>"O Allah! Guide Quraysh, for the science of the scholar that comes from them will encompass the earth. O Allah! You have let the first of them taste bitterness, so let the latter of them taste reward." >Abu Qilaba and Ahmed ibn Hanbal said that this hadith refers to Shafii 1. What is the earliest source and chain of this Hadith? 2. What is the earliest source of Abu Qilaba and Ahmed ibn Hanbal mentioning that this hadith refers to Shafii? If it's not a direct text from them, what is the chain for the athar?

As the title says, what is considered a non-fighter in each of the 4 madhabs? Is it restricted to only woman and children, or is the status extended to other categories like the elderly, monks, and laborers? I understand that there have been a couple posts similar to this, however unlike those posts, I am specifically looking for a comprehensive explanation of what each of the 4 madhabs' mutamads relay regarding this topic.

In my school we are unable to pray Jummah during thuhr time, so the students have been using the hanbali opinion to pray 30min before Thuhr time. Since my school follows the Hanbali opinion does this Jumu’ah prayer replace the Dhuhr prayer as usual, or is it necessary to pray Dhuhr afterward in this case? If we are going to use a minority opinion the least we can do is follow it fully, so what is the hanbali opinion on this matter?

>“No one will be absolved because of a transgression against religious law, except in the case of people of high social position, who will be treated accordingly, as the hadith stipulates: **‘Forgive those in elevated social position,’** since for them corporal punishment is more painful.” > >*— Abd Al-Majid Ibn Abdun, in The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, by Dario Fernandez Morera* I apologize for not providing a direct for this narration. I originally came across this passage that was referenced in the book above. They attributed the quote to Ibn Abdun, and not only that, quoted him providing a hadith that propagates his argument. The focus of this ticket is as follows: 1. What is the reliability of this attribution to Ibn Abdun? 2. How well reflected is this position within the mainstream/ classical understanding Islamic jurisprudence; the opinions of the fuquha within the 4 madhabs? 3. Most importantly, what is the source and authenticity of this supposed hadith Ibn Abdun provided?

>“Ibn Uthaymeen said: and the second benefit is; the prohibition of killing women and children during war. > >And if it is said, if they did this to us, that they killed our children and women, can we kill them? **What is apparent, is that it is allowed for us to kill their women and children, even if that were to cause us to miss taking them as wealth, due to what this contains from breaking the hearts of the enemies and weakening them, and due to the generality of Allah’s saying**, “And whoever transgresses against you, then transgress against them the like of what they have transgressed against you, — Q2:194.” > >The questioner continues: then we are allowed to kill their women and children. But O sheikh, they, the men are the ones who killed the women, and the women are innocent, so how can they be punished due to the crimes of men? > >Ibn Uthaymeen replied: **This is because of the greater benefit, the greater benefit to those who are fighting. Because if we do not do to them what they do to us, this would be humiliation in front of them.** > >Ibn Uthaymeen continued: **Justice with their woman is incomprehensible, they killed our women, we kill their women. This is justice. It is not justice that we say, if they kill our women we will not kill their women. Also, we note that this influences them greatly.**” > >*— Bulugh Al-Maram, Explanation by Ibn Uthaymeen, Tape 3, Side B.* The focus of this ticket is as follows: 1. What is the reliability of this attribution to Ibn Uthaymeen? 2. If it's reliable, is he really saying that, based off of Q2:194, if the enemy kills our non-fighters; more specifically, woman and children who do not take part in battle, we may do the same to them as a form of retaliation? 3. Most importantly, how well reflected is this position within the mainstream/ classical understanding Islamic jurisprudence; the opinions of the fuquha within the 4 madhabs?

On a website name Jihadica, various fatwas containing Daesh insignia were collected by certain academicians and researchers in 2014. Fatwa No. 68 is translated by UC Berkeley medical anthropology doctoral candidate, Khashayar Beigi (below): *" the experts of the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence permitted killing of the warring infidels or apostates under the constraining circumstances of eating their flesh to stay alive. Imam Alnawawi says, “**There is permission to kill the warring party, the apostate, and moreover to eat their flesh carries no punishment** .” If the experts of jurisprudence have allowed under war conditions believers to eat the flesh of the infidel in order to prevent harm and loss of life, these apply as well to the transplant of organs from the apostate to the Muslim. The life and organs of the apostate are not protected by Muslim jurisprudence."* While the opinions of Daesh certainly do not matter, I want to know whether the opinion they impute on Imam Shafi'i (RA) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) are accurate or not? Is cannibalism on the kuffar and murtadeen haram or halal?

Is There a difference of opinion in Hanbali Madhab regarding the matter mentioned here related to Ahlul Ahad because I found in some Fiqh book that they permit captivity. OR I am just confusing it with something else? *** > وَيَجُوزُ شِرَاءُ أَوْلَادِ أَهْلِ الْعَهْدِ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا يَجُوزُ > سَبْيُهُمْ *** الأحكام السلطانية الماوردي

The Qur'an clearly states that Hell is eternal. Of course I do not think Ibn Tamiyyah is correct, but I am asking because it is unusual for someone who so repeatedly talked of and condemned bid'ah, and creates such a huge one himself. >From his book > >ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻓﻴﺤﺘﺞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ، ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ – ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺒﻘﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ، ﻭﻻ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ -. ﺃﻫــــ > >“In which case, the argument for the ending of Hellfire is supported by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the statements of the Sahabah; while the affirmers of its eternality have with them no Quran, no Sunnah, and no statements of the Sahabah.” He even claims that he has the Qur'an on his side. I just want to know what is his side of the argument other than the fact that he thinks eternal hellfire is against "Divine wisdom"? (the "contradiction of divine wisdom" claim is also from his book)

Basically the question https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/37600/should-i-correct-an-imam-who-forces-his-opinions-on-his-community is the reason for me to ask the above question. As I know (or learnt) that even if abu Hanifa holds the opinion that in a congregation the people following the Imam can end the prayer at the same time with him or earlier, but Mohammad ibn al-Hassan a-Shaybani and abu Yusuf followed the opinion of the majority of scholars saying one must follow the Imam and only do the salam if he has finished it. So I asked myself what is the established madhhab of the hanafi school and whom are the scholars whom made this final stablization. BTW it would be nice to know the same for the maliki and hanbali (and if possible also the dhahiri/zahiri) school as i assume that i've covered the shafi'i school already in my answer on https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/36246/levels-of-obligatoriness-of-rulings-within-schools-of-law

I know there are 2 opinions regarding the starting time of jumaah: 1. coincides with duhr and 2. before duhr. This Fatwa on islamqa kind of discusses both but in a biased direction. I am trying to understand about the second opinion, which is agreed by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh. The islamqa link discusses the 'flaws' in their references and does not explain why Ibn Hanbal(or ibn Raahawayh) came to that conclusion in the first place. Also, what is the maximum extent before duhr can jumaah be offered?

So I understand culturally, dogs are not exactly popular in certain areas of the Muslim world and there are certain narrations that appear to be against dogs as pets, but are there not narrations which also seem to suggest that it’s not such as the person being forgiving for giving a dog water or in the Quran where the Sleepers in the Cave had a dog (and it does not explicitly mention it was a guard dog) nor the fact that the Quran never condemns dogs either. Because of this, do the four madhabs have different positions on the permissibility of keeping dogs without a “purpose” (I.e. perhaps having a dog as a companion or for therapy for depression). Sorry for the long description but I hope it helps to assist in answering the question.

> Analogical reasoning (Qiyas), was likewise rejected as a valid source of law by Ibn Hanbal himself, with a near-unanimous majority of later Hanbalite jurists not only accepting analogical reasoning as valid but also borrowing from the works of Shafi'ite jurists on the subject. -- Hanbali , Wikipedia This seems surprising---the founder of Hanbali school held that qiyas were invalid, yet there's a subsequent "near-unanimous majority" accepting qiyas. **Question**: Does the Hanbali school of thought accept qiyas despite Ibn Hanbal rejecting it, and if so why? I'm wondering if this is accurate, and if it is accurate, how these two pieces of information fit together. In https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/35293/17163 , we have > Qiyas: in the hanbali madhab is only used in case of necessity. -- Medi1Saif which makes me think the Wikipedia passage is misleading.