With All due respect, the ruling in the Maliki madhab with regards to hadd on an unmarried pregnant woman (her pregnancy being proof)seems very unjust if she was truly raped. How could such an individual provide ample evidence for being raped? It would be difficult, especially in the past. The other 3 madhahib have proof from the Sunnah & accept verbal proof even, for the Malikiyya, I’ve come a cross a statement of Imam Maalik & so on(No Hadith reference). What proof do they use for this ruling? The statement of Imām Mālik seems very harsh and inconsiderate considering how serious the hadd is. In the Sunnah it’s clear that postponing the punishment for Zina is practiced, and it doesn’t seem so from the statement of Mālik & co.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, a maliki argued with me that some sahaba prayed with their hands on side, he mentioned these sahahba : -‘Abdullah ibn Zubayr [s/o -Sayyiduna Zubayr and -Sayyidatuna Asma bint Abi Bakr] -Muhammad al-Baqir -Ja’far as-Sadiq -Musa al-Khadhim -Hasan al-Basri [Student of Imam ‘Ali] -an-Nakha’i [tabi’i and student of ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas] -Layth ibn Sa’ad [teacher of Imam as-Sahfi’i who said about him – ‘kana afqah min Malik – ‘He was more learned than Malik’] -Imam al-Awzai [Mujtahid Imam of ahlus-Shaam whose madhab died out] -ibn al-Qasim -ibn Abu’l HakamIs He Provided evidence for one and it follows : Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (Volume 1, Page 391, Hadith 3946): It is narrated that some of the companions, including Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, prayed with their hands at their sides. The report goes: "عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ: كَانَ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ إِذَا صَلَّى تَرَكَ يَدَيْهِ، وَلَمْ يَضَعْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَى." Translation: Ibn Jurayj said: "When Ibn Zubayr prayed, he would leave his hands (by his sides) and not place one of them over the other." Please tell me if any of those companions including Abdullah ibn zubayr praying with hands on side is authentic or not. jazakAllahu khayrann

Bukhari 3208‏ : > *‘Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). **Then the soul is breathed into him**.’* Now, from what I’ve read, most jurists say that the fetus becomes fully human at 120 days (I think Malikis are the only ones who believe it’s 40). They site the Hadith mentioned above but doesn’t the majority interpretation contradict the Quran and science? The Hadith states that Man is ‘gathered’ or ‘yujma’a’ in the womb of his mother for 40 days, he then becomes an ‘alaqah’ (for a disputed period, the Hadith says ‘mithla thalika’), he then finally becomes a ‘mudhgah’. The issue with the majority opinion which interprets the ‘gathering’ stage as being a separate one amongst the other two with each stage lasting for 40 days is that scientifically, such a period doesn’t exist. For example, one cannot be male and female discharge (which is what the ‘gathering’ refers to in the majority opinion) for 40 days. By such a period, the child is already an embryo. The same thing goes for the ‘alaqah’ stage, you cannot possibly be an ‘alaqah’ at 80 days because the child is already an advanced and developing fetus with bones and a face. And this is all especially true with the ‘mudgha’ stage which actually refers to the stage where the child is an embryo, but misinterpretation makes it into a 120 day baby. It also contradicts the Quran in 23:14 : > *‘ Then We developed the drop into a clinging clot ˹of blood˺, then developed the clot into a lump ˹of flesh˺, then developed the lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation.1 So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators.’* From the Quran, the ‘mudgha’ stage is when the child is but a lump of flesh with only a spine (resembling something that is chewed) and it precedes the stage when the baby develops into a fetus with bones. Obviously, the popular interpretation of the Hadith contradicts the Quran by claiming the child is merely an embryo at 120 days despite the fact the Quran says the embryonic or ‘mudgha’ stage precedes the fetal stage. So, if that interpretation contradicts facts, then why is it still a majority opinion?

What did he state was allowed to be seen/touched of a slave woman by a potential buyer?

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.

Can someone spoonfeed me the definition of "Riba"="ربا"=interest in each of the following schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, along with explaining the Shafi'i definition. I'd like the definitions in Arabic too if possible, I remember in Maliki that it is in the lines of "كل قرض جر نفعا ...", while for Shafi'is, something like "عقد على عوض مخصوص غير معلوم التماثل...". In particular I heard the Shafi'i's definition is exceptionally long aiming to cover all cases but fails to cover only one of them, I appreciate a clarification on this matter and explanation for it, Actually if possible an explanation for each of the 3 definitions I'm requesting. so the request is for: - Definition for Riba in Hanafi Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Maliki Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Shafi'i Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation pointing what it covers and what well-know cases of Riba it misses (I don't know if there is disagreement around Riba cases between schools of Islamic Fiqh, so I said "well-known cases"),

That is instead of putting right hand over left like the other Madhhab keep the hands by their sides.

In my community there are women who get (before any colour change due to drying or external oxidation) pale yellow discharge alongside clear and white in their tuhr period, during the 15 day gap and onwards until the next real, medical, red/brown/pink/orange/darkyellow period. This is noticeably distinct from the darker and more saturated yellow seen right at the end of menstruation, as it is pale and likely hormonal. A woman would like to adopt the maliki madhab and she would like to know whether this normal daily pale yellow discharge can be considered as non-menses in this madhab. She wants to carry on ruling that this pale yellow is tuhr. Can she do that?

>“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?

Assalamu alaikum, I am a Kuwaiti (Mālikī)who has been hoping to marry this man (he is Iraqi), however when I brought the matter up to my father he rejected the idea right away and got very angry at the suggestion of me marrying an iraqi, his only reason was the fact that he is non-kuwaiti and he does not want me marrying someone who is not Kuwaiti. I have also brought this up to my brothers and uncle however they all rejected the idea and refused to listen due to the same cultural reason. I have read that that is an invalid reason to reject a marriage. No matter how many times I ask or plead them to just meet him they keep rejecting the idea. Me and this brother really want to get married, although I have no committed any haram with him I fear I may in the future and it’s better for both of us to marry ASAP we are both very frustrated right now. And I see no other reason why we cannot get married he is a pious man, very religious and is able to support us, there is no reason why we cannot marry other than cultural differences. Please help us, is there any way possible I can marry him with someone else as my wali?

Source of the claim >It was narrated that: .' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.' (Sunan ibn Majah ) Akhi This Article Shows The References From The Predominant Views Of The Hanafi , Shafi ,Maliki Schools I Am Having Doubt Regarding This Can Anyone Clarify Jazakallah Khair

in the Maktaba Shamela Muwatta Maalik there is a section called: >ترجمة رجال الموطأ and in it, there is a subsection on Aisha RA where it says: >أم المؤمنين، تزوجها رسول الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بمكة، وهي بنت ست سنين، وبنى بها بالمدينة منصرفة من بدر في شوال سنة اثنين من الهجرة، وهي بنت تسع سنين
The Mother of the believers, the Messenger of Allah married her in Makkah and she was a girl of six years...
**[ [Shamela Reference: Muwatta Maalik - Yahya](https://shamela.ws/book/28107/4586) ]** I can't tell if this is a part of the Muwatta itself or if somebody just added it in for some "useful context". Can anyone clarify if this is what Maalik wrote or if its just an editor being "helpful"?

I read on an islamqa.info fatwa that this is what Imam maalik said. But a reference was not listed and I do not know where to find one, if it exists please tell me it. Thanks

Is it true that in the Maliki mazhab omission of the sunnah acts of the prayer requires a prostation of forgetfulness otherwise the prayer wont be valid is this true?

When we read the biography of ibn 'Ata' Allah (also referred to as ibn 'Ata' al-Iskandari -from Alexandria-) ابن عطاء الله السكندري. We usually read that he was following the maliki school of jurisprudence and it is also said that he was a scholar and an opponent of Sufism before meeting his sufi teacher abul 'Abbas al-Mursi أبو العباس المرسي. It is said that he used to say: All translation in this post are of my own take them carefully! > "من قال أن هنالك علماً غير الذي بأيدينا فقد افترى على الله عز وجل" > "Whoever pretended that there's a knowledge apart of that we have in hands, he has fabricated a lie against Allah the Almighty." He is also known as the teacher of the well known Shafi'i scholar Taqi ad-Dyn as-Subki تقي الدين السبكي the father of Taj ad-Dyn as-Subki تاج الدين السبكي. I also found in ibn al-'Imad's ابن العماد الحنبلي book Shadharaat a-Dhahab شذرات الذهب: > وقال الكمال جعفر: سمع من الأبرقوهي، وقرأ النحو على الماروني، وشارك في الفقه والأدب، وصحب المرسي."شذرات الذهب " لابن العماد (6 /20). > Al-Kamal Ja'afar said: He heard the Al-Abarqohy and he learnt nahw (Arabic grammar) from al-Maroni, and he has some contibutions in Fiqh and Adab and he accompanied al-Mursi. Ahmad Zarruq أحمد زروق an author of one of the commentaries of ibn 'Ata' Allah's "Hikam" wrote in his introduction of the commentary: > كان جامعاً لأنواع العلوم من تفسير وحديث وفقه ونحو وأصول وغير ذلك كان متكلماً على طريق أهل التصوف واعظا انتفع به خلق كثير وسلكوا طريقه. He gathered different kinds of knowledge like tafsir, hadith-sciences, fiqh, nahw', osol and other sciences and he was among those who spoke in the manner of Sufis and he was a preacher from whom many people have gathered benefit and followed his path. If he was a scholar there must be at least a mentioning of some of his works or contributions in the jurisprudence or other "Islamic sciences", but all one can easily find are his works on Sufi or Sufi related topics. I'd like to know if there are works that can be identified as his works on Jurisprudence?

This question is related to https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/39328/17163 , and was prompted by the answer to https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/36137/17163 which was discussing the hadith sciences ('ilm al-hadith ): > Imam Malik said something like: "This science is a religion so examine from whom you take it from" ... -- Medi1Saif Basically, I want to verify this quote (or something similar) is accurate, and seek a reliable reference. **Question**: Did Imam Malik describe the hadith sciences as "this science is a religion"?

How do the Malaki school of fiqh (islamic jurisdiction) make the Tasleem at the end of salat? I have heard that if someone was praying with you at your side then you can just say the salams to that side (the right side). I would like to know, how do the Malaki school of fiqh make Tasleem in salat? Also, I would like to know what hadith is used and if it is authentic, or what other sources they cite for this ruling.

Some sources write that wiping the neck (masah neck) while performing wudu' in the Maliki madhhab is a makrooh, while others say that it is a Mandub. Which opinion is stronger inside the Maliki madhhab?

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