Global Moonsighting and the Hanafi Madhab

Is the opinion of Global Moonsighting Dhahir Riwayah in the Hanafi Madhab? 

(Mufti) Muhammad Abdul Malek

Markaz Ad-Dawah Al-Islamiyya, Dha­ka (Bangladesh)

Direct (PDF) Down­load Link

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salā­mu ‘alaykum wa-rah­mat­ul­lāhi wa-barakātuh

Note: This translation is ongoing, incomplete and has not been reviewed.

Foreword (Wifaqul Ulama):

This trea­tise is being trans­lat­ed for the ben­e­fit of Ulamā, nev­er­the­less it is inevitable that lay­men will read it. We believe that it is ben­e­fi­cial for the lay­men to review this short syn­op­sis on the cat­e­gori­sa­tion of the legal rul­ings of the Hanafi Mad­hab.

Hanafi legal rul­ings are divid­ed into dis­tinct cat­e­gories which are uti­lized by jurists (fuqa­ha’) when issu­ing rul­ings and iden­ti­fy­ing supe­ri­or opin­ions in case of appar­ent con­tra­dic­tion. Ibn ‘Abidin men­tions three cat­e­gories of rul­ings in his Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti and the intro­duc­tion to his Radd al-Muhtar. (Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti 46, Radd al-Muhtar 1:37, both from Mis­bah 1:297 1)

Note that the fol­low­ing divi­sion is in accor­dance with well-known cat­e­go­riza­tion of Hanafi legal rul­ings that was relied upon by ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin. Oth­er cat­e­go­riza­tions, such as those of ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lak­nawi and Shah Wal­i­ul­lah al-Dih­lawi, are not men­tioned here and have been reserved for anoth­er article.

The three cat­e­gories, accord­ing to Ibn ‘Abidin, are as follows:

1. Zahir al-Riwayah: Also called the Usul or Masa’il al-Usul, this col­lec­tion of the rul­ings of the imams of the mad­hhab is con­tained in six books of Imam Muham­mad ibn al-Hasan al-Shay­bani. Ibn ‘Abidin gives them as:

  1. Jami‘ Kabir
  2. Jami‘ Saghir
  3. Siyar Kabir
  4. Siyar Saghir
  5. Mab­sut (also called the Asl)
  6. Ziya­dat

Some schol­ars of the mad­hhab did not include the two Siyar col­lec­tions amongst the books of the Zahir al-Riwayah. The details of this exclu­sion as well as the con­tents of the six books form the con­tent of a future arti­cle, in sha Allah.

These books are termed the Zahir al-Riwayah (man­i­fest nar­ra­tions) because they are nar­rat­ed from Imam Muham­mad through numer­ous reli­able nar­ra­tors and man­i­fest­ly estab­lished mass-trans­mit­ted or well-known chains.

These books were com­piled by Muham­mad while he resided in Bagh­dad and were lat­er trans­mit­ted through numer­ous chains from his stu­dents in num­bers which pre­clude any pos­si­bil­i­ty of their false­hood or fabrication.

The Zahir al-Riwayah pri­mar­i­ly serve as a com­pendi­um of the legal opin­ions of the three pre­em­i­nent imams of the mad­hhab, name­ly Abu Han­i­fah, Abu Yusuf, and Muham­mad (who are also called some­times Ashab al-Mad­hhab). The books do not lim­it them­selves to the rul­ings of these three how­ev­er, and include the legal opin­ions of oth­er emi­nent schol­ars of the mad­hhab, such as Zufar ibn al-Hud­hayl and Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i, as well as inde­pen­dent muj­tahids out­side the mad­hhab, the likes of Abu Thawr and Awza‘i (may Allah have mer­cy on them all).

Lat­er, in the late third or ear­ly fourth cen­tu­ry, Hakim Shahid Abu ‘l‑Fadl Muham­mad ibn Muham­mad al-Mar­wazi al-Balkhi com­piled the Kafi, a short, abridged col­lec­tion of the legal rul­ings of all six books of the Zahir al-Riwayah. Orga­nized in the con­ven­tion­al order of legal chap­ters and con­cise in its pre­sen­ta­tion, the Kafi (The Suf­fic­ing) tru­ly lived up to its name, allow­ing stu­dents of law to eas­i­ly iden­ti­fy the Zahir al-Riwayah rul­ings of the Hanafi school with­out hav­ing to pour over all six books and their rel­a­tive­ly less-orga­nized con­tents. Many schol­ars penned com­men­taries of the Kafi, the most rec­og­nized of them being Shams al‑A’immah al-Sarakhsi’s Mabsut.

2. Nawadir: The rul­ings of this cat­e­go­ry are those that are not trans­mit­ted in the above-men­tioned six books of the Zahir al-Riwayah but, like the rul­ings in them, are also attrib­uted to the ear­ly imams of the mad­hhab. They are either found in the oth­er books of Imam Muham­mad, such as the Kaysaniyy­at, Haruniyy­at, Jur­janiyy­at, and Raqqiyy­at, or in the books of oth­er imams besides Imam Muham­mad, includ­ing Al-Hasan ibn al-Ziyad’s Mujar­rad and the Amali of Abu Yusuf. The Nawadir also include the sin­gu­lar, scat­tered legal opin­ions of the ear­ly imams that were record­ed by the likes of Ibn Sama‘ah, Mu‘alla ibn Mansur, Hisham, Ibn Rus­tum, and others.

These books are called Nawadir because they are trans­mit­ted through sin­gu­lar rather than mass-trans­mit­ted or well-known chains.

3. Fatawa: Also called Nawazil or Waqi‘at, these legal rul­ings are those that were derived by lat­er Hanafi muj­tahids based on enquiries for which no rul­ings exist­ed in the first two cat­e­gories. (Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti 9, Tabaqat Saniyyah 1:35)

Amongst these lat­er muj­tahids (muta’akhkhirun) were ‘Isam ibn Yusuf (d 210AH), Ibn Rus­tum, Muham­mad ibn Sama‘ah, Abu Sulay­man al-Juz­jani, and Abu Hafs al-Bukhari, who were all from the second/third century.

After them came Muham­mad ibn Salamah (192–278AH), Muham­mad ibn Muqatil, Nusayr ibn Yahya, and Abu Nasr Muham­mad Qasim ibn Salam[1], all of whom occa­sion­al­ly dif­fered with the Ashab al-Mad­hhab (Abu Han­i­fah, Abu Yusuf, and Muham­mad) on the basis of var­i­ous fac­tors or evi­dences that became appar­ent to them.

The first col­lec­tion of these fatawa, accord­ing to our lim­it­ed knowl­edge and study, is Abu ‘l‑Layth al-Samarqandi’s Nawazil. Lat­er jurists added to this cat­e­go­ry of legal lit­er­a­ture, includ­ing Kashshi in his Maj­mu‘ al-Nawazil and Nat­i­fi and Sadr al-Shahid both in books enti­tled the Waqi‘at.

Most of the legal rul­ings of these three cat­e­gories are men­tioned in the com­mon fiqh texts but are not dis­cern­able from one anoth­er. Very few lat­er jurists dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed between the three cat­e­gories when com­pil­ing their legal com­pendi­ums. A few works, how­ev­er, relate the rul­ings of the mad­hhab accord­ing to their cat­e­go­ry, amongst them is the still rare but oft-quot­ed Muhit of Radi al-Din al-Sarakhsi. In this Muhit – to be dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed from Bukhari’s Muhit Burhani – Sarakhsi first lists the Zahir al-Riwayah, then the Nawadir, and last­ly the Fatawa.


It is known that in Bahrur-Raqaiq, Fatawa-Alam­giria as well as in al-Dur al-Mukhtar (and its mar­gin­a­lia) the fol­low­ing is quot­ed to be Zahir al-Riwayah:

لا عبرة باختلاف المطالع

Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into consideration…

How­ev­er, as far as I can research this start­ed from a state­ment of (Fatawa) Khaniya). I was unable to find this state­ment in the orig­i­nal books of Zahir al-Riwayah or with­in (orig­i­nal) books which con­tained the prin­ci­ples of Zahir al-Riwayah.

In this Istiftaa, I have tried to elab­o­rate my query in detail. My rea­sons for such a detailed query direct­ed towards those (of knowl­edge) is that if this is Zahir al-Riwayah then it should be ref­er­enced from the orig­i­nal books of Zahir al-Riwayah or with­in (orig­i­nal) books which con­tained the prin­ci­ples of Zahir al-Riwayah . If it is not then the mat­ter should be cor­rect­ed. The pos­si­bil­i­ty of over­sight exists when quot­ing sec­ondary sources and the exam­ples can be seen in Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti. Since this (issue) is impor­tant, I have decid­ed to write at length and to seek your attention.

It should be not­ed that it is not my inten­tion to present the Rajih Qawl (with regards to Moon­sight­ing), nor is it my inten­tion to dis­cuss whether the cur­rent (preva­lent) prac­tise of local Moon­sight­ing should be replaced. This is a uni­ver­sal dis­cus­sion and mer­its its own delib­er­a­tion by those of knowl­edge. My inten­tion is mere­ly for a cor­rec­tion to be made if this is not found to be Zahir al-Riwayah or to have it cor­rect­ly ref­er­enced as such if it is indeed Zahir al-Riwayah.

Muham­mad Abdul Malek

26th of Jumādá al-ūlá, 1438


I had the need to write on the top­ic of the (sight­ing of the) cres­cent and Eid due to local needs. Dur­ing my writ­ing, I had the need to ref­er­ence the state­ment “Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion…” as Zahir al-Riwayah and I looked into the six books of Imam Muḥam­mad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shay­bānī (RA) . These are actu­al­ly five books because Siyar Saghir is actu­al­ly part of Mab­sut (also called the Asl). 

I did not find it. I then sought the assis­tance of oth­ers and also used “com­put­er search­es” and still did not find any­thing relat­ed to it.

In the book “Kitaabul-As’l” and in the chap­ter “Kitaab­ul-Istih­saan” it is pos­si­ble for some­one to get doubts from the fol­low­ing pas­sage so it was thor­ough­ly researched

فإن كان في السماء علة من سحاب فأخبره أنه رآه من خلل السحاب، أو جاء من مكان آخر فأخبره بذلك وهو ثقة، فينبغي للمسلمين أن يصوموا بشهادته

The Mas’ala (issue) here is com­men­tat­ed upon by Imam al-Sarakhsi (RA) in Mab­sut and Imam Qazi Khan (RA) in (Fatawa) Khaniya and they both have inter­pret­ed “Makan Aakhir” to mean exter­nal (city) rather then (defin­i­tive­ly) anoth­er city and this (inter­pre­ta­tion) is also con­tex­tu­al­ly sound.

Imam Qazi Khan (RA) in Sharh Jami‘ Saghir has elab­o­rat­ed that in Zahir al-Riwayah there is no dif­fer­ence between “Khair­jul-Mas’r” and “Dakhilul-Mas’r”. Imam Kasani (RA) has also writ­ten the same in Bada’i al-Sana’i:

فإن جاء هذا الواحد من خارج المصر فكذلك في ظاهر الرواية لا تقبل شهادته، وذكر الطحاوي رحمه الله أنها مقبولة، لأن المطالع مختلفة، والموانع خارج المصر أقل، وكذا لو كان في المصر على مكان مرتفع

Thus we did not find any state­ment stat­ing “Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion…” or resem­bling it in books of principles.

The books of prin­ci­ples of Zahir al-Riwayah do not con­tain this state­ment “Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion…” and there are many rea­sons for it. Prin­ci­pal­ly, the books encom­pass­ing the prin­ci­ples of Zahir al-Riwayah do not men­tion it or that we did not find it. The books searched are as follows:

  1. Mukhtaṣar al-Hakim ash-Sha­heed (Al-Kaafi)
  2. Mab­sut al-Sarakhsi
  3. Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani
  4. Al-Muhee­tur Rid­hwi (man­u­script present at Jami­ah Ara­bia Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Karachi)
  5. Khaz­anat­ul-Akmal (we first checked the man­u­scripts for Ummul-Qura and Raza-Ram­pur but it has since been print­ed from Darul-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, Beirut)

In all of these books, this state­ment is nei­ther present as Zahir al-Riwayah nor as Nawadir al-Riwayah and these com­pi­la­tions are con­sid­ered the most impor­tant for extrac­tion (for Masa’il) of prin­ci­ples after the books of principles.

Sec­ond­ly, this state­ment is also not found in the the (text) and sum­mari­sa­tions of the works of Mutaqadimeen, for example:

  1. Mukhtaṣar al-Hakim ash-Shaheed
  2. Mukhtaṣar at-Tahawi
  3. Mukhtaṣar al-Karkhi
  4. Mukhtaṣar al-Quduri
  5. Tufat­ul-Fuqa­ha
  6. Biday­tul-Mub­ta­di
  7. Al-Muqadamat­ul Ghaznawiyyah
  8. Al-Haw­ial-Qudsi: It is not con­sid­ered a text but even then this state­ment is not found
  9. Al-Fiqhun Naf’e
  10. Al-Wiqaya (com­piled after Imam Qazi Khan (RA)
  11. An-Niqaya (com­piled after Imam Qazi Khan (RA)

We did not find this Mas’ala in any of these compilations.

Third­ly, this state­ment is present in (Fatawa) Khaniya and its sum­mari­sa­tions and in so fol­low­ing it has also emerged in al-Dur al-Mukhtar, Kanz al-Daqa’iq fi’l Fiqh and Mul­taqa. Due to its pres­ence in these books it became famous in the whole world as Zahir al-Riwayah. To the best of our knowl­edge this state­ment is not present in any books (as Zahir al-Riwayah) in any books pre­vi­ous­ly, in fact it is hard to imag­ine it being men­tioned (Zahir al-Riwayah) in any books before it.

Allamah Tahir Ibn Abdur-Rasheed Bukhari (RA) com­piled Khu­lasat­ul-Fatawa after (Fatawa) Khaniya and he con­sid­ers Imam Qazi Khan (RA)  as his teacher. His com­pi­la­tion con­tains ref­er­ences to (Fatawa) Khaniya. The date of pass­ing away of Allamah Tahir Ibn Abdur-Rasheed Bukhari (RA) should not put the read­ers in doubt, but his biog­ra­phy and that of Imam Qazi Khan (RA) should be stud­ied in detail. When Khu­lasat­ul-Fatawa is stud­ied in detail, the mat­ter of this state­ment i.e. becomes man­i­fest and clear.

Now let’s look at the con­text of this Mas’ala as men­tioned in (Fatawa) Khaniya:

عن محمد في النوادر: إذا صام أهل مصر شهر رمضان على غير رؤية ثمانية وعشرين يوما ثم رأو هلال شوال، قالوا: إن كانوا عدوا شعبان لرؤية ثلاثين يوماً، وغم عليهم هلال رمضان قضوا يوما واحدا، وإن صاموا تسعة وعشرين يوما ثم رأوا هلال شوال فلا قضاء عليهم لأنهم قدأكملوا الشهر.
ولو صام أهل بلدة ثلاثين يوما للرؤية وأهل بلدة أخرى تسعة وعشرين يوما للرؤية، فعلم من صام تسعة وعشرين يوما فعليهم قضاء يوم، ولا عبرة لاختلاف المطالع في ظاهر الرواية، وكذا ذكر شمس الأئمة الحلواني رحمه الله تعالى، وقال بعضهم: يعتبر اختلاف المطالع

  1. This Mas’ala as not­ed by Imam Qazi Khan (RA) as Zahir al-Riwayah is from Nawadir al-Riwayah. In (Fatawa) Khaniya itself, by say­ing عن محمد في النوادر it is linked to the pre­vi­ous Mas’ala and thus it is Nawadir al-Riwayah by deduc­tion and because
    1. This Mas’ala is not present in the books of Zahir al-Riwayah
    2. This Mas’ala is present in Al-Muntaqa of Hakim Ash-Sha­heed (RA). The sub­ject of Al-Muntaqa is Nawadir al-Riwayah.   The Khut­bah of Al-Muntaqa is in Kas­fudh-Dhunoon and it explains the mat­ter. Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin (RA) has stat­ed that Al-Muntaqa is a book of Zahir al-Riwayah but this seems to be con­tra­dict reality
    3. This Mas’ala is present in Al-Muntaqa of Hakim Ash-Sha­heed (RA) (as present in Al-Muhee­tul-Burhaani) under the head­ing of Bishr Ibnal-Waleed (RA) and Ibra­heem (RA) from Muham­mad (RA). Bishr Ibnal-Waleed (RA)  from Abu Yusuf (RA) and Ibra­heem Bin Rus­tam (RA) from Muham­mad (RA) are both con­tex­tu­al­ly Nawadir al-Riwayah. Zahir al-Riwayah are tran­mit­ted via Isti­faadah from Imam Muham­mad (RA) and the two famous nar­ra­tors for them are Abu Hafs Kabeer (RA) and Abu Suli­man Jauz­jani (RA).
    4. This Mas’ala is also nar­rat­ed in Uyoonul-Masa’il of Abu Layth Samar­qan­di (RA) on the author­i­ty of Aamaali Abu Yusuf (RA) and it is also a book of Nawadir al-Riwayah
    5. This Mas’ala is also nar­rat­ed in Khaz­at­ul-Akmal from Al-Muntaqa as Nawadir al-Riwayah
    6. This Mas’ala is also nar­rat­ed inAl-Muhee­tur-Rid­hwee under the head­ing Hishaam (RA) as Nawadir al-Riwayah nar­rates from Imam Muham­mad (RA)
    7. Al-Jaṣṣās(RA) has inter­pret­ed this Mas’ala (lit­er­al­ly) and quot­ed it under the Tafseer of [185:2] in Aḥkām al-Qur’ān and rigourous­ly backed it but he has also quot­ed it from nar­ra­tors of Nawadir al-Riwayah
  2. Thus there remains no doubt that this Mas’ala is from Nawadir al-Riwayah. Why is it that Imam Qazi Khan (RA) in (Fatawa) Khaniya has nar­rat­ed it as Zahir al-Riwayah? How can the mat­ter be rec­on­ciled? How is it to be inter­pret­ed? If reflect­ed upon, it becomes clear that the Zaahir (appar­ent) mean­ing of the leg­is­lat­ing for those who fast­ed for 29 days need to make Qad­ha (due to oth­ers com­plet­ing 30 days of fast­ing) is that dif­fer­ences of hoir­zons should not be con­sid­ered, in oth­er words he is try­ing to say this:

ولا عبرة لاختلاف المطالع في ظاهر هذه الرواية التي نقلتها من النوادر فإنها حكمت بالقضاء من غير تفصيل بين القريب والبعيد

He did not write هذه in his state­ment as he thought that ال the in الرواية suf­f­i­cent­ly con­veys the mean­ing. If he had thought that the words ظاهر الرواية would be inter­pret­ed (as a tech­ni­cal def­i­n­i­tion) he would have explained fur­ther. Imam Qazi Khan (RA) com­ment­ed on this Mas’ala from Nawadir al-Riwayah because those before him had inter­pret­ed this Mas’ala to ony apply when loca­tions were close (i.e. hori­zons were unit­ed). Imam Qazi Khan (RA) per­haps does­not agree with the inter­pre­ta­tion and he says that the Zaahir (appar­ent) mean­ing of this nar­ra­tion is that dif­fer­ences of hori­zons should be not be considered. 


If this expla­na­tion appears far­fetched then we say that Imam Qazi Khan (RA) has com­mit­ted an over­sight. The lat­er schol­ars (despite) their grandeur and stature did not have access to books of Zahir al-Riwayah. Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin (RA) and Ibn Nujaym (RA) have quot­ed their sources in their works but books of Zahir al-Riwayah are absent. These schol­ars quote Zahir al-Riwayah through an inter­me­di­ary.  Con­sid­er the words of Imam Qazi Khan (RA) when he says:

وكذا ذكر شمس الأئمة الحلواني

And in the sum­ma­ry he states: 

وبه كان يفتي شمس الأئمة الحلواني

He had to say that that Allamah Sham­sud-deen Halawani (RA) used to give Fat­wa accord­ing to it. Why would he need to back a Zahir al-Riwayah in this manner?

Zahir al-Riwayah not known to earlier Scholars?

It should be reflect­ed upon as to why this Zahir al-Riwayah is not only miss­ing from the six books of Zahir al-Riwayah but also miss­ing from the books which were com­piled with the Mas’ail from Zahir al-Riwayah. The (the­o­rat­i­cal) pos­si­bil­i­ty exists that per­haps it is present in some man­u­scripts of the six books of Zahir al-Riwayah. We say did  (Imam) Tahawi (RA), Al-Jaṣṣās(RA) , Imam Abul-Hasan Karkhi (RA), Imam ibn Ham­dan al-Qudūri (RA), Hakim Ash-Sha­heed (RA), Allamah Sham­sud-deen Halawani (RA), Imam Sarakhsi (RA). Imam Jur­jani (RA),  Abu Layth Samar­qan­di (RA),   Imam Kasani (RA) and Imam al-Marghīnānī also not have access to man­u­scripts of Zahir al-Riwayah because they have all dis­tin­guished between near and far (i.e. implied that this is a dif­fer­ence in horizon). 

What did scholars before Imam Qazi Khan (RA) say?

The schol­ars before Imam Qazi Khan (RA) have inter­pret­ed the Mas’ala that who fast­ed for 29 days need to make Qad­ha (due to oth­ers com­plet­ing 30 days of fast­ing) as follows: 

وهذا إذا كان بين البلدين تقارب، بحيث لا تختلف المطالع، فإن كان يختلف لا يلزم أحد البلدين حكم الآخر

We wel­come the research of Shaykhul-Islam (Mufti) Taqi Usmani (RA) in Buhooth and In’aa­mul Bari that this Mas’ala (of mak­ing Qad­ha) is not applic­a­ble to loca­tions, which are dis­tant (in hori­zon) but applic­a­ble to loca­tions which are clos­er (in hori­zon) but this is an astro­nom­i­cal def­i­n­i­tion of hori­zon. The Fuqa­ha have inter­pret­ed hori­zons col­lo­qui­al­ly. The def­i­n­i­tion of hori­zon (col­lo­qui­al­ly) is giv­en in the famous book (of Sha’afes) Al-Anwaar as follows:

وهو أن يتباعد البلدان بحيث لو رؤي في أحدهما لم ير في الآخر غالباً

An even clear­er state­ment is made in Sharh Muhadibh:

وضابط القرب أن يكون الغالب أنه إذا أبصره هؤلاء لا يخفي عليهم إلا لعارض

This mat­ter can also be inter­pret­ed to mean that those loca­tions who have (local) sight­ing and yet their dates remain the same can be con­sid­ered to be unit­ed in hoir­zon and where the date dif­fers can be con­sid­ered to be dis­tant in hoir­zon. This is writ­ten by (Maulana) Burhanud­din Sunbhuli in Tajweez Majlis-e-Tahqee­qat-e-Shari­ah (Luc­know). 

The inter­pre­ta­tion of hori­zon should be tak­en as atsro­nom­i­cal hori­zon is also men­tioned by Imam Jamalud­din Yaz­di Hanafi (RA) in Jawahir­ul-Fiqh and Ima­mul-Har­main Ash’shafae (RA) has men­tioned the same in Nihay­at­ul-Mat­lab Fi Dirayatil-Madhab. 

The fol­low­ing Fuqa­ha have com­ment­ed on this Mas’ala of Nawadir al-Riwayah:

  1. Imam ibn Ham­dan al-Qudūri (RA): It is men­tioned in the Sharh Mukhtasar Karkhi, in the state­ment of al-Qudūri (RA) in Muhit Burhani. It must be men­tioned that it is not men­tioned by al-Qudūri (RA) in At-Tajreed because accord­ing to him this Mas’ala is agreed upon between Hanafees and Shaf’aees. 
  2. Imam Hisamud-deen Ash-Sha­heed (RA): In Fatawa Al-Hisamyah men­tioned under his state­ment الاختیار شرح المختار
  3. Imam Naj­mud­deen Yusuf Bin Ahmed Al-Khas­si (RA): He is the stu­dent of Ash-Sha­heed (RA) and he men­tions it in Fatawa Al-Kubra which is based upon the works of his teacher enti­tled “Al-Fatawaa”. In his book, chap­ter Kitab­ul-Saum in the fifth corol­lary, he writes هذا إذا كان بين البلدتين تقارب بحيث لاتختلف المطالع، وإن كان تختلف لا يلزم أهل أحد من البلدتين حكم الآخر
  4. Imam Abdur-Rasheed Laulu­al­jee (RA): He has also men­tioned it in Fatawa Laulualjee
  5. Imam Rad­hi­ud-deen Srak­shi (RA): He men­tions it as Nawadir of Hishaam and notes وهذا إذا كان بين البلدين بعد بحيث لا يختلف فيه مطلع الهلال، لأن الرؤية لا تفاوت ولا يختلف، فيلزم أحدهما حكم الآخر، وإن كان بينهما مسافة مزيدة بحيث يختلف فيها المطالع لم يلزم أحدهما حكم الآخر. A man­u­script is avail­able at Jami­ah Ara­bia Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Karachi and also checked in the man­u­script at Mak­ta­ba Faizul­lah (Istan­bul), a copy of Ash-shub­ka can also be checked.
  6. Imam Jamaludeen Al-Yaz­di Al-Mutah­har Bin Hus­sain (RA): He is the famous teacher of Muham­mad Bin Abdur-Rasheed Ruknud­deen Kir­mani (RA) who passed away in 565 (AH). Kir­mani (RA) has record­ed his Fataawa in the sec­ond chap­ter of his books in Jawahir­ul-Fatawaa . A ta’leeq from Jamalud­din Yaz­di (RA) about this Mas’ala from Nawadir al-Riwayah is record­ed in the same book and we will quote it later
  7. Alaud­din Al-Isman­di (RA) [448–552 AH): His com­ments from Sharh Uyoon­al Mas’ail is record­ed in the mar­gin­a­lia “At-Tajnees wal-Mazeed” and it is the same as men­tioned by Rad­hi­ud-deen Srak­shi (RA)
  8. Ruknud-deen Abul-Fad­hal Abdur-Rah­man Bin Muham­mad Kir­mani (RA) [d 543 AH]: The author of Khu­lasa has refer­nced his book “At-Tajreed” and Jamia Ummul-Qura did research work on his work. It is writ­ten, “ولو صام أھل مصر ثلاثین یوما للرؤیة، وصام أھل بلد تسعة وعشرین یوما للرؤیة فعلى ھؤلاء قضاء یوم واحد، وھذا إذا كان بین البلدین تقارب لا تختلف المطالع، فإن كان یختلف لم یلزم أحد البلدین حكم الآخر”. It must be not­ed that Mul­la Ali Qari (RA) [d 1605/1606] has ref­er­enced an opin­ion of the author of “At-Tajreed” that dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion in Sharh Al-Lubaab but this does­n’t appear to be cor­rect as evi­dent from the stat­ment just quot­ed. This Mas’ala is not quot­ed in “At-Tajreedul Qudoori”. The opin­ion of al-Qudūri (RA) has been men­tioned before in the dis­cus­sion about Sharh Mukhtasar Karkhi.
  9. Imam Kasani (RA) : His famous state­ment about this Ma’ala from Nawadir al-Riwayah from Bada’i al-Sana’i is com­ing and this is con­sid­ered to be the opin­ion of Imam Kasani (RA) and Imam Zail’ee (RA) and a far-fetched explaina­tion has been giv­en in Ahsan­ul-Fataawa and it appears from it that Imam Zail’ee (RA) is alone in the (Hanafi) Mad­hab who sup­ports this view

Thus these are the schol­ars who have writ­ten about the Mas’ala of Nawadir al-Riwayah about which Fatawa) Khaniya has noted:

لا عبرة باختلاف المطالع

Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into consideration…

The Ta’leeq by the schol­ars (above) states that this is valid in the case of Itti­hadul-Matale (joined hori­zon) and there is a dif­fer­ent injunc­tion in the case of Ikhti­laa­ful-Matale (dif­fer­ent hoir­zons). In oth­er words in their opin­ion dif­fer­ences in hori­zon is tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion. The injunc­tion of Nawadir al-Riwayah accord­ing to these schol­ars is not absolute but applic­a­ble in the case of actu­al (close) hori­zons or con­tex­tu­al in ter­mi­nol­o­gy (i.e. in terms of def­i­n­i­tion the hori­zons are close).

Then there are oth­er schol­ars who have not only stat­ed Ta’lee­qan but actu­al­ly writ­ten that dif­fer­ences in hori­zon is tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion, for example:

  1. Imam Jur­jani (RA) [d 388 AH]: He is the teacher of Imam ibn Ham­dan al-Qudūri (RA) and stu­dent of Al-Jaṣṣās(RA)  It is writ­ten in Al Arf Al Shaazzi and I’laas-Sun­nah that Imam Jur­jani (RA) had the same opin­ion as Imam Zail’ee (RA). The Arab schol­ar Abdul­lah Bin Hameed in Tibyaan­ul-adil­lah Fi Ith­batil-Ahillaa has also stat­ed this as “وقال الزیلعي شارح الكنز: إن عدم عبرۃ اختلاف المطالع إنما ھو في البلاد المتقاربة لا النائیة. وقال كذلك في تجرید القدوري، وقال به الجرجاني”. I don’t know the source of the authors ascrib­ing this Mas’ala to Imam Jur­jani (RA). It should be not­ed that Jur­jani (RA) who authored Khaz­an­tul-Akmal is not meant here because this Mas’ala is not elab­o­rat­ed in his book, he has mere­ly quot­ed it as a Mas’ala of Nawadir al-Riwayah from Al-Muntaqa of Hakim Ash-Sha­heed (RA). How­ev­er in  Al Arf Al Shaazzi and Tibyaan­ul-adil­lah Fi Ith­batil-Ahillaa the ascrip­tion to “At-Tajreedul Quduri”  appears to be over­sight. In Khu­lasat­ul-Fataawa the Tajreed which is men­tioned (with regards to dif­fer­ences in hori­zon not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion) is “At-Tajreedul Rukni” which deals with Mas’ail which are dif­fered between the Hanafees and the Sha’afees. How­ev­er in this Mas’ala the dom­i­nant and the appar­ent opnion of both Hanafees and the Sha’afees is the same there­fore it is not a top­ic dicussed in “At-Tajreedul Quduri”. The ref­er­ence of “At-Tajreedul Rukni” is giv­en previously.
  2. Abu Ibra­heem Ismail Bin Ahmed As-Saf­far Ash-shaeed (RA) [d 461 AH]: Imam Abu Bakr Al-Haseeri (RA) [d 500 AH] who is the stu­dent of Imam Sarakhsi (RA) has stat­ed in his book “Al-Hawi Fil-Fatawaa” from the ref­er­ence of “Fatawaa Ma Waraun-Nah’r” and said “وسئل الفقیه أبو إبراھیم: بلدۃ رأوا الھلال یوم الأربعاء، وفي بلدۃ یوم الثلثاء، قال: یحكم كل أھل بلدۃ بما رأوا، ولا ینظر إلى ما رأوہ أھل بلدۃ أخرى، وعن ابن عباس أنه سئل عن ھذا، فقال: لھم ما لھم، ولنا ما لنا، وعن عائشة رضي اللہ عنھا قالت: فطر كل بلدۃ یوم یفطر جماعتھم وأضحى كل بلدۃ یوم یضحى جماعتھم”. Man­u­scripts of Al-Hawi are avail­able and we have a pic­ture of the man­u­script from Mak­ta­ba Faizul­lah Aafin­di (Istan­bul) . This Fat­waa of As-Saf­far (RA) on the ref­er­ence of Al-Hawi is men­tioned by the author or Hidaayah in “At-Tajnees wal-Mazeed” and he has not­ed, “وھذا إشارۃ إلى ما ذكرنا أنه لا یلزمھم حكم قاضي بلدۃ أخرى، إلا أن یمضي قاضي بلدتھم قضاء حكم قاضي بلدۃ أخرى  وھذا إذا تقاربت مطالع البلدتین، أما إذا تباعدت لیس للثاني أن یمضي قاضي الاول في أھل مصرہ، مطالع سمرقند وبخارى قریب، فیمضي قاضي أحدھما قضاء قاض أخر”. How­ev­er, the author of Hawi has con­sid­ered the Fat­waa of As-Saf­far (RA) as uncon­di­tion­al and even when they close he has issued a Fat­waa that dif­fer­ences of hori­zons are not be con­sid­ered and this is the rea­son he has added “قال مولانا: علیھم قضاء یوم آخر، سئل عن أھل بلدۃ رأوا الھلال في بلدتھم، ھل یحكم برؤیتھم في بلد آخر، قال: بلى یحكم، لأنه روي مثله في المنتقى”. Who is this Maulana? I could not under­stand after con­sid­er­ing the con­text. My inten­tion was to high­light that even that even a great schol­ar such as As-Saf­far (RA) has con­sid­ered dif­fer­ence of hori­zons and Al-Haseeri (RA) has (in oppo­si­tion to it) knowl­edge of the of Nawadir al-Riwayah from Al-Muntaqa
  3. Shams al‑A’immah Mah­mood Al-Auz­jan­di (RA) nar­rates in Bahrur-Raqaiq (4/416) from Kitaab­ul-Eemaan of Zaheerud-deen Bukhari (RA) [d 619 AH], “وسئل الأوزجندي عمن قال لصاحب الدين إن لم أقض حقك يوم العيد فكذا فجاء يوم العيد إلا أن قاضي هذه البلدة لم يجعله عيدا ، ولم يصل فيه صلاة العيد لدليل [ ص: 399 ] لاح عنده ، وقاضي بلدة أخرى جعله عيدا قال إذا حكم قاضي بلدة بكونه عيدا يلزم ذلك أهل بلدة أخرى إذا لم تختلف المطالع كما في الحكم بالرمضانية” . It is men­tioned on the author­i­ty Al-Fawaid of Shams al‑A’immah Mah­mood Al-Auz­jan­di (RA) in Khu­lasat­ul-Fatawa (2/173) and also men­tioned with­out ref­er­ence to the source on the author­i­ty of Shams al‑A’immah Mah­mood Al-Auz­jan­di (RA) in Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani (6/293) and on the author­i­ty of Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani in Fatawa-Alam­giria (2/138). It is also men­tioned with­out ref­er­ence to Shams al‑A’immah Mah­mood Al-Auz­jan­di (RA) in Fatawa Al-Bazaziyah (Indi­an mar­gin­al com­men­tary) (4/329–330).
  4. Majidush-Sharia by Sulaiman bin Hasan Al-Kir­mani (Qad­hi) Muham­mad in Jawahir­ul-Fatawa (Kitaabus-Saum, chap­ter 5), “أهل بلدة عيدوا يوم الاثنين و أهل بلد آخر عيدوا يوم الثلاثاء لا يجب عليهم قضاء يوم, أهل بلد رأوا هلال رمضان وأعلموا أهل البلد الآخر بذلك وهم لم يروا, فهذا على وجهين, إن كان المطلع في حقهما متحدا يلزم كل واحد منهما حكم الآخر, فإذا أعلمهم عدلان منهم يلزمهم حكم الصوم والفطر, وإن كان بين البلدتين مسافة يختلف المطالع في حقهم فلا يلزم واحدا حكم الآخر”. It should be made known that the the fifth chap­ter of each book in Jawahir­ul-Fatawa is exclu­sive­ly for Fatawa from Majidush-Sharia.
  5. Ruknud­deen Muham­mad bin Abdur-Rasheed Kir­mani [d 565 AH] is the author of Jawahir­ul-Fatawa, it is men­tioned in the fore­word of Kafwa (RA)‘s Alam al-Akhyaar “ركن الملة والدين بهاء الاسلام والمسلمين أبوبكر محمد بن أبي المفاخر عبد الرشيد الكرماني , صنف جواهر الفتاوى في سنة سبع و خمسين و خمس مائة, وله كتاب “غرر المعاني في فتاوى فتاوى ابي الفضل الكرماني””, it is also men­tioned on the ref­er­ence of Kafwa (RA) “كتاب جواهر الفتاوى من مشاهير كتب الفتاوى الذي رتب الصدر السعيد ركن الدين الكرماني”.  Radd al-Muhtar has men­tioned this book as a ref­er­ence in the dis­cus­sion on dif­fer­ences of hori­zons on the author­i­ty of Imam Qahas­tani (RA) [d 953 AH] but it is sum­marised to such an extent that it is hard to dis­cern the full mean­ing of the entire dis­cus­sion.  Ruknud­deen Muham­mad bin Abdur-Rasheed Kir­mani [d 565 AH] has delib­er­at­ed on this issue in many chanpters of Kitubus-Saum, we have dis­cussed the fifth chap­ter but in the third chap­ter it states, “لو شهد شاهدان عند قاضي مصر (ما) أهل الهلال على أن قاضى مصر كذا شهد شاهدان عنده برؤية الهلال وقضى به واستجمع شرائط صحة الدعوى, فإن القاضى يقضى بهذا” and after stat­ing this Allamah Kir­mani (RA) writes, “هكذا ذكر, وهذا إذا كان بين البلدتين (تقارب) لا يختلف المطالع, بحيث يلزم أحدهما حكم الآخر”. In the sec­ond chap­ter of Kitubus-Saum which is exclu­sive for the Fatawa of Imam Jamalud­din Yaz­di Hanafi (RA), Kir­mani (RA) writes, “لو صام أهل بلدة تسعة و عشرين يوما و اهل بلدة ثلاثين, إن كان يختلف المطالع لا يلزم احديهما حكم الآخر, وإن كان لا يختلف المطالع يلزم, قال شيخنا وسيدنا جمال الدين: لم يذكروا في ذلك حدا, بل أطلقوا, وأنا اقول: يجوز أن يعتبر فيه مإ يعتبر في الغيبة المنقطعة في حق الولي, قلت له: تحديدك في الغيبة المنقطعة لا يوجب زيادة في البيان, فأنهم اختلفو فيها, قال: مالأ يصل القوافل في السنة غالبا إلا مرة, و أقله مسيرة شهر, ألا يري إلى قصة سليمان بن داود عليهما السلام, ولسليمان الريح غدوها شهر ورواحها شهر, وكان انتقاله من اقليم إلي اقليم, و قدره بشهر, فعرف أن بين الاقلمين المنجممة من زيادة الدرجة مي العرض والطول فلا يعتبر”. The last part of the state­ment of Imam Jamalud­din Yaz­di Hanafi (RA) is impor­tant because it implies that the ear­li­er schol­ars did not dis­cuss the dif­fer­ences of hori­zons from the (astro­nom­i­cal or Geo­graph­ic coor­di­nate sys­tem point of view) but they dis­uc­ss it from the Urf (point of view), although because this Mas’ala is Ghair-Man­soos he has not been able to present an agreed upon mea­sure of it and it is sim­i­lar to Mas­sail of “Maun-Katheer, Amalun-Katheer, num­ber of atten­deed for Fri­day etc. It must be men­tioned that what Imam Jamalud­din Yaz­di Hanafi (RA) has writ­ten is also men­tioned by Imam­nul-Hara­main (RA), “وذكر الأصحاب: أن البعد الذى ذكرناه هو مسافة القصر, ولو اعتبر مسافة يظهر في مثلها تفاوت المناظر في الاستهلال لكان متجها في المعنى, ولكن لا قائل به”. In short, I want­ed to point out that there have been many major schol­ars before Imam Qazi Khan (RA) who have allud­ed to near and far (in terms of hori­zon) and artic­u­lat­ed dif­fer­ence (in hori­zons) with­out allud­ing to Dhahir Riwayah, lets continue.
  6. Sir­a­jud­deen Ali Ibn Muham­mad Al-Aushi (RA) [d 569 AH] and his book Fatawa-Sir­a­jia has been pub­lished (see pg 169 of Darul-uloom Zakariyya, South Africa).
  7. Naja­mud­deen Al-Nasafi (RA) [d 537 AH]‘s opin­ion could not be deter­mined by an exact quote but Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani (3/346) has quot­ed a Fat­wa and then record­ed “وكأنه مال إلى أن حكم إحدى البلدتين لا يلزم البلدة الأخرى أصلاً وعيد اختلاف المطالع، وعلم أن المطالع مختلفة إلا أن تلك المسألة مختلفة، وقد مضى بقول البعض، فارتفع الخلاف، فلم يتضح لنا وجه جواب نجم الدين”. Qawwa­mud­den Kaa­ki (RA) [d 749 AH] in Maira­jud-Daariya Sharhal-Hidaaya and Ibn Abdaul-Aal in his Fataawa have writ­tern with “Jazam” that this Fat­wa of Naja­mud­deen Al-Nasafi (RA) is an indi­ca­tion that dif­fer­ences in hori­zons are to be considered.
  8. Imam Ahmed bin Muham­mad bin Mah­mood Al-Ghaz­navi [d 593 AH] writes, “هذا إذا لم يكن بين البلدتين تفاوت يختلف فيه المطالع,فإن كانت يختلف فيه المطالع لم يلزم أحد البلدتين حكم الآخر”. These were schol­ars who were before Imam Qazi Khan (RA) or his con­tem­po­raries but when we look at schol­ars after him, we see that they have not accept­ed his state­ment on face val­ue but many have looked into the real­i­ty and researched in depth.
  9. Burhanud­deen Mah­mood Al-Bukhari (RA) [d 616 AH] has start­ed the dis­cus­sion in Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani stat­ing that Ula­ma have dif­fered on the mat­ter, “أهل بلدة إذا رأوا الهلال هل يلزم ذلك أهل بلدة أخرى؟ اختلف المشايخ فيه، بعضهم قالوا: لا يلزم ذلك به وإنما المعتبر في حق كل بلدة رؤيتهم وبنحوه ورد الأثر عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. وفي المنتقى: بشر عن أبي يوسف، وإبراهيم عن محمد: إذا صام أهل بلدة ثلاثين يوما للرؤية وصام أهل بلدة تسعة وعشرين يوما للرؤية، فعليهم قضاء يوم. وفي القدوري: إذا كان بين البلدتين تفاوت لا تختلف فيه المطالع لزم حكم إحدى البلدتين حكم البلدة الأخرى. فأما إذا كان تفاوت تختلف المطالع فيه، لم يلزم حكم إحدى البلدتين حكم البلدة الأخرى، وذكر شمس الأئمة الحلواني: أن الصحيح من مذهب أصحابنا رحمهم الله: أن الخبر إذا استفاض، وتحقق فيما بين أهل البلدة الأخرى، ويلزمهم حكم أهل هذه البلدة”. It is clear that the author in Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani has grasped the state­ment of (Fatawa) Khaniya) and revert­ed to the orig­i­nal (sources) and not been affect­ed by the error (or ambi­gu­i­ty of) Imam Qazi Khan (RA). It also appears that as per the pre­vi­ous sources he also con­sid­ers the dif­fer­ences in hori­zons to be valid which is why he has quot­ed Nawadir and then imme­di­ate­ly brought the state­ment of Imam Quduri (RA). It also appears that Sharus-Saum of Allamah Sham­sud-deen Halawani (RA) is in front of him as he has quot­ed the orig­i­nal state­ment. In the sum­ma­ry the full con­text of the dis­cus­sion about East and West from Allamah Sham­sud-deen Halawani (RA) should be searched. It must be not­ed with regret that in Fathul Qadeer this per­son­al state­ment of Allamah Sham­sud-deen Halawani (RA) has been quot­ed as Dhahir Riwayah when in sum­ma­ry, it has mere­ly been not­ed as per­son­al state­ment. It should also be not­ed that in Al-Ikhtiyaar Sham­sul-Aim­ma Halawani (RA) got cor­rupt­ed to Sham­sul-Aim­ma al-Sarakhsi (RA) when Sham­sul-Aim­ma al-Sarakhsi (RA) has noth­ing to do with the opin­ion of Imam Qazi Khan (RA) (about dis­re­gard­ing the dif­fer­ences in hori­zons). In fact, Allamah Badrud­deen Aini (RA) in Shar­al-Kanz has attrib­uted Sham­sul-Aim­ma al-Sarakhsi (RA) to accept­ing dif­fer­ences in horizons.
  10. Zaheerud­deen Abu-Bakr Muham­mad Al-Bukhari (RA) [d 619 AH] made a state­ment in this regards in his “AlFawaqiduz-Zahiriyyah” which has been pre­sent­ed pre­vi­ous­ly and there is con­fir­ma­tion of it in (Fatawa) Khaniya), 3/365). How­ev­er, it was lat­er dis­cov­ered that in Kitaab­ul-Saum with­in “Jami­ul-Mudhmi­raat” this Mas’ala from Nawadir is men­tioned and the dis­re­gard­ing of dif­fer­ences of hori­zons is attrib­uted to Dhahir Riwayah but it is the end which mat­ters. In the end it is men­tioned “عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه أنه يعتبر في حق كل بلدة رؤية اهل ذلك البلد” and “Jami­ul-Mudhmi­raat” men­tions what­ev­er is present in Al-Muhee­tul Burhaani. Imam Qahas­tani (RA) [d 953 AH] in Jami­ur-Rumooz has attrib­uted “Jami­ul-Mudhmi­raat” to be of the opin­ion that dif­fer­ences in hori­zons has to be regarded.
  11. Shaykh Niza­mud­deen (son of author of Hidaayah) writes in Jawahir­ul-Fiqh “ولو صام اهل بلدة ثلاثين يوما للرؤية و اهل بلدة تسعة و عشرين يوما للرؤية, فعلى هولاء قضاء يوم, وهذا إذا كان بين البلدتين تقارب لا تختلف المطالع, فإن كان يختلف المطالع لم يلزم أهل بلدة حكم الأخرى
  12. Zaynud­deen Razi (RA) [d 666 AH) whose book “Tuh­fat­ul-Mulook” was pub­lished in 1436 writes, “ولا يلزم أحد المصرين روية المصر الآخر إلا إذا تحدث المطالع”. It’s com­men­tary “Min­hatas-Sulook FiSharhTuhfatul-Mulook“was pub­lished in 1428 and Allamah Badrud­deen Aini (RA) has agreed with the (main text) and not writ­ted a word dis­agree­ing with it. In the mar­gin­il­ia of the com­men­tary, a com­ment is present from Ibn Malik (RA) which oppos­es this view, the com­men­tary is not in front of me but a man­u­script in “Maj­ma’al-Bahrain” is present of the com­men­tary of Ibn Malik (RA) and in it he has agreed that the dif­fer­ences of hori­zons are to be con­sid­ered. It is pos­si­ble that in “Min­hatas-Sulook FiSharhTuh­fat­ul-Mulook” the opin­ion of Ibn Malik Al-Ibn (RA) is record­ed rather than the opin­ion of Ibn Malik Al-Ab (RA). Besides, what we have men­tioned, there are many oth­er Ula­ma who went against the appar­ent quot­ing of “Dif­fer­ences in hori­zon are not tak­en into con­sid­er­a­tion” by (Fatawa) Khaniya being Dhahir Riwayah and sided with the opin­ion that dif­fer­ences in hori­zons are to be con­sid­ered.
  13. Abdul­lah bin Muham­mad Al-Mausali (RA) [d 683 AH) in his com­men­tary “Al-Ikhtiyaar” appears to agree with the opin­ion of the Mutaqadimeen in oppo­si­tion to the opin­ion men­tioned in al-Mukhtar which agrees with (Fatawa) Khaniya
  14. Allamah Abul-Abbas As-Saru­ji (RA) [d 710 AH] writes in “Al-Ghaya Fi Sharhil-Hidaayah”, “هذا اذا كان بين البلدين تقارب بحيث لا تختلف المطالع , فإن كان تختلف لا يلتزم احدا من اهل البلدين حكم الآخر, هكذا ذكره في المحيط والذخيرة, عن القدوري, والواقعات, ومنية المفتي والتجريد و شرحه للكردي, والبدائع و عمدة الفتاوى: … ثم نقل كلام الحلواني والظهيرية منا الحنفية, و كلام ابن عبد البر المالكي, والنووي الشافعي, والقرافي المالكي, و رجع القول باعتبار اختلاف المطالع , وقال فيما قال:” وتؤكدها أنه لم ينقل عن عمر, ولا عن غيره من الخلفاء انهم كانو يبعثون البرد (ويكتبون) إلى الأقطار, بأنا قد رأيناه فصومو, بل كانو يتركون (الناس) على مراقبهم, فيصير هذا كالمجموع عليه …” و ذكر أيضا حدبث كريب”. We can see in this state­ment as to how many books of Hanafi Mad­hab have been ref­er­enced with the opin­ion that dif­fer­ences of hori­zons is to be regarded.
  15. Imam Zail’ee (RA) in Tab­bayan­ul-Haqaiq Sharh Kanzud-Daqaiq
  16. Allamah Ameer Kaat­ib Itfaani (RA) [d 758 AH] writes in his com­men­tary “Ghaay­at­ul-Bayan Wa Naadi­rat­ul-Aqran”, “ثم المعتبر في كل قوم مطالع بلادهم, لا بلاد غيرهم, فإن البلاد تختلف أقاليهما في الارتفاع والانخفاض, فربما يرى في بعضها ولم يرفي بعض, و قيل: لا اعتبار لاختلاف المطالع, حتى لو أرى اهل المغرب هلال رمضان يجب برؤيتهم على أهل المشرق, و عليه فتوى الفقيه ابي الليث رحمه الله, ولا نأخذه, لما روي الترمذى في كتاب الصوم, باب لاهل كل بلد رويتهم (وفي آخرة) قال ابو عيسى: حديث ابن عباس رضي الله عنه حديث حسن صحيح غريب, قال: والعمل على هذا الحديث عند أهل العلم أن لكل أهل بلد رؤيتهم”
  17. Ibra­heem bin Abdur-Rah­man Al-Qahiri (RA) [d 923 AH] has been men­tioned in Radd al-Muhtar as “واعتمد الزيلعي و صاحب الفيض” and when he checked the man­u­scripts of Al-Faidh it clear­ly states,  “والصحيح اعتبار اختلاف المطالع” and this stat­ment is also record­ed by Kahirud­deen Ram­li (RA) in the mar­gin­il­ia of Bahrur-Raqaiq. These two state­ments are present in some man­u­scripts of Radd al-Muhtar
  18. Shah Wal­i­ul­lah (RA) [d 1176 AH] in Al-Mus­safa Sharh Mauta
  19. Allamah Anwar Shah Kash­miri (RA) [d 1352 AH] in Al-Arfush-Shad­hi and Ma’arifus-Sunun
  20. Mufti Muham­mad Shafi (RA) in his Rouy­at-e-Hilaal and Imdadul-Muftiyeen
  21. Maulana Yusuf Bin­nori (RA) [d 1397 AH] in Ma’arifus-Sunun
  22. Mufti Faizul­lah (RA) [d 1396 AH] who was part of Darul-uloom Haad-Haz­ari (Bangladesh) also pre­ferred the opin­ion that dif­fer­ences in hori­zons have to be regard­ed, “حكاو لي والدي, حفظه الله تعالى و رعاه, و هو من تلامذة المفتي رحمه الله تعالى ” 

In my hum­ble opin­ion if we con­sid­er the facts that Qudoori, Mab­sut and Hidaaya all three of the books are devoid of the قضاء يوم and لا عبرة اختلاف المطالع and on the oth­er side we have Qudoori, Kasaani and Hidaaya have encap­su­lat­ed Nawadir and are amongst the “Ashabut-Tar­jeeh”, this alone should make us recon­sid­er the stat­ments of (Fatawa) Khaniya) and Khu­lasat­ul-Fatawa. We now have access to the orig­i­nal sources of Dhahir Riwayah, its sec­ondary quo­ta­tions and com­men­taries and we do not find this Mas’ala in them so how can we accept that all the schol­ars before Imam Qazi Khan (RA) were unware of this Dhahir Riwayah?


Translation incomplete and being updated!

جزاك اللهُ خيرًا

  1. Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti, Kashf al-Zunun, Sharh al-Biri, and Radd al-Muhtar give the name as Abu ‘l‑Nasr Qasim ibn Salam, which is incor­rect. In fact, he is Abu Nasr Muham­mad ibn Muham­mad ibn Salam al-Balkhi, some­times called Abu Nasr ibn Salam or Abu Nasr Muham­mad ibn Salam. He was amongst the famed jurists and hadith schol­ars of Balkh. He passed away in 305AH. Ibn ‘Abidin gives the cor­rect name on page 130 of his Nashr al-‘Arf fi Bina Ba‘d al-Ahkam ‘ala ’l-‘Urf (Mashayikh Balkh min al-Hanafiyyah 1:53, Tabaqat Saniyyah 267, from the unpub­lished mar­gin­al com­men­tary of Shaykh Husain Kado­dia on Sharh ‘Uqud).