Questions Regarding the Students of Ibn Hajr and Ar-Ramli, ibn Qasim Al-Abbadi, a work similar to the Majmu, and advice on what one should read to get a good understanding of the development of the madhhab
The following is q&a done with Shaykh Taha Karaan (Dar Al-Ulum Al-Arabiyya wal-Islamiyya), hafithhullah, made available by Shaykh Abdur Ragman Khan (Dar Al-Ulum Al-Arabiyya wal-Islamiyya) for Shafiifiqh.com. The following material is best suited for a student of knowledge in the school.
Questions:
As Salamu alaikum Sheikh,
Who were the more prominent students of Imam ibn Hajar and Imam al-Ramli ? Throughout the Hawashi, it seems that a lot of the authors were students of Imam al-Ramli.Are there any instances where Imam al-Ramli makes mention of Ibn Hajar or Khatib al-Shirbini ? I am going to be studying in Java Insha Allah 
, I would like to find the larger editions of Hawashi al Madaniyyah, do you know what the names of the various editions are ? Some just mention Sughra, Wusta and al Kubra.
Answers:
Ibn Hajar’s students include
- His son-in-law, Muhammad ibn `Abd al-`Aziz al-Zamzami, from Makkah
- Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Ashkhar, from Yemen
- Sayyid `Umar ibn `Abd al-Rahim al-Basri, from Makkah
- Zayn al-Din al-Malibari, from India
Ramli’s students include
- Nur al-Din al-Ziyadi, author of a hashiyah on Fath al-Wahhab
- Burhan al-Din al-Halabi, author of a hashiyah on both Fath al-Wahhab and Sharh al-Mahalli
- Shihab al-Din al-Qalyubi, author of the hashiyah on Sharh al-Mahalli
- Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji
- `Abd al-Qadir al-Tabari
- Abd al-Ra’uf al-Munawi
Most of the authors of the hawashi were Egyptians and students of Ramli.
It was the habit of authors not to mention their contemporaries by name when making reference to them in their writings. There are several instances which could be construed as references by the authors of Mughni, Tuhfah, and Nihayah to one another; but it may be equally true (if not in fact more probable) that the reference is not to the author of the other commentary, but to that particular author’s source. Ramli, for example might not be referring to Ibn Hajar when he makes reference to some unnamed contemporary, but rather to Ibn Hajar’s source Ibn `Abd al-Haqq al-Sunbati.
Kurdi’s larger hashiyah is called al-Mawahib al-Madaniyyah. See it here .
The hashiyah wusta is the one published. Its title is al-Hawashi al-Madaniyyah. The sughra is called al-Maslak al-`Adl.
Questions:
As Salamu alaikum,
Was ibn Qasim al-’Abbadi a student of the two Sheikhs also ?
Is there a Majmu’ style work written by the latter Shafi’is comparing and mentioning the different Aqwal of the commentators Minhaj etc and not written in a Hashiyah format ?
What should be read by one in this era to get a good understanding of the Masa’il and the development of the Madhhab ?
Answers
Wa `alaykum as-salam wa rahmatuLlah
As far as I can tell, Ibn Qasim al-`Abbadi was a student of neither Ibn Hajar nor Ramli. Rather, he was their contemporary. He died in either 992 or 994, which is about two decades after Ibn Hajar and one decade before Ramli. His main shaykh is said to be Shihab al-Din al-Burullusi, better known as `Amirah, author of one of the two famous hashiyahs on Mahalli.
Nothing on the scale of Majmu’ exists for the ikhtilafat of the commentators of the Minhaj. What does exist is works that tabulate their differences without going into tarjih. Of these works I might mention Shaykh Umar al-Qaradaghi’s al-Manhal al-Naddakh fi Ikhtilaf al-Ashyakh, published by Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, and Shaykh Umar Ba Faraj’s Fath al-`Ali bi jam’ al-khilaf bayna Ibn Hajar wa l-Ramli, published by Dar al-Minhaj. The former work’s advantage is that it counts Shirbini in as well; the latter work carries the advantage of explanatory annotations by the editor, Dr Shifa Hitou, daughter of Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Hitou.
None of these works, however, attempts to give a standardised tarjih, for the simple reason that there IS no standard tarjih at this stage of the madhhab. The rule of the madhhab for this stage is that the mufti is either capable of designating tarjih on his own, or incapable. In the former case he should follow his own tarjih whilst in the latter he has an open choice. Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi speaks hereof where he explains in al-Maslak al-`Adl why he eschewed a standardised tarjih. He writes:
واعلم أني أذكر كثيرا في هذه الحاشية الخلاف الكائن بين الشارح [يعني ابن حجر] و م ر وشيخيهما شيخ الإسلام والخطيب فإنهم مما اتفق على جلالتهم. وعذري في عدم التصريح بالترجيح في كثير من المسائل المختلف فيها بينهم ما تقدم في كلام السيد عمر وغيره، فإن من هو من أهل الترجيح لا يتقيد بما أُرَجِّحُه، ومن لا فرُتْبَتُه التخيير. فأي ثمرة له في الترجيح؟
For this era as well as for the past 700 years, there are very, very few works, if any, that can be compared to Imam Nawawi’s Majmu’ in terms of providing an understanding not only of the structure of the madhhab, but as importantly, of its spirit. This spirit is often lost in the hawashi, and even at times by the commentators of the Minhaj. Thus, while these works remain important to the madhhab, they have not, and indeed cannot supercede the Majmu’. As for the barakah of this book, fa haddith wa la haraj.
Made Available by Shaykh Abdurragman Khan