The four madhâhib in Sunni Islam are intellectual accomplishments that any Sunni Muslim should feel proud of. Thousands of scholars contributed through interdisciplinary and transgenerational effort to the making of these intellectual wonders. Their authority and our need for them are as clear as the sun in the middle of a summer day, as the Arabic proverb goes. It is also the recommendation of the vast majority of Muslim scholars that the student of knowledge be first instructed in one of the four schools. One may also add that the truth does not diverge from the positions of the four madhâhib except very rarely. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) stated:

As for one who says, “I am not bound by anyone of the four imams,” if he meant he is not bound by a particular one of them as opposed to the rest, then he has spoken well; in fact, this is the correct of the two [known] positions. However, if he meant that he is bound by none of them and that he disagrees with them all, then surely he will be wrong most of the time. This is because the truth does not diverge from their positions in the vast majority of the [laws of] Shariah. People only disagreed whether the truth could be different from their positions in a few cases.[1]

Any attempt to belittle all, some, or any of the four madhâhib is an assault against the ummah and its heritage. However, having a balanced understanding regarding them is essential. The ummah cannot afford to swing with the pendulum of extremism. ‘Anti-madhhabism’ is wrong, but it is not the cause of all of the ailments of our ummah, as some ideologues on the opposite end of the spectrum may like to believe. This simplistic reduction of complex phenomena is not new to human thinking. However, it seems extremely repugnant to the facts and the concept of causation itself. After all, who would have the audacity to claim that our ummah was doing well before this ‘new phenomenon’? This is not only about defeat by external forces, but also backwardness, inner conflict, and taʽaṣṣub, whether interdenominational or inter-madhhabi. The verifying scholars were complaining during their times about the conditions of fiqh and the fuqahâ’. The stagnation within the madhâhib resulted in the divide between fiqh and the needs of the people, pushing the leaders, long before the colonial era, to make arbitrary legislations. Additionally, why is it that countries and communities that were not affected by this ‘new phenomenon’ are not faring better than those that were affected?

Having said that, this is not a discussion of the importance of the legacy of the four madhâhib or an attempt to referee between the contestants on the two ends of the spectrum concerning them. The discussion here is about the existence of truth outside their agreement, which many Muslim scholars treat as a binding consensus. Some scholars have gone as far as claiming that there is a consensus that in the spheres of fatwa and judging at least, no scholar may take a position outside that of the four schools.[2] According to Dâr al-Iftâ’ al-Miṣriyyah (the Egyptian fatwa agency), this agreement is subject to change with time, people’s customs, and the acceptance of and trust in other positions. It is also subject to enforcement by the state.[3] The most someone can say about this agreement—and this is extremely hard to establish—is that it was a procedural decision that may have had some merit at some point, but not in any way a binding consensus that the ummah must indefinitely abide by. It is interesting to note here that the disagreement between the earlier scholars was not about the obligation for a mujtahid to follow the opinion of another mujtahid, but about its permissibility. Imam Abu Ḥanifah (rh) allowed it, whereas Imam ash-Shâfiʽi (rh) prohibited it: the latter argued that the level of certainty someone acquires through his or her own ijtihâd must exceed that which could be ever acquired through someone else’s ijtihâd.[4]

Whenever we seek the ruling of a particular issue, it is either a contemporary matter or one that has been previously addressed. If it is new, then the position of the four madhâhib is not even present, except through takhreej (a form of analogical deduction based on a position in the madhhab), which usually offers some flexibility and is not particularly binding. If it is a matter that has been previously addressed, then the question is whether a position outside of the agreement of the four madhâhib may have any merit.

While it is commendable for Muslims to be wary of positions that conflict with the agreement of the four imams, this aversion should not completely rule out the possibility that the truth may be outside of their agreement. Abu al-Khattâb (rh) (d. 510 AH) stated in his book At-tamheed fi uṣool al-fiqh,

The proofs on the [authority of] consensus do not pertain to them (the agreement of the four imams), because they are among the believers of the ummah, and their status as imams does not change the rulings of ijmâʽ.^[5]

Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) held the same opinion and mentioned several instances where some followers of the four imams dissented from their agreement.^[6] While Imam al-Qarâfi (rh) was one of the scholars who reported from Ibn aṣ-Ṣalâḥ (rh) the agreement on following one of the four madhâhib, he said in a different place (and context) that a consensus was established during the time of the Companions that whoever converts to Islam may ask any of the scholars and is not bound to ask certain ones, and that one who asked Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may still ask Muʽâdh and Abu Hurayrah and others, and he challenged anyone who claimed those consensuses had been revoked to produce evidence for that.[7] Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami ash-Shâfi’i (rh) explained that it is permissible for a scholar to follow an ijtihâd outside the four madhâhib as long as it is well documented, and its conditions and all necessary details are known, and he attributed it to Imam as-Subki (rh).[8] Imam an-Nafrâwi al-Maliki (rh) attributed this position to some of the verifying scholars – without limiting the permissibility of taqleed to the scholars.[9]

What should be clear is that there is no legitimate justification that the agreement of the four madhâhib establishes consensus, and if it does not, then there are no grounds for adding their agreement to the sources of legislation. Their agreement should rather serve as a warning sign for the mujtahid to proceed with caution and the non-mujtahid to stop. As mentioned above, even those who did not allow the public to follow other than one of the four madhâhib recognized that the truth may exist outside their agreement, and they allowed the faqeeh (pl. fuqahâ’: specialist in fiqh) to adopt a position outside that of the four schools.^[10] As mentioned in our discussion of the existing flexibility within the juridical theory, they also allowed the use of unauthorized positions in the madhâhib for valid reasons.

In our times, what can be done to protect people from the chaos of unregulated fatwas is to stress the guidelines that must be followed in mainstreaming positions that are counter to the agreement of the four madhâhib (which will be addressed later) and to advance the cause of collective ijtihâd, which confers greater validity on new positions, as Shaykh Mustafa az-Zarqa remarked when he talked about reopening the gates of ijtihâd.^[11]

An example of a new collective ijtihâd is the decision of the Fiqh Assembly of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) concerning the manufacturing contract (‘aqd al-istiṣnâ‘) where people may purchase unbuilt homes and pay their price in installments. This transaction is considered a type of salam (sale with payment in advance) by the Mâliki, Shâfiʽi, and Ḥanbali schools, which means all of the conditions of salam will apply to it, including the immediate payment of the whole price. The reason for this particular condition is so that the transaction does not become forbidden because of the deferment of both the price and the commodity (bayʽ al-kâli’ bil-kâli’). However, Imam Abu Ḥanifah (rh) considers it a separate contract since, unlike salam, it involves the manufacturing of the commodity. This position allows the buyer to pay the price in instalments. Yet, according to Abu Ḥanifah, this contract will turn into salam if a deadline is set for submitting the commodity. His two disciples held a different position, and allowed setting a deadline. The Fiqh Assembly of the OIC indicated that a deadline should be set, and that this should not change the contract from istiṣnâ‘ to salam, allowing for deferred payments. Thus, the Assembly approved the sale of homes before their construction and paying the price in installments if there is an accurate description of the property.[12] This is an important ruling that is vital for the thriving of a major industry. Its adoption by a major fiqh council removed the discomfort many people may have because of its perceived contradiction with the authorized view of the four madhâhib. The same may be said about Ibn Taymiyyah’s position on the composite threefold divorce. He counted it as one divorce. His position was counter to the authorized view in the four madhâhib. The adoption of this position by fatwa agencies in many Muslim countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, has conferred it with mainstream acceptance. In summary, one may say that the mainstreaming of positions outside the agreement of the four madhâhib should be contingent upon their validation by collective ijtihâd or acceptance by a large group of verifying scholars.

[1] Mukhtaṣar al-fatâwa al-miṣriyyah by Badrul-Deen al-Baʽli, Cairo: Maṭbaʽat as-Sunnah al-Muḥamadiyyah, 1/61.

[2] Tuhfat al-muhtâj fee sharḥ al-minhâj by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami, Cairo: Al-Maktabah at-Tijâriyyah al-Kubrâ, 10/109. Retrieved from Shamilah [computer software].

“وَحَاصِلُ الْمُعْتَمَدِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ كُلٍّ مِنْ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ، وَكَذَا مَنْ عَدَاهُمْ مِمَّنْ حُفِظَ مَذْهَبُهُ فِي تِلْكَ الْمَسْأَلَةِ وَدُوِّنَ حَتَّى عُرِفَتْ شُرُوطُهُ وَسَائِرُ مُعْتَبَرَاتِهِ فَالْإِجْمَاعُ الَّذِي نَقَلَهُ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ عَلَى مَنْعِ تَقْلِيدِ الصَّحَابَةِ يُحْمَلُ عَلَى مَا فُقِدَ فِيهِ شَرْطٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَيُشْتَرَطُ لِصِحَّةِ التَّقْلِيدِ أَيْضًا أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ مِمَّا يُنْقَضُ فِيهِ قَضَاءُ الْقَاضِي هَذَا بِالنِّسْبَةِ لِعَمَلِ نَفْسِهِ لَا لِإِفْتَاءٍ، أَوْ قَضَاءٍ فَيَمْتَنِعُ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ فِيهِ إجْمَاعًا كَمَا يُعْلَمُ.”

[3] ‘Following the Four Schools of Law and the Ruling of Being at Variance with Them’ اتباع المذاهب الفقهية الأربعة وحكم مخالفتها. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://www.dar-alifta.org/AR/ViewFatawaConcept.aspx?ID= 187

[4] See Qawâ‘id al-ahkâm fi maṣâlih al-anâm by ‘Izz ad-Deen ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdis-Salâm, Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2/160.

(فَائِدَةٌ) اخْتَلَفَ الْعُلَمَاءُ فِي تَقْلِيدِ الْحَاكِمِ الْمُجْتَهِدِ لِمُجْتَهِدٍ آخَرَ فَأَجَازَهُ بَعْضُهُمْ لِأَنَّ الظَّاهِرَ مِنْ الْمُجْتَهِدِينَ أَنَّهُمْ أَصَابُوا الْحَقَّ، فَلَا فَرْقَ بَيْنَ مُجْتَهِدٍ وَمُجْتَهِدٍ فَإِذَا جَازَ لِلْمُجْتَهِدِ أَنْ يَعْتَمِدَ عَلَى ظَنِّهِ الْمُسْتَفَادِ مِنْ الشَّرْعِ فَلِمَ لَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ الِاعْتِمَادُ عَلَى ظَنِّ الْمُجْتَهِدِ الْمُعْتَمِدِ عَلَى أَدِلَّةِ الشَّرْعِ، وَلَا سِيَّمَا إذَا كَانَ الْمُقَلِّدُ أَنْبَلَ وَأَفْضَلَ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ الْأَدِلَّةِ الشَّرْعِيَّةِ، وَمَنَعَهُ الشَّافِعِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ، وَقَالُوا ثِقَةٌ بِمَا يَجِدُهُ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ مِنْ الظَّنِّ الْمُسْتَفَادِ وَمِنْ أَدِلَّةِ الشَّرْعِ أَقْوَى مِمَّا يَسْتَفِيدُهُ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ وَلَا سِيَّمَا إنْ كَانَ هُوَ أَفْضَلُ الْجَمَاعَةِ، وَخَيَّرَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ فِي تَقْلِيدِ مَنْ شَاءَ مِنْ الْمُجْتَهِدِينَ لِأَنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ عَلَى حَقٍّ وَصَوَابٍ، وَهَذَا ظَاهِرٌ مُتَّجَهٌ إذَا قُلْنَا كُلُّ مُجْتَهِدٍ مُصِيبٌ.

[5] At-tamheed fi uṣool al-fiqh by Abu al-Khaṭṭâb al-Kallodhani. Makkah: Markaz al-Baḥth al-‘Ilmi wa Iḥyâ’ al-Turâth al-Islâmi, 1406 H/ 1985 CE, 3/281.

قولنا: أن أدلة (الإجماع) لا تتناولهم، لأنهم بعض المؤمنين وبعض الأمة، ولأن الإمامة لا تأثير لها في الإجماع، فكذلك الأربعة، وإنما التأثير (للاجتهاد) والعلم، وغيرهم في الاجتهاد بمثابتهم.

[6] Majmoo‘ al-fatâwâ by Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi ad-Deen Aḥmad, Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/10.

معنى الإجماع: أن تجتمع علماء المسلمين على حكم من الأحكام. وإذا ثبت إجماع الأمة على حكم من الأحكام لم يكن لأحد أن يخرج عن إجماعهم؛ فإن الأمة لا تجتمع على ضلالة ولكن كثير من المسائل يظن بعض الناس فيها إجماعا ولا يكون الأمر كذلك بل يكون القول الآخر أرجح في الكتاب والسنة. وأما أقوال بعض الأئمة كالفقهاء الأربعة وغيرهم؛ فليس حجة لازمة ولا إجماعا باتفاق المسلمين بل قد ثبت عنهم – رضي الله عنهم – أنهم نهوا الناس عن تقليدهم؛ وأمروا إذا رأوا قولا في الكتاب والسنة أقوى من قولهم: أن يأخذوا بما دل عليه الكتاب والسنة ويدعوا أقوالهم. ولهذا كان الأكابر من أتباع الأئمة الأربعة لا يزالون إذا ظهر لهم دلالة الكتاب أو السنة على ما يخالف قول متبوعهم اتبعوا ذلك مثل مسافة القصر؛ فإن تحديدها بثلاثة أيام أو ستة عشر فرسخا لما كان قولا ضعيفا كان طائفة من العلماء من أصحاب أحمد وغيرهم ترى قصر الصلاة في السفر الذي هو دون ذلك كالسفر من مكة إلى عرفة؛ فإنه قد ثبت أن أهل مكة قصروا مع النبيr  بمنى وعرفة. وكذلك طائفة من أصحاب مالك وأبي حنيفة وأحمد قالوا: إن جمع الطلاق الثلاث محرم وبدعة؛ لأن الكتاب والسنة عندهم إنما يدلان على ذلك وخالفوا أئمتهم. وطائفة من أصحاب مالك والشافعي وأبي حنيفة رأوا غسل الدهن النجس؛ وهو خلاف قول الأئمة الأربعة. وطائفة من أصحاب أبي حنيفة رأوا تحليف الناس بالطلاق وهو خلاف الأئمة الأربعة بل ذكر ابن عبد البر أن الإجماع منعقد على خلافه. وطائفة من أصحاب مالك وغيرهم قالوا: من حلف بالطلاق فإنه يكفر يمينه؛ وكذلك من حلف بالعتاق وكذلك قال طائفة من أصحاب أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ قالوا: إن من قال: الطلاق يلزمني لا يقع به طلاق ومن حلف بذلك لا يقع به طلاق وهذا منقول عن أبي حنيفة نفسه. وطائفة من العلماء قالوا: إن الحالف بالطلاق لا يقع به طلاق ولا تلزمه كفارة وقد ثبت عن الصحابة وأكابر التابعين في الحلف بالعتق أنه لا يلزمه؛ بل تجزئه كفارة يمين وأقوال الأئمة الأربعة بخلافه فالحلف بالطلاق بطريق الأولى ولهذا كان من هو من أئمة التابعين يقول: الحلف بالطلاق لا يقع به الطلاق ويجعله يمينا فيه الكفارة. وهذا بخلاف إيقاع الطلاق فإنه إذا وقع على الوجه الشرعي وقع باتفاق الأمة ولم تكن فيه كفارة باتفاق الأمة بل لا كفارة في الإيقاع مطلقا وإنما الكفارة خاصة في الحلف. فإذا تنازع المسلمون في مسألة وجب رد ما تنازعوا فيه إلى الله والرسول فأي القولين دل عليه الكتاب والسنة وجب اتباعه.

[7] Sharḥ tanqeeḥ al-fuṣool by al-Qarâfi, Cairo: Sharikat aṭ-Ṭibâʽah al-Fanniyyah, 1973, p. 432.

“قاعدة: انعقد الإجماع على أنَّ من أسلم فله أن يقلد من شاء من العلماء بغير حَجْرٍ . وأجمع الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم على أنَّ من استفتى أبا بكرٍ وعمرَ رضي الله عنهما وقلَّدهما فله أن يستفتي أبا هريرةَ ومعاذَ بن جبل وغيرهما، ويعمل بقولهم من غير نكيرٍ. فمن ادعى رفع هذين الإجماعين فعليه الدليل..”

[8] Tuḥfat al-muḥtâj by Ibn Ḥajar, Cairo: al-Maktabah at-Tijâriyyah, 1983, 1/47.

وَأَجْرَى السُّبْكِيُّ ذَلِكَ وَتَبِعُوهُ فِي الْعَمَلِ بِخِلَافِ الْمَذَاهِبِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ أَيْ مِمَّا عَلِمْت نِسْبَتَهُ لِمَنْ يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُهُ، وَجَمِيعُ شُرُوطِهِ عِنْدَهُ وَحُمِلَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ قَوْلُ ابْنِ الصَّلَاحِ لَا يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ أَيْ فِي قَضَاءٍ أَوْ إفْتَاءٍ وَمَحَلُّ ذَلِكَ وَغَيْرِهِ مِنْ سَائِرِ صُوَرِ التَّقْلِيدِ مَا لَمْ يَتَتَبَّعْ الرُّخَصَ بِحَيْثُ تَنْحَلُّ رِبْقَةُ التَّكْلِيفِ مِنْ عُنُقِهِ، وَإِلَّا أَثِمَ بِهِ بَلْ قِيلَ فَسَقَ وَهُوَ وَجِيهٌ قِيلَ وَمَحَلُّ ضَعْفِهِ أَنَّ تَتَبُّعَهَا مِنْ الْمَذَاهِبِ الْمُدَوَّنَةِ وَإِلَّا فَسَقَ قَطْعًا وَلَا يُنَافِي ذَلِكَ قَوْلَ ابْنِ الْحَاجِبِ كَالْآمِدِيِّ مَنْ عَمِلَ فِي مَسْأَلَةٍ بِقَوْلِ إمَامٍ لَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ الْعَمَلُ فِيهَا بِقَوْلِ غَيْرِهِ اتِّفَاقًا لِتَعَيُّنِ حَمْلِهِ عَلَى مَا إذَا بَقِيَ مِنْ آثَارِ الْعَمَلِ الْأَوَّلِ مَا يَلْزَمُ عَلَيْهِ مَعَ الثَّانِي تَرَكُّبُ حَقِيقَةٍ لَا يَقُولُ بِهَا كُلٌّ مِنْ الْإِمَامَيْنِ كَتَقْلِيدِ الشَّافِعِيِّ فِي مَسْحِ بَعْضِ الرَّأْسِ وَمَالِكٍ فِي طَهَارَةِ الْكَلْبِ فِي صَلَاةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ.

[9] Al-fawâkih al-dawâni by an-Nafrâwi, Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1995, 2/356.

وَقَدْ انْعَقَدَ إجْمَاعُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَى وُجُوبِ مُتَابَعَةِ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعِ: أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَمَالِكٍ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ – وَعَدَمِ جَوَازِ الْخُرُوجِ عَنْ مَذَاهِبِهِمْ، وَإِنَّمَا حَرُمَ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ مِنْ الْمُجْتَهِدِينَ، مَعَ أَنَّ الْجَمِيعَ عَلَى هُدًى لِعَدَمِ حِفْظِ مَذَاهِبِهِمْ لِمَوْتِ أَصْحَابِهِمْ وَعَدَمِ تَدْوِينِهَا، وَلِذَا قَالَ بَعْضُ الْمُحَقِّقِينَ: الْمُعْتَمَدُ أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ الْأَرْبَعَةِ، وَكَذَا مَنْ عَدَاهُمْ مِمَّنْ يُحْفَظُ مَذْهَبُهُ فِي تِلْكَ الْمَسْأَلَةِ وَدُوِّنَ حَتَّى عَرَفْت شُرُوطَهُ وَسَائِرَ مُعْتَبَرَاتِهِ، فَالْإِجْمَاعُ الَّذِي نَقَلَهُ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ كَابْنِ الصَّلَاحِ وَإِمَامِ الْحَرَمَيْنِ وَالْقَرَافِيِّ عَلَى مَنْعِ تَقْلِيدِ الصَّحَابَةِ يُحْمَلُ عَلَى مَا فُقِدَ مِنْهُ شَرْطٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مِنْ شَرْحِ شَيْخِ مَشَايِخِنَا اللَّقَانِيِّ، وَإِنَّمَا قَالَ الْمُصَنِّفُ فِي الْفُرُوعِ وَالْحَوَادِثِ لِلِاحْتِرَازِ عَنْ أُصُولِ الدِّينِ وَسَائِرِ عَقَائِدِ الْإِسْلَامِ الْمُتَعَلِّقَةِ بِمَا يَجِبُ لِلَّهِ وَمَا يَجُوزُ وَمَا يَسْتَحِيلُ فَلَا يَصِحُّ الِاخْتِلَافُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْهَا.

[10] See Fayd al-Qadeer by Abdul Raʽoof al-Munawi (d. 1031), Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Tijâriyyah al-Kubra, 1/210.

“نعم يجوز لغير عامي من الفقهاء المقلدين تقليد غير الأربعة في العمل لنفسه إن علم نسبته لمن يجوز تقليده وجمع شروطه عنده لكن بشرط أن لا يتتبع الرخصة بأن يأخذ من كل مذهب الأهون بحيث تنحل ربقة التكليف من عتقه وإلا لم يجز خلافا لابن عبد السلام حيث أطلق جواز تتبعها وقد يحمل كلامه على ما إذا تتبعها على وجه لا يصل إلى الانحلال المذكور، وحكى الزركشي أن القاضي أبا الطيب أقيمت صلاة الجمعة فهم بالتكبير فذرق عليه طير فقال أنا حنبلي فأحرم ولم يمنعه عمله بمذهبه من تقليد المخالف عند الحاجة وممن جرى على ذلك السبكي فقال: المنتقل من مذهب لآخر له أحوال: الأول أن يعتقد رحجان مذهب الغير فيجوز عمله به اتباعا للراحج في ظنه الثاني أن يعتقد رجحان شيء فيجوز الثالث أن يقصد بتقليده الرخصة فيما يحتاجه لحاجة لحقته أو ضرورة أرهقته فيجوز الرابع أن يقصد مجرد الترخص فيمتنع لأنه متبع لهواه لا للدين الخامس أن يكثر ذلك ويجعل اتباع الرخص ديدنه فيمتنع لما ذكر ولزيادة فحشه السادس أن يجتمع من ذلك حقيقة مركبة ممتنعة بالإجماع فيمتنع السابع أن يعمل بتقليد الأول كحنفي يدعي شفعة جوار فيأخذها بمذهب الحنفي فتستحق عليه فيريد تقليد الإمام الشافعي فيمتنع لخطئه في الأولى أو الثانية وهو شخص واحد مكلف.”

[11] Al-ijtihâd al-jamâʽi wa dawr al-fiqh fi ḥall al-mushkilât by Mustafa az-Zarqa, Jamʽiyyat al-Dirâsât wal-Buḥooth al-Islâmiyyah, p. 49.

[12] Resolution # 65 (7/3), Sixth Annual Conference of the OIC, 1412 AH/ 1992 CE.