KR

Now, if some Hanafi still insists on a charitable take on such attributions by Quduri or Sarakhsi (of which he has dozens in al-Mabsut), then be careful what you wish for - you just might get it. Just look at what they're discussing here. They're discussing a Hanafi taking from a non-Hanafi, or - mortifyingly enough - going to the Hadith directly. The former results in Kaffarah being eliminated in the case of cupping. The latter - according to Jassas but also the narration ascribed by Sarakhsi to Muhammad (and by Kasani to Hasan ibn Ziyad in بدائع الصنائع) - also results in the same. Why is this an issue? Because it violates the golden calf of Taqlid Shakhsi, of course, as they all consider a Hanabli Mufti's fatwa for this Hanafi layman to be strong enough to mitigate expiation. While discussing this, nobody every reprimanded this Hanafi layman for having approached the Hanbali Mufti (or the Hadith) directly. They discuss it in a formalistic way and move on.

هذا مبني على أن الإفطار بالحجامة على خلاف القياس، وقد تقدم أنه على وفق القياس الصحيح/؛ لأن إخراج الدم بمنزله إخراج الطعام بالاستقاء، وبمنزلة إخراج المني بالمباشرة، وبغيرها على الصحيح، وبمنزلة دم الحيض والنفاس، فهذا القياس إن لم يكن أعلى من قياس الناس على العامد فلا يكون دونه، كيف وهو مؤيد بالنص الدال على صحته وفساد ذلك القياس. قوله: (ولو بلغه الحديث واعتمده (يعني حديث "أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم) (فكذلك عند محمد رحمه الله). يعني أنه لا كفارة عليه إذا احتجم ثم أكل على ظن أن الحجامة فطرته معتمداً على الحديث. (لأن قول الرسول لا ينزل عن قول المفتي). في العبارة مسامحة، بل هي خطأ والأمر أعظم من ذلك! (وعن أبي يوسف خلاف ذلك) - يعني عليه الكفارة- (لأن على العامي الاقتداء بالفقهاء لعدم الاهتداء في حقه إلى معرفة الأحاديث). في تعليله نظر فإن المسألة إذا كانت مسألة نزاع بين العلماء، وقد بلغ العامي الحديث الذي احتج به الفريقين فأخذ به كيف يقال في هذا إنه غير معذور؟ فإن قيل: هو منسوخ، فقد تقدم أن المنسوخ ما يظن أنه يعارضه. ومن سمع الحديث الصحيح فعمل به وهو منسوخ فهو معذور إلى أن يبلغه الناسخ، ولا يقال لمن سمع الحديث الصحيح: لا تعمل به حتى تعرضه على رأي فلان دون رأي فلان، وإنما يقال له: انظر هل هو منسوخ أم لا؟ أما إذا كان الحديث قد اختلف في نسخه كما في هذه المسألة فالعامل به في غاية العذر، وإن تطرق الاحتمال إلى خطأ المفتي أقوى من تطرق الاحتمال إلى نسخ ما يسمعه من الحديث. قال أبو عمر بن عبد البر لما ذكر قول رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- (لا تستقبلوا القبلة بغائظ ولا بول ولا تستدبروها): قال أبو أيوب: فقدمنا الشام فوجدنا مراحيض قد بنيت قبل القبلة فننحرف عنها ونستغفر الله. وهكذا يجب على كل من بلغه شيء يستعمله على عمومه حتى يثبت عنده ما يخصه أو ينسخه، انتهى. وقال الشافعي رحمه الله: أجمع المسلمون على أن من استبانت له سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يحل له أن يدعها يقول أحد. وأيضاً فإن المنسوخ من السنة في غاية القلة، وقد جمعه ابن الجوزي في ورقات وقال: إنه أفرد فيها قدر ما صح نسخة أو احتمل، وأعرض عما لا وجه لنسخه ولا احتمال، وقال: فمن سمع بخبر يدعى عليه النسخ وليس فيها فهاتيك دعوى. ثم قال: وقد تدبرته فإذا هو أحد وعشرون حديثاً. وذكرها. وإذا كان العامي يسوغ له الأخذ بقول المفتي بل يجب عليه مع احتمال خطأ المفتي، كيف لا يسوغ له الأخذ بالحديث إذا فهم معناه وإن احتمل النسخ؟ ولو كانت سنن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يسوغ العمل بها بعد صحتها حتى يعمل بها فلان وفلان لكان قولهم شرطاً في العمل بها وهذا من أبطل الباطل. وقد أقام الله الحجة برسوله دون آحاد الأمة. ولا يفرض احتمال خطأ لمن عمل بالحديث وأفتى به بعد فهمه إلا وأضعاف أضعافه حاصل لمن أفتى بتقليد من لا يعلم خطؤه من صوابه، ويجوز عليه التناقض والاختلال، ويقول القول ويرجع عنه، ويحكى عنه في المسألة عدة أقوال. وهذا كله فيمن له نوع أهلية؛ أما إذا لم يكن له أهلية قط ففرضه ما قال الله تعالى: {فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لا تَعْلَمُونَ}. وإذا جاز اعتماد المستفتي على ما يكتبه له المفتي من كلامه أو كلام شيخه وإن علا فلأن يجوز اعتماد الرجل على ما كتب الثقات من كلام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أولى بالجواز. وإذا قدر أنه لم يفهم الحديث فكما لو لم يفهم فتوى المفتي فيسأل من يعرفه معناه كما يسأل من يعرفه جواب المفتي. قوله: ([وإذا عرف تأويله تجب الكفارة لانتفاء الشبهة، وقول الأوزاعي لا يورث الشبهة لمخالفته القياس]). تقدم أن الحجامة يفطر بها الحاجم والمحجوم عند الإمام أحمد، وإسحاق ابن راهويه، ومحمد بن خزيمة، وعطاء، والأوزاعي، ومسروق، والحسن، وابن سيرين، وابن المنذر، وعبد الرحمن بن مهدي. وتقدم ذكر ما استدلوا به من السنة، والقياس الصحيح، فكيف يكون قول هؤلاء مع هذا الدليل لا يورث الشبهة وهو موافق للقياس غير مخالف له كما تقدم؟!

As I was researching the points above, I looked at the chronology of progression in the discussion in the Hanafi works. Prior to Sarakhsi, discussion was minimal, with a simple reference to Kaffarah being cancelled if a person ate wilifully after having ate forgetfully, as per al-Asl and al-Kafi. The same was applied by Jassas to cupping if a person became aware of the hadith on the subject, or he consulted a Hanbali Mufti (who would say the fast would have broken). But Quduri comes along as started adding clutter to the discussion. In his commentary on Karkhi, he said: ٨٥٣ - : [فَصْل: ظَنُّ الصائم أنّ فِعْله مُفْطر ثم تعمد الإفطار] وكذلك إذا أكل أو شرب أو جامع (١) ناسيًا، أو ذرعه القيء، فظنّ أن ذلك يفطره، فأكل بعد ذلك متعمدًا، فعليه القضاء، ولا كفارة عليه. قال محمد: إلا أن يكون بلغه الخبر، يعني: أنّ أكل الناسي لا يفطر، وأنّ من ذرعه القيء لا يفطر. والأصل في هذا، ما بيَّنا: أنّ الكفارة تؤثر فيها الشبهة، والشبهة إذا استندت إلى أصل تعلّق بها الحكم، وإلا لم يتعلّق بها، وأكل الناسي والقيء ينافي الإمساك في الظاهر، فإذا ظنّ أنّه قد أفطر، فالشبهة مستندةٌ [إلى أصلٍ]؛ فلا يجب عليه الكفارة. قال: فإن احتجم، أو فعل نحو ذلك ممّا اختلف الناس في عمده: هل يفطر أم لا؟، فإن ذلك لا يكون عُذرًا ولا شبهةً، إذا تعمد بعده الأكل وقد ظنّ أنّ الحجامة تفطره، إلا أن يكون أُفتي بأنّه قد أفطر، أو يكون ممن سمع الحديث أنّ الحجامة تفطره، فتسقط عنه الكفارة؛ وذلك لأنّ الحجامة لا تنافي الإمساك في الظاهر، فإذا ظنّ أنّها تفطّره، فشبهةٌ لم تستند إلى سببٍ، فلا تسقط عنه الكفارة. فأمّا إذا استفتى فقيهًا فهو معذورٌ؛ لأنّ العامي يلزمه الرجوع إلى [فتوى] الفقيه (٣)، وقد أفتاه بما اختلف فيه الفقهاء، فصار ذلك عذرًا. فأمّا إذا كان بلغه الحديث، فقد روى الحسن عن أبي حنيفة: أنّه لا كفارة عليه؛ لأنّ الإنسان يجب عليه الأخذ بحديث رسول الله ﷺ، فإذا سمعه وعمل به، استندت شبهته إلى أصلٍ. وروى ابن سماعة وبشر، عن أبي يوسف: في المحتجم إذا أفطر بحديث: " أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم"، فعليه القضاء والكفارة من قِبل أن جماعةَ الفقهاء أجمعوا على أنّ الحجامة لا تفطره. ووجه ذلك: أنّ العاميّ إذا سمع خبرًا، لا يجوز له العمل به؛ لأنّه لا يأمن أن يكون مصروفًا عن ظاهره، أو منسوخًا، فمتى رجع إلى ما لا يجوز له الرجوع إليه، لم يعذر. I have a strong reservation on Abu Yusuf having every suggested such a thing. The quality of the view ascribed to Abu Yusuf - that he obligates Kaffarah upon a person who based his practice of breaking fast on the Hadith directly - must be called into question. Presumably, the narrations of Bishr and Ibn Sama'ah from Abu Yusuf are found in their non-extant Amali and Nawadir works, respectively. These views are not in the Zahir 'l-Riwayah. The justification offered therein also seems a bit off. I'm unsure whether the justification is from Abu Yusuf, Bishr/IS, or Quduri himself. Presumably it's the latter, as his work al-Tajrid as well as his commentary on Karkhi suggest he has form in creating novel arguments that he would "add on" to the body of evidence and arguments in the school for its pre-existing positions. Such arguments offered by Quduri here seem to be anachronistic for the second-century Chief Justice, or indeed his students. Furthermore, the ascription of consensus to the view of cupping not breaking the fast is false. Also, had there been any traction to these arguments, it would have most certainly been mentioned in the pre-Quduri era. After all, there is a 250-year gap between Quduri and Abu Yusuf. After Quduri, Sarakhsi latched on to the same narrations. The rest, as they say, is history, with most Hanafis blindly rely on Sarakhsi while adding their own flavour to the discussion if they had some originality to them. Marghinani added his own flavour to it in al-Hidayah. Ibn Abi 'l-Izz in his التنبيه على مشكلات الهداية did offer some commentary opposing the basis of the view ascribed to Abu Yusuf - though even he didn't question the veracity of the attibution: قوله: (ومن أكل في رمضان ناسياً فظن أن ذلك يفطره فأكل بعد ذلك متعمداً عليه القضاء دون الكفارة؛ لأن الاشتباه استند إلى القياس فتحقق الشبهة)، إلى أن قال: (لو احتجم فظن أن ذلك يفطر ثم أكل بعد ذلك متعمدا ًعليه القضاء والكفارة، لأن الظن ما استند إلى دليل شرعي في حقه).

A bit of a contradiction between Jassas and Sarakhsi on the wilful breaking of fast post-cupping. Jassas disregards details that Sarakhsi mentions.

When the right hand doesn't communicate with the left. You have scans from Sarakhsi and Kasani (the latter moreso than the former) suggesting the opinion of backbiting breaking the fast is completely baseless and one that cannot oppose consensus...but then you have Kandhlawi casually passing it off as a scholarly view, implying it has some basis. ولو جمع أحدُ الناس الأصولَ التي تكلم فيها صاحبُ فضائل الأعمال والتي تعود بالنقض على شيء كثير من الفروع والأصول والأدلة والمناقشات التي ذكرها من تقدمه لأصبح جزءا لا بأس به

On Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 96 AH) re: Tilawah and Qira'at: • He took Qira'at from the direct students of Ibn Mas'ud. His main students in his Qira'ah were A'mash and Talhah ibn Musarrif. Two of his most prominent students' students were Hamzah and Kisa'i, two from the Seven Qurra'. (A number of his readings aligned with Abdullah ibn Mas'ud's now-defunct recitals) • His recitation was far removed from affectation (takalluf), and he severely disliked artificially raising one's voice when reciting. He would complete the recitation of the Qur'an in seven days. He was strict on the requirement of contemplatation. A man said to him, "I finish the Qur'an every three nights." Ibrahim retorted, "I wish you would complete it over 30 nights so that you are cognizant of what you are reciting." (Important lesson on contemplation even when one is attempting to recite a large amount) • He would oftentimes use a Mushaf for reciting, and not rely merely on his memory. • Wherever disbelief and polytheism is quoted in the Qur'an, he would recite it in a lower voice. (Like the verse لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح ابن مريم) • He would never say to a student, "You have made a mistake." Rather, he would say, "Read it this way." (This is in reference to the various readings (Ahruf/Qira'at) when a correct meaning is rendered, even though he personally did not recite it that way. This is not in reference to Tajwid mistakes or outright Hifz errors.) • He disliked the following items: •• teaching Qur'an to children until they reached an age where they could discern socially acceptable behaviours. (Many scholars draw the line at seven years of age) •• the usage of dots and diacritics. (There are prints of this, which is useful for Huffaz) •• disliked adorning the Qur'an. •• using verses to daily situations, taking the verse out of its context to another. (Like يا يحيى خذ الكتاب) •• mixing up the sequencing of verses in a single Surah. (Like when reading from one part of the Surah then reading from elsewhere, as many Imams do when making up for an error in a previous Rak'ah, previous Salah, or previous day) •• the writing of the Qur'an in small physical copies. (In practice nowadays, this opinion is not adhered to but it is worth considering) •• the usage of Qur'anic verses as amulets. (There is a difference of opinion on this) •• switching up the Qira'at in a single sitting or event (from one harf of one Sahabi/Tabi'i to another; nowadays, it would be one Qira'ah to another.) (Taken from مرويات النخعي وأقواله في التفسير by Khalid Khalifah al-Sa'd)

The initial proposition offered here on the Mushaf of Madinah, which is roughly 600 pages of Quranic text, was that memorising one page a day would take you to the required destination of Tahfiz in less than 19.5 months. However, upon further analysis, discounting textual repetition (whether like-for-like or similar wordings), Surahs already memorised before the start of Hifz, and double-lines taken up by the starts of the Surahs, it should take 500 days, which is less than 16.5 months. وبالله التوفيق

Naked eye sighting on the night of 19th March, with image verification from California https://x.com/muftiabdullah/status/2034826131338404033

To add to this: When we see different countries starting the new lunar month over three different solar days (ie days of the week), we can be certain that one of them was outright wrong. Just as the lunar month cannot be 28 or 31 days, the lunar month cannot commence over three solar days. Only two solar days is the legitimate form. If indeed the world is cruising to a potential “start of month” split over three solar days, it is the job of a sensible and rational jurist of the Hanafi School (and any school fit that matter) to investigate which one got it completely wrong, NOT to jump at the first claim of sighting and start the lunar month. For Shawwal 1447, we have precisely that - a three-way split: a) Afghan-Niger-Mali on Thursday, b) Arab World-Europe-Morocco-Americas on Friday, and c) Subcontinent-Southeast Asia on Saturday. With the report from Odeh that people from Afghanistan actually saw the waning crescent of Ramadan and believed it to be the waxing crescent of Shawwal, it casts aspersions on the competence of anybody who blindly accepted the Afghan testimony. It is the job of any sensible jurist, judge, and scholar to critically assess all claimed sightings.

Analysis ^ by Odeh on the early Eid by Afghan, Niger, and Mali.

وقد كنت ناديت منذ سنوات بأن نأخذ بالحساب الفلكي القطعي ـ على الأقل ـ في النفي لا في الإثبات، تقليلاً للاختلاف الشاسع الذي يحدث كل سنة في بدء الصيام وفي عيد الفطر، إلى حد يصل إلى ثلاثة أيام بين بعض البلاد الإسلامية وبعض. ومعنى الأخذ بالحساب في النفي أن نظل على إثبات الهلال بالرؤية وفقا لرأي الأكثرين من أهل الفقه في عصرنا، ولكن إذا نفى الحساب إمكان الرؤية، وقال: إنها غير ممكنة، لأن الهلال لم يولد أصلاً في أي مكان من العالم الإسلامي ـ كان الواجب ألا تقبل شهادة الشهود بحال؛ لأن الواقع ـ الذي أثبته العلم الرياضي القطعي ـ يكذبهم. بل في هذه الحالة لا يطلب ترائي الهلال من الناس أصلاً، ولا تفتح المحاكم الشرعية ولا دور الفتوى أو الشؤون الدينية أبوابها لمن يريد أن يدلي بشهادة عن رؤية الهلال.

https://youtube.com/shorts/j1aZ01cd_Mk What this analysis misses as that moonsighting is a rational issue and largely a Madhhab-agnostic issue. What that means is that the first visibility of the crescent is not beholden to the opinion of your Madhhab, scholar, teacher, almanac, or observatory community. The moon moves on regardless of atmospheric conditions either. The moon can become a crescent behind a thick smog, fog, or clouds, smoke, or any adverse atmospheric conditions. As that is the case, that can lead to errors in the beginning and the end of the lunar month. Mitigating those errors is an established truth across the books of all Fuqaha, even though they express this concept differently. One of the tools at their disposal to eliminate error is calculation. The Ahadith that speak about establishing the month have some measures in place. That doesn’t mean other measures to mitigate error are disallowed. The Shariah doesn’t leave the Muslims hamstrung in this issue. The inference from the Hadith نحن أمة أمية to reject calculations as a tool to eliminate error is a false one. We’ve seen chaos ensue in the Mamluk period and other places where the judge of one school accepted a sighting but it was rejected by astronomers. This is the result of treating the issue as one for the Madhhab. It isn’t. See from here for multiple instances from Muslim history of such chaos ensuing as a result: https://t.me/KnowledgeRevival/16480 If calculation says moonset is before sunset, the testimony of Afghanistan, Niger, Mali - as has unfortunately occurred this year for Shawwal - must be rejected. It is a horrific error as moonset in Kabul wasn’t just a minute or two before sunset (which would have been bad enough). It was almost 20 minutes. Imagine if it was after sunset and people broke fast based on an established calendar (like they always do). Now imagine if a hundred people came along and testified they saw the sun set 10 minutes after the calendar time, and that the fasts of everyone else are invalid, their testimony would be rejected. Now if sunset calculations are accepted here to reject testimony claiming the invalidity of fasts, then moonset calculations should be equally admissible to reject testimony claiming the sighting of the crescent. This is essentially a summary of what the Taqi al-Subki said, which any sane and rational Hanafi would accept. This is what we mean when we say it is a Madhhab-agnostic issue. And calculations are inherently rational. This is also why those who disagreed with Subki didn’t make much sense and nobody has sufficiently proven him incorrect. But even if that isn’t digestible, then these “early sightings” are a simple case of testimony versus testimony. One the one hand, you have these Muslim chaps claiming to have seen the moon. On the other hand, you have Muslim astronomers across the world saying this sighting is impossible, and that the moon set at X time. A judge would have to grapple with both testimonies and make a decision. I know what decision any sane judge would make. It’s not the one issued by the Taliban, the Saudi courts in Riyadh, or the courts of Niamey or Timbuktu. But even if these places have accepted testimony, it isn’t incumbent on a Muslim judge if another country to accept it. Even the khilafah throughout the ages wasn’t some super-centralised judicial system. Judges in courts residing in other jurisdictions have the right to reject and/or overrule court orders from other places, and this is no different. So I ask a very simple question: produce one image of the crescent from Afghanistan, Mali, Niger, if you are truthful. The fact that nobody to their west has seen is a sure sign they got it wrong at best, or are lying at worst. Heck, Afghanistan, Saudi, and Mali won’t be able to produce a single image even tomorrow, proving how ridiculous their methodologies are. Yusuf al-Qaradawi offered this analysis on calculation usage to discredit false sightings:

A live-streaming massacre of the Quran on Abdur Raheem Limbada’s channel. We’ve seen this before https://www.youtube.com/live/ep_3DOgA7zA

As for Afghan, double facepalm: https://x.com/i/status/2034318355419562346 They need a collective brain transplant. Those who blindly follow Saudi, pretending to base their practice on global sighting, should observe Eid tomorrow. Why discriminate?

We had the Saudi bots harping on imagery from their second eve of Ramadan, as if that was some evidence in their favour of their Ramadan start being based on accurate testimony. Let’s see if they have any imagery to produce from the second eve of Shawwal, on Friday night. It will be impossible to view with the naked eye anywhere in Saudi Arabia on the eve after Eid too.

The narrative from compromised Saudi astronomers this year seems to be that the call for sighting was in spite of impossibility is due to “instil confidence in the process on establishing the new month.” In addition to two messages above this, see for example this tweet: https://x.com/almisnid/status/2034286417510039716 This is a complete lie. Nobody goes out to witness sunset to “instill confidence in establishing the time of Maghrib.” Theatrics masquerading as religious verification. From the same people who couldn’t produce a single image for the beginning of the month, and produced clangers like the video attached. That one really instilled confidence, didn’t it?

So they don’t want to rely on astronomical data of moonset having occurred way before sunset, so instead they make up some bravosierra excuse of the sky being overcast. https://x.com/saudinews50/status/2034289908513161557 Na’am, the whole country was engulfed by clouds. We got to see more of the cloudy sky than ever before on this occasion.