SHARIAsource

This is a reference to an alleged meeting that took place between Abū Ḥanīfa (the eponym of the Ḥanafī school) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq in the presence of the Abbasid caliph Manṣūr (r. 136-58) where Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledges Jaʿfar as being the most knowledgable person in religious law. Hossein Modarressi employs this reference to show how other Muslim scholars recognized Jaʿfar's mastery of Islamic law.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to an alleged meeting that took place between Abū Ḥanīfa (the eponym of the Ḥanafī school) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq in the presence of the Abbasid caliph Manṣūr (r. 136-58) where Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledges Jaʿfar as being the most knowledgable person in religious law. Hossein Modarressi employs this reference to show how other Muslim scholars recognized Jaʿfar's mastery of Islamic law.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to an alleged meeting that took place between Abū Ḥanīfa (the eponym of the Ḥanafī school) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq in the presence of the Abbasid caliph Manṣūr (r. 136-58) where Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledges Jaʿfar as being the most knowledgable person in religious law. Hossein Modarressi employs this reference to show how other Muslim scholars recognized Jaʿfar's mastery of Islamic law.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to an alleged meeting that took place between Abū Ḥanīfa (the eponym of the Ḥanafī school) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq in the presence of the Abbasid caliph Manṣūr (r. 136-58) where Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledges Jaʿfar as being the most knowledgable person in religious law. Hossein Modarressi employs this reference to show how other Muslim scholars recognized Jaʿfar's mastery of Islamic law.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

Represents North Africa under Muslim rule in the 10th century CE, where the Mālikī school proliferated.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the print edition al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Royal Moroccan Edition: The Recension of Yaḥyā Ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (Harvard Series in Islamic Law), edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel and Connell Monette (PIL/HUP, 2019).

The plaintiffs were the biological children of the deceased, who had died on 10 April 1979. The wife of the deceased had also passed away on 25 June 2012. The deceased was his parents' only son, and his parents, the plaintiffs' grandparents, had passed away in 1980 and 1992. The deceased had left behind eight parcels of land, including:

1. a house;
2. four rice paddies, upon one of which was a shophouse, built by the second co-defendant and purchased by the first co-defendant, and a restaurant;
3. two durian plantations; and
4. another parcel of land.

The defendant, who was the plaintiffs' great uncle (younger brother of their deceased grandmother), controlled all eight parcels of land because, at the time of the death of the deceased, the plaintiffs were still in primary school (sekolah dasar). The plaintiffs submitted that the defendant was not a legitimate beneficiary because the deceased was the sole son of the original owner of all eight parcels of land, and they were his children. Furthermore, the first and second co-defendants enjoyed no right of inheritance over the rice paddy with the shophouse and restaurant as the plaintiffs had never sold to either of them the land or any part thereof. Moreover, the first co-defendant knew the right owner of the land, and knew that the plaintiffs were the children of the deceased.

The plaintiffs, therefore, sought a determination from the court that they were the true owners of the eight parcels of land. The defendant and two co-defendants refuted the plaintiffs' submissions, submitting that the house had actually belonged to the defendant's father, and that the the rice paddy on which the shophouse and restaurant were situated had been inherited by the defendant and first co-defendant, who had lawfully sold a part thereof to the second co-defendant. The defendant and two co-defendants also submitted that they had no connection whatsoever to the other parcels of land.

In dismissing the plaintiffs' application, the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish their claim to the relevant parcels of land. The court also ordered the court bailiff to lift the caveat over the relevant parcels of land.

This amicus brief was filed before the Supreme Court concerning the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It was submitted by over 50 faith based organizations, including Muslim Advocates, a Muslim American organization. It argues that abortion is permitted under certain circumstances until approximately 19-20 weeks gestation by many schools of Islamic thought. It cites various scholars of Islamic law to say that, among Muslims, "there is no universally agreed-upon moment when a fetus becomes a person,” however "the predominant view is that a fetus acquires personhood 120 days from conception.”

This is a reference to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq's position on recognizing the validity of the rules of other religions, such as marriage among the Magians, for example. Hossein Modarressi cites this reference as an example of one of the legal presumptions of al-Ṣādiq's legal school: the rule of recognition.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to a report by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq that holds the original call to prayer (adhān) to have included a call to "the best of acts" (ḥayya ʿalā khayr al-ʿamal). Hossein Modarressi cites this report as an example of one of the differences between the legal legacy of the House of the Prophet and other legal schools with respect to cases concerning prayer.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to the disagreements of the early jurists and various schools on the question of liability if one's riding animal hits another person. Hossein Modarressi cites this source to present a comparison between these views and that of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, which restricted liability to the case of the animal hitting another person with its forelegs, not hind legs. 

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

In the Introduction to Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law, Hossein Modarressi introduces the topic of his study: the early development of the Jaʿfarī Islamic legal school. Modarressi notes that the Jaʿfarī school emerged in the late Umayyad period (i.e., the first half of the second Islamic century/mid-eighth century CE) and its eponym was Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), a preeminent jurist of Medina and a revered member of the House of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt). Over the course of the Introduction, Modarressi draws on various sources to show how Imam al-Ṣādiq was revered by many as a leading jurist during his time. Modarressi notes that his project utilizes “all material that corresponds to the language and character of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, as known through both historical and biographical accounts, and as such can reasonably be deemed reliable,” without regard to sectarian tendencies and doctrinal affiliations (p. 11).

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

In his collection of biographies of judges and governors in the early Islamic empire, the historian Kindī (d. 350/961) provides a history of qāḍīappointments in Egypt. His entry for Isḥāq b. al-Furāt contains several anecdotes, one of which indicates that Isḥāq was the first non-Arab of mawlābackground (tribal client or associate) to be appointed to the position of qāḍī; the appointment took place in 184/800. Kindī’s accounts suggest that in spite of his foreign status, Isḥāq was well regarded by his contemporaries, who recommended him for the position because of his astute scholarship of Islamic law and his mastery of the Arabic language. Moreover, he was deemed one of the most important associates of Mālik b. Anas, the founder of one of the four principal Sunnī schools of law. In his chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Mahmood Kooria uses this source to demonstrate the growing presence of non-Arab qāḍīs in early second/ninth-century Egypt. Nonetheless, the language spoken and used by these mawālī was Arabic, minimizing translation challenges within a Arab-dominated judicial system.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

This is a reference to the opinion that held to the continuing legality of mutʿa in the first century and the first half of the second century of Islam, represented by Ibn ʿAbbās and the school of Mecca, which was also held by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Hossein Modarressi cites this reference to make the case that mutʿa was considered to be lawful and established by the Qurʾān and the Prophetic Sunna in the legal legacy of the House of the Prophet.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022). 

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts from Kindī’s book on governors and judges demonstrate that the appointment of a Ḥanafī judge in a traditionally Mālikī region such as Egypt could have serious repercussions on social life. In the case described by Kindī, Ismāʿīl b. al-Yasaʿ al-Kindī, a Ḥanafī of Iraqi origin, was appointed as judge in Egypt, where the population was not accustomed to this school of law and disliked it. Ismāʿīl al-Kindī adopted an oppressive attitude toward the population and abolished endowments (aḥbās). According to Kindī, the jurist Layth b. Saʿd confronted the judge about this decision and informed the caliph al-Mahdī, who promptly removed the qāḍīin response to Layth’s accusation that Ismāʿīl al-Kindī was harming the Sunna of the Prophet. In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour uses this source to illustrate the tensions between judges and jurisconsults belonging to different legal schools.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts fromKindī’s (d. 350/961) book on governors and judges, which correspond to excerpts from Ibn Ḥajar’s Rafʿ al-iṣr,recount an anecdote about the Egyptian judge Bakkār b. Qutayba, a Ḥanafī native of Basra, who was appointed qādīof Cairo by the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 246/860. While heading to Egypt, Bakkār met Muḥammad b. Abī Layth, who was returning from Egypt to Iraq. The former asked the latter for advice on individuals whom he might consult and rely on in his new city, of which he knew nothing. Ibn Abī Layth mentioned the names of Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā and Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim. Upon his first meeting with Bakkār, Yūnus was able to persuade him to change his stance on a case of inheritance law disputed between the Mālikīs and the Ḥanafīs, known as “the house of the elephant.” In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour cites this passage as an example of cooperation across legal schools in the field of adjudication, with jurisconsults being chosen not on the basis of school affiliation but on the strength of their trustworthiness and their grasp of local laws and customs.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

These excerpts fromKindī’s (d. 350/961) book on governors and judges, which correspond to excerpts from Ibn Ḥajar’s Rafʿ al-iṣr,recount an anecdote about the Egyptian judge Bakkār b. Qutayba, a Ḥanafī native of Basra, who was appointed qādīof Cairo by the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 246/860. While heading to Egypt, Bakkār met Muḥammad b. Abī Layth, who was returning from Egypt to Iraq. The former asked the latter for advice on individuals whom he might consult and rely on in his new city, of which he knew nothing. Ibn Abī Layth mentioned the names of Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā and Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Qāsim. Upon his first meeting with Bakkār, Yūnus was able to persuade him to change his stance on a case of inheritance law disputed between the Mālikīs and the Ḥanafīs, known as “the house of the elephant.” In her chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Nahed Samour cites this passage as an example of cooperation across legal schools in the field of adjudication, with jurisconsults being chosen not on the basis of school affiliation but on the strength of their trustworthiness and their grasp of local laws and customs.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of primary sources and other material used in and related to the book.

In his work entitled al-Ashbāh wa-l-Naẓāʾir, Ibn Nujaym (d. 969/1563), examines similar historical legal cases and fatwas through collecting substantive legal canons and interpretive legal canons that “distinguish, explain, and guide varied outcomes in cases with seemingly similar facts.” As a principal work authored early in the Ottoman Era collecting legal canons in Ḥanafī law, Muslim jurists of many schools frequently reference his work. For example, drafters of the Ottoman Code of 1869, also known as the Mecelle, primarily relied on this work to select 99 legal canons to preface a new commercial code based on Ḥanafī law that would both modernize and reform Ottoman law based on traditional or classical Islamic legal norms, through reference to legal canons.

For more, view the full print edition or see Intisar Rabb, Doubt in Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press 2015) and “Experiments in Tracking Canons across the Mecelle” (Islamic Law Blog, March 16, 2022).

In April 2022 [1443 AH], the Dār al-ʿUlūm al-Sharʿiyya press published The Islamic Emirate and Governmental System, authored by the Chief Justice of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, ʿAbd al-Ḥākim al-Ḥaqqānī, with a foreword by the current Taliban head, Hibatullāh Akhunzāda. The book was published in Arabic, with the intention of reaching a broad Muslim audience, beyond Afghanistan. The 312-page book discusses governance, education, laws of war (jihād), political leadership, education, and the rights and roles of women. The book opens by stating that, following the withdrawal of American-allied forces from Afghanistan, the goal of the new Islamic State is the implementation of divine law in accordance with Islamic law generally and Hanafī jurisprudence specifically. This book claims to be a manifesto encompassing the political and governance policies of the Taliban, even though it definitely represents the beliefs of al-Ḥaqqānī and his allies, rather than the philosophy of the entire Taliban movement—which has some internal variation. The book's principal assertions follow.

The book begins by defining two types of government: al-jabāya and al-hidāya. Al-jabāya refers, essentially, to the levying of taxes, while al-hidāya refers to religio-moral guidance. The author maintains that an Islamic government should be one of al-hidāya, where the government serves the role of providing advice and guidance to the people, rather than al-jabāya, wherein a government exploits the poor for the personal gain of government officials. Under a government of al-hidāya, the author asserts that the legitimate form of law is divine, not man-made.

The book acknowledges several sources of sharīʿa. Those sources include but are not limited to the Qur’ān, the ḥadīth (prophetic reports), qiyās (deductive analogical reasoning), ijmā‘ (scholarly consensus), and khayr (benevolence).

The book further establishes that the justice system of the Islamic Emirate should be in accordance only with Hanafī jurisprudence, and that no credence should be given to other schools of Islamic law that are and have historically been minoritarian in Afghanistan. The author asserts that accommodations made for religious minorities will lead to the justice system falling apart, as in the Ottoman Empire.

According to the author, citizens of the Islamic Emirate may continue to adhere to local customs (in Afghanistan: Pashtunwali or the code of the Pashtun people). Such customs may be upheld so long as they do not conflict with sharīʿa and may include wearing traditional Afghan clothes.

The head of the global Islamic state, the book asserts, should be called the Amīr al-Mu’minīn and should be appointed according to the same methods used in selecting the first Four Rāshidūn Caliphs after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad: through the formation of a council of influential and prominent people, not through democracy, which the author considers un-Islamic. Obedience to the Amīr al-Mu’minīn by the entire Islamic world is mandatory, the author asserts, and disobedience is punishable by death. As to criteria for leadership, the author maintains that the Amīr must be a man, and that women are to stay home and avoid participation in politics, for fear that their participation would compromise the political state.

The book discusses the various political institutions that form the Islamic Emirate: a Council of Ministers, the Armed Forces, and a Judiciary. It also calls for the creation of an all-male legislative body known as the Islamic Council.

On education, the book maintains that the educational system should include mandatory education in madrasas, and optional non-Islamic education. The author states that a co-educational system is forbidden (ḥarām), but that education of women itself is not necessarily prohibited (ḥarām). According to the author, a woman’s education should occur within the home and should be carried out by her family members. Further, he maintains that women should pursue careers that are suitable for them, such as medicine, caretaking, home sciences, and teaching; and they are to interface only with other women and girls in those professions.

The book specifically discusses women’s roles in society. It requires women to fully cover themselves in ḥijāb and stipulates that they should not engage in any pursuit that would require them to be alone for longer than three days. Finally, the author notes that women should not travel long distances without a male guardian, and that they should not unnecessarily leave their residences.

Overall, the book’s claims are seldom backed with references, and the sources employed by the author are not listed.