5. The Importance of Malik

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى ءاله وصحبه أجمعين وسلّم

Title: The Importance of Imam Mālik and the Maliki Madhhab Today

Author: Dr. Yasin Dutton (FFAS)

Reader: Uthman Ibrahim-Morrison

Publication date: 2/3/2013

Assalamu alaykum. Welcome to the Muslim History Programme of the MFAS. This is the fifth of 12 sessions which make up the Madhhabs of Islam module. This afternoon’s lecture on The Importance of Imam Mālik and the Maliki Madhhab Today has been prepared by Dr Yasin Dutton and replaces that of Mufti Abu Layth who, due to sudden illness, has been forced to postpone his presentation (we ask Allah to grant him swift and complete recovery). Dr Yasin’s lecture, which I will now read, will last approximately 40 minutes during which time you should make a written note of any questions that may occur to you for clarification after the lecture, which under the circumstances will be addressed to the Dean, the DoS and myself. 

From the traditional point of view, there are four equally acceptable Sunni madhhabs (‘schools of law’). However, there is a strong tendency among Muslims today to dismiss the very idea of madhhab as a rigid and outmoded concept which, via the institution of taqlid (often considered, incorrectly, as ‘blind following’), has resulted in the stagnation of Islamic law, and along with it the stagnation of the Muslim community. For this reason, many hold that the idea of madhhab should be jettisoned in favour of what is euphemistically referred to as ittiba‘ (‘following’), i.e. following the Sunnah of the Prophet (almost always understood in the sense of hadith), but which often ends up with a position which is far removed from any traditional understanding of the Sunnah.

In this contribution, we consider the importance of Imam Malik, especially his magisterial work the Muwatta’, in preserving our historically most valid – because closest to the source – transmission of Sunnah and hadith as understood through the non-textual lens of the ‘amal, or practice, of the people of Madinah, which became epitomised in the madhhab going under his name.

. . .

Malik is known as the Imam Dar al-Hijrah, as he is also known as the ‘alim (‘scholar, learned man’) of Madinah, as in the famous hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah, who said that the Prophet a said: “The time is nigh when people will beat the livers of their camels in search of knowledge, but they will not find anyone more knowledgeable than the ‘alim of Madinah.”¹ Ibn Jurayj and ‘Abd al-Razzaq both said: “It is related from Sufyan, via more than one authority, that the person referred to in the hadith is Malik. [Sufyan] said, ‘I used to think that it was Ibn al-Musayyab, but then I changed my mind, saying to myself that in the time of Ibn al-Musayyab there were also Sulayman [ibn Yasar], Salim [ibn ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar] and others [in Madinah]. Then I said that it was Malik, because he was still alive when there was no one else left in Madinah that was equal to him.’”²

In short, the importance of Malik as the ‘alim of Madinah is the importance of Madinah itself. It was the place to which the Prophet a and his Companions emigrated, it was the place where the majority of the legal verses of the Qur’an were revealed, and it was the place where the din was first put into practice as a fully functioning social and political reality. Following the opinion that the word madinah comes from the triliteral root dal-ya’-nun, we can say that Madinah was, literally, ‘Ma-dinah’ – the place of the din – using that form as a noun of place.

. . .

What does it mean to say that Malik was the ‘alim of Madinah? What was it that he knew?

In most traditional contexts, the word ‘ilm implies not just knowledge, but knowledge of hadith, i.e. of the textual sources, and Malik was indeed an ‘alim in this respect. He was known as the amir al-mu’minin fi-l-hadith,³ and the isnad “Malik – Nafi‘ – Ibn ‘Umar” was considered by the famous hadith scholar al-Bukhari and others to be the silsilat al-dhahab, “the golden chain of authority”,⁴ to which Abu Dawud, whose Sunan is another of the Six Books of hadith, added “then Malik, from az-Zuhri, from Salim, from his father [i.e. Ibn ‘Umar], then Malik, from Abu z-Zinad, from al-A‘raj, from Abu Hurayrah”, without mentioning anything from anyone other than Malik.⁵

. . .

Perhaps the best testimony to this is his book the Muwatta’, which is arguably the first complete compilation of Islamic law and, as such, is one of the earliest collections of hadith (certainly earlier than those of al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc). It is also of very high authenticity. Ash-Shafi‘i referred to it as the most accurate book on earth after the Qur’an,⁶ while Abu Zur‘ah said, “If someone were to swear on pain of divorce that all the hadith in the Muwatta’ were sound, he would not have to expiate his oath, whereas if he were to say the same about anyone else’s hadith, he would have to do so.”⁷

However, the Muwatta’ is not just a book of hadith. Malik himself said of his book, “In it are hadith of the Messenger of Allah a and opinions (qawl) of the Companions and the Successors, and opinions (ra’y) which are the consensus (ijma‘) of the people of Madinah and whose [opinions] I have not gone beyond (lam akhruj ‘anhum).”⁸ So, it has in it not just hadith, but something else.

From the later, post-Shafi‘i perspective, we are used to hadith being just the hadith of the Prophet a. Thus, when we look at any of the major hadith collections, such as the Sahih of al-Bukhari, for instance, we find that the overwhelming majority of the material is Prophetic, that is, it goes back specifically to the Prophet a. In the Muwatta’, however, and other early collections of hadith, this is not the case. There, by contrast, we find that at least half of the material comes from sources other than the Prophet a, that is, from the Companions and the Tabi’in. This implies that a change had taken place between the time of the compilation of the Muwatta’ and the compilation of the Six Books, this change being that the later compilers are no longer interested in anything other than reports with a formal – and authentic – isnad back to the Prophet a, i.e. in texts, and ones with specifically Prophetic authority. Anything else is not good enough. But this was not the position of Malik and his contemporaries for whom other reports, other information, also had authority.

What was this authority? If we go back to Malik’s comment above, we notice that he says “whose [opinions] I have not gone beyond (lam akhruj ‘anhum).” By this he is indicating a different sort of transmission of knowledge, a different sort of understanding, and transmission, of the Sunnah – one which is encompassed by the ‘amal of the people of Madinah.

. . .

What is the ‘amal of the people of Madinah? ‘Iyad says, in his Madarik:

You should know, may Allah ennoble you, that all the leaders of the madhhabs, whether legal scholars or theologians, or people of hadith or people of intellectual reasoning, are as one group against us regarding this matter, attributing error to us – as they claim – and using as an argument whatever occurs to them, to the extent that some of them have gone beyond the limits of prejudice and defamation and cast aspersions on Madinah and listed its faults, when this is not a matter about which there is any dispute. Among them are those who have failed to understand the matter or to find out the true position of our madhhab with regard to it, and so have spoken about it on a basis of guesswork and conjecture; among them also are those who have taken their words from others who have not understood what our true position is; and among them are those who have altered things and have attributed to us what we would never say about the matter, as have as-Sayrafi, al-Mahamili and al-Ghazali, who have transmitted on our authority what we would never say, and have used as an argument against us the same arguments that are used against those who cast aspersions on ijma‘ (‘consensus’).⁹

So ‘amal is not to be confused with ijma‘, as the ijma‘ of Madinah is a different concept altogether. Rather, the ijma‘ of Madinah is based on the Sunnah of the Prophet a, but on a non-textual, ‘amal-based transmission of it.

This is also why the ‘amal of the first generations in Madinah is to be understood as stronger than hadith, even if those hadith are completely authentic and backed up by the most impeccable isnads. In a chapter entitled “What has been related from the first community and the men of knowledge regarding the obligation to go back to the practice (‘amal) of the People of Madinah, and its being a conclusive proof in their opinion, even if it is contrary to hadith”, ‘Iyad spells out the argument for the superiority of ‘amal over hadith as a more accurate transmission of the Sunnah of the Prophet a. He says:

It is related that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab g once said on the minbar: “By Allah, I will make things difficult for any man who relates a hadith which is contrary to ‘amal.”

Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Wahb said: “I saw that with Malik ‘amal was stronger than hadith.”

Malik said: “There were people among the men of knowledge of the Successors who would narrate certain hadith, and hear other hadith from others, and would say, ‘We are not ignorant of this, but the ‘amal that has come down to us is different.’”

Malik said: “I once saw Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm, who was a qadi, being reproached by his brother, ‘Abdallah, who was an honest man with an extensive knowledge of hadith, for giving a judgement on a case when there was a hadith giving a different judgement. ‘Abdallah said, ‘Hasn’t such-and-such a hadith come down about this?’ Muhammad replied, ‘It has.’ ‘Abdallah said, ‘Then why don’t you give your judgement in accordance with it?’ Muhammad replied, ‘But what is the position of the people with regard to it?’” – i.e. [what is] the agreed ‘amal in Madinah? – by which he meant that the ‘amal of Madinah was stronger than hadith.

Ibn al-Mu‘adhdhal said: “I once heard someone ask Ibn al-Majishun, ‘Why do you transmit a hadith and then not act upon it?’ He replied, ‘So that it be known that it is with full knowledge of it that we do not act upon it.’”

Ibn Mahdi said: “The established Sunnah of the people of Madinah is better than hadith.”’ He also said: “Often I will have numerous hadith on a subject, but will find the people of the mosque (ahl al-‘arsa) following something contrary to them, at which point those hadith become weak in my opinion” – or words to that effect.

Rabi‘ah said: “One thousand from one thousand is preferred by me to one from one. One from one would tear the Sunnah right out of your hands.”¹⁰

“One thousand from one thousand” is the methodology of Madinah; “one from one” is the methodology of everywhere else.

There is another common misunderstanding with regard to the status of ‘amal as a source for Shari‘ah. Nowadays most students of usul al-fiqh are taught that there are four agreed sources – Qur’an, Sunnah, ijma‘, qiyas – along with various other disputed ones that are accepted by some madhhabs and not by others – among which the ‘amal of the people of Madinah is mentioned as one, alongside al-masalih al-mursalah, istihsan, etc. Thus Ibn Hamdun, for instance, says in his Hashiyah:

Malik bases his madhhab on seventeen sources (adillah), namely:

1. an unambiguous text (nass) of the Qur’an;

2. its overt meaning (zahir), by which I mean the general application (‘umum) [of a judgement];

3. its dalil (‘indication’), by which I mean mafhum al-mukhalafah (lit. ‘what is understood by contrast’, i.e. argumentum e contrario, or counter-implication);

4. its mafhum (‘implication’), by which I mean al-mafhum bi-l-awla (lit. ‘what is understood as being more appropriate’, i.e. a fortiori deduction);

5. its shabah (‘similarity’), by which I mean when the reason for a judgement is given, as when Allah says, “[or pork] because that is filth; or some deviance (fisq) …” (Q. 6:145); 

6-10. the same five with regard to the Sunnah;

11. consensus (ijma‘);

12. analogy (qiyas);

13. the ‘amal (‘practice’) of the people of Madinah;

14. the opinion (qawl) of a Companion;

15. istihsan (‘considerations of equity’);

16. sadd adh-dhara’i‘ (lit. ‘blocking the means [to what is haram]’); and

17. istishab (i.e. assuming the continuation of a situation, and thus the relevant judgement). 

18. As for mura‘at al-khilaf (‘taking the differences [between madhhabs] into account’), sometimes this is followed and sometimes not.¹¹

However, there are at least two main problems with this sort of picture. Firstly, it was only with the work of Imam ash-Shafi‘i (d. 204) that the ‘four-source’ theory really took shape (he is credited with being the first to propound it in his renowned Risalah), so what was there before Imam ash-Shafi‘i at the time of Imam Malik and earlier? (We should remember that the din was complete – and this is confirmed by Divine Revelation – at the time of the Farewell Hajj: 

 ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَٰمَ دِينًۭا ۚ

“Today I have perfected your din for you, and completed My blessing on you, and am pleased with Islam as a din for you” (Q. 5:3). 

Secondly, the ‘amal of the people of Madinah has to be seen as more than just one source out of many (e.g. one out of 17, or possibly 18, as with Ibn Hamdun above). Rather, we would see it as one all-encompassing source that in a sense contains all the others. Thus, for example, everyone accepts the primacy of ‘Qur’an and Sunnah’, but how are we to understand this ‘Qur’an and Sunnah’? In later times, once both Qur’an and Sunnah have been thoroughly textualised, we have tafsirs of Qur’an and shuruh of the hadith texts, but before any tafsir or sharh there was the original practice of the din – the ‘amal of the people of Madinah – and this ‘amal acts as a tafsir and a sharh, but a living, non-textualised one that is passed on from generation to generation first and foremost by action rather than texts.

. . .

Some examples from the Muwatta’ will show how Malik presents what is effectively tafsir of Qur’an by ‘amal, and sharh of Sunnah by ‘amal.

1. Referring to ila’ (an oath of abstinence from marital intercourse), Allah says:

لِّلَّذِينَ يُؤْلُونَ مِن نِّسَآئِهِمْ تَرَبُّصُ أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍۢ ۖ فَإِن فَآءُو فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ وَإِنْ عَزَمُوا۟ ٱلطَّلَٰقَ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌۭ

“Those who make an oath of abstinence from their wives may wait for four months: if they return [to their wives], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful; if they decide to divorce, Allah is All-Hearing and All-Knowing” (Q. 2:226-7).

A problem arose here with the meaning of the phrase “if they return (fa-in fa’u)”: did it mean if they resume their marriage before the allotted period is up, or after it had finished? The answer to this question then affected the understanding of “if they decide to divorce (wa-in ‘azamu l-talaq)”, since this also could be taken to mean either “if they decide on divorce within the allotted period” or when this period was up.

In his chapter on ila’ in the Muwatta’,¹² Malik gives what became the dominant ‘amal in Madinah, although not all Madinan scholars had been of the same opinion. He begins the chapter by citing a report from ‘Ali to the effect that, if a man makes such an oath and the four-month period passes without him ‘returning’, i.e. resuming marital relations with his wife, he should be formally asked whether he wishes to resume marital relations or divorce. He then adds the characteristic phrase, “This is the position with us (wa-dhalika l-amr ‘indana)”, i.e. this is the judgement acted upon and the ‘amal of the people of Madinah regarding this point. He then says that this was also the view of Ibn ‘Umar. However, he then notes that this was not the only position held in Madinah: two of the well-known Seven Fuqaha’ of Madinah – Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman – held that the ‘return’ had to be within the four-month period and that the completion of the four months constituted an automatic divorce. This, says Malik, was also the position of Ibn Shihab (one of Malik’s main teachers), as it was also the opinion that Marwan (as governor of Madinah under Mu‘awiyah) had gone by in adjudicating such cases. Nevertheless, despite this dissenting view – which was also the standard position of the Iraqi fuqaha’ of the early period and became the standard position of the Hanafi madhhab – the ‘amal of the people of Madinah settled on the view of ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Umar as mentioned above. More to the point, Malik’s justification of this view in the Muwatta’ is that it is ‘the position with us’, i.e. the ‘amal of the people of Madinah. It is then, effectively, an instance of tafsir by ‘amal.

2. Another particularly obvious example of tafsir by ‘amal by is illustrated by the two chapters in the Muwatta’ on ihsar (i.e. being prevented from doing hajj or ‘umra) – “Ihsar by an Enemy” and “Ihsar by Something Other Than an Enemy”.¹³ The relevant Qur’anic verse does not distinguish between the two situations, saying only: 

 ۚ فَإِنْ أُحْصِرْتُمْ فَمَا ٱسْتَيْسَرَ مِنَ ٱلْهَدْىِ ۖ وَلَا تَحْلِقُوا۟ رُءُوسَكُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ ٱلْهَدْىُ مَحِلَّهُۥ ۚ

“If you are prevented, [you should sacrifice] whatever sacrificial animal (hady) is easy; and do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached its place of sacrifice” (Q. 2:196). 

This, indeed, was the position of the Iraqi fuqaha’, as preserved in the Hanafi madhhab. The Madinans, however, maintained the distinction recorded by Malik in the Muwatta’: in ‘ordinary’ situations of ihsar, such as illness, or mistaking the beginning of the month and thus the date of the hajj, one had to follow the Qur’anic prescription of sacrificing a hady and shaving one’s head, etc, after having reached Makkah, as laid down in Q. 2:196. If, however, one was prevented by an enemy, then the position followed by the Madinans was that of Ibn ‘Umar: “We will do what we did with the Messenger of Allah a …”, which was simply to come out of ihram wherever one was, without having to “reach the Ka‘ba”, and without having to make up the hajj or ‘umrah at a future date or do anything else by way of reparation. This, then, is a clear instance of tafsir taking the specific form of takhsis al-qur’an bi-l-‘amal, i.e. making an exception to an otherwise general rule through recourse to the ‘amal of the people of Madinah.

3. A third instance illustrates how ‘amal could be used as a sharh of hadith. In the Muwatta’, Malik records two hadiths which ostensibly indicate the judgement of qabd, i.e. clasping the left hand at the wrist with the right, while doing the prayer. These two hadith are recorded in the chapter entitled “Putting One Hand Over the Other When Doing the Prayer”, as follows:

Yahya told me, from Malik, that ‘Abd al-Karim ibn Abi l-Mukhariq al-Basri said: “Among the words of prophecy are: If you do not feel ashamed, do as you wish; putting the hands one over the other when doing the prayer, that is, putting the right over the left; and hurrying to break the fast and delaying the pre-dawn meal.”

He also told me, from Malik, from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar, that Sahl ibn Sa‘d said: “People used to be told that a man should put his right hand over his left arm when doing the prayer.” Abu Hazim added, “As far as I know, he traces that back [i.e. to the Prophet].”¹⁴

The standard position in the madhhab, though, as summarised for instance in Khalil’s Mukhtasar, is that sadl (i.e. letting one’s arms hang by one’s sides) is the preferred way of doing the prayer.

As we can see, what is recorded in the Muwatta’ gives us no indication as to why sadl should be the preferred judgement. The Mudawwanah, however, does. In it, Malik is recorded as saying: “I do not know about this [practice] as far as obligatory prayers are concerned (la a‘rifu dhalika fi l-faridah), but there is no harm in someone doing it in voluntary prayers, if he has been standing for a long time, in order to make things easier for himself.” ¹⁵

The phrase used, la a‘rifu dhalika fi l-farida, clearly indicates a lack of existential knowledge of this practice. In other words, “we know about the hadith on this subject, but this is not the way the people are doing, or have done, the prayer here in Madinah”. We are reminded of the reports mentioned above, about transmitting a hadith “so that it be known that it is with full knowledge of it that we do not act upon it.” Put differently, it is sadl, not qabd, that was the ongoing ‘amal of the people of Madinah and thus the judgement to be followed. And this is, indeed, the understanding of the traditional scholars of the madhhab, who confirm firstly, in a general sense, that not every hadith is to be acted upon, even though it may be completely authentic, and, secondly, in this specific instance, that sadl is the ‘amal of the people of Madinah. Thus, for instance, Muhammad Habiballah ibn Maya’ba al-Shinqiti says in his Ida’at al-halik:

Not everything that is authentic is acted upon

Since abrogation may have occurred in its respect.

It is for this reason that Malik chose not to act by

A small number [of reports] in the Muwatta’.

I say: an example of this is the hadith about qabd,

Which is abrogated by sadl in a manner which is pleasing.¹⁶

Elsewhere he says, when mentioning that the hadith in the Muwatta’ are to be understood in the light of reports in the Mudawwanah, and that Ibn al-Qasim’s transmissions from Malik are to be given preference over those of other students of the Imam:

An example of this is the hadith about qabd,

Which is [related] in it (i.e. the Muwatta’) with a well-known, faultless isnad.

Ibn al-Qasim restricts the judgement to voluntary prayers

As has come down to us in transmissions from him.

In obligatory prayers it is disliked, as is clear[ly transmitted]

From Malik, and that is the view that is to be given preference.¹⁷

He adds, in his commentary on the phrase “to be given preference”: “… in the opinion of Malik and the majority of the ‘ulama’ of his madhhab … because of the strength of the evidence for it, and the continued practice of it (jarayan al-‘amal bihi) both in the early period in Madinah and elsewhere, and more recently in other places.”¹⁸

On a similar note, Shaykh ‘Illish says in his Fath al-‘Ali al-Malik, in response to a question about whether qabd is disliked in obligatory prayers whatever the situation (mutlaqan), or just if it is done without the intention of following the Sunnah:

Ibn al-Qasim’s transmission from Malik in the Mudawwanah, which is given precedence over others, is that qabd is disliked in obligatory prayers, whatever the situation, because it has been abrogated … The text of the Mudawwanah is: “Malik disliked putting the right hand over the left in obligatory prayers, saying ‘I do not know about this in obligatory prayers’”, and the meaning of this phrase is, “I do not know about this as the continued practice of the Companions, the Successors, and the Successors of the Successors in obligatory prayers. What I know about as their continued practice with regard to obligatory prayers is sadl.” ¹⁹

These are but three examples: many more could be chosen, such as those chapters relating to inheritance where Malik specifies the ‘amal on a given topic at the beginning of the chapter and then ties it in with the relevant Qur’anic verse at the end of the chapter. Nevertheless, they illustrate how ‘amal could not only clarify ambiguities in the texts themselves, but also be used to add further details and fill out gaps not necessarily obvious from those texts.

Thus the ‘amal of the people of Madinah acts as a tafsir of Qur’an, and a sharh of hadith, but one in which the non-textual has distinct preference over the textual. At the same time, it provides a much fuller historical framework for the Qur’an and the Sunnah than that which is simply provided by the texts themselves.

. . .

This, then, is the importance of the Muwatta’, that it is a repository – albeit a necessarily textual one – of the ‘amal of the people of Madinah; and this is the importance of Malik, that he was the one who understood this ‘amal and whose prime task was to transmit it as the best example of the Sunnah of the Prophet a as a lived reality, inherited by one generation from another. ‘Iyad records the following exchange between Malik and Abu Yusuf, the Kufan faqih and major student of Abu Hanifah:

Abu Yusuf said [to Malik], “You do the adhan with tarji‘, but you have no hadith from the Prophet a about this.” Malik turned to him and said, “Subhana-llah! I have never seen anything more amazing than this! The call to prayer has been done [here] every day in front of witnesses, and sons have inherited it from their fathers, since the time of the Messenger of Allah a. Does this need ‘So-and-so from so-and-so’? This is more accurate in our opinion than hadith.”

Abu Yusuf also asked him about the sa‘ (a measure of volume relating to various judgements of fiqh) and Malik said, “Five and one-third ratls.” Abu Yusuf said, “What’s your basis for saying that?” Malik said to some of the people with him, “Go and fetch the sa‘s that you have.” So many of the people of Madinah, [from families of] both the Muhajirun and the Ansar, came, and every one of them brought a sa‘ [with him] and said, “This is the sa‘ which I inherited from my father, who inherited it from his father, who was one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah a.” Malik said, “This sort of widespread knowledge is more reliable in our opinion than hadith.” So Abu Yusuf accepted Malik’s opinion.²⁰ 

We may note simply that, in an age when people aim to silence others by quoting a hadith, the ‘amal of the people of Madinah is, by this consideration, more accurate and more reliable than hadith.

If, then, we want to put into practice a pure Islam that is the closest we can get to the Islam of the Prophet and his Companions – salla-llahu ‘alayhi wa-‘ala ashabihi ajma‘in – then we have no better gateway than the ‘amal of the people of Madinah, as preserved in the madhhab of the ‘alim of the people of Madinah, Malik ibn Anas î.

That brings us to the end of today’s lecture. For further reading Dr. Dutton’s The Origins of Islamic Law is highy recommended. The subject of our next lecture is “The Madhhab of Imam ash-Shāfi‘ī”. Thank you for your attention. Assalamu alaykum.

¹ This is related by, among others, Ahmad in his Musnad (iii. 160) and al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan (v. 47-8). See Intisar, p. 128 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, p. 28].

² See Intisar, p. 131 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, pp. 29-30].

³ See Madarik, B i. 133-4 / M i. 155-6; Dutton, Origins, p. 16.

⁴ See, for example, Nawawi, Tahdhib al-asma’, p. 531; Dutton, Origins, p. 12.

⁵ See Madarik, B i. 136 / M i. 164; Dutton, Origins, p. 16.

⁶ See Madarik, B i. 191 / M ii. 70; also Intisar, p. 142 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, p. 37].

⁷ See Madarik, B i. 196 / M ii. 76; also Intisar, p. 213 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, p. 76].

⁸ See Madarik, B i. 192 / M ii. 72; cf. Origins, p. 34

⁹ See Madarik B i. 67-8 / M i. 47; also Intisar, pp. 214-15 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, p. 77].

¹⁰ See Madarik B i. 66 / M i. 44-5; Dutton, Origins, pp. 43-4; also Intisar, pp. 200, 202, 205-6 [translation in Dutton, Original Islam, pp. 69, 70, 72].

¹¹ Ibn Hamdun, Hashiyah, i. 16.

¹² Muwatta’, ii. 18-19; also Dutton, Origins, pp. 139-40.

¹³ Muwatta’, i. 260-1; also Dutton, Origins, pp. 92-6.

¹⁴ Muwatta’, i. 133.

¹⁵ Mudawwanah, i. 74.

¹⁶ Ibn Maya’ba al-Shinqiti, Ida’at al-halik, p. 82.

¹⁷ Ibn Maya’ba al-Shinqiti, Ida’at al-halik, p. 76.

¹⁸ Ibn Maya’ba al-Shinqiti, Ida’at al-halik, p. 78, n. 9.

¹⁹ ‘Illish, Fath al-‘ali al-malik, i. 125.

²⁰ Madarik, B i. 224-5 / M ii. 124-5; Dutton, Origins, pp. 42-3.