking me for it for a while, however it just can't seem to get it completed. I am working on a madkhal to the books of the madhab at the moment.
I teach this every weekend at the Dar al-Ifta in Camperdown.
I am trying to cover all the important works in the madhab, including a critical analysis of the status of each book, the different prints of them etc.
This will probably take a few years though! وفقكم الله وفقكم الله وفقكم الله
Mufti Saheb may Allah ease you path and fulfill your goals, this is a truly noble effort and something we are in clear need of. May Allah give us an opportunity to study with you and benefit from your expertise, Masha Allah

[avaiguite]

What about these beside Mukhtasar al Quduri;


Mukhtasar al Tahawi by Imam Tahawi (d. 321 AH)

Al-Kafi by Imam Hakim ash-Shahid (d. 334 AH)

Mukhtasar al Karkhi by Imam Al-Kharkhi (d. 340 AH)

Mukhtasar al Jassas by Imam al Jassas (d. 370 AH)

[dgdhgjjgj]

What about Al Hidayah?

Isn't that like the classical hanafi manual?

I wonder what else books we have that does not come from the subcontinent (not that I have an issue with books from there but its good to point out the classical books).

[avaiguite]

What about Al Hidayah?

Isn't that like the classical hanafi manual?

I wonder what else books we have that does not come from the subcontinent (not that I have an issue with books from there but its good to point out the classical books).

Muhammad b. Faramurz Mulla Khusraw (d. AH 885/1480 AD): Durar al-hukkam fi sharh ghurar al-ahkam this is his sharh of his own Ghurar al-ahkam.

Imam Shurunbuali has a hashiya on this.

[Maydayvar]

I wonder what else books we have that does not come from the subcontinent (not that I have an issue with books from there but its good to point out the classical books). The question is not which book does not come from the subcontinent, but which book does. Nearly all of our major texts come from central asia, and then the arabian lands, followed by the ottomans.

[juliannamed]

What about Fatawa Aalamgiri

[Maydayvar]

Hanafis from the subcontinent wrote many fatawa works, sharhs and hashiyas, but very few original works. The single exception which comes to mind is the mussalam al-thubut in usul, there may be others, but the majority of their works are in the form of jam' and naql. If you look at the central asian tradition, they produced the most original works and in my opinion the most authoritative. At the helm is the great scholar, Imam sarakhsi who is unsurpassed in the madhhab and whose every sentence epitomises the Hanafi school. There are so many original works from this region in usul, fiqh and its allied genres (such as qawaid, furuq etc) that it really was the cradle of the madhhab. The arab scholars also produced many original works and their sharhs were more than just jam' and naql, especially in their incorporation of hadith material, like Imam Tahawi, Ayni and Ibn al-Humam. They also produced great usuli scholars and works. The ottomans also wrote many works and authoritative texts, being the ruling power for seven centuries and a patron of the hanafi school give a great boost to the school and led to many ulama's coming from those lands.

The indian subconintent, has not really produced anything significantly original or novel, nor have they produced works which are very authoritative, although the fatawa alamgiri may be an exception. Some of the works by the deobandis are very welcome and may represent the best of the indian contribution to the madhhab. The i'la al-Sunan for example is an unparralled work and is testimony not only to the author's capability but also to the school from which he hails; he being a single example of which there are many more. The contributions of the deobandis in hadith is also exemplary and well recognised amongst the arab ulama.

[PRengin]

Hanafis from the subcontinent wrote many fatawa works, sharhs and hashiyas, but very few original works...The indian subconintent, has not really produced anything significantly original or novel, nor have they produced works which are very authoritative

I'm sorry but this is completely false and smacks of complete ignorance. Many original books have been written by the Ulema of the Subcontinent but a lot of them are not in Arabic. The books of these Ulema (both Arabic and non Arabic include) include the magnificent Hujjatullahi al Balighah, Al Fawzul Kabir fi Usul ul Tafsir, Fataawa Darul Uloom, Kifayatul Mufti, Imdad al Ahkam, Imdad al Fatawa and the numerous other Fataawa works (who said Fataawa works cannot be original?), the many books of Hujjatul Islam Moulana Qasim Nanotwi Sahib(rahmatullahialayh), books on contemporary Fiqh by Mufti Taqi Sahib and Qadhi Mujahidul Isalm Qasmi Sahib (rahmatullahialayh), etc.

In fact, these Ulema have done FAR more in this respect than the non Subcontinental Ulema. You will find original books on ALL of the sciences of Islam except maybe Usul ul Fiqh because in the past, the need for and the opportunity to develop this science was there but now it is not since the job has already been completed. Usul ul Fiqh has been expounded upon to a more than sufficient enough a level by the Ulema of the past. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. However, our Ulema have taken this to the next level and have actually applied these Usuls to the real world and actually demonstrated their usage whereas other Ulema have shyed away from this. Mufti Husain Sahib (damat barakatuhum) mentioned in another thread that the Shami Ulema do not know much beyond what is written in Shami! If this is correct and I have no reason to doubt that it is, it just goes to show the expertise of the Ulema outside of the Subcontinent.

The reason why our books may not be as universally accepted as those of the Ulema of the past is because there are so many sects around these days and despite the correctness of our books, thus for non-academic reasons they will never be accepted.

[Maydayvar]

Unfortunately you seemed to have failed miserably in understanding my post. So let me clarify.
Hanafis from the subcontinent wrote many fatawa works, sharhs and hashiyas, but very few original works...The indian subconintent, has not really produced anything significantly original or novel, nor have they produced works which are very authoritative The Hanafi school has been in the indian subcontinent for well over a thousand years. In the 800 plus years prior to Shah Wali Allah's revival, there was very little in the way of originality, although numerous fatawa, sharh, and hashiya works were written, none however gained international repute bar a few. These comments hence refer to this period. In this corresponding period if one compares the indian output to the output of say central asia or the arab world, the indians were of little or no significance in the development and direction of the madhhab. Again this is prior to deoband.

I made it abundantly clear that the deobandi contribution was both original and well received in the madhhab. How this failed to register with you is quite telling.

Some of the works by the deobandis are very welcome and may represent the best of the indian contribution to the madhhab. The i'la al-Sunan for example is an unparralled work and is testimony not only to the author's capability but also to the school from which he hails; he being a single example of which there are many more. The contributions of the deobandis in hadith is also exemplary and well recognised amongst the arab ulama. Why you're quoting works of deobandis to oppose my remarks is bizarre, as you can see, (for a second time) I have already mentioned their contribution.
As for the Hujjatullah al-baligha, it definitely isnt a work in the madhhab, rather it is Shah saheb's individual perspectives on a wide range of issues.

However, our Ulema have taken this to the next level and have actually applied these Usuls to the real world and actually demonstrated their usage whereas other Ulema have shyed away from this what kind of pathetic comments are these, my comments were not meant as a tit-for-tat between the arabs and the indians. I think you need to raise your level.

The reason why our books may not be as universally accepted as those of the Ulema of the past is because there are so many sects around these days and despite the correctness of our books, thus for non-academic reasons they will never be accepted. True scholarly works are always accepted in the scholarly community. And as I have already said, the works of the deobandis have been received exceptionally well in the arab scholarly circles.

[PRengin]

Don't blame me if you cannot communicte your ideas effectively enough. Your post was far too aggressive, sweeping and muddled. You clearly stated that Fatawa works were not "original"...

Hanafis from the subcontinent wrote many fatawa works, sharhs and hashiyas, but very few original works. ...and then go on to praise the Fataawa Alamgheeri:

The indian subconintent, has not really produced anything significantly original or novel, nor have they produced works which are very authoritative, although the fatawa alamgiri may be an exception. You write:

The Hanafi school has been in the indian subcontinent for well over a thousand years. In the 800 plus years prior to Shah Wali Allah's revival, there was very little in the way of originality, although numerous fatawa, sharh, and hashiya works were written, none however gained international repute bar a few. These comments hence refer to this period. In this corresponding period if one compares the indian output to the output of say central asia or the arab world, the indians were of little or no significance in the development and direction of the madhhab. Again this is prior to deoband. Now I agree with you here but where did you specify this in your original post? Again, this is your mistake not mine and this is what my response was centred on.

Why you're quoting works of deobandis to oppose my remarks is bizarre, as you can see, (for a second time) I have already mentioned their contribution. Like I wrote already, you did not specify exceptions to your point as clearly as your earlier comments about very little if anything significant at all being produced in the Subcontinent. But I should have been more attentive here and for this I ask for your forgiveness.

As for the Hujjatullah al-baligha, it definitely isnt a work in the madhhab, rather it is Shah saheb's individual perspectives on a wide range of issues. Again, where did you state that your point was restricted to the works of the Maddhab? All I gathered from your post in this respect was:

he indian subconintent, has not really produced anything significantly original or novel, nor have they produced works which are very authoritative

[Maydayvar]

Again, where did you state that your point was restricted to the works of the Maddhab? All I gathered from your post in this respect was Well you may not have noticed but the thread is about reliable Hanafi fiqh books. And it may be that for you Islamic history starts and ends with deoband, but for any normal person a discussion regarding Hanafi works would include anything produced in the last 1200 years. Because your mind was already pre-conditioned to only looking at islamic history through a narrow lens, you hence failed to appreciate my comments. India was a centre for islamic learning before deoband appeared on the scene. You need to broaden your horizons.

To be honest brother theres little which is confusing about my posts, nor was I aggressive, in fact the opposite is true:

I'm sorry but this is completely false and smacks of complete ignorance.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. However, our Ulema have taken this to the next level and have actually applied these Usuls to the real world and actually demonstrated their usage whereas other Ulema have shyed away from this. This thread has nothing to do with deoband but rather about the reliable books in hanafi fiqh. I have stated clearly what my position was and adequately recognised the contribution of the deobandis. Unfortunately it seems that you are a sorry excuse for a self-appointed defender of the deobandi school. The deoband don't need someone like yourself to defend them nor is there any need to denigrate the arab ulama or anyone else for tham matter. I have tried to give an honest appraisal of the contribution of each region without evident bias. Your post, as highlighted, speaks for itself, and as opposed to to your naive intent of defending the deoband, you actually do a disservice.

But I should have been more attentive here and for this I ask for your forgiveness. Next time don't jump in feet first.

[Maydayvar]

The single exception which comes to mind is the mussalam al-thubut in usul, there may be others Another exception is the eighth century Punjabi scholar Diya al-din Umar ibn Muhammad al-sunnami, who wrote the nisab al-ihtisab, a very important work in hisba. His teacher was a student of the great Hamid al-Din al-Darir (from central asia).

This work has been published and is an exceptional contribution to the genre. It also shows how ulama before deoband and Shah WaliAllah were acutely aware of the problem of bid'a in india. There are many sections in the work which deal with bid'a in this work, dancing and sama etc etc. which the author tirelessly opposed throughout his life.

May Allah bless him and raise his station in paradise.