Published in: Al-Azhar University – Faculty of Languages and Translation’s Journal. 9(II): 221-272. 2015.

Introduction

In the name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful

In the past and present times, the jurists have differed regarding the methods by which a claim is established in the Islamic judiciary. Some limited it to whatever has been explicitly stated in, or extracted from, the revealed texts. Others widened the circle of evidences to include whatever clarifies the truth and paves the way for justice. For this reason, basing rulings on qarâ’in (corroborative evidences) was a matter of debate among the jurists.

The newest factor is that forensic science has evolved to such a degree that judicial systems throughout the world are extremely reliant on it as proof. Law experts name this type of evidence to be tangible proof, and despite it being considered modern terminology, it still falls under corroborative evidences.

The question is: where should the Islamic judiciary stand regarding forensic science? Should it benefit from it? Should this benefit be limited to guiding the criminal investigator and enlightening the judge with important details of the crime? Or should these evidences be used by the judge, whenever they qualify, even in the absence of the customary evidences known to Islamic Jurisprudence – such as witnesses, admittals, oaths, and nukool (refusal to take an oath).

In this paper, we will discuss this matter in three points:

1 – The different jurists’ views regarding adillat al-ithbât (admissible evidences) and basing rulings on qarâ’in (corroborative evidences)

2 – The evolution of forensic science, and the need for the Islamic Judiciary to engage with this  new reality

3 – The effect that the evolution of forensic science had with regards to the different views on this subject

Point 1: The Different Jurists’ Views Regarding Adillat al-Ithbât (Admissible Evidences) and Basing Rulings on Qarâ’in (Corroborative Evidences)

Islam put great care into adillat al-ithbât, regarding which the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: “Were people given on the basis of their claims, men would claim the wealth and blood of others. However, proof is [incumbent] upon the plaintiff, and the oath is [incumbent] upon the defendant.”^[1] The wording of al-Bukhâri: “Were people given on the basis of their claims, the wealth and blood of people would be lost.”^[2] The wording of Muslim: “Were people given on the basis of their claims, men would claim the blood and wealth of others. However, the oath is [incumbent] upon the one against whom the claim is made.”^[3]

          In this chapter, we will discuss adillat al-ithbât, the views of the jurists regarding them, and their views regarding basing a ruling on qarâ’in. We will consolidate this into three points:

Firstly: The definitions

Secondly: Adillat al-Ithbât (Admissible Evidences) in light of Sharia vs. Man-Made Law

Thirdly: The different jurists’ views on whether limiting adillat al-ithbât, and on acting upon the qarâ’in.

o       Firstly: The Definitions

Adillah (Evidences) is the plural of daleel (evidence). Linguistically, it refers to that which is used to prove^[4]. Technically, it refers to whatever can lead to an objective, whether speculative or decisive, by properly analyzing it^[5].

Ithbât is linguistically used in reference to affirming and deeming correct. One says: “He made ithbât of the truth.” – meaning he established the proofs for it^[6]. Technically, it refers to the establishment of another matter^[7]. Judicially, it refers to establishing the evidences for the correctness of a claim in front of the judge^[8].

Qareenah is, linguistically, that which is paired with another. A person’ soul is called a qareenah, and the wife is called a qareenah^[9]. Technically, it refers to a corroborative, intangible, or verbal factor that alludes to an intended matter. The basis of this naming is it being an apparent sign, paired with something hidden, that serves to indicate it.

It is also named a sign and portent, and its many types are divided^[10] in light of their origins and strength.

As with regards to its origins, it is either derived from the Sharia or not, and the former is either deduced or textually stated.

The textually stated is like the statement of the Most High: “And a witness from her family testified: ‘If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth, and he is of the liars. But if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the truthful.’” [Yoosuf: 26-27] Here, his shirt being torn from behind was a qareenah indicating his fleeing from her, and her pursuit of him.

Those not derived from the Sharia are all the evidences available to the judge which clarify the truth and enable justice, yet are not based on revelation or the actions of the companions.

Similarly, the qarâ’in are divided into substantial and trivial in light of their strength.

The substantial is like what came in [Majallat al-Ahkâm]: “A decisive qareenah is an indicator which provides one with certainty. For instance, if someone were to exit an empty house in a state of fear and bewilderment, with a bloody knife in his hand, and then an individual was found slaughtered in that house during that time – there would be no doubt that he killed that individual. In such cases, the merely imaginary possibility that this individual killed himself should not even be considered.”^[11] Obviously, they are using the term ‘certainty’ loosely here, while their intent is that which is most probable, and very near to certainty. However, this loose usage is recurrent in the statements of the jurists, and their intent is the aforesaid.

There are also weaker qarâ’in, such as a foreign man repeatedly making nightly visits to a woman whose husband is absent being a qareenah for adultery taking place.

Of the strong qarâ’in in forensic medicine is using DNA to establish or deny ancestry, and using blood tests to establish the drinking of wine.

o       Secondly: Admissible Evidences in Man-Made Judiciaries

There are several schools with regards to admissible evidences in man-made judiciaries, and the legal experts around the world basically adopt one of three views:

1 – Absolute Admissibility. This puts no particular restrictions on the judge in establishing his conclusion. He is left with the complete liberty to qualify whatever evidences influence him, and this system is followed within many of the modern man-made laws.

The upholders of this system argue that it best suits the various types of crimes, the multitudinous methods of performing them, and the circumstances surrounding them. They argue that restricting the judge with limitations on what constitutes admissible evidences will impede him from establishing justice and returning to the rightful owners their due.

The criticism held against this view is the inconsistency it generates between one judge and another. Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that judges are human beings that can be unjust in their judgments if there aren’t sufficient guidelines to regulate them.

2 – Limited Admissibility. This restricts what constitutes admissible evidences, and does not allow traversing beyond them. This serves to regulate judicial practices, and to prevent inconsistency and injustice.

However, this method is criticized for restraining the judge, and shackling his hands at a time when the methods of committing a crime and loop-holing laws are abundant. Furthermore, it makes the judge’s role mechanical, whereby he could pass a verdict while believing that it is most probably incorrect.

3 – Selective Admissibility. This limits the admissible evidences while widening the scope of potential evidences, whereby the judge reserves the right to select between different evidences and qarâ’in, and may at times dismiss some and qualify others. This view aims to combine between the positive features in each of the previous two views.

What should be alluded to is the fact that absolute and selective admissibility are those practiced in most judicial systems^[12]. Advancements in specialization, whether that of forensic science or any other criminal investigation experts, has made the limited admissibility system obsolete in the face of the absolute and selective systems which respect expert opinion.

As well, absolute admissibility is not a concession for the judge to pass whatever verdicts he pleases. Rather, his verdicts are reviewable and annullable if sound reasoning has not been applied in analyzing the evidences and weighing between them. However, perhaps the selective admissibility system which places guidelines to prevent the judge from deviating, but without shackling his hands, is closest to sound reasoning^[13].

o       Thirdly: The Different Jurists’ Views on Limiting the Admissible Evidences, and on Acting upon the Qarâ’in

It would prove quite difficult to determine the jurists’ views with regards to acting upon the qarâ’in because there exists much discrepancy in discerning those who permitted and those who prohibited. This was resultant of many factors; of the most important were that:

The qarâ’in themselves varied. Of them are those stated, those deducted, and others. Due to this, some may act upon a qareenah because the companions acted upon it, while not acting upon another – even if it’s more apparent – because it was not acted upon [previously] nor stated by the religious texts. Likewise, the qarâ’in vary with regards to their weakness and strength.

Just as the qarâ’in varied, the cases varied as well. There are those who accept taking the qarâ’in into consideration for anything but the hudood (prescribed punishments), and some of them add the cases of qisâs (avengement) alongside the hudood, then permit its usage in everything else.

Likewise, of them are those who act upon the qarâ’in in tarjeeh (weighing evidences), which causes some to assume that they act upon them. In reality though, they may not consider them as primary evidences, or they may only act upon them to investigate or lure the accused without passing a verdict on them.

Perhaps categorizing most accurately entails saying the most lenient scholars in acting upon the qarâ’in is Ibn al-Qayyim^[14], then Ibn Taymiyah^[15] and Ibn Farhoon^[16], then the remaining Mâlikis – who vary between themselves – in addition to Ibn al-Ghars^[17][18] from the Hanafis and some of the Hanbalis, wherein acting upon them in some hudood is one narration about Ahmad. Following them are the Shâfi‘i scholars, then the Hanafis – although they vary between themselves. Some have even reported the scholarly agreement for acting upon the qarâ’in in principle.

‘Alâ’ ad-Deen at–Trâbulsi al-Hanafi said: “One of the scholar said: ‘The analyst must take notice of the signs and portents when they conflict. Whatever is weightier, then judgment should be in its favor, and there is no disagreement on acting upon that. This has been acted upon in matters of agreement between the jurists of the four schools. The first is that all jurists permit for a man to have intercourse with a woman handed to him on the wedding night, even without the presence of two trustworthy males to verify that she is so and so, the daughter of so and so, regarding whom the marriage was contracted, and even without the women confirming that this is actually his wife – based on the apparent qareenah that serves the role of a testimony.”^[19] The scholar who said this was Ibn al-‘Arabi^[20].

In [al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah]: “Regarding the decisive qareenah… there is no disagreement between the jurists on basing the ruling on a decisive qareenah.”^[21]

If this is the case, then how does one understand that some scholars expressly stated the invalidity of acting upon the qarâ’in, such as al-Qarâfi and al-Jassâs, may Allah bestow mercy upon them? The first said: “Don’t you see that the corroborative qarâ’in do not determine rulings and fatâwâ (edicts), even if they are more indicative than the [other] proofs, analogies, and individual testimonies? This is because the Sharia did not make them a discerning element in fatâwâ and judiciaries.”^[22] The second said: “The Prophet (saws) said: ‘Proof is [incumbent] upon the claimant, and the oath is [incumbent] upon the one against whom the claim is being made.’ The fact that his hand contains something that was picked up does not remove the claimant from being a claimant. He should not be believed in his claim without proof, since he has no posession (of the disputed item), and a sign is not proof.”^[23]

It appears that despite some of them denying the validity of acting upon the qarâ’in, scanning there fatâwâ and verdicts – as we will see – clearly proves their taking them into consideration. In fact, Shaykh Mahmood Shaltoot said: “…there is hardly a single Islamic madh-hab that does not act upon the qarâ’in, including those who denied it.”^[24]

The opposition to considering the qarâ’in in transactions between people and financial issues is extremely weak – as we will establish. However, the majority deny acting upon the qarâ’in in the hudood (prescribed punishments); namely the Hanafis^[25], the Shâfi‘is^[26], and the majority of the Hanbalis^[27].

They are acted upon by the Mâlikis^[28] in asserting the hadd for wine via the qareenah of scent and vomit, and for fornication via the qareenah of pregnancy. This is the view of Ibn Taymiyah^[29]. Ibn al-Qayyim went beyond that^[30] to considering the qareenah in all the hudood, although he undoubtedly meant the strong qareenah, nothing else.

 Qisâs (Avengment):

As for acting upon the qarâ’in in principle, the matter is as we aforesaid; there is hardly a single madh-hab that does not majorly act upon them in practice. For this reason, the esteemed scholar al-Qarâfi, whose statement was cited with regards to not taking them into consideration, says with regards to the protocols of verdicts and judiciaries: “The evidences by which the judge decides are seventeen; two witnesses, two witnesses and an oath, four [witnesses] in fornication, a witness and an oath and two women, an oath and a witness and a refusal to take an oath, two witnesses and a refusal to take an oath, an oath and a refusal to take an oath, four oaths in al-li‘ân, fifty oaths in al-qasâmah (compurgation^[31]), only two women concerning flaws related to women, only one oath if the two make counter oaths, and each of them is allotted based on their oath and admittal, the testimony of boys, al-qâfah (physiognomy), qumt al–heetân (the orientation of the rope ties in walls^[32]), and its signs, as well as al-yadd (possession). These are the evidences by which the judge decides. Everything else is not sufficient grounds according to our view, for they are doubtful and matters of scholarly disagreement.”^[33]

Notice that he mentioned al-qâfah, qumt al-heetân, and al-yadd, which are all examples of acting upon the qarâ’in.

Although the Hanafis are the strictest madh–hab in refusing consideration of the qarâ’in, you [still] find the verifier of their later scholars saying: “A judge’s method of reaching a verdicts varies depending on the various cases. In matters related solely to the rights of the slaves, the method basically revolves around claims and evidences. These are either clear proofs, or an admittal, or an oath, or a refusal to take an oath, or compurgation, or the judge’s preceding knowledge, or the clear qarâ’in that make a matter absolutely definite.”^[34]

Al-Jassâs tries to argue that their acting upon the qarâ’in was only for tarjeeh between the conflicting evidences, and says: “… and a sign is not proof… like when the spouses differ over the house’s furniture, when each of them was in possession of all of it, we deemed it to be for the one who had greater control and a more established possession… thus the qara’in validated here are additional to the proof of possession, not that the qareenah alone is sufficient for proof of ownership.”^[35]

We do not concede to the explanation of al-Jassâs, because the possession is established for both parties, and since they conflicted, they were both dropped, and the ruling was based on the qareenah^[36]. Furthermore, the instances when the Hanafis take the qarâ’in into consideration, in practice, are numerous indeed. Among them is their permitting the arrest of someone accused of murder, or other felonies, based on the surfacing of a [probable] sign. Another is the permissibility of an individual consummating with a woman, and considering her his bride, on the basis that she was handed to him on his wedding night – without that being confirmed via two trustworthy witnesses. Another is when two people differ over the ownership of a wall; it is allotted to whoever has his logs affixed on top of it. Another is when someone witnesses a filly following the horse of an individual, and nursing from it; he can testify that it [too] belongs to the owner of that horse. As well, the claim of someone to a property is not acknowledged if he witnessed his relative selling it to another, and remained silent. As well, the guest is allowed to eat from the food placed in front of him – without being expressly permitted.^[37]

If the Hanafis – who are the strictest regarding our discussion – act upon the qarâ’in in all these matters, then attributing non-consideration of the qarâ’in to the Islamic judiciary is clearly incorrect.

Therefore, the view that limits admissible evidences in all matters also cannot be attributed to the Islamic judiciary. Even those who limited them differed among themselves within the same school, atop the differences between the various schools which were even greater. Previously, we visited the statement of al-Qarâfi regarding the evidences, and he deemed them to be seventeen, while Ibn Rushd says: “Judicial verdicts are [based] upon four: testimony, oath, refusal to take an oath, admittal, or whatever originates from these.”^[38]

In [Qawâ‘id al-Fiqh], it was reported that Ibn Nujaym said: “Evidence is what can be used to qualify a claim, and it is either a legitimate proof, an admittal, an oath, a refusal to take an oath, a qasâmah, the judge’s preceding knowledge acquired after his appointment, a decisive qareenah, As stated in ‘Al-Ashbaah’.”^[39]

Perhaps this can be excused under the premise that they meant certain cases and not others, or they were speaking with brevity in some places and left elaboration for others. Regardless, it is clear that restricting the admissible evidences, in all cases, to what the Sharia stated explicitly or implicitly, was not their practice – even if some expressly stated otherwise.

Before we begin mentioning the proofs of those who advocate restricting the admissible evidences and not considering the qarâ’in, we must establish that some did limit the admissible evidences, but still acted upon the qarâ’in – even in the hudood – like the Mâlikis. This is because they were, in these cases, adopting the judicial verdicts of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them.^[40]

o       Fourthly: The Evidences of those who View Not Considering the Qarâ’in

1 – Legislation is only for Allah, and its methods are a part of it, so they must also be sanctioned by the Sharia. The Most High said: “The decision is only for Allah.” [al-An‘âm: 57]

2 – Ibn ‘Abbâs narrated that Hilâl ibn Umayyah accused his wife of committing adultery with Shareek ibn Sahmâ’ in front of the Prophet (saws), so the Prophet (saws) said: “The proof or the hadd [inflicted] upon your back.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah! If one of us finds a man atop his wife, he is to go search for proof?!” He (saws) kept saying: “The proof or the hadd [inflicted] upon your back.”^[41]

          The point of reference in this hadith is that he (saws) refused to accept anything but the proof; namely what was stated in the words of the Most High: “And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses…” [an-Noor: 4]

A possible response is that the man did not establish indisputable evidence for the truthfulness of his claim, and thus deserved the hadd. Another is that this is specific only to the hadd of fornication, due to the Legislator preferring concealment. Another is that this is specific only to the hadd punishments, because they are impeded by any [reasonable] doubt.

3 – Al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays said: “I owned a well in the land of one of my cousins, so I came to the Messenger of Allah (saws) [to claim it] and he said: ‘Your proof or his oath.’ I said: ‘In that case, then he will have no problem taking an oath, O Messenger of Allah,’ so the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: ‘Whoever swears a legal oath and is wicked therein, whereby he uses it to usurp a Muslim’s property, will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection while He is angry with him.’”^[42]

          The response here is that he had no evidence, and his testimony is no heavier than the testimony of his cousin; he did not bring any witnesses, nor any proof whatsoever for his claim. This differs from basing rulings upon the qarâ’in which at times are decisive.

4 – Al-Qâsim ibn Muhammad said: “When Ibn ‘Abbâs mentioned al-mutalâ‘inayn, ‘Abdullâh ibn Shaddâd said: ‘She is the one about whom the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: ‘Were I to stone a woman without proof?’ Ibn ‘Abbâs said: ‘No, that was another woman who showed [impropriety].’”^[43]

The point of reference is that stoning is not done without proof, even if there exists a qareenah indicating fornication. One can respond with the same responses from the hadith of Hilâl, and that the qareenah was weak, for it was mentioned in the narration of Ibn Mâjah. There, Ibn ‘Abbâs narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: “Were I to stone anyone without proof, I would have stoned So-and-so, for suspicious was apparent in her speech, in her appearance, and in those who entered upon her.”^[44] Appearance, speech, and foreigners entering upon a woman are all qarâ’in that are certainly weak in their indication of adultery.

5 – Ibn ‘Abbâs narrated: “A man drank until he was intoxicated, and was found stumbling in the streets, so he was carried to the Prophet (saws). As he passed the house of al-‘Abbâs, he slipped [from them] and entered upon al-‘Abbâs and grabbed hold of him [for protection]. This was mentioned to the Prophet (saws), so he laughed and said: ‘He [actually] did that?’ and did not command anything regarding him.”^[45]

The point of reference is not sentencing him to the hadd for it, despite the qareenah of intoxication. A possible response is that the qarâ’in of odor and vomiting, alongside the presence of intoxication, is stronger than intoxication alone. The stronger response is that which al-Hâfidh responded with by saying: “…and al-Qurtubi gathered, amidst the narrations, proof that [drinking] wine did not incur a hadd in the beginning, and in light of that can we understand the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbâs regarding the one who sought refuge with al-‘Abbâs. Then, ta‘zeer (discretionary punishment) was legislated for it, just like in the other hadith(s) which do not specify [a punishment], and then the hadd was legislated.”^[46]

6 – It was narrated that a man was brought forward after being found in an abandoned place carrying a blood stained knife in hand, and in front of him was a murder victim drenched in his own blood. He was questioned by ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and said: “I killed him.” ‘Ali said: “Take him away and kill him.” When they took him away, a man came running and said: “O people, do not rush. Return him to ‘Ali.” They returned him, and the man said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, he is not his killer. I killed him.” ‘Ali said to the first: “What made you say: “I killed him,” when you did not kill him?” He said: “O Ameer al–Mu’mineen, what else could I do when the night patrolmen came across his blood drenched body, and found me standing with a blood stained knife in hand? I was taken from an abandned place, and feared that my testimony would not be accepted and I would be subject to compurgation, so I confessed to what I had not done and anticipated [the reward for] my soul from Allah.” ‘Ali said: “What an awful thing you did. What is your story?” He said: “I am a butcher. I had proceeded to my butcher shop at dawn, slaughtered a cow, and skinned it. As I was preparing it, with knife in hand, my urge to urinate drove me to find an abandned placenearby, which I entered and relieved myself. As I was on my way to my butcher shop, I suddenly found this murder victim drenched in his blood. His appearance shocked me, causing me to remain staring at him with the knife in my hand. The next thing I realized were your men who stopped and grabbed me, and the people said: “He killed him. None else is his killer but him.” – so I became certain that you will not ignore their words for my words, so I admitted to a crime I did not commit.” Then, ‘Ali said to the second admitter: “And you – what is your story?” He said: “The devil tempted me, and I killed this man in hope of his wealth. Then I heard the night patrolmen, so I exited that abandned placeand found this butcher in the state which he described. I hid from him in a part of the that place until the patrolmen arrested him and brought him to you. But when you commanded that he be killed, I realized that I will be accountable for his blood as well, so I admitted the truth.” He said to al-Husayn: “What is the verdict in this?” He said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, although he killed a soul, he has [also] given life to a soul, and Allah – the Most High – has said: ‘And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.’ [al-Mâ’idah: 32]” So, ‘Ali released them both and paid the blood money for the victim from the state treasury.^[47]

The point of reference is that this story portrays the unreliability of what the jurists that act upon the qarâ’in would consider a decisive qareenah – for this man was arrested with a murder weapon in hand, while exiting the abandned placewhere the murder victim was. However, there is a discrepancy in this story. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “If this resolution occurred with the consent of the [victim’s] family, then there is no discrepancy. If this occurred without their consent, then the known view among the jurists is that qisâs (retribution) is not dismissed like that. This is because the criminal admitted what would necessitate it, and nothing existed that would dismiss it. Hence, upholding it becomes mandatory.”^[48]

The response to this story – if it’s authentic – lies in it being of the exceptionally rare happenings that no ruling can be based on. Were these taken into consideration, the welfare of the people would be at risk. Furthermore, it does not only assert the [potential] flaw in the qareenah, but also the [potential] flaw in admittals. Shall we then deem an admittal as unreliable? Likewise, the two witnesses could lie, so shall we then object to acting upon the testimony of two witnesses? Rather, this story benefits in highlighting the necessity of meticulous investigation, for spilling blood without due cause is of those matters which are unbefitting of the believers.

This opinion contains strictness, for the default is that his actions are an example to be followed, and the claim of them being specific [to the Messenger]^[49] requires evidence.

7 – ‘Alqamah ibn Wâ’il narrated, on the authority of his father, that: “A woman was raped by a man in the daybreak as she headed for the masjid. She screamed for a passerby man to help her, and her assailant fled. Then, she screamed for a group of passerby men to help her, and they chased down the man whom she had screamed to for help, while the other escaped. They dragged him to her, and he said: ‘I am the one who helped you; the other man escaped.’ They brought him to the Prophet (saws), and the man said: ‘I was only helping her against her assailant, but these people caught me [instead].’ She said: ‘He is lying. He is the one that pounced upon me.’ The Messenger of Allah (saws) said: ‘Take him and stone him.’ A man then stood and said: ‘Do not stone him. Stone me, for I was the culprit of this act against her,’ and admitted. The three were presented to the Prophet (saws); her assailant, her rescuer, and the woman. He (saws) said to her: ‘As for you, you have been forgiven,’ and said to the rescuer kind words. ‘Umar (ra) said: ‘Stone the one who admitted fornication.’ The Prophet (saws) refused and said: ‘No, for he has repented.’” In the narration of at-Tirmidhi, he (saws) commanded with his stoning, and said: “Stone him; he has repented such a [sincere] repentance that, were it repented by all of the people of Madinah, would have been accepted from them.”^[50]

          This narration is mudtarib (inconsistent), for it has two narrations: one reporting that it was commanded that he be stoned, and another reporting that this was not commanded. For this reason, Ibn al-Qayyim said: “The chain for this hadith conforms to the criteria of Muslim, and perhaps he left it out because of the inconsistency in its matn (text).”

Even if the hadith clears, those refusing to consider the qarâ’in are not more supported by it than those who view considering them – for he (saws) initially commanded that the man [rescuer] be stoned, despite nothing warranting that aside from obvious qarâ’in. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “This is an example of carrying out the hadd based on strong speculation, for he was caught while running fervently in front of the people, he admitted that he was present with the woman, he claimed that he was rescuing her, and the woman said: ‘That is him.’ This is strong speculation…”^[51]

Ibn al-‘Arabi viewed that the command to stone [him] was to facilitate discovering the truth, and did not permit it for other than the Messenger (saws).

8 – Stolen items could be found with the innocent, just like in the statement of the Most High: “So when he had furnished them with their supplies, he put the [gold measuring] bowl into the bag of his brother. Then, an announcer called out, ‘O caravan, indeed you are thieves.’” [Yoosuf: 69]

This is true, but the judge does not act upon the qarâ’in independently without turning to the context, the pretexts, the situation, and the related circumstances. If a powerful minister wishes, he could demand that ten witnesses that are not his relatives or supporters testify in his favor against his opponent.

9 – The people cannot be protected from the injustices of unfair rulers unless we limit the admissible evidences.

The response is that they will not be stranded for ways to loophole and commit injustice. For instance, acting upon the testimony of any two that are not known felons is very feasible for them. However, the judge’s verdict is not final. Rather, the matter could be escalated to those above him whenever there is obvious injustice, and his verdict could be annulled whenever it contradicts the clear texts, or consensus, or sound reasoning.

o       Fifthly: The Evidences of those who Advocate Considering the Qarâ’in

1 – The statement of the Most High: “And they brought upon his shirt false blood. [Jacob] said: ‘Rather, your souls have enticed you to something, so patience is most fitting. And Allah is the one sought for help against that which you describe.’” [Yoosuf: 18]

Ibn al-‘Arabi said: “Regarding the statement of the Most High: ‘And they brought upon his shirt false blood,’ they sought to use the blood as a sign of their truthfulness. However, it has been narrated in the Isrâ’iliyyât that Allah, the Most High, paired this sign with another sign that contradicts it; namely the shirt being intact and not torn. These conflicting evidences made it incumbent to seek preponderance, meaning the more probable truth, based on factors mentioned in the Qur’an. Of them was their requesting him (Yoosuf) out of compassion for him, though their actions did not support the believability of that, but rather had previously displayed the opposite by harboring animosity for him. Another of them is that the blood could have been placed upon the shirt. Another is the impossibility of a wolf attacking Yoosuf, as he wore this shirt, and yet the shirt remained intact. In this manner, the analyzer must take notice of the signs and indicators, and their inconsistency with one another.”^[52]

Al-Qurtubi said: “The jurists cited this verse as proof for acting upon the signs in juristic matters like al-qasâmah (compurgation) and the likes. They unanimously agree that Ya‘qoob, peace be upon him, considered the intactness of the shirt to be proof of them lying. In this same manner, the analyzer must take notice of the signs and indicators when they contradict one another. Whichever of them is preponderant, he must rule in favor of the preponderant, which isthe preponderance of the accusation, in this particular case. There is no disagreement in ruling based on this, as was said by Ibn al-‘Arabi.”^[53]

2 – The statement of the Most High: “And a witness from her family testified: ‘If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth, and he is of the liars. But if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the truthful.’” [Yoosuf: 26-27]

Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah bestow mercy on him) said: “It is understood from this verse the incumbency of ruling based on a clear qareenah that proves the truthfulness of a disputant and the dishonesty of another. Allah mentioning this incident, and that this qareenah was accepted as evidence for the innocence of Yoosuf, proves that ruling based on the likes of this is rightful and correct – for the shirt being torn from behind is clear evidence that he was fleeing from her, and that she was chasing after him and grabbing him from behind.”^[54]

The qareenah in this verse is neither indisputable nor decisive by itself. The woman could have resisted her servant’s wish to fornicate with her, then grabbed him from behind as he turned to escape. Another objection to this [evidence] was that the witness was an infant child, making his [miraculous] words the evidence and not the qareenah. Another objection to this [evidence] was it being from the legislations of those [nations] before us.

These objections were responded to by Dr. ‘Awad ‘Abdullâh, who said: “The qarâ’in were plenty and sufficient to acquit him of the accusation. As for the qareenah mentioned in the verse, it only came to supplement and further strengthen these qarâ’in. Of these qarâ’in which the tafseer scholars mentioned is that Yoosuf, peace be upon him, was known to be a servant, and a servant can never corner his master to this extent. As well, they found the woman having decorated herself in the best fashion, while Yoosuf, peace be upon him, did not appear adorned whatsoever. Furthermore, the long-term deamnor of Yoosuf, peace be upon him, was another proof vouching for his innocence… ” He responded to the second objection by saying: “It is unlikely that the witness was child, rather it was a man of wisdom. Were Allah to make a child utter, it would have sufficed for him to say: ‘She is lying,’ and the establishment of further proof would not have been necessary. Furthermore, the Most High said: ‘And a witness from her family testified…’ [Yoosuf: 26] – because this would be more deserving of believability with regards to the woman. Were he a child, it would be of no significance whether he was or wasn’t from her family… It was also said that there is no conflict between him being a child that spoke during infancy and between erecting a sign – for the child could speak, and turn their attention to the evidence they overlooked; namely the shirt.”^[55]

3 – Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (saws) said: “There were two women with whom were their two sons. A wolf came and snatched one of them, so a woman said to her companion: ‘He took your son.” The other said: ‘Rather, he took your son.’ They sought judgment from David, and he allotted him to the older [woman]. When they exited and met Sulaymân, the son of David, they informed him. He responded: ‘Bring me a knife so I may split him between the both of you,’ so the younger said: ‘No! May Allah have mercy on you; he is her son.’ In turn, he allotted him to the younger.”^[56] He used the fact that one was more compassionate than the other to assert her maternity.

4 – Ibn ‘Abbâs narrated that the Prophet (saws) said: “The unmarried woman has more right over herself than her guardian, and the permission of the virgin girl must be sought, and her silence is her permission.”^[57] Here, he deemed her silence to be a qareenah indicative of her consent.

5 – When Banu an-Nadeer was evacuated, the Messenger of Allah (saws) said to the paternal uncle of Huyay ibn Akhtab: “What happened to the [money] bag of Huyay which he brought from an-Nadeer?” He said: “It was depleted on the expenses and wars.” He said: “It was too recent, and the money far exceeded that [expenditure].” Then, the Messenger of Allah (saws) handed him to az-Zubayr who gave him a taste of punishment. Before that [event], he used to enter a deserted place, and said: “I used to see Huyay frequenting here.” They searched and found the bag in the deserted place…”^[58] The point of reference is that he would never give him a taste of punishment without being convinced that he was lying, which was based on the corroborative evidence (it being too recent, and the abundant wealth).

6 – Zayd ibn Khâlid al-Juhaniy narrated that a man asked the Messenger of Allah (saws) about al-Luqatah (a waif), and he said: “Announce it for one year, then take note of its bag and string before spending it. If its owner [ever] comes, then give it to him.”^[59] Here, he (saws) deemed that describing it was a [sufficient] qareenah indicating its ownership.

7 – ‘Abdur-Rahmân ibn ‘Awf said: “As I was standing in the rank on the Day of Badr, I looked to my right and my left, only to find myself between two young men from the Ansâr… The moment I saw Abu Jahl leaping between the people, I said: ‘Look! There is your companion whom you have asked about.’ At once, they leapt towards him, striking him with their swords until they killed him. Then, they went to the Messenger of Allah (saws) and informed him. He said: ‘Which of you killed him?’ Each of them said that they had killed him, so he said: ‘Have you wiped your swords?’ They said: “No,” so he looked at the two swords and said: ‘Both of you killed him.” Then, he allotted his spoils to Mu‘âdh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Jamooh, and the two men were Mu‘âdh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Jamooh and Mu‘âdh ibn ‘Afrâ’.”^[60]

The point of reference is that he allotted the spoils to the one whose sword was deeper in the body of Abu Jahl, and considered the blood upon it as evidence for it.

8 – He (saws) and his companions judged based on al-qâfah (physiognomy), and that is nothing more than a sign.

9 – ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, while sitting on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saws), said: “Indeed, Allah has sent Muhammad (saws) with the truth and sent the Book down upon him, and of what has been sent down upon him was the verse of stoning. We recited it and understood it, and thus the Messenger of Allah (saws) stoned, and we stoned after him. My fear is that the people will, ages later, find someone saying: ‘We do not find stoning in the Book of Allah,’ and thereby become misguided for leaving an obligation that has been revealed by Allah. In the Book of Allah, stoning is mandatory upon the man and woman who fornicate after marriage – if the proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or confession.”^[61]

This is an explicit, authentically reported statement about him, and his actions conformed identically with this as well. Pregnancy is only a sign that fornication has taken place, and ‘Umar knows the gravity of this hadd, for he was the one who applied the hadd of slander against three companions of Muhammad (saws) who testified, along with a fourth, to the occurrence of adultery, but then the fourth recanted his testimony^[62].

Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor narrated that ‘Uthmân was approached regarding a woman who gave birth in six months, so he commanded that she be stoned. Ibn ‘Abbâs said: “Bring me to him.” When they brought him, he said: “She can dispute you using the Book of Allah. Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, says: ‘Mothers may nurse their children two complete years,’ [al-Baqarah: 233] and says in another verse: ‘And his gestation and weaning [period] is thirty months.’^[63] [al-Ahqâf: 15] As a result, ‘Uthmân recanted it and acquitted her.^[64]

This hadith was authenticated by al-Hâfidh (may Allah bestow mercy on him), namely the narration of Ibn Wahb, and he mentioned the disagreement regarding who this incident happened with, whether it was ‘Umar or ‘Uthman, and whether the contention was by ‘Ali or Ibn ‘Abbâs; may Allah be pleased with them all^[65].

‘Abdur-Rahmân ibn Hâtib narrated, about his father (may Allah be pleased with him), that: “When he [Hâtib] died, those of his slaves that prayed and fasted were freed. He had a Nubian girl that used to pray and fast, though she did not comprehend Arabic, and nothing troubled him except her pregnancy. In a panic, he rushed to ‘Umar, and ‘Umar said to him: ‘You look like a man that is not coming with good [news].’ ‘Umar then sent to her: ‘Have you become pregnant?’ She said: ‘Yes; by Mar‘oosh for two dirhams,’ and admitted it openly. Present with ‘Umar was ‘Ali ibn Abi Tâlib, ‘Uthmân ibn ‘Affân, and ‘Abdur-Rahmân ibn ‘Awf, and he said to them: ‘Counsel me [on this].’ ‘Uthmân was seated but reclined into a laying position, so ‘Ali and ‘Abdur-Rahmân Ibn ‘Awf said: ‘The hadd has become incumbent upon her.’ He said: ‘O ‘Uthmân, counsel me [on this].’ He said: ‘Your two brothers have already counseled you.’ He said: ‘You counsel me.’ He said: ‘My view is that she admitted it openly, as if she did not know of it [being unlawful], while the hadd is only for those who know it.’ As a result, he commanded that she be flogged one hundred lashes, and exiled^[66].”^[67]

Someone may respond to these narrations with the fact that ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did not apply the hadd to every impregnated woman. ‘Abdur-Razzâq narrated, on the authority of Târiq ibn Shihâb, who said: “News reached ‘Umar about a woman of devout worship who had been impregnated, and he said: ‘My view is that she stood to pray at night, then upon her becoming humbled and prostrating, a wicked man pounced on her.” When she came to him, she informed him of exactly that, so he acquitted her^[68].

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated, on the authority of ‘Abdul-Malik ibn Maysarah, on the authority of an-Nazzâl ibn Sabrah, who said: “As we were in Mina with ‘Umar, we encountered a massive woman crying atop a donkey. The people almost killed her by overcrowding, and they were saying: ‘You fornicated!’ When she reached ‘Umar, he said: ‘What makes you cry?’ Perhaps you are a woman that was forced.’ She said: ‘I am a woman that sleeps heavy, yet Allah had enabled me to pray at night. One night, I prayed and slept, and by Allah, nothing woke me but the man that had straddled me. I looked at him while he was running away, but could not recognize which of the creation of Allah he was.’ ‘Umar said: ‘Were I to kill her, I fear that al-akhshabayn (two mountains surrounding al-Madinah) will engulf in flames.’ Then, he wrote to the provinces that no soul is to be killed, without his knowledge.”^[69]

The response for these two narrations is that the people have come to know that the impregnated woman that has no husband receives the hadd. ‘Umar only acquitted her of the hadd because of the doubt. However, the reply to this reply is that this doubt can be claimed by anyone!

Some may view limiting the signs to the hudood of wine and fornication, but why? These have been confirmed about the actions of the companions, but if there were decisive qarâ’in in other cases, they would have acted upon them as well, especially when warranting the hadd of fornication is more difficult than any other. Therefore, if we widened the circle of application to acting upon the qarâ’in in all the hudood, we would be in full agreement with the companions’ method – even though basing the ruling on the qarâ’in has only been confirmed about them in these two scenarios.

Finally, there remains the fact that hudood are inhibited by doubt, along with the view of the majority of the 4 madh-hab(s) which does not consider the qarâ’in in hudood cases. This presents a strong doubt to inhibit the hadd, but does not acquit of the accusation whenever it’s established by a definite qareenah, nor does it acquit of the appropriate punishment (less than the hadd) for this accusation.

This is regarding the qarâ’in which were not acted upon during the era of the companions. As for pregnancy, the smell of wine, and vomitting it, one’s conscience leans to following the companions in acting upon them, especially when there is none among them who objected to this practice. Still, these hudood are inhibited by the slightest doubt, like a woman being compelled in her sleep, in which case her claim should be accepted, especially if she was not suspect of wrongdoing – just as they did – may Allah be pleased with them.

10 – On the authority of as-Sâ’ib ibn Yazeed, may Allah be pleased with him, that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, may Allah be pleased with him, came out before them and said: “I detected upon So-and-so (‘Ubaydillâh, his son) the smell of drinking [wine], but he claims it is a non-intoxicating grape concentate. I am asking [you] about what he drank; if it intoxicates, I will flog him.” Consequently, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, may Allah be pleased with him, flogged him with the full hadd.^[70]

11 – Al-Waleed ibn ‘Uqbah was brought to ‘Uthmân ibn ‘Affân, and was testified against by Humrân and another man. One of them testified that he saw him drinking – meaning wine – and the other that he saw him vomiting it, so ‘Uthmân said: “He would not have vomited it unless he drank it.” Then, he commanded ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, to establish the hadd upon him…”^[71] This took place in the presence of the companions without any objection, and its likes were reported about ‘Umar – as we mentioned – and Ibn Mas‘ood.

12 – The jurists’ acting upon the qarâ’in:

The examples of scholars from the 4 madh-hab(s) acting upon the qarâ’in are innumerable, and we have already mentioned examples of the Hanafi jurists – who are the strictest of the madh-hab(s) with regards to considering the qarâ’in – to prove this point.

However, we should allude to the fact that they agree on the qareenah of possessing/bearing in hand^[72], a man accepting congrats and buying the necessities of childbirth as a qareenah of the child being from him, and a bride being handed over on the wedding day as a qareenah that she is his wife whom he contracted upon^[73]. As well, the majority accept the qareenah of usage^[74], suitability^[75], a mark on the body of the foundling, the place where s/he is found, [correctly] describing the waif^[76], the type of murder weapon to indicate it being deliberate^[77], the doors of a complex being open and the adhân being called in it to indicate its endowment as a mosque^[78], and much more.

13 – As for their logical proofs, their arguments are clearly stronger. There is nothing more comprehensive or beautiful, regarding this, than the statement of Imâm Ibn al-Qayyim: “Here is where feet have slipped, and understandings have strayed. It’s a miserable stance, and a difficult dilemma. Many have gone to extremes regarding it, and thereby disabled the hudood, caused rights to be lost, and emboldened the wicked towards corruption. They made the Sharia [seem] deficient, not upholding the welfare of the slaves, and needy of others. They impeded themselves from correct pathways that lead to knowing and enforcing the truth, and suspended them, despite them knowing, and others knowing, that this was the clear and evident truth – because of their assumption that it violates the principles of the Sharia. By Allah, it does not conflict with what the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, came with – even if it conflicts with their ijtihâd-based understanding of the Sharia… Allah, the Glorified, is more knowing, more wise, and more just than to limit the means, signs, and portents of justice to anything, then reject what is clearer than them, a stronger evidence, and a more vivid sign, and not include them among them, nor act upon them whenever they are found…”^[79]

o       Sixthly: The Most Preponderant View

          It appears that acting upon the qarâ’in is a matter that is unanimously agreed upon. Even the Hanafis and Shâfi‘is act upon them, though not in cases of hudood or qisâs. As well, their consideration of tangible and circumstantial qarâ’in is even more apparent, in addition to them expressly stating their acting upon those of them which are definite.

The evidences obviously favor acting upon the qarâ’in outside the realm of hudood or qisâs, especially in disputes related to the rights of the slaves. This is what must be adopted, for justice cannot be actualized without it, nor will the judiciary and law be intimidating without it – for the types of crimes are many, and their methods are not limited, rather they increase day after day. How then can we limit the admissible evidences and shackle the hands of the judges?

If we do not act upon tangible evidences, how can we deal with crimes on the internet? How can we dismiss forensic sciences and its tools which at times reach the degree of certainty in proving their claims, like the case with DNA, for instance?

As for the hudood and qisâs the qarâ’in must be acted upon in the criminal investigation phase to pressure the suspect^[80] and lure him in. If using the qareenah leads to a confession, then this confession becomes the evidence. But if the qareenah is definite, yet there is no proof that was qualified in the two revealed texts or in the actions of the companions, then the hadd is inhibited by the doubt, and the discretionary punishment is incurred as determined by the judiciary. This is because inhibiting the hadd does not necessitate refraining from the punishment altogether^[81], and this was only with the hudood because they are inhibited by any doubt, and most of them involve the rights of Allah, and these are based upon clemency.

As for [drinking] wine, judgment is made regarding it based on any definite qareenah, regardless of whether this qareenah was acted upon in the past or its equivalent. In such cases, the drinker incurs the hadd for it – due to the great harm it subjects the society to, and due to this being confirmed about a number of companions. Obviously, this is only when the accused does not defend himself against the hadd with a doubt^[82] that is acceptable to the judge.

As for the thief, he is liable if the stolen wealth is found with him, and is punished with a deterring punishment that is less than the hadd.

As for qisâs, the diyyah (blood-money) is judged regarding it, not death, due to the sanctity of blood, and a discretionary punishment is judged when the qareenah is strong – out of consideration for the right of the victim, and society.

Finally, it must be realized that widening the scope of ta‘zeer will enable the judges to deter the criminals whose methods of deviance and corruption on Earth have become various. Thus, ta‘zeer is of the rulings that change to suit the time, place, and circumstances. Regarding that, Ibn al-Qayyim says: “The second type [of rulings]: what changes based on the welfare incurred in that age, place, and circumstance – like the ta‘zeer punishments and their magnitude, type, and description. In such cases, the Legislator diversifies based on the welfare of the people. ”^[83]

Point 2: The Advancement of Forensic Medicine

Forensic medicine is a branch of medicine that specializes in dealing with cases where legal practitioners examine a medical element of interest^[84]. It serves the law and judiciary, and thus it was called forensic medicine, or judicial medicine in some places^[85].

Of the practices of forensic/judicial science is:

• Examining the accused to discover their mental condition and age^[86].
• Examining the injured victim to determine the cause of injury, its magnitude, and how seriously it affects the life of the victim.
• Examining the suspects to distinguish the criminal, and the extent of their involvement in the crime, by way of the tangible marks on the crime scene, or on their bodies and clothes^[87]. For instance, like finding the victim’s hair on the clothing of one of the suspects, or his fingerprints on the crime tool, or confirming the belonging of semen to the rapist by DNA testing.
• Performing autopsy (post-mortem examination) on the deceased to determine the cause of death, its time, the weapon used, etc^[88].

In recent times, forensic medicine has advanced astoundingly. It’s enough that identifying an individual, and recognizing him by his traces, is now possible by the following:

• Fingerprints; which are not identical between any two individuals, not even identical twins, so Glorified is the One who said: “Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips.” [al-Qiyâmah: 4]
• DNA prints; which are the most important, and most precise, method of identifying an individual.
• Semen; which is vital in proving rape and all other sexual crimes, and its DNA indicates to whom it belongs.
• Hair Analysis; which is done via rare elements found therein, or an analysis of the amino acids therein.
• Voiceprint Analysis; which are compared on computers for their precision.
• Eye-Print Analysis; which is extremely precise, and used in many airports around the world today.

By examining the deceased’s body, the forensic scientist can determine the murder victim’s age, and the approximate time of murder, via calculating the phases of stiffness, discoloration, decay, and putrefaction of the deceased^[89]. As well, they can determine the murder weapon, the direction of the strike, or how the bullet punctured the body, via examining the torn tissues, the width of the wound, the internal scarring. To some extent, they can even determine the distance from which the bullet was shot^[90].

The advancements that have taken place in forensic medicine are a natural result of the advancements in medicine at large. That which had been customarily seen as impossible in one age, like returning a severed limb to its place, has become a possibility today. Likewise, that which was never imagined in the fields of precisely identifying an individual, or discovering the details of a crime, has become a possibility today as a result of these remarkable advancements in medical technology and forensic medicine.

Point 3: The Effect that the Advancement of Forensic Medicine had with regards to Adillat al-Ithbât and Acting Upon Qarâ’in in the Islamic Judiciary

First of all, it should be emphasized that the revealed texts, the actions of the Messenger, and those of his companions all permit consideration of the qarâ’in. There is nothing from the revelation, nor the practices of the best generations, that has been established to clearly restrict the admissible evidences to specific methods.

In a time when the methods of crime are multitudinous, the ability to uphold justice via the advancement of criminal investigation tools, and admissible judicial evidences, was of the great favors of Allah upon the people. Of the most important of them was the incredible advancement of forensic medicine which leads to the detection of many crimes.

Refusal to consider these beneficial methods for the establishment of justice in the Islamic judiciary will reciprocate upon us with much harm in our communities – due to our inability to deter the criminals. Another harm which should not be overlooked is allowing the enemies to gloat over Islam and its people, and their criticism of the Islamic judiciary, and classifying it as a failure in maintaining the welfare of the peoples and lands. Of the greatest harms, rather the absolute greatest, is disinteresting the rulers and sultans in the Islamic judiciary – due to them seeing it incompatible with contemporary times. Consequently, they will turn to their made up policies and laws without referring back to the Sharia. This is exactly what happened in eras wherein blind following and stagnation were prominent, causing the rulers to govern with their policies and abandon the divine revelation – and by Allah, this is the epitome of divorcing the religion and renouncing one’s commitment to it.

Refusing to consider DNA in the determination of paternity, or at least deeming it like al-qâfiyah, is a matter that must be reconsidered. Indeed, flogging a raped woman that was falsely accused of fornication, while the rapist’s semen sits within her, and while science can confirm its belonging to him, is a disgrace in the face of the Muslims; one that the enemies see and gloat, and the Muslims see and lament.

The view that should be adopted is the consideration of qarâ’in and the basing of rulings on tangible evidences^[91], for nothing else suits our age, nothing else better conforms to the objectives of the Sharia, and nothing else is more supported by the texts of revelation.

Bibliography

1. Ad-Daw’ al-Lâmi‘ li Ahl al-Qarn at-Tâsi‘; a book authored by Shams ad-Deen Muhammad ibn ‘Abdir-Rahmân as-Sakhâwi – published by Manshoorât Dâr Maktabat al-Hayâh (Beirut).
2. Adwâ’ al-Bayân Fee Eedâh al-Qur’ân bil-Qur’ân; a book authored by Muhammad ibn al-Ameen ibn Muhammad ibn al-Mukhtâr al-Jakni ash-Shinqeeti – verified by Maktab Buhooth ad-Dirâsât, published by Dâr al-Fikr lit-Tibâ‘ah wan-Nashr (Beirut), 1415H/1995.
3. Ahkâm al-Qur’ân; a book authored by Abu Bakr, Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ar-Râzi al-Jassâs – verified by Muhammad as-Sâdiq Qamhâwi, published by Dâr Ihyâ’ at-Turâth al-‘Arabi, 1405H.
4. Al-Fatâwâ al-Kubrâ li Shaykh al-Islâm Ibn Taymiyah; a book authored by Ahmad ibn ‘Abdil-Haleem ibn Taymiyah al-Harrâni – prologued by Hasanayn Muhammad Makhloof, published by Dâr al-Ma‘rifah (Beirut).
5. Al-Furoo‘ wa Tas-heeh al-Furoo‘; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Muflih al-Maqdisi – verified by Hâzim al-Qâdi, published by Dâr al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut), 1418H, 1st Edition. This book discusses the differences within the Hanbali madh-hab, and al-Mirdâwi wrote at-Tas-heeh to correct what Ibn Muflih mistakenly attributed to the madh-hab.
6. Al-Furooq (aka Anwâr al-Burooq Fee Anwâ‘ al-Furooq Ma‘a al-Hawâmish); a book authored by Abu al-‘Abbâs Ahmad ibn Idrees as-Sanhâji al-Qarâfi – verified by Khaleel Mansoor, published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1418H/1998, 1st Edition.
7. Al-Insâf Fee Ma‘rifat ar-Râjih Min al-Khilâf ‘Alâ Madh-hab al-Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal; a book authored by Abu al-Husayn ‘Ali ibn Sulaymân al-Mirdâwi – verified Muhammad Hâmid al-Fiqi, published by Dâr Ihyâ’ at-Turâth al-‘Arabi (Beirut).
8. Al-Iqnâ‘ Fee Hall Alfâdh Abi Shujâ‘; a book authored by Muhammad ash-Shirbeeni al-Khateeb – verified by Maktab al-Buhooth wad-Dirâsat, published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut), 1415H. It is an explanation of Matn al-Ghâyah wat-Taqreeb, one of the primary Shâfi‘i texts written by al-Qâdi Abu Shujâ‘ Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Asfahâni al-‘Abadâni ash-Shâfi‘i (d. 593H).
9. Al-Jâmi‘ as-Saheeh al-Mukhtasar (aka Saheeh al-Bukhâri); a book authored by Muhammad ibn Ismâ‘eel al-Bukhâri – verified by Mustafâ Deeb al-Baghâ, published by Dâr Ibn Katheer wal-Yamâmah (Beirut), 1407H, 3rd Edition.
10. Al-Jâmi‘ li Ahkâm al-Qur’ân; a book authored by Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillâh ibn al-‘Arabi – published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut), 1st Edition.
11. Al-Mabsoot; a book authored by Sham al-A’immah Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Sahl as-Sarkhasi – published by Dâr al-Ma‘rifah (Beirut). In it, as-Sarkhasi (d. 483H) explained the book al-Kâfi, written by Abu al-Fadl al-Marwazi aka al-Hâkim ash-Shaheed (d. 344H), wherein he collected the books of the weightier narrated reports (al-Mabsoot waz-Ziyâdât, al-Jâmi‘ al-Kabeer was-Sagheer, and as-Siyar al-Kabeer was-Sagheer) by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybâni (d. 189H).
12. Al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah; a book authored by Wizârat al-Awqâf was-Shu’oon al-Islâmiyyah in Kuwait – published by Wizârat al-Awqâf al-Kuwaytiyyah (Kuwait).
13. Al-Mu‘jam al-Waseet; a book authored Majma‘ al-Lughah al-‘Arabiyyah – published by Maktabat ash-Shurooq ad-Dawliyyah (Cairo), 1426H, 4th Edition.
14. Al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrâ; a book authored by Mâlik ibn Anas – published by Dâr as-Sâdir (Beirut). It is a collection of questions and answers pertaining to juristic issues that were presented to Imâm Mâlik. They were collected and composed by ‘Abdis-Salâm Sa‘eed at-Tanookhi who was nicknamed Suhnoon (d. 240H), and he narrated them on the authority of ‘Abdir-Rahmân ibn al-Qâsim (d. 191H), on the authority of Imâm Mâlik ibn Anas.
15. Al-Mughni Fee Fiqh al-Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal ash-Shaybâni; a book authored by ‘Abdullâh ibn Ahmad ibn Qudâmah al-Maqdisi – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut), 1405H, 1st Edition. It is not restricted to the Hanbali madh-hab, but rather presents the disagreement within and beyond the madh-hab, along with the evidences and stronger views. Hence, it is a primary reference among the books of comparative fiqh, with no other book on this subject coming close to it.
16. Al-Muhallâ; a book authored by ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘eed ibn Hazm adh-Dhâhiri – verified by Lajnat Ihyâ’ at-Turâth al-‘Arabi, published by Dâr al-Âfâq al-Jadeedah (Beirut).
17. Al-Wajeez Fee at-Tibb al-‘Adli; a book authored by Wasfi Muhammad ‘Ali – published by Dâr al-Bayâriq and ad-Dâri ash-Shâmiyyah (Ammân), 1419H.
18. Asnâ al-Matâlib Fee Sharh Rawd at-Tâlib; a book authored by Zakariyyâ al-Ansâri – published by Dâr al-Kitâb al-Islâmi (Cairo). It is an explanation of Rawd at-Tâlib, one of the primary Shâfi‘i texts written by the celebrate scholar, Sharaf ad-Deen Ismâ‘eel ibn Abi Bakr ibn ‘Abdillâh al-Yemeni al-Muqri (d. 837H).
19. As-Siyâsah ash-Shar‘iyyah Fee Islâh ar-Râ‘i war-Ra‘iyyah; a book authored by Ahmad ibn ‘Abdil-Haleem ibn Taymiyah – published by Maktabat Ibn Taymiyah (Cairo), 1st Edition.
20. As-Sunan al-Kubrâ (aka Sunan an-Nasâ’i); a book authored by Sayyid Kisrawi Hasan Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb Abu ‘Abdur-Rahmân an-Nasâ’i – verified by ‘Abdul-Ghaffâr Sulaymân al-Bindâri, published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut), 1411H.
21. At-Ta‘reefât; a book authored by ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Jurjâni – verified by Ibrâheem al-Abyâri, published by Dâr al-Kitâb al-‘Arabi (Beirut), 1405H.
22. At-Tibb ash-Shar‘i was-Sumoom; a book authored by Jalâl al-Jâbiri – published by ad-Dâr al-‘Ilmiyyah ad-Dawliyyah lin-Nashr wat-Tawzee‘ and Dâr ath-Thaqâfah lin-Nashr wat-Tawzee‘ (‘Ammân), 2002.
23. At-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah Fee as-Siyâsah ash-Shar‘iyyah; a book authored by Shams ad-Deen Abu ‘Abdillâh Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayyoob ibn Sa‘d az-Zar‘i ad-Dimashqi – verified by Muhammad Jameel Ghâzi, published by Matba‘at al-Madani (Cairo).
24. Badâ’i‘ as-Sanâ’i‘ Fee Tarteeb ash-Sharâ‘i‘; a book authored by ‘Alâ’ ad-Deen al-Kâsâni – published by Dâr al-Kitâb al-‘Arabi (Beirut), 1982. This is one of the greatest Hanafi fiqh books, and is originally an explanation of the book Tuhfat al-Fuqahâ’ which belongs to the author’s teacher and father-in-law, ‘Alâ’ ad-Deen as-Samarqandi (d. 539H), and is itself an explanation of and rectification of some of the problematic issues in the book of al-Qudoori (d. 428H).
25. Bidâyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihâyat al-Muqtasid; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd al-Qurtubi – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut). This is a book on comparative fiqh by the Mâliki grandson of Ibn Rushd whereby he sought to explain the causes of disagreement and to develop the student of knowledge’s ability to perform ijtihâd.
26. Durar al-Hukkâm Sharh Majallat al-Ahkâm; a book authored by ‘Ali Haydar – verified and edited by the lawyer, Fahmi al-Husayni, and published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut).
27. Fatâwâ as-Subki; a book authored by Taqi ad-Deen, Abul Hasan ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdil-Kâfi as-Subki – published by Dâr al-Ma‘rifah (Beirut).
28. Fat-h al-Bâri Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhâri; a book authored by Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalâni – verified by Muhibb ad-Deen al-Khateeb, published by Dâr al-Ma‘rifah (Beirut).
29. Hâshiyat ad-Dasooqi ‘Alâ Sharh al-Kabeer; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Arfah ad-Dasooqi – verified by Muhammad ‘Ulaysh, published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut). In it, Muhammad ibn ‘Arfah ad-Dasooqi al-Misri (d. 1230H) explained ash-Sharh al-Kabeer which was written by ad-Dardeer (d. 1201H) and wherein he explained Mukhtasar al-Khaleel; one of the reliable Mâliki texts written by the esteemed scholar, Abu Muhammad Diyâ’ ad-Deen Khaleel ibn Is-hâq (d. 776H).
30. Hâshiyat Ibn ‘Âbideen (Hâshiyat Radd al-Muhtâr ‘Alâ ad-Durr al-Mukhtâr Sharh Tanweer al-Absâr); a book authored by Muhammad ibn Ameen ibn ‘Umar (aka Ibn ‘Âbideen) – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut), 1421H. This are footnotes on ad-Durr al-Mukhtâr, which is the explanation of the esteemed scholar, al-Haskafi (d. 1088H), of the book Tanweer al-Absâr, which was written by esteemed scholar, Ibn Tamirtâsh al-Ghazzi al-Hanafi (d. 1004H).
31. Hujjiyyat ad-Daleel al-Mâddi fil-Ithbât; a book authored by Shahâtah ‘Abdul-Muttalib Ahmad – unpublished; taken from Maktabat Buhooth Jâmi‘at al-Azhar (Cairo), Buhooth al-Mâjisteer #5425, 1417H. This was a study submitted to al-Azhar University, at the College of Sharia and Law, for a specialized [Master’s) degree in Islamic Jurisprudence.
32. I‘lâm al-Muwaqqi‘een ‘An Rabbil ‘Âlameen; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr az-Zar‘i (aka Ibn al-Qayyim) – verified by Tâhâ ‘Abdur-Ra‘oof Sa‘d, published by Dâr an-Nashr and Dâr al-Jeel (Beirut), 1973.
33. Ighâthat al-Lahfân Min Masâ’id ash-Shaytân; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Ayyoob az-Zar‘i ad-Dimashqi (aka Ibn al-Qayyim) – published by Dâr al-Ma‘rifah (Beirut), 1975.
34. Lisân al-‘Arab; a book authored by Muhammad ibn Majram ibn Mandhoor al-Afreeqi al-Misri – verified by Dâr Sâdir (Beirut), 1st Edition.
35. Mawsoo‘at al-Fiqh wal-Qadâ’ Fee at-Tibb ash-Shar‘i; a book authored by Shareef at-Tabbâkh and Ahmad Jalâl – published by al-Markaz al-Qawmi lil-Isdârât al-Qânooniyyah (Cairo).
36. Minah al-Jaleel Sharh ‘Alâ Mukhtasar Sayyid Khaleel; a book authored by Muhammad ‘Ulaysh – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut), 1409H. It is an explanation of Mukhtasar Khaleel; one of the reliable Mâliki texts written by the esteemed scholar, Abu Muhammad Diyâ’ ad-Deen Khaleel ibn Is-hâq ibn Moosâ ibn Shu‘ayb (d. 776H).
37. Mu‘jam Lughat al-Fuqahâ’; a book authored by Muhammad Rawâs Qal‘ah Ji – published by Dâr an-Nafâ’is (Beirut), 1416H.
38. Mughni al-Muhtâj Ilâ Ma‘rifat Alfâdh al-Minhâj; a book authored by Muhammad al-Khateeb ash-Shirbeeni – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut). It explains Minhâj at-Tâlibeen wa ‘Umdat al-Mufteen; one of the Shâfi‘i texts written by an-Nawawi (d. 676H) as an abridgement of al-Muharrar which was written by ar-Râfi‘i (d. 623H), which was taken from al-Wajeez that was written by al-Ghazâli (d. 505H), and that itself was an abridgement of his own work al-Baseet, which was an abridgement of Nihayât al-Matlab Fee Dirâyat al-Madh-hab by al-Juwayni (d. 478H).
39. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (al-Kitâb al-Musannaf fil-Ahâdeeth wal-Âthâr); a book authored by Abu Bakr ‘Abdillâh ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah al-Koofi – verified by Kamâl Yoosuf al-Hoot, published by Maktabat ar-Rushd (Riyadh), 1409H, 1st Edition.
40. Nidhâm al-Ithbât Fee al-Fiqh al-Islâmi; a book authored by ‘Awad ‘Abdullâh – published by Majallat al-Jâmi‘ah al-Islâmiyyah in Madinah, 1404H, 62nd Edition.
41. Qawâ‘id al-Ahkâm Fee Masâlih al-Anâm; a book authored by ‘Izz ad-Deen ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdis-Salâm – published by Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut).
42. Qawâ‘id al-Fiqh; a book authored by Muhammad ‘Ameem al-Ihsân al-Mujaddidi al-Barakati – published by as-Sadaf bi-Balshirz (Kurachi), 1407H. In it, some of the fundamental differences between the Imâm(s) of his Hanafi madh-hab were collected, alongside those between them and others, in addition to some juristic principles and definitions.
43. Saheeh Muslim; a book authored by Muslim ibn al-Hajjâj al-Qushayri an-Naysâboori – verified by Muhammad Fu’âd ‘Abdil-Bâqi, published by Dâr Ihyâ’ at-Turâth al-‘Arabi (Beirut).
44. Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel al-Khirashi; a book authored by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillâh al-Khirashi – published by Dâr al-Fikr lit-Tibâ‘ah (Beirut). In it, Mukhtasar al-Khaleel was explained; one of the reliable Mâliki texts written by the esteemed scholar, Abu Muhammad Diyâ’ ad-Deen Khaleel ibn Is-hâq ibn Moosâ ibn Shu‘ayb (d. 776H).
45. Sunan Abi Dâwud (verified by Mash-hoor); a book authored by Abu Dâwud Sulaymân ibn al-Ash‘ath as-Sijistâni al-Azdi – verified by Mash-hoor ibn Hasan Âl Salmân, its hadith(s) were graded by al-Albâni, and it was published by Maktabat al-Ma‘rifah (Riyad), 1st Edition.
46. Sunan Abi Dâwud; a book authored by Abu Dâwud Sulaymân ibn al-Ash‘ath as-Sijistâni al-Azdi – verified by Muhammad Muhyi ad-Deen ‘Abdil-Hameed, published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut).
47. Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubrâ; a book authored by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Moosâ al-Bayhaqi – verified by Muhammad ‘Abdil-Qâdir ‘Atâ, published by Maktabat Dâr al-Bâz (Mecca), 1414H.
48. Sunan an-Nasâ’i (as-Sunan al-Kubrâ); a book authored by Abu ‘Abdir-Rahmân Sayyid Kisrawi Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb an-Nasâ’i – verified by ‘Abdil-Ghaffâr Sulaymân al-Bindâri, published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1411H.
49. Sunan an-Nasâ’i (verified by Mash-hoor); a book authored by Abu ‘Abdir-Rahmân Sayyid Kisrawi Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb an-Nasâ’i – verified by Mash-hoor ibn Hasan Âl Salmân, its hadith(s) were graded by al-Albâni, and it was published by Maktabat al-Ma‘rifah (Riyad), 1st Edition.
50. Sunan at-Tirmidhi (verified by Mash-hoor); a book authored by Abu ‘Eesâ Muhammad ibn ‘Eesâ at-Tirmidhi as-Sulami – verified by Mash-hoor ibn Hasan Âl Salmân, its hadith(s) were graded by al-Albâni, and it was published by Maktabat al-Ma‘rifah (Riyad), 1st Edition.
51. Sunan Ibn Mâjah (verified by Mash-hoor); a book authored by Abu ‘Abdillâh Muhammad ibn Yazeed al-Qazweeni – verified by Mash-hoor ibn Hasan Âl Salmân, its hadith(s) were graded by al-Albâni, and it was published by Maktabat al-Ma‘rifah (Riyad), 1st Edition.
52. Sunan Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor; a book authored by Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor al-Khurâsâni – verified by Habeeb ar-Rahmân al-A‘dhami, published by ad-Dâr as-Salafiyyah (India), 1403H.
53. Tabsirat al-Hukkâm Fee Usool Aqdiyat Wa Manâhij al-Ahkâm; a book authored by Ibrâheem ibn Muhammad ibn Farhoon al-Ya‘muri – verified by Jamâl Mar‘ashali, published by Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah (Beirut), 1422H.
54. Tabyeen al-Haqâ’iq Sharh Kanz ad-Daqâ’iq; a book authored by ‘Uthmân ibn ‘Ali az-Zayla‘i – published by Dâr al-Kitâb al-Islâmi (Cairo), 1313H. In it, Kanz ad-Daqâ’iq was explained; one of the reliable Hanafi texts written by the esteemed scholar, Abul Barakât Hâfidh ad-Deen ‘Abdullâh ibn Ahmad ibn Mahmood an-Nasafi (d. 710H).
55. Talkhees al-Habeer Fee Ahadeeth ar-Râfi‘i al-Kabeer; a book authored Abul Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalâni – verified by as-Sayyid ‘Abdillâh Hâshim al-Yamâni al-Madani – published by al-Madeenah al-Munawarrah (Madinah), 1384H.
56. Tayseer at-Tahreer; a book authored by Muhammad Ameen (aka Ameer Bâdishâh – published by Dâr al-Fikr (Beirut).

[1] [Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubrâ] (10/252)

[2] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (4/1656)

[3] [Saheeh Muslim] (3/1336)

[4] See: [Lisân al-‘Arab] (11/248) by Ibn Mandhoor

[5] See: [Kashf al-Mukhaddirât] (1/123) by al-Ba‘li, [at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer] (1/66) by Ibn Ameer al-Hâj, [Irshâd al-Fuhool] (1/21) by ash-Shawkâni, and [Tayseer at-Tahreer] (3/276) by Ameer Bâdashâh.

[6] [al-Mu‘jam al-Waseet] (p. 93)

[7] [at-Ta‘reefât] (1/23) by al-Jurjâni

[8] [Mu‘jam Lughat al-Fuqahâ’] (p. 20) by Qal‘aji Waqeeni

[9] [at-Ta‘reefât] (1/223) by al-Jurjâni

[10] See: [Nidhâm al-Ithbât fil-Fiqh al-Islâmi] by Dr. ‘Awad ‘Abdullâh, [Majallat al-Jâmi‘ah al-Islâmiyyah] (Volume 62, p. 119), [at–Turuq al-Hukoomiyyah fil-Qarâ’in ka-Waseelat Ithbât Shar‘iyyah] by Dr. Hasan ibn Muhammad, and [Majallat Majma‘ al-Fiqh al-Islâmi] (3/323).

[11] [Durar al-Hukkâm] (4/484) by Haydar.

[12] See: [Hujjiyyat ad-Daleel al-Mâddi fil-Ithbât; Dirâsah Muqârinah Bayn al-Fiqh al-Islâmi wal-Qânoon al-Jinâ’i al-Misri] (p. 13) by Shahâtah ‘Abdul-Muttalib Ahmad.

[13] [Majallat Majma‘ al-Fiqh al-Islâmi; al-Qarâ’in fil-FIqh al-Islâmi ‘alâ Daw’ ad-Dirâsât al-Qânooniyyah al-Mu‘âsirah] (3/47) by the consultant, Muhammad Badr al-Minyâwi.

[14] See his books: [I‘lâm al-Muwaqqi‘een] and [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah]

[15] See the two previous books, in addition to [al-Insâf] (10/233) by al-Mirdâwi, [al-Furoo‘] (6/85) by Ibn Muflih, and [as-Siyâsah ash-Shar‘iyyah] (p. 136) by Ibn Taymiyah

[16] See his book: [Tabsirat al-Hukkâm fee Usool al-Aqdiyah wa Manâhij al-Ahkâm]; the second section – regarding the types of evidences

[17] He was Abu al-Yusr, Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Khaleel, and was known as Ibn al-Ghars. He was a virtuous Hanafi scholar that was born in Cairo during the year 833H. He performed Hajj, and visited the Prophetic Mosque several times, and ??? in Mecca. He was superbly intelligent, and as-Sakhâwi used to criticize him for his infatuation with chess. He died in Cairo during the year 893H, and of his books were: [al-Fawâkih al-Badriyyah fil-Aqdiyah al-Hukmiyyah], [Risâlah fee at-Tamânu‘], and [Sharh at-Taftazâni lil-‘Aqâ’id an-Nasafiyyah]. Review his biography in: [ad–Daw’ al-Lâmi‘] (5/220).

[18] See: [Hâshiyat Ibn ‘Âbideen] (5/354)

[19] [Mu‘een al-Hukkâm] (p. 166) by at–Trâbulsi

[20] [Tabsirat al-Hukkâm] (2/121) by Ibn Farhoon

[21] [al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah] (1/244)

[22] [al-Furooq ma‘a Hawâmishih] (4/138) by al-Qarâfi

[23] [Ahkâm al-Qur’ân] (4/386) by al-Jassâs

[24] [Majallat Majma‘ al-Fiqh al-Islâmi; at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fil-Qarâ’in ka-Waseelat Ithbât Shar‘iyyah] (3/350) by Dr. Hasan ibn Muhammad Safar

[25] See: [Tabyeen al-Haqâ’iq] (3/196) by az-Zayla‘i , and [Radd al-Muhtâr] (4/40) by ibn ‘Âbideen

[26] See: [al-Iqnâ‘ fee Hall Alfâdh Abi Shujâ‘] (2/533) by ash-Shirbeeni, [Mughni al-Muhtâj] (4/190) by ash-Shirbeeni, and [Asnâ al-Matâlib] (4/130) by al-Ansâri

[27] [al-Mughni] (9/138) by Ibn Qudâmah, and [al-Insâf] (10/233) & (10/199) by al-Mirdâwi

[28] [Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel](8/109) by al-Kharashi, [Hâshiyat ad-Dasooqi] (4/353), [Minah al-Jaleel] (9/352) by Shaykh ‘Ulaysh, and [al-Mudawwanah; Ajwibat Mâlik bi Riwâyat Sahnoon] (16/209)

[29] See: [al-Insâf] (10/233) by al-Mirdâwi, [al-Furoo‘] (6/85) by Ibn Muflih – regarding the accused not acquitting himself of the hadd with a [reasonable] doubt, and [as-Siyâsah ash-Shar‘iyyah] (p. 136)

[30] See: [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] and [I‘lâm al-Muwaqqi‘een] – the chapters dealing with acting upon the qarâ’in

[31] A large group of people taking an oath to establish the liability of someone.

[32] Through which it could be told who the owner of the wall is. That is the one who has those ties on his side of the wall.

[33] [al-Furooq ma‘a Hawâmishih] (4/189)

[34] [Hâshiyat Ibn ‘Âbideen] (5/354)

[35] [Ahkâm al-Qur’ân] (4/386) by al-Jassâs

[36] That is any sign making one of the parties more entitled to the piece of furniture, such as giging the sewing kits to the wife and axes to the husband.

[37] See: [Durar al-Hukkâm] (4/485-487) by Haydar

[38] [Bidâyat al-Mujtahid] (2/346) by Ibn Rushd

[39] [Qawâ‘id al-Fiqh] (1/26) by al-Mujaddidi al-Barakti

[40] Thus, they widened the circle of admissible evidences, stated in the shari’a, to those acted upon by the companions.

[41] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (2/949)

[42] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (6/2458)

[43] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (6/2513)

[44] [Sunan Ibn Mâjah] (2/855)

[45] [Sunan Abu Dâwud] (4/162)

[46] [Fat-h al-Bâri] (12/72) by Ibn Hajar

[47] [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] (1/83) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[48] [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] (1/84) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[49] [‘Âridat al-Ahwidhi bi-Sharh Sunan at-Tirmidhi] (6/237) by Ibn al-‘Arabi

[50] [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] (1/84) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[51] [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] (1/84) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[52] [Ahkâm al-Qur’ân] (3/40-41) by Ibn al-‘Arabi

[53] [Ahkâm al-Qur’ân] (9/150) by al-Qurtubi

[54] [Adwâ’ al-Bayân] (2/215-216) by Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti

[55] [Nidhâm al-Ithbât fil-Fiqh al-Islâmi] by Dr. ‘Awad ‘Abdullâh – from [Majallat al-Jâmi‘ah al-Islâmiyyah bil-Madeenah] (62/119-145), 1404H.

[56] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (3/1260), [Saheeh Muslim] (3/1344)

[57] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (6/2556), [Saheeh Muslim] (2/1037)

[58] [Fat-h al-Bâri] (7/479)

[59] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (5/2265), [Saheeh Muslim] (3/1348)

[60] [Saheeh Muslim] (3/1372)

[61] [Saheeh al-Bukhâri] (6/2503), [Saheeh Muslim] (3/1317)

[62] [Musannaf ‘Abdir-Razzâq] (7/384) – Four had testified against al-Mugheerah ibn Shu‘bah concerning adultery, but when Ziyâd recanted, ‘Umar carried out the hadd against the [other] three.

[63] By subtracting two years from thirty month, the period of pregnancy could be down to six months. In such case, the child may survive without heroic medical interventions.

[64] [Sunan Sa‘eed ibn Mansoor] (2/93)

[65] See: [Talkhees al-Habeer] (3/219) by Ibn Hajar

[66] In such cases, ta‘zeer is warranted since the conditions for the hadd are not met.

[67] [al-Muhallâ] (11/184) by Ibn Hazm

[68] [Musannaf ‘Abdur-Razzâq] (7/409)

[69] [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah] (5/512)

[70] [Sunan an-Nasâ’i al-Kubrâ] (3/238)

[71] [Sunan Abu Dâwud] (4/163)

[72] See: [Tabyaan al-Haqâ’iq] (4/295) by az-Zayla‘i, [al-Mabsoot] (7/172) by as-Sarkhasi, [Fatâwâ as-Subki] (1/333), and [Qawâ‘id al-Ahkâm] (2/119) by al-‘Izz

[73] See: [Durar al-Ahkâm] (4/485-487), and upon this they unanimously agree, as per [al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah] (33/157-158)

[74] So whoever is riding an animal is more rightful than the holder of its reins, and whoever digs a well in a home is more rightful to it. See: [al-Mabsoot] (5/215), (17/87), and (17/90) by as-Sarkhasi, [Durar al-Ahkâm] (4/485-487) by Haydar, [al-Mughni] (4/327) and (10/274) by Ibn Qudâmah, and [al-Qawâ‘id al-Fiqhiyyah] (2/119) by al-‘Izz

[75] The woman is more qualified with regards to what pertains to women, if she and her husband dispute over the furniture of the house. See: [Durar al-Ahkâm] (4/485-487), [al-Furooq] (3/274) by al-Qarâfi, and [al-Mughni] (10/272,273) by Ibn Qudâmah.

[76] See: [Badâ’i‘ as–Sanâ’i‘] (6/253) by al-Kâsâni, [al-Qawâ‘id al-Fiqhiyyah] (2/119) by al-‘Izz, [al-Mabsoot] (17/130) by as-Sarkhasi

[77] See: [al-Mabsoot] (26/64) by as-Sarkhasi, [Asnâ al-Matâlib] (4/2) by al-Ansâri, and [al-Insâf] (9/436) by al-Mirdâwi

[78] See: [al-Mughni] (5/351) by Ibn Qudâmah

[79] [at–Turuq al-Hukmiyyah] (1/19) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[80] He may also be struck, if he is accused of being the culprit, according to some. See: [al-Fatâwâ al-Kubrâ] (4/228) by Ibn Taymiyah

[81] See the jurists’ view regarder ta‘zeer in [al-Muhallâ] (11/401), [Thuboot ad-Diyyah Doon al-Qiwad] in [Mughni al-Muhtâj] (4/118), and [al-Mughni] (8/403) by Ibn Qudâmah.

[82] Ibn Muflih said in [al-Furoo‘] (6/85): “And this was the choice of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen if no doubt remains,” and we will explain that this is now replaced with investigation.

[83] [Ighâthat al-Lahfân Min Masâ’id ash-Shaytân] (1/330) by Ibn al-Qayyim

[84] [al-Wajeez Fee at–Tibb al-‘Adli] (p. 9) by Wasfi Muhammad ‘Ali

[85] [at–Tibb ash-Shar‘i was-Sumoon] (p. 11) by Jalâl al-Jâbiri

[86] [Mawsoo‘at al-Fiqh wal-Qadâ’ Fee at–Tibb ash-Shar‘i] (1/10-11) by Shareef at–Tabbâkh & Ahmad Jalâl

[87] Ibid

[88] [at–Tibb ash-Shar‘i was-Sumoon] (p. 12) by Jalâl al-Jâbiri

[89] [Mawsoo‘at al-Fiqh wal-Qadâ’ Fee at–Tibb ash-Shar‘i] (1/235-244) by Shareef at–Tabbâkh & Ahmad Jalâl

[90] [al-Wajeez Fee at–Tibb al-‘Adli] (p. 83-89) by Wasfi Muhammad ‘Ali , and [Mawsoo‘at al-Fiqh wal-Qadâ’ Fee at–Tibb ash-Shar‘i] (1/196-221) by Shareef at–Tabbâkh & Ahmad Jalâl

[91] While being extra cautious with hudood and qisas – as we aforementioned.