pg.

n/a

MIRAJ, Muhammad, M.A. Islamic Studies

ABSTRACT

Controversies among ~ al-hadith and ~anaf1s had

assumed serious proportions by the time of Wali Allah.
Reconciliation of legal schools was a practical, rather
than a merely theoretical problem.
Fro~ the very beginning Wall Allah had !8! al-hadith
proclivities and from that standpoint he bitterly denounced
ijanafis for deviating from sunnah. At this stage his basic
aim was revival of pristtne SharI'ah and reform of ijanafi
legal doctrines by making them conform to sunnah.
Later on, Wall Allah felt the futility of his intem-
perate opposition to ijanafl school and combined the aim of
unifying the ummah with his original aime He began to stress
increasingly the validity of aIl schools. As for theoijanafi
school, he tried to reform its doctrines so as to make it
harmonise with sunnah by introducing in it a selective process.
Later he further widened the scape of his scheme to embrace
aIl Sunnl schools. The method he suggested was that of legal
eclecticism and the underlying purpose was to reconcile and
amalgamate the schools without destroying their entities.
 SHAH WALl ÂLLIaIS ATTEMPT
TO RECONCILE
THE SCHOOLS OF FIQH

by
MI' RIJ MU1fAMMAD

. A thesis submi tted to the

Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfilment of the requirem~
for the degree of Mas ter of Arts

Institute of Islamic Studies,

McGill University,
Montreal.
July, 1968

(ê) Mi 1 râj M~arnmad 1969

 IN THE NAME OF ALLAH,
THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
 PREFACE

When l decided in 1964 to write a thesis on the legal

thought of Shah Walî Allah, especially about his attempt,'to
reconcile the various orthodox schools of figh, little was
l aware of the complications and obscurities thatL would
encounter before arriving, in a responsible manner, at any
conclusion. Naive though it now seems, l had felt reasonably
confident that l would be able to finish the entire work
before the end of the summar of 1964. It did not take long,
however, to realise how' enormous a task had been undertaken.
The first reading of the works of Walî Allah almost baffled
me. The Shah's ideas seemed to be a bundle of contradictions.
The result was that l decided to return to Karachi and carry
on my research there, particularly in the hope of being able
to make use of more writings of Walî Allah, both published
and in manuscript form than the ones available in Montreal.
This wild-goose-chase continued for about four years before
the work could be completed. If this work helps to clarify
the standpoint of Shah Walî Allah, as l hope it will, this
labour will not have gone waste.
l am indebted to several friends and institutions
for the help that l received in connection with my studies
for the Master's degree at McGill, particularly in the
completion of this work.

iii
 iv

l am thankful to the Institute of Islamic Studies,

McGi11 University which granted me a fellowsh~that

enabled me to study in that University for two years. To

the staff and members of the Institute l feel grateful
for providing me an excellent and highly stimulating
academic atmosphere which has enriched me a great deal.
To my thesis adviser, Professor C.J. Adams,who carefully
went through the thesis and helped me clarify some of mi
ideas by his thought-provoking comments, l owe a special
debt of gratitude. MY sincere thanks are also due to my
good friend Dr.~afar Is~aq An~ari (formerly my colleague
at the Institute) who helped me at every stage of this
work.
l am deeply grateful to Mawlana M~ammad'Abdu-r­

Rashid Nu'manî for the useful information and advice that

he gave me. He was also kind enough to lend me the MS. copy
of Shah Wali Allab's al-Intibë.h., only first part ofwhich
has so far been published. l am also thankful to Mawlana
IAbdu-I-ijalim Chishtî who so generously lent me several
rare books which l required in this study, especially the
MS. photostat copy of Shaykh IAbdu-I-ijaqq's TaQsïl ~

Ta'arruf which has not yet been printed.

l feel grateful to :f.iawlana. Abü-I-ijasan ' 'Ali Nadvï
who gave me some useful suggestions in respect of the
practical aspects of the problem under study. l also have
 v

had the privilege of discussing some points of my thesis

with Mawlana.Ghulam Mu~tafâ Qaàimi and MX.S.M. Ikram.
To both of them l am profoundly grateful. MY thanks
are also due to my friend Mt. Sharïf aI-Mujahid who
kindly went through a part of this thesis.
l also greatly: appreciate the kindness and courtesy
of the staff of the State Bank o'f Pakistan Library,
Karachi where most of the thesis was written. l also
made good use of the excellent collection of books in
the library of the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGi11
University, Montreal, where this work was started.
Lastly, a word about some of the technical aspects
of this ·thesis. The system of transli teration followed in
this thesis is the one adopted by the Institute of Islamic
Studies, McGi11 University. The table showing this system
is included in this thesis as Appendix II. AlI the dates
are mentioned according to the Christian calendar unless
they are expressed otherwise. Due to some difficulties
the formulas which are pronounced with the names of the
prophets and their companions, etc., ·could not be mentioned
in the texte They may be considered understood.
l would like to close this preface in the manner
one of my teachers has done after the fashion of classical
Muslim writers: "May God forgive me if my work misrepre-
sents any person or persons or their ideas; and i~ on the
 vi

other hand, it contributes to a better understanding and

adds any thing to man's know1edge, then to Him be the
praise tt •

MI'RAJ ~

KARACHI, JULY, 1968.

 vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
PREFACE • • •.......... ...... • • • iii
INTRODUCTION • · . . . . . . . • • • • • • • · . • • • 1
CHAPTER
l 'e THE BACKGROUND. • • • • • • • ......• • • 13
II. SHAH WALÏ ALLAH' S CONCEPT OF THE SHARÏ' AH • • • 37
III,. THE ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION • • • • ·.. 95
CONCLUSION • • ·.........·....• • • • • 119
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • 177
APPENDICES • • • • . . . . . . . . • • • • • · . . . . 245
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • . . . . . . • • • • • · . . . . 249
SHAH WALl ALLAH'S ATTEMPT
TO RECONCILE
THE SCHOOLS OF FIQH
 INTRODUCTION
~ad b. 'Abdu-r-R~ïm, commonly known as Shah Wall
Allah (1114-1176 A.H. 1703-1762), flourished in an era when
the Mus1im community of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent was
facing a grave crisis - economic, political and spiritual.1
This crisis provided S~ah Wall Allah wi th an intel1ectual
irritant and prompted him to discuss the problems with which
his society was faced. Endowed with rare profoundness and
pe:z;-ception, Wall Allah delved into the depths of the Is1amic
tradition, came forward with many a new and bold ideas and
thereby regenerated the intellectual life of his community and
enriched its cumulative store of ideas. By dint of his
creative thinking he exerted a great and lasting influence
on the Muslim society of the sub-continent. It was due to
his extra-ordinary influence and valuable contribution to
Muslim thought that even some of his own contemporaries had
attempted to write about him. 2 With the passage of time his
ideas have increasing1y attracted people, particularlYhis
co-religionists in the sub-continent and even abroad. 3 Until
the fourth decadeof the present century, however, the main
work on Shah Wall Allah, apart from some peripheral discussions
of ohis ideas, consisted Of wri ting his biographies and pub-
1ishing and re-pùblishing his works and their translations.
It wasprobab1yfrom ' thefifth decade of the present
century that iIiterest in his ideas,particularly the social and
 2

political aspects of his thought began to engage the serious

attention of scholars, though mainly of the Muslim scholars
of the sub-continent. The initiative in this field was
taken by 'Ubayd Allah Sindhï (d. 1944)4 and a few other
scholars of his time w~o discussed various aspects of the
life, ideas and activities of Shah Walï Allah. 5 The subse-
quent decades saw a growing interest in the study of his
thought, and several monographs; articles, dissertations,
books and special issues of a number of magazines on the
subject came out in fairly quick succession. 6 Some aspects
of his thought formed the subject of research in the uni-
versities of the sub-continent and outside it. 7 Recently
an academy has been founded in Hyderabad (Pakistan) "to
promote the cause of better understanding of the thought
and works of Walï Allah and his successors".8 With this
purpose in view, this academy is not only engaged in re-
publishing the works of Walï Allah but also brings out an
Urdu monthly which is devoted to the advancement of the
above mentioned cause. 9
Notwithstanding this newly arisen interest in the
study of the thourht of Shah Walï Allah and the numerous
works which have seen the light of the day as a result of
it, Walï Allah still remains an "inadequately studied
figure" both in the East and in the West. IO In this regard
his fighï ideas are no exception. The studies by the scholars
 3

of the sub-continent which have appeared so far about his

legal thought generally evince traits of subjectivity. The
respect and influence commanded by Shah Wall Allah among
the academic circles of the country prompted the followers
of the various schools to invoke his authority for supporting
their own respective standpoints and attitudes. This taint
is tao conspicuous in their writings to bé ~se~For instance,
M.Yüsuf "Banür'i; : Khayr M~ammad Jalindharîand some other
:aanafi scholars tried to show him to be a strong supporter
of the :aanafî school of law. ll Ah!!l badîth, on the other
hand, have attempted to prove him to be the upholder of their
own views and as strongly opposed to taglîd. 12 In addition
to these are the modernists who tend to paint him as a ratio-
nalist and endeavour to present him as the founder of the
principle which they would like to become an integral part of
the legal outlook of the present day Muslims~3 Writings
which show an earnest endeavour to remain objective in the
study of Shah Wall Allah and his fighî thought are not al-
together non-existent, however rare though they certainly
are. 14 Even these writers have treated the subject in a
cursory manner and some of them seem to have over-simplified
a greatly involved problem. In trying to determine the
school that Walî Allah followed, for instance, they calculated
the doctrines of the various schools to which Walî Allah had
given preference in his two commentaries viz., Musawwa and
 4

Musaffâ, on the Muwatta' of Malik and then arrived at the

conclusion that he belonged to the school to the doctrines
of which he had accorded preference in a majority of cases. 15
Such a method, as we shall see, is not adequate for illumina-
ting the legal thought of Walï Allëhor evenits most signi-
ficant aspects. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
actual position of Walï Allah vis-à-vis the schools of
Islamic law should have remained obscure.
The vexing problem in the study of Shah Walï Allah's
fighï ideas (and perhaps other aspects of his throught as weIl)
is that his writings contain several paradoxical statements
out of which arguments can be adduced in favour of the up-
holders of several divergent trends of thought. The compli-
cation in respect of the problem that constitutes the subject
of this study arises because Shah Walï Allah seems to adopt
divergent positions, positions so divergent that they seem
to be mutually exclusive. For instance, at times we find him
giving preference to the ~anafî school as against aIl other
schools. 16 On the contrary, at other places he is bitterly
critical of the :ijanafî doctrines and vehementlyl7 proclaims.
the Shafi'ï school to be the closest of aIl to the Prophetie
,. sunnah.1 8 To one' s utter perplexi ty, however, at some other
places he assigns an equal rank to aIl the four schools of
figh and advocates that they ought to be treated as equally
sound and valid. 1 9 Still in some other writings he lays
 5

great deal of emphasis on adopting the method of compiler-

traditionists of the third century A.H. su ch as Bukharï,
Muslim, etc •. 20 Sometimes he shows his aversion to the notion
of taglîd and condemns i t in uncompromising terms., and stresses
th e nee d 0f ..
exerc~s~ng .. t·~ h-a d • 21
~J Bu t .
aga~n at 0 th er pl aces
he strongly recommends the practice of the taglïd of the
four schools of law. 22 At some places we find him strictly
limiting the sources of the Sharî'ah to the Qur'an and the
sunnah, and expressing himself in strong opposition to
including ijma' and qiyas in them. 23 At other places, however,
he recognises aIl the four as valid sources of the Sharî'ah.24
In a study of the legal thought of Shah Walî Allah
the question of determining the school to which Walî Allah ·.
belonged does not seem to be the most important one. What
rather seems to be significant and unique was his attempt to
reconcile the four Sunnî (orthodox) schools of fiqh. 25 He
not only claims to have reconciled these schools and to have
removed their differences, but also regards his work in this
respect as one of his great contributions to the cause of
the unit Y and solidarity of the Muslim community.26 In fact
a careful study of this attempt of Walî AIIAh.wnl presumably
also help solve the question as to which school of lawShah
Walî Allah belonged or which of them he considered worthy
of preference to others. By concentrating their attention
on an issue of secondary importance, however, some of the
most significant aspects of Walî Allah's legal thinking have
 6

remained unclarified. On the question that we have chosen

to be the vintage-point of this study very little serious
research has been done so far. Instead of a thorough and
painstaking inquiry we only find casual writings in which the
writers tend to accept uncritically Shah Walï Allah's own
claims about his achievements in the realm of figh. These
writers seem to believe that Shah Walï Allah had actually
accomplished the task which he had taken upon himself without
any appreciable difficulty or opposition. 27
The problem which forms the subject of our inquiry
involves in fact two basic questions: "Why did Walï Allah
attempt reconciliation betweem the orthodox schools of figh?"
and: "What were the ideas and principles upon which he sought
to base this reconciliation?" An attempt is being made in the

following pages to provide an answer to these two questions.

We believe that the ideas of a thinker, in so far as
they are significant, are his response to the intellectual
problems that confront his contemporaries as weIl as to the
challenges posed by the actual conditions of living. Hence
a study of a thinker's ideas can be meaningful only if it is
undertaken in the context of the problems faced bya particular
society and in a given period of history. The thinker con-
cerned might defend and uphold the ideas, attitudes, institu-
tions and practices of his time or he may attack them in order
to bring about a reform in his society. In both the cases,
 7

he cannot be ·detached from his social milieu. To detach

him from that milieu could only be justified were it true
that he had produced a set of ideas in total vacuum. We
have tried, therefore, to study Shah Walï Allah's legal
thought in an historical context, bearing inmind the
integral nature of man's ideas and the actual problems that
his society encounters at a given period of time. Our inquiry
regarding the contemporary Muslim society of the Indo-Pakistan
sub-continent (in Chapter 1) shows that the reconciliation of
the schools of law with which Walï Allah tried to grapple
was not merely a matter of theoretical interest; it was a
living issue and· a matter of considerable practical importance.
In fact two opposite trends developed among the Indian
scholars from the tenth century A.H. onwards. One of these
stressed strict adherence to a particular school of law, in
this particular case, to the :ijanafr" school. The other tendency
was opposed to strict adherence to any particular school and
emphasised that the apparent meaning of the sunnah, as
embodied in the Eadïth compendia, ought to be rigorously
followed. The struggle between these two trends had reached
a high water mark at the time of Walï Allah. Moreover, dis-
agreements on certain fighï doctrines and quarrels between
the followers of different schools of law had assumed serious
proportions. The followers of each school,intoxicated with
self-righteousness, considered those who differed from the
 â

doctrines of their own school, even in minute details,to

have deviated from the right course of the Shari'ah itself
and sometimes even to have gone out of the pale of Islam.
Some contemporaries of Wali Allah rigorously opposed, and
sometimes even resorted to violence against those who held
views different from their own. The situation was serious
enough to calI for reconciliatory effort such as the one
undertaken by Shah Wali Allah.
In Chapter II we have essayed a detailed account of
Shah Waii Allâh's ideas about the Islamic Shari'ah, his views
about its character and its sources and about the various
schools of fïgh and their legal theories. This study will
be helpful in securing an insight into the fighi ideas of
Wali Allah and the broad principles of the legal theory that
he maintained.
This in~uiry will show that Wali Allah stood for
maintaining the original, pristine Arabian form of the
Shari'ah and was opposed to subjecting it to revision under
rationalist inspiration. It was because of this zeal for
reviving the original and pristine Shari'ah that he tended in
his early writings to confine the sources of the Shari'ah to
the Qur'an and sunnah, and to exclude such elements as ijma'
and giyas or ra'y. Although ih his later writings he modi-
fied his view somewhat .a nd recognised them as legitimate
sources of the Shari'ah, he never failed to stress the paramount
 9

authori ty of the Qur'an and sunnah.

We have also attempted to trace the actual development
of Shah Walî Allah's fighî ideas by a careful chronological
study of his works. This has helped us solve,· hopefully to
some extent at least, a number of paradoxes that one encounters
in his writings. To put it suc cine tly, we have concluded
(in Chapter III) that in the early period of his life Walï--
Allah had ~ al-Qadïth proclivities and was averse to the
notion of taglïd. He tended to view almost aIl the schools
of law to be only partially in conformity with the sunnah of
the Prophet. At that time he evinced the attitude of a strong
purificationist and a radical reformer. Thanks to this
radical zeal, he strove to reform the prevàlent system of ·law,
i.e., the 5anafî school and strongly criticised some of its
u~ül and furü'. No wonder, then, that he emptied the vials
of his wrath upon those contemporary ~~ï 'ulama' who, in his
opinion, had been guilty of exaggeration in their use of ra'y
and had abandoned several Pr~phetic traditions out of deference
to the doctrines of their school. ·This brought forth strong
opposi tion from the ~anafî scho·lars whose followers formed the
majority of the Muslim population of India. While trying to
reform the dootrfues of the ~anafï school Shah Walî Allah made
use of a highly inflammatory and violent language. The result
was that far from being able to bring about any genuine reform,
his provocations further worsened the situation and occasion-
 10

ally ev en led to ·violance, not to speak of the unpopularity

and hostility that it aroused against him.
It was perhaps around this time that Walî Allah
proceeded to Hejaz where he came into contact with scholars
of various schools • . There he also pondered over the situa-
tions of his pe·ople and realised the need of adopting a
moderate attitude so that the unit Y and solidarity of the
ummah could be maintained. There he also became conscious of
the simultaneous validity and equal status of aIl the four
schools, particularly the validity of the ~anafï school in
India regarding which he had a rather poor opinion. He also
became aware of the need of recognising the principle of
taglîd and of the necessity of remaining confined within the
fold of the four schools of law. It was also there that he
also thought himself to have been entrusted by God the task
of generating unit Y in the ummah, reconciling the four schools
of figh and reviving the pristine Sharî'ah.
Before returning to his country Walî Allah had
conceived a formula by which he hoped to render the doctrines
of the ~anafî school in complete accordance with th~ sunnah.
He proposed to choose from among the divergent doctrines
of the ~anafî doctors only those doctrines which appeared to
be relatively closer to the explicit terms of the sunnah.
Subsequently he abandoned this scheme of restricted choice,
and attempted to extend the area of choice to embrace the
 Il

doctrines of other schools as weIl 80 that the assimilation

and conciliation of the fig:hî doctrines could he achieved
on a wider level.
But hefore this scheme of legal e<?lecticism could he
put into effect it was necessary to hring about moderation
in the attitude of Mus1ims and to e1iminate the misunder~

standings of the fo110wers of differnet schools. In order

to achieve this purpose, Walî Allah stressed the validity,
orthodoxy, equa1 status and the original affinity of the four
schools. He surveyed the causes of fiqhî disagreements,
justified the existence of most of them and stressed that
they ought to he viewed in theirproper historical background.
He pointed out the insignificance of these differences as
compared to the agreements. He asserted that more than one
doctrine on a certain question could be equal1y right and
valid provided that these doctrines do not deviate from the
highroad of the Shari'ah. He not only regarded such dis-
agreements as va1id and inevitable, but even as a bounty of
God for they provide a variety of doctrines and thus widen
the area of choice.
Walî Allah tried to bring the different schools of law
c10ser to each other hy various ways, and to eliminate the
existing differences. He suggested reforms in the methods
of inference adopted hy two main groups of scholars, ahl
al-ra'y and ahl al-hadîth. He a1so criticised the practice
of rigid taglîd of a particular school or of a jurist, and
 12
A-
V
urged people to adopt moderation in this regard so that on
a particular question one should be able to borrow a doctrine
from schoolsother than that which one usually follows. This
suggestion opened the gate of partial, if n~t total, ijtihad,
takhayyur ("selection") and talfîq ("combination") •. Shah
Walî Allah attempted to bring about conciliation between the
different schools by means of selection and talfîg, and
enunciated the rules that ought to guidesuoh an endeavour~

He also tried to proffer a pattern of this conpl.liation,

selection and talfiq by writing his commentaries, Musawwé
and Mueaffé on the Muwatta' of Malik in which he made use of
the fighi doctrines of not only the four recognised schools,
but also those of the extinct Sunnî schools. He paid, however,
special attention to reconciling the disagreements between
the two major schools of law, i.e., the ijanafi and the Shafi'i,
for the followers of these schools formed the bulk of the
ummah. He considered that the reconciliation of their
disagreements would lead to the unit Y of the whole community.
 CHAPTER l

THE BACKGROUND

Muslims came into the sub-continent of India in the

main from Central Asia where the ijanafï school of law was
predominant. Not only the immigrant MUs~ims, as would seem
natural, but also the new converts to Islam in -India followed
this school, considering its doctrines to be the best expres-
sion of the Islamic Shari'ah. The Sanafi school, therefore,
enjoyed exclusive official recognition in bath the Delhi
Sul tana te and the Mughul Empire'. It was only the southern
coastal regions of the sub-continent where a good number of
followers of the Shafi'i school were and are found. They
had mostly come from Yemen and other parts of Arabia. For
several reasons, however, for a long time they could not
exercise any perceptible influence on the religious thought
of the Muslims living in the mainland of India. As for the
Maliki and the ijanbalï schools, they never succeeded in
gaining any considerable following in the sub-continent.
Hence,. "orthodoxy in Muslim India came ta Mean taglïd of the
Sunni ijanafï figh as codified by the central Asian scholars
of the eleventh and the twelfth centuries, the standard work
being the Hidayah of 000
- - Ifl
Margh -~an~.

The oourse of figh which was commonly taught in the

e"
madrasahs of North India from the seventh century A.Ho
,
.~. ~.
, '
13
 .14

onwards mainly consistedof .suchlater works of the :e:anafï

school as al-Mukh.taear of al-Qudürr (d. 428 A.H.), ~

Hidsrah of al-Marghïnanr (d·. 593A.ii.) ,Majma' al-Bc;hrayn

of Ibn aJ.-S.ii' a:tr (d. ·694 ' ~.H.' ), 'andSharhal-Wigayah of '
'ubaydAllab.ceadr al-Shar:r,'ah (~~ 747 A.H. )2. It is to be
noted thatthe prescribed course did not include, a:rry book
of azry of thenoIi-:-:e:anafr ~ sch601s offigh. · Instruction of
the figh of the other three schools .consieted merely of
explaininghow their doctrines couldbe refu·t ed. The '
generali ty of the 'ulama:', therefore, did not possess ~uff.i­

cient objective knowledge of, let alone eympathy with,

doctrines and jurisprudential prihciples other than those
of the sohool to whioh they themselves belonged. This
ignor~oe oreated in them narrow-mindedness, self-righteous-
nese and aversion to the dootrines of the other sohools. 3
This state is illustrated by the well-known polemioal
inoident whioh took.plaoe 1il the eigh~h century A.H. between
the celebrated saint ':Shaykh ' Niroamu-d-Dïn ·( d. 725A.H.) 'a nd
the fugaha:' of his tiine on the question of sama'. When. the
Shaykh invokedcertain traditions in favour of the legality
of samB/ the fugaha' wêr:e _~_avers.e to list~n1ng .to the tradi-
tions on the ground that these traditions had been adduoed
by al-Shafi'r whom the fugaha' considered to be an opponent
of their school. They also rejected the traditions on the
plea thàt the Shaykh, being a follower of the :e:anafî school,
 15

should have nothingto dowith ,t he tr~ditions. They further

asserted that in India the rul~s of' the :tIanafi juriste
had greater legal v~lue.th~tr$d~~ions fr0DithePi:aphet. 4
This incidènt not only depicts the antagonisticatti-
tude of the Indian -'ulama' towardsthe non-:aanafischools,
but also reveals, their ' preoecupationwith the dicta. of the
jurists and shows that they gave only asecondarypc:,si tion
to thetradi tionsof the prophet. 5In fac't the 'ulama:' of
India had only a meagre knowledge of Tradi tian upto the end
of theninth century A.H. 6 Bince the m~in objective of the
madrasah education was to prepare students for gagiship and
other administrative jobs, the study of Hadith was paid but
scant attention in the curriculum of that periode P-reseribed
readings in Hadith were only nominal and consisted of Masib!h
al-Sunnah of al-Baghawi (d. 510 :A.H.) and Mashiiriq al-Anwir
of al-~aghanr (d. 650 A.H.).7 Even these two books were
replaced by a portion of Misbkat al-MaeibAl of al-Tibrizi
(d. after 737 A.H.) when the curriculum of teaching was
revised in the twelfth century A.H. 8 This latter book and
the Sahibs of al-Bukhari' (d. 2;6 A.H.) and of Muslim (d. 261
A.H.) were first introduced into India as late as in the
beginning of the ninth c~ntury A.B.9; and for a considerable
period of time they did not gain as much circulation among
the fugab.a' as they did among the eüfis who were the main
source of the dissemination of Hadith during that period of
 16

time. 10 However, the latter also did not, have anaecurate

andexhaustiveknowledge of Tradition, :for , there was a
dearth of standardworksonHad:rth in India. ll
'The naWralÏ"'e sul tbfthila , scan:t::ilrtè't est ,:l.n the
science , of Tradition" on the part of the scholar!s :was that
~uring this p!3riod (i.e~, prior to the tenth cep.tury A.H.),
northern ,India>"scarcely hada tJ::adi tionist(mub,addith) ,in
the full , senseo! the terme The standard oflearntngta ,
Hadith was so low that sometimes even a ,student who hsd
learnt only the MaèID>DJ. or the MishkatW'as sUPPos,ed, ta be , '
a mtihaddith.12 However, around the middle of the tenth
century A.H., this indifference began tobe replaced by a
growing interest in thescienoe of T.raditionwhen a number
of Indian scholars, now finding the way to Arabia compara-
tively safe and other facilities available, visited Hejaz
and caJ:lle back to '< thp.ir çountry after having acquired compet-
enoe in Hadïth. 13 Notable among them at this period are
Mir 'Abdu-l-Avv~l ~usayn:r (d. 968 A.H.), M~ammad b. ~ahir

Pa!~ani (d. 986 A.H.), 'Abdu-n-Nabï G~Ohï (d. 991 A.H.),

Ibrahim b. Da'üd Akbarabàdï (d. 10qlA.H.), Shaykh ~ad

Sirhindï(d. 1034 A.H.), Shaykh 'Abdu-l-~aqq Dihlavï (d.

1052 A.H.), Sa'ïd b. ~ad Sirhindï (d. 1070 A.H.), Shaykh
~ad alias Mulla Jtvan (d. 1130 A.H.), MuOammad Af~al

SiyalkO'ti (d. 1146 A.H.), ~ifat Allah Khayrabadï (d. 1157

A.H.), ~ammad Fakhir Za'ir I1ahabadi (d. 1164 A.H.),
 17

Shah WalI Allab.DihlaviL (d. 1171 A.~.), ,Mutlammad Hashim

Sindï (d. 1174 A.H.), and Mu:Q:ammad ~iddiqLahorï (1128-
1193 A.H.).14 Within India itself centres of Hadïth learIi-
ing came to be established; and.some of ,them, such as the
.'. ' ,:

one in Gujarat, acquired such areputation that many scholars,

,de,cided, to go, 1;o,themrather thari· tothe far-off Hejaz.. '
After having ëompletedthêir educatioriin Badïth,someof
these scholars, suchas Shaykh Buhliil Dihlavr (d. 1007 A.H.),
etc. ,15 came back to the up country in order to lecture.
Some 1'oreign tradi,tionists, such as MliQ,ammad Sa~ Id alias
Mir Kalin (d. 983 Â.H.) ,migrated 1'rom Hejaz to India and
- gave lessons in 'Tradi tion. 16 , AlI of, these tradi tionists
endeavoured to 'cUltivate Hadtth l~arning throughout northern
India. Thallks totheir wri tings and the good numb e1' of
scholars who had been trained, in this science, lIadith began
to prosper ilÏnorthern ,India from the tenth century A.H.
onwards. A great deal of work in this respect was done
first by Shaykh 'Abdu-l-ijaqq of Delhi after whom theinterest
of Indian scholars in the science of Tradition grew :tjapidly~17
Moreover, the developing contacts between the scholars 01'
northern India andthose of Hejaz and Gujarat brought about
a growing awarenes~ of the doctrines of other schools and
of the arguments on whichthey we~e ,based. With the spread
of this knowledge twoopp~site tend'encies emerged among the
Indian 'ulama'.
 18

First, there ,w'as a growing~endency. to defend the

doctrines of the ~ana.:ri sQhool by arguing that tliey were
s'llperibr to those .of ·other schools of law andby showing
them·to be ,in c~nformity withthesunnâh.
The :çlanaf'ï jurists whoworked for the dissemination
of Tradition· iD. India were cOnBQio'Us of the fact that . ,
several of thewell-knowncompendia of Tradition conta1ne~,

for one reason or another, mostly traditions.' whi.ch supported

,the , Shafi'i and other non-:e:anafi doctrines. 18 It was ' f .eared,
therefore, that the growing interest .il1 the sci'ence of ,Hadith
in Indis might damage the .p osi tion of . the:aanari schoalby
creating doubts as ta thevalidity of,several ·of its doct-
rines. In order to meet this . challenge, the Uanafi scholars
who were engaged in the teaching of Hadith took prQcautionary
steps. While lecturing andwriting on Hadith they tried to
m~imise the import of the traditions which seemed to 'run
counter to the :çlanafï doctrines, by interpreting them in
such a manner as ta harmonise them with accepted ~anafï

doctrines. They also wrote separate treatises on contro-

versial questions in which they tried to argue in favour of
thedoctr'inesoftheir O'lm school.
Theneed to ' adoptsuch a measure was first felt by
Shaykh "Abëîu-l..;.ttaqqof ,DelhLwho hadonce becomesomewhat
soepticalabout'thevaliditYQ:r the :çlanafï doctrines. While
he,waS$t:udyingHa.drthizl ., He~az, ; as he himself relates, he
 19

was influenced .by . the. pro-Shafi '.i traditions of the six

oanonîcal co.llections b-fHadith andhadeventhought of
i

embraoing theShafi'ï school. It was .only after the per-

. . . "' . '. .

suasli:oIDl of hi~ preceptor al-Shaykh , 'Abd al-Wahhab al-

. .'
Muttaqi(d. 10l0 ' A~H · .)tliat he gàve up ' this idea.Shaykh
al-Muttaqr successfully allayedthe doubts of his pupil
by asserting that most of the compiler-"traditionists ehad
been .Shafi'is and hadadopted an antagonistic attitude
towards the ~anafr school • . As such, ;he asserted, they '
hàd genera1ly collected in their works those traditions
which supported the Shafi' ï doctrines and had exc,luded
the traditions which supported the ~anafr doctrines. 19
After having been convinced by his master's argu-
ment, Shaykh 'Abdu~l-~aqq proved to be a staunch ~anafr.

When he returned to !ndia, he made it the mission of his

life to espouse the cause of the . l;1anàfi school. Two of
his treatis es, Fa th al-Mannan. !f Ta' rd Madhhab al-Nu 'man
and Tallsil al-Ta' arruf !! Ma' rifa t al-Figh !'!! al-Tasawwuf
show his zeal for the ijanafïschool. ; His chief contribution
in this respect consists, however, of the commentaries
which he wrote on some works of Badith, viz., Ashi' 'atu-
l-Lama' at and Lama' ital-Tangy ,on the Mishkat and !:!.::
Minhaju-l':"Qavïm,on al-Sirat al-MustagÏlll (Sifr al-Sa'adah)
of Majd al-Dm al-Fi'riizabidï (d. 816 A.H.) which the Shaykh
wrote, as appears from his own words, mainly with a view
 20

te reinforcing· the Sanafi do·c trines. 20 ' In these comment-

aries he minimised the pro~Shafi'ï traditions by interpret-
ing them differently. He · also tried , to reinforce Sanafi
·doetrines by adducing traditions found in other Hadith
, compendia. He even., tried ta prove1;he aanafi doctrines
to beinsuch conforitiity wi th the traditions that the lIanafi
doctors appeared to be literalists (aahBbal-~aw8hir) as
compared with: the doctors of the Shafi'i .sehool, whoseemed
C'I.., ·· . , 21
to ·be aSu8b al-ra Y.
After himthere arose several scholars who also
tried ta etrengthen the basie oftheSanafi school and to
promote its cause. We mention here a few of them who played
a prominent role in this etruggle.
Among the contemporaries of Shaykh 'Abdu-l-Saqq,
M~ammad Sa'id (d. 1070 A.H.), son of Shaykh ~ad Si~hindi,

was a strong . Ei.u pporter of the ij:anafi .school. In one of his

letters to his cousin Shaykh, ~ammad he compared the
ij:anafifigh with the Shafi'ïsystem of law and held the
former to be superior in, every respe,c t. 22 In his champion-
ship of the Sanafï school he werit so far as to attempt to
prove, by adducing certain traditions, that only the ij:anafï
law was binding on the Muslims. 23
In the following centurywe meet Qa~i ~ibb Allan
Bihàri (d. 1119 A.H.) whocarried stil~ further the trends
which had been initiated by his predecessors, notably
 21

Shaykb. 'Abdu-l-:tyaqq.. BeSides hiswell-lmown.work Musallam

al:;Thubüt on usül,al-figh,.he'wrotea polemioaltreatise
in whioh .he triedtodemonstrate.that the dootrines, of the
, .

}janafi: school were·farther away fromra~y than the doctrines

of the·Shafi'ïschool. 24
Thencame Mulla Jrvan (d .. 1130A.H.) who adopted, an
apologetio attitude in his N'üral-Al1wàr,aoommentary on
al-Manàr. of, al-Nasafï (d. 710 A.H.),· and' in his . exegisis
of the Q~'a:n, al"':Tafsirat" al'~Ahmadiyab.,wherein he a"ttempted
to defend the:{;lanafï legal theery in a.hum~le, but in. a
fairly'coilvinoing way.25
Among the progency of Shaykh 'Abdu-l-iaqq, Shaylthu-
l-Islam Mul;lammad b. Fakhru-d-Dm, (d. ~. 1180 A.H.) was
the s'adru-s-siidilr ,in Delhi' during the lifetime of ~hah J/alï
Allab: •. He wrote a boo,k entitled Tard al-'Awhim.' an Xthar
al-Imam.al-Humam (Removal of the Doubts about the Reports
from the Magnanimous ~) in advocaoy of the:{;lanafï :righ. 26
Among the oontemporaries of Shah Walï Allah .there
were so~e .other soholars, besides Shaykhu-l-Islam, who were
strong parti~ans of the iÎanafï sohael . and who had spiri ted
discussions with their opponents aswe, shall later see. 27
.The. second' trend. whioh 'emerged among the Indian
'ula.m~' .was agrow1ng,emphasis on the notion of sunnah ànd
on theirdisinclination to ·folJ:aws,trio.tly ,the do'ctrines of
any particula,r scho.ol.: ,AeçorÀ1ng' te the repres.entatives of
 22

this trend, the . doctrines of each school on a point in

questio:p.· were te be examined in .the 1ight of .T radition,
and only that one was to be followedwhich appeared to be
most solidl;V based on the sunnah. 28 The upholders of this .
view accorded to the Prophetie traditions the supreme and
overriding authority in law.
This attitude had already :taken roots among some
Suris of India who had been source of the dis-
the ~ main

semination of Hadith in the early period. 29 Despite their

formal affiliation to the :çIanafi sChool, some eiifis per-
sistently followed oertain doctrines of other schools which
they considered to be more in conformity withthe sunnah.
They openly repudiated the strict fo11owing of a particular
school; and maintained that confinement to a particular
school was tantamount to bid"ah (innovation) and denial of
the breadth (tâwsi'ah) of the SharI'ah. 30
......\.

This trend, which upheld the paramount authority of

Hadïth and was centrifugal to the mainstream of the :çIanafi
school, by and by gained some popularity, perhaps to a great
extent as a result of the growing intercourse between the
'ula.mà' of India and Arabia. 3I By the time of Shah Walï
Allah we find thata number of 'ulama' as weIl as laymen
of the school showed Iess disinc1ination to adopting
~anafi

occasiona1~y some doctrinesof 'other schools. 32

Among the contempararies of Shah WalïAl1Sh (1114-76
 23

A.H. ), besides his father: Shaykh' Abdu-r-Rattîm (d •. 1131

A.H.),,3 three prominentscholars may be noted as repre-
sentatives of this attitude: Mli(iammad Fikhir Zà'·ir .
Ilahàbàdi (1120-1164 A.H.), M1rz~Ma~har Jan-i Jan~
(1113~94 A.H.) and M~~ad Mu'ïn Stidi' , (d.' 1161A.H~). 34
Za'ir Ilahabàd:!showed gr~atzea1 for the authority
of traditions. . He proudly called himself ~ al-badrth~5:
be1ieving it to be the only valide sChool. 36 " Hê :' claimed ta
have brought with him the true religion trom Arabia. 37 He
restricted the sources of the SharX' âhto the Qur' an: and
the Sllnnsh and held,- them to coyer every type of ,case whièh
might beexpeeted to arise. 38 Hewas at that time perhaps
the most ,vehement opponent of the use of ra'y andhad
strong rep~a:nce to it. 39 A 1engthy poem flowedfrom
his pen.in which he denounced its employment in ijtihad. 40
He viewed i t to be invariably , opposed ta the rulings of
the aunnah. 41 He identified the ~anafï ra'y 'with arbitrary
opinion; and characterised lega1 devic~s (giyal) as devilish. 42
He inveighed bitterlythose who practised taglïd, dubbing
i t as bid' ah and an offence agamst the Bhar:!' ah; and
regarding the mugallid (imitator) as a sinne~.4; He was
so violently opposed to these notions that he tended to
regard those who followed ra'y and giyis in preference to
a Prophe,t ic tradition as her~tics ,and non-be1ievers. 44 He
even expressed the view' that the entire fighili teratùre'
 . 24

ought to ..;be destroyed. 45 Hi~ nivanand panegyric inpra1se

or .a:bial~liaditht6 betray ' hisuncompromfsing', atti tude barn
ôf self-right.e ousness, . and 'cont~in 'virulent verses against
the adherentsof · the · f'O~ .salisols . in generÈû. :~~th'é:tIanafiS .
in particlÙar. 47 . He consideredhimaelf. atwar wi tbhis
opponents and did notcare . eTen for his
. i ,' •
life~ 18 His ag-
gressive attitude crèated .hàkèd and. bitteI'l!l.~ss , b,it-tWèen
the aiiherents of t:p.e .f'ighi' "sohools and the upholder.s of
Badi'th. 49 Itwas because of · these eaustieand provoeative '.
remarks that he had ta suffer' violent opposi,t ,i on, and i t
1s reported that once he was saved by Shah Wali Allah fram
beingbeaten by the people ,) ;)f De:l:hi.50
: Ma~har Jin-i Jin~ was a fellow student af Shah Wali
Allëh 51 and an admirer of Za'ir llËÙlë:ba:di~52 Despite his
adherence to the :e:anafi' sehaol, he s .t rongly advocated the
strict following ' of the' Prophetie tradition ,e ven if it
appeared to be apPQsed to a doctrine of' the school. He
repudiated the authority of mujtahids in face of Tradition. 53
He was also opposed to considering any of the schools of law
as superior ta. the others; and stressed the need of keeping
a ' balance among them. 54 He regarded it as lawful to adopt
whichever of the divergent doctrines of the Sunnï schools
of law seemed to be sound. 55
Shaykh Mub-ammad Mu'rn had strong proclivities towards
~ al-ltadîth. While stressing conformity to the norms of
 25

l;Iad:rthh~ regarded i~as haram . (unlawful) ta prefer a fiahi

doctrine ta ~SahW(sound)tradi:tiQn.56 In this respect
hestrongly criticised Shaykh 'Abdu-l-jaqq's sUggestion
made . in the prefaëe to Sharh-i ~al-Sa'adah, that a
fighi' doctrine 'should befollow~d in . preference toa tradi-
tion. 57 Mu' in stipulated tagl!d . of the :t;tanafI 'figh wi th
QQnd;tt:l..on,s .wh:J;'ch rendered the Proph~tic tradit~~nsas ,the
finâl cri terionfor accepting. or raj·eetj,z.lg f1ghi' doctrines .58
In fact ,what· wassaid by Za:' irin a.ri arb1'trary, blunt way
and wi th poetic exaggeration against : the ijanafis.c hool and .
itsfollowerawaa put forward by Mu'rn wfthremarkable
scholarship and erudi ti0D:~ Yet his wri ting betrayed the '
same uncompromiaing opposition and bitter hostility which
. characterised ' Za'ir. 59
This violent oppositionto the prevalent school and
its followers engen,dered in the timeof Shah Walt Aliàh
heated controversies and led to a head-on clash between
the representatives of the wo opposite news.
Mw,ammad Mu' in andthose of his view were strongly
refuted by M~ammadHashim Sindï (d. 1174 A.H.) who wrote
enormoua .worka in supp.o rtof the ijanafii: school. 60
He waS then followed by his son, 'Abd al-La~ïf Sindï
(d. l189 ·A.H.) who also wrote avoluminous bo~k, Dhabb
Dhubabat . al-Dirasat . (Dri ving away of the Flies scattered
by the Dirasat) in refutation of Mu'rn's Diraaat , al-LabXb.
 26

In this book hetried to ~:t1pportthe doctrines of, the ',~anafi:

school and its. l~geJ.',theory by ,repudiating eaeh and every

obje'ction that Mu'rnhad made ,ta the, :ij:anafï school andi~s
followers in ,India.6~
, Itwas thesepolemical incidents to which ,Shah, Wa,lï
Allah alludes when" :Q,elament,s the. arr()g~t and aggress;ive
attitude ·of the eontempôr'ary jurists to the ~ra.di tionists
(!:è! al-hadith). 62 This brief· survey of the .conf,licting
...
views on questions relating tOfigh, particularly its legal
theory, shows the extent.to which the fighi'activity of the
time ofShSh Wali Allah and of·the preceding period was
dominatedby the strugglebeween. upholders of strict
adherence ,to the:ij:anafïf'ighandthosewho espoused the
cause of Hadi'th ;ind argued for the legitimacy ofthescruti-
nisation of the fighi' doctrines in. the light of Tradition.
Apart from the aspirations of·the abovenoted puritan
"ulama' who, intheir attempt to conform tothe sunnah,
sought to revive the prist1ne legal doctrines by examining
the prevalent doctrines in .the lightof Hadith, practical
considerations also often necessitated a departurefrom
some strict :ij:anafi' rulings, such as the doctrine which con-
cerns the repudiation and remarriage of the wife .of 'a missing
husband,63 the ruling'regarding thepuri:~y' 'Jfwater?4 "and
the doc~rine to~ching the question of the ownership of landed
property ina conquerred territory.~5 On these questi~ns,
a good number of · l;Ianafïs in India had been. following the
Ma-"likï andSha.ti 'ï rulings sinc~ longbefo;e''shih- Walï
Allah. 66 Thi~ partial deviation trom one 'school to an-
other, though held to be permissib+e in the classical
theory,67 was often rigorouslyce~sured by scholarswhen
people resorted toit. 68 : The denllliciation eoming from an
overwhelming majori ty naturally. tr,oubled the conscience of '
individuals who adopted doctrines other than those of the
l;Ianafï schaol.
Besides the abo:ve mentionedgroups, in the time of
Shah Walï Allah there were also round some Shë:fi'ïsin
northern India, although they were not very numerous. 69
It see~ .that they may ha.ve ' joined 'withthase who had '!l21.
al-hadith. proclivities in their .oppoàitian tothe ijanafïs,
for ,Shah ·Walï All~ also the ., occurrence of conflicts
~eports

between ·the :ijanafïs and Shafi'ïs of his time. 70 It was,

perhaps, the latter's participation in the current polemics
which intensified the quarrels, as substantiated by the
statement of Sh8hWalï Allah in which, describing the con-
temporary situation, he said that ~anafrs and Sha.ti'ïs alter-
cated ,with each other in support of their respective schools;
and each of them repudiated the, imams (masters) of the other. 71
Shah Wali Allah laments the partisanship and fanati-
cism whichhad become rampant during his times. 72 According
te ShàhWalï Allah, this spirit of- partisanship indueed in
 28 '

the contemporary 'ulama' the belief that the knowledge of

their imâms was perfeet, their ijtihad unerring, and their
rulings infalIibIe. 73
Their attftud,e of complacent 'aelf...;righteousness in
regard to their resp~c,tive schools waa . not confined tQ the
dicta of ,the early masters; ' it was rather more conspicuous
in· the case of the elaborationa of the laterjurists whose
fa'tawa collections and oommentaries on them were even more
popular. f-hey believed that theae later juriste had exhaust-
ively accompliahed the taak of interpretatienand e:x:pliCà:tion
and that ' theShElri'ah .hadbeen shaped by their' efforts into
itsfinal and perfectform. 74 Therefore, they envisaged the
Shari'ah aa embodied in these later worka.
This view engendered , in them a tendency of.etieulous
adherence to the doctrinesfound ' in the warka of the jllrists
of the Iater periode Even a elight deviation froma prohi-
bitory+uling found in the worka oflater jurista was: vehe-
mently opposed, and amounted in their opinion to heresy,. an.d
departure fram the millah(religion) ,even though i t might
have been held permissible ·by the early maatera of the ~anafï

school. 75
The situation was aggravatedby their insufficient
know-ledge of the standard doctrines of their ;own school.
The works on figh which were current in those days were,
according to the compilera of al-Fatawa al-'l1a mgirïyah,
 - ; 29

noisatisf'aetorily eodffied. - They.. eontamed allkinds of

doctr:i.nes~standa.rdand
. tmauthen:ti~
. : . - ....
and
.' ." .
," ~ ,
sometimes included·
'" .

evenmut-uallycontradictory rultilgs •.76 The muftis haddif~

fieul ty in differentiating a.mong ·: ;hese, andoften 'made
mista.kes in notif'ying thedecisio~s . of the law.,!7 The
main .·purpose of the c(l)mpilation , o~ al-Fatawi!· :al-'l.lamgirilah
.was to rectifythe anomalies ·of ,these later worka and. to
elimilratê t~eir discr~paneies ·. 7B Itt3 compilers attempted
tosolvethe difficulties of jurists ; by incorporating in.it
oruy .the established doctrines .of· the ~anafi school·. 7~' This
. compendium achieved circulation .amongthe . juriscànsults
(muftis) and judges (aad[s )during the reign of Awraw;zëb
'namgir (r. 1069-1118 A.H.) as he had issued strict orders
to pronounceall the ruli~s according ta its terms. SO .
After his death, however, it gradually lost this position,
and in .the later years of the reign of King M11~ammad Shah
(r.ll;1-116l A.H.), i.e., from .1151,. A.H. onwards, it eessed
to be in use. BI The jurists now began to resort to such
unatithentic and unreliable later works as Khizanat al-MUftïn.
of · al-Samnaqani' (d. after 740 A.H.) and Khizanat al-Riwa:yat
of QaQ.i Jagan Gujarati' (d. circ. 920 A.H.). 82 Shëh Wall:
Allàh was also aware of and frequently deplo·r ed the ignor-
ance of the contemporary 'ul_' in respect of both the

sciences of figh and Tradition. According to him, the

tether oftheir knowledgedid not go beyond such later
 30

works ,as,)aJ.-Hidayah,, 'M ukhtaear al-Qudürï andSharh !!:l::.

Wigayah.8,' It ,is t'6 tlrls fa.ct thattheShah attributed
not ;only ,their incapability of making ijtihad but also
their . ignor~ce of "therulesof· · ta91rd~ 84,
The situationwas caused to deteriorate further by
their self-determined cheice of certain doctrines from the '
Iater .warks of their schooi. They~bitrarilY. p'recluded

a.ny alternative ruling or concessionwhichwas ' sanctioned

in the texts ofapparently equai authori ty'; and this
amounted to trying to bind people tO ,accept andfollaw
only those doctrines which they preferred.Thie attitude
of the 'ulalnà' was etrikingly illuetrated,in thecon~o..:.
versy on the doctrine concerning the . prohibition of~
sabba:bàh . (raising the forefinger) while' reci ting the
ehahad:ahin prayers. ' This, doctrine had never been an
established ruling in the ij:anafï school. 85 It was ex-
poundedby. some,later jurists. 86 It cameto be etrictly
foilowed by a number of Indian scholars probably because
i t had been mentioned in Mun.yat .àl-MUe'allï of Sadïd al-Dïn
M~ammad ,al-Kashghari (d. 705 A.. H. )87 and in .al,;.,Khulaeah
of LùifAllah al-Kaydani (d. circ. 750 A.H.)88 which were
popular liturgicai treatises.' Another etrong factorwhich
gave . rise tothe popularity of this doctrine in India seems
to be the fact 'that itwas eupported by Shaykh Atlmad
~ '
~ Sirhindr89 who commanded great · influence over Indian Muslims.
 31

!he .doctrme th~l'l. .w as :~s.PQ~ed aft~r him by some of his

descendants among whom his grandson"Farrukh Shah (d. 1122
A.H.). ,90 a contempGrary of Shah W~lr Allah, may bementioried.
On the , other hand, Shaykh' Abdu,,";l -.ij:aqQOppoSed this doctrine ,91
an.d he was fo11owed by a number ,of scholars, such as, among
the .contemporaries of Shih Walr. Allah, 'Inayat Allah Lahorï
(d • .1141 A.H.), 92 M~ammad Hasllim Sindi'93
~ .
', , 1 •
I3lldMir.za
• ; ,
Ma;har
Jan-i Ja:n~, .etc. 94 The controversy. on this issue extended
over more th8.1:r two centuries in India~ 95 Several treatises
were written for am against ·:Lt;9 6 andduriilg thetime of
Shah Walï Allah, some of its protagonists used force ta
campel bthers to give up. the prac·tice of raft sabbàbah
(raising the forefinger) in·prayers. 97
Some jurists of the ti~e . also tried toimpose their
o~ opinions and whims as finai authori ty in respect o.f
some issues which were not mentioned in the fighi compendia.
The doctrine of theprohibi tion of tobaccoprovides a strik-
ing example of this attitude. This doctrine which had no
support in the ear1y or later warks of the aanafï law,98
and was presuniab1y bâsed.on the . rulings of certain jurists
of the17th centuryjl1th centuryA.H.,99 was _stubbornly
espousedby some of the predecessors and contemporaries of '
Shah Walr Allah. 100 . In the desirè to establish this ruling,
i ts upholders false1y and anachron:istic'ally ascribed i t to
the Prophet. 10l Bitter polemicsand even violent conflicts
 32

an suchissues were cammon occurrences in thetime of the

Shiib.~ ~~2
, Therewe~e several ,other , ma.jor ,and :minor issues, such
as bay'al-musarrSh" ,rat'. al-y'a .da#,.qir' ah .khalfal-imam,.
conditions ofhaldingthe Friday ·praYer, talâg .]!! al-thalathah, '
"

e~c. , . which had .beenpoin ts .of confTict betWêen ' lIanafïs on . .

'1 .-.; . ' . . " ., . " ... ..• .. .: ..• ':' ' .

. oriehand and the Shifi 'ia and . !!!1. .al';;;Padith en the ·a ther •
A seriou.s ·méJ,tter which .betray.ed , :tïl:i.esigns of ' deep antaganism
between ' . the followers ' of differerit schools and endangered
the ;.selidari ty of the Muslims was the attitude . of some ,j urists
who declared it unlawful to pert(j)r~ prayer behind ·an . ~
who belQnged to a differentsch~ol.I03 This rulimgwas
apparently the very eontradio't ion of theclassieal notion
of mutual orthodoXY', and wasforeign to the spirit of toler-
ance whichhad been encoUraged .by theattit'U,de of the early
masters of the fighl. schools. 104
In short, the increasingantagonism between the
adherents of the different sehobls , of law had become an
outstanding feature of this period. This inter-schaol
antaganism had reachedsuch a point ,that even on fighI
trivia bitter polemics and active hostilities took place.
Evenamong the followers ' of the aanafï school a rift was
created~y a splinte~ group which, for one reason or another,
departed from some of the school's doctrines, It was opposed
taoth and nail by the majority group. A struggle aiso arose
 33

between ,: thosewho advocated the e.xclusive authori ty of.

Hadith [j:amd1.. ['~;,O maintairied non-alignment wi th the doctrines
of a pe.rticular school' ând those whostood for strict
. . ' .
adher,e nce , tothe;:tianafI sc~ool. ,Theil':'
en~:t'gieswere '
expended in long . debates whichon :occasions .even Ied;to
.'
violence.
i', ThesejUristic, religi()us conf;l~,ctsf~;rD!~d one of,
, ~ . ,.

the factors which ,1;hreatenedthe.'integri ty ,o!theMuslim

communi1ïy- of India: when i t ' was already pa.ssing througha
periodo! 'political decadence, economic deterioration, and
spiritual and moral d~gel,lerat,~on. :"

These fighï discussions and quarraIs also posed '

intellectual problems .which càlle,d upari the conscientious
and responsible 'ula.ma.' of the time to find solutions for
the sake of maintajnin g , theso11darity of the ,comniunity,
and also ,for satisfytng the individua.l consciences of the
Muslims whichwere perturbed by the conflict of allegiance.
But though the problems were evident8.nd their dangers '
visible, no serious and systematic attempt had yet been
made in Indiato resolve 'the conflicts and tensions among
various schools.
It was during these challenging times that our author,
Shah Walï Allah flourished (1114-1176 A.H./1703-1762). He
was born in a family whichwas renowned for its intellectual
contribution to theclassical Islamic sciences such as figh,
 34

mysticism, theology, . etc. 105 . His .father, Shayk:h '~Abdu-r­

R~'lm,d. 1131 A.H. ,) was an outstanding scholar and a
murshidof the Naqshbandi ,order in,Delhi. 106 He had parti-
cipated .in .the compilation of thecelebratedaanafi corpus
qf law, al-:Fatawâ .al_'llamglriYah.107 He ,hEidf;Ç>unded a
madrasSh in Delhi and had run i t successfully on his own
pattern. lOB
When Shah Wall Allah eompleted his ooursesof studyl09
,at the ear1y age offifteen under the renowned tradit10nist
ShaykhMub,ammadAf~al Siyalko!'l (d. 1146 A.H.) and under
his father Shayk:h 'Abdu-r-Rattim,110 he started his career
as a teacher ,at the seminary ofhis father and assumed its
. . .· .', . 111
headship .when his ~ather ~ied in .1131 A.R.
Discont.e nted 'as he was wi th the prevalent course of
study, he devoted the following twelve years to studying
standard books on Islamic di~ciplines.112 It was aIso during
this period, as he himself relates, that he undertook an
intensive study of . the li tera~~.~ of the four orthodox f1ghl
schools ~n both the sciences of u§ül ·.and furü'. He also
studied the Prophetie traditions adduced by eaeh of the
schools in support of its dootrines.~13
This private comparatives.tudy of the divergent
doctrines of fighi schools and of the a+guments they adduced
to support them oreated in him the urge to acquire further
knowledge of the .Tradi tian from the s 'tandard works under
 ,',
35

well-qualified ,teachers~ , This ,couldnot , pe achieved in

Delhi inthose days .• , He was, therefore, prompted to proceed
to Hejazin 1143A.H. 114 There he carried on his etudiee
in HadIth and figh ,of' , the fourschools ,f or mor,e than,a year
una.er distinguished ,scholars of'Mecca and Medina, such as
Abü , ~ahir MU4ia:mma.d 'b . IbrahIm al-Kurd'1al-Shafi'ï (d.1145
A.H.), Mu1;lammad ' Wafd ÀlIM al.~Mà.kkl. al-Malik!. (d. 1), 'and
Shaykh Tij al-D'in al";Qüa'1. al"ij:anafi (d. 1144 A.H.), etc .115
This per10d of ,ab'o ut fourteèn years duringwhich,he
made a comparative study of thejuris:liic schools and '
acquired an intimate kD.o:w ledge, of, ;Hadïth in :Hejazand Delhi116
exerted on him , the main .influence which , shaped hismind. ,
" , ' . "

These s tudies also broad'e ned his 'outlook and deepened his
insight. , Wi th, this bread th ofoutlook and depth of percep-
tion he tried to comprehend ,t he prevailing , s tate of affairs
and to arrive at a definite set of ideas on various problems
of religious importe
The oontroversies of the :contemporary 'jurists on
fighl issues, to some of which we,have alreadyreferred,117
formed .. one of the problems which filled ShBh Wall. AllBh
with deep concern. 118 He had recognised the dangers in-
herent ' in these inter-school controversiès 'and the intolerant
attitude ,of the upholders of divergent views. 119 Desirous
as he was to create unit Y and maintain the solidarity of
the community, he was prompted by the existingsituation
~ 36

to :r:eso1vethese· conflicts.. He claims to have propounded

a formula of compromise by which·the existingfighl dif-
ferences could be resol vedand the solidari ty of the l1mmah

rest(!)red~l20 It is aur purpose hereto see in the follow-

ing .pages the mannerin which he tried to grapple with
this problem. ; .
 CHAPTER II

SHlH WALl ALW' S CONCEPT OF THE SHARl' AH

\ . .

Beforewe. discussthe attempt ofSh8.hWalï Allah to

bririg about reconciliatian; aJllong .the , schooiâ' of ·fiah, it
isimperative ta examine hisnotion of sharI'ab. in general,
and his concept of the Islamic shaJ."i"8.b. in paJ."ticular -his
$ '. . , . .': . . ' .'
ideasregardingiia chaJ."acter, genesis and souroes, and his
.. " " .. '"':. ... '".....,.j . ', ' '" . .
vièws~on : the varl.ous schools offigh,~d their legal tht="ories.
Thisinqui1"y will be helpful in,gainirig'a comprehension of
Shah Walï Allah t S no tions of figh and the bro~d principles
of the ,legal theory ~hat he mai:p.tained. , Aft~r securing an
insight into his fighï ideas, we should be well-prepared to '
appraise and delve into his reconciliation scheme which is
the subject of our study.

The No tian of Sharï' ah

To Shah Walï Allah, the essential purport of religion
is to follow the will of God, both in personal and social
life, by adhering to the principles of piety (ueÜl al-birr),
by keeping a balance between angelic and bestial .faculties,
and by improving social institutions for which he uses the
innovative term irtifS.ga.t. l A sharï',ah, according to ShBh
W~lï Allah, aim~ at giving an institutional shape to these
indefinite and vague notions by defining their essentials,

37
 38

condi tions,'_ etc.; 2 for, people cannot be asked to follow

them in this world or called tO.account here or hereafter
unless these principles ofpiety etc., are given some kind
of form. 3 Accordingly, when,these principles acquire a
eertain, form, ' .that form becomes their locum tenens'in the
s~e wayas aword stands for itsmeaning or an image for
itsobject. 4 And it is this form orshari'ahaccording to
which people cau be askedto act and called toaccoun.t.
AShari'ah,therefore, 'aims at.embodying certain
fundamental principles of morality, and of social and
criminal justice. These fundamental principles seem'to
be the motivating spirit, the essence and the core of the
shari'ahs of the prophets in all ages and climes. 5 In
trying to give these principlesa,form, the lawgiver takes
cognizance of many existential factors such as the mental
predile~tions and customs of the people who at a g,i:ven
time are ,required to follow it •. In fact, Shah Wall All'ih
shows much greater awareness of these factors and emphasises
them much more than Muslim jurists are wont to do. He out-
lines at considerable length these factors, which are
fairly important even though subsidiary to what seem to
be the fundamental principles which constitute the core
of shari'ah and which it seeks to embody.
He divides these factors into two categories: (1)
essential factors, and (2) a~cidental factors.
 39

Someof the essential factors are the following:

(a) the knowledge , ~' sciences 'of ' the
cont!Jmperary people;,
" (b) their beliefs" convictions and pre-
suppositions;
(c) their cuàtoms and usages;
(d) their temperament" theirtrend of
mind and their habits;,' and
(e) the legaciesof 'the former prophets.
As for the accidentaI factors; they ares
(a) the queries of the companion~ of the
prophet who propoundshissharl~ah;

(b) the wishes, prayers and habits of

the [law-giving] prophet; '
(c) the heedlessness of the êontemporary
people in obeyinga command; or ' their
persistence in a sin; and
Cd) their extreme attachment to or constant
practice of a good deedso much so that
they regard it as sin to discontinue
or con travene i t. 6 '
With regard to the essential factors, ~h8h Wall Allah
compares a people to an individual who cannot perceive a
thing as it is because of his physical or intellectual defi-
ciencies. In view of his deficiencies the knowledge of that
 40

thing ia modifiedor reduced to the level of his under-

, standing. He illustrates their point by the exampleof a
eongeni tally blind person whohaa no ,'ideaof colour or . shap,~
in his mind. He: ean pereeive th1ngsonly through hearing
of soundsor touch, etc. whèn ,he has a dr'eam of an incident
or some lf.nowledge is 'inspired to him ina ' dream, that know-
ledge or incident ~usto~cur ,in ,his mind through ideàs, or
shapes that are alreadyin his min~~ Ill~tra.ting the same
point by another ex&uple, he says: "When anArab who knOYS

only the Arabie language acquires a Qcience, it ta.k:es shape

in his mind only in the ArabJ.elanguage". 7 He further
exemplifies the point by citingthe instance of theinhabit- .
ante of a country where certainhuge,Ùgly' animaIs such as
elephants, etc., are found. People in these countries con-
ceive the torture of the jinn and the terror of the devils
by imagining these ugly ,huge animaIs, whereas others do
not think in this manner. 8
From these examples Shah WalïAllah inters that, as
the other human sciences are influenced by the existing ,
state of a people in the same way their lore and learning,
their convictions and':' conventions , and their tendencies and
temperament have great effect in the formation of their
sharï'ah~9 He cites an instance from the "Hebrew Shari'ah"
to show how the above mentioned five essential factors
influence a shar'ï commandment. After regaining his health
 41.

Ya'qiibpr()hibited for himselfmëatand milk ·of camel accord-

ing ·to his vow·1ïo God. Ris children<also followedhim in
this 'practice. Witb. the passage oftime, aIl Israel bel:L'eved
" .#

~t as1nto ' oontr~vene thepractice of theirPatriaroh. Now,

i t wasbecaus~ of this preEiupposi tiOll" ,oonV:l.ctionand :prac-
tioethat'
.
the Torah enjoined .apan' on· these' things. .But _.
' . :. . ~. , '. .' . ' .

"

sinceBanulsmrl'il did not' hold ,thïs ,. belief, camel' s meat

and ,milk weremadelawful for them~:l.~ Th~ethe existing .
eituationand the customs of the societyinwhich a prophet
intr~duces 1:1is sharl' ah play" a eignifioantrole in shaping
. - '. , Il
tha t shar'i ab. •
.In .t his cODnection he· compar~B ,sharï{kh with rain '
water which is limpid whenit falls from thesky; but , dust
and 'air changeits original formas ·it fallso~ the ground.
For the . same reason, . the water of low-lying land is not as
, 12
olear as that ofhigher land. Bythis analogy he intende
to show that in the same-way theformsthat shari'ah assumes
in different' times and climes differ·trom one another owing
to the ,reaSons mentioned above,even though they seek to
embody the same fundamental principles~13 In other words
aIl ,the prophets agree in respect of the basic tenete and
fundamental principlesof ' piety ,and justice which form the
core 'o f religion (a61 al-dh). Wley difier, however, in
respeot of the external forms of these principles (i.e.,
in respect of shari'ah).14
 42

Moreover, since a sharï" aha1ms at the reform of the

human s0ciety, itwarks ~ike ,aphysician whorecommends
different meC!l:icines and different precautions for different
diseases of different persons .l~ , By ,this example he deD!c;mst-
rates why the ,sharï':a.h,of an age o;r ' a people appears to be
different from "the , ahuï"ah of Qtherages and other peoples
when one looks 'at their 'exterIlal features; ,but when looked
at inwar4ly, they are always the ,same in respect of their
essentials.
The external form of asharl.' ah" , in the opinion of
Shah Wall' Allih, reflectsin ,this respect ' the norms and
mores of a people as itJ.sesaentially a reproduction of
the total result of the cumulative processof the1r cultural
life and ,social activities. According to his philosophy,
the sciences, beliefs, dogmas and .practices which have deep
roots in a society rise to, and .are . reposed in, Hazirat ~

Quds (thé Realm of Sancti ty or Supernal Plenum), a realm

wherein the problems and destinies of humanity are considered ,
and determined. 16 By the benevolent; assimilatory action
of God they become namüs and form the source of inspiration
for the prophets who guide their people accordingly. Shah
Wall All"â.h compares this process to , tp.at of rainfall. By
the heatof the sunwater evaporates and becomes water-laden
cloud after rising into the atmosphere. There the cold air
makes it to raine Now, it is the self-same water which
 . , .
43

cames down again to·the · earth .and · flows into s treams to

• . ..' J'> . , - ".

irrigate,the ~ields~d.> pr~auce . vegetati~n.17 . Rence shari'ah

is net altoge:t lier extrinsic. te apeople;.for it.doesnotdis-
; "

regard their customs, practices, . potentialities and· predi-

lections; on the . contra,:r;y ·i.t t~esfull cogniz~ce of them.l~
Moreover, silicethe .prophets, aceording to Wal! AlIB.h,
strive to effect ch8.nges in the .exis1;ing syst,ems of law and
customs19 in orderto r~form h~ sQciety· rather thau ·to
subjecttheir people ·to inconve~ience and discomfort by
overburdening · them with 'newand ,llIlfa.ridliar :laws, generally ~. .' "

"

they nei therformulate new priliciples ofpiety and:. s.in (gül.

al-birr !.! al-ithm), llor introduce new and tmknown laws,20
nordeviatefrom the accepted and familiar irtifagat (social
institutions).21 They rather look into theexisting customs
and pra.c tices and retain what 1s found .t obe in agreement
wi th . the .will of God, the laws of revealed religion (al- ·.
gawhln al~millJ.yab.) and universal ends (al-ara' al-kull'!yah) ;22
. .

andreject what is found to be against them. They further

rectify and amend the practices that need amendment and
sometimes add to them what is beneficial. 23 In the theory
of Shah Wall Allah, therefore, .t he customs and usages of
the contemporary society form· the warp and woof of its
ehar!' ah. 24
While deec=ibing the method adopted by the prophets
in reforming the customary law of their people, he eaye:
 44
The , prophets :examine the prevalent manners of their ' people
in eating, in'dressing, and in building their ways ofador-
nment,theircustoms of marriage and marital relations,
their practices ofbuying and selling, 't heir punitive
measuref:), , their]l)rocedure of settling litigations, etc.
If the existing system is foundin agreement with al-ra'y
al-kull'!, they feel no need of changing i t or ' replacing ,
i t by a different system; rather they vindicate i t and Urge "
their people te) adhere ,to it. But if itis not found in '
accordancewith a,1-ra'yal-kul11and the need of some
,alteration is felt bècause of certain harmful customs and
usages, it is not considered desirableto replace it by ' a
different one whieh is absolutely unknown to them. In
this case the prophets have recours:e te th~ existing
pre~edents which are better and refer te> the leading
examples of thesincere and popularlea:d,e rs and thinkers
of their people. Thè basic purpose is 't ftat these reforms
should be introduced in suèh away that their faculty of
reasoning is ' satisfied and does not repelthem. 25 ,

The Genesis of the Islamic Shar~'ah

It has repeatedlybeen stressed by Shah Wali Allah that

a shar!' ah does not takeshape in a vacuum; rather i t develops
in the corttext of the eus toms and usages of the contemporary
society.26 He main tains the same with regard to the Islamic
Shari'ah. He holds that the form and the substance of the
Islamic Shari'ah have vital links with the customs and usages
of pre-Islamic Arabia,27 and especially those of the Quraysh. 28
He further observes that"since the raw material (maddah) of the
Islamic Sharï'ah is the eustomary law of pre-Islamic .Arabia,
the Islamic Shari'ah can never be understood unless we trace
i '{

and examine the eus toms and usages of the Arabs of the Jahili
period and appraise the improvements upon them that were intro-
duced by the Prophet. u2 9
 45-

In order to show the origine of , the IslamicSharî'ah

in the tradition · of pre-IslamicArabia,Walî Allah classifies
the Shari'ah into twoparts, or rather referstoitstwo asp-
ects. One of·, these he .callsir.t.if"â.gat . (social institutions)
. which include, inter al:i.a',~he p6:Litieal ': set up, civillaw,
penal law and customs. 30 The other he calls 'ibadatwhich
consist ofrituals andacts of devotion. According to him,
al thoughtheprophe·t s are sent primarily for the puryose, of

teaehing the ,_\'l'~Ys of 'ibad'ât, yet they are also entrusted

wi th. the taek of extirpating wrong customs (rusÜIn) and urging
people to bri~ about a betteroorganisation of their social
institutions (wujühmin al-irtifagat).31
He observes that in both of these . aspects the Islamic
Sharî'ah is based on the pre-Islamic tradition ~fArab society.3 2
In reforming the 'ibadat; the Prophet ~ammad had recourse to
the tradition of their ancestors, Ibr8.h~m and Ismi'il;33 and
in amending the irtifagat and cu~toms, he was always .guided by
what Wall. Allahterms as al-ra'y al-ku11l., and by considerations
of general good (al-maelab,ah al-kulll.yah).34 The Prophet did not
genera11y introduce altogether new laws and institutions. The
method that he general1y followed was to alter the existing
rules and institutions with a view toreform his peop16. 35
The significance of the customary law of pre-Islamic
Arabia vis-~-vis the Islamic Shari'ah has either been denied
or not much emphasised by the classical fugâha'. Shah Wall.
 46

All8.h, however, very emphatical1y stresses thiè characteristic

of theShari"ah and regards knowledge' ~f·· it as· essentialfor
understanding the Islamic law and perceiving its spirit and
implications. 36 ,. 1-

According to him, the fact is not that the pre-Islamic

..
Arabs had no rules and regulationsf'or organising their
society and no rules of persoll;al . status and family, of in-
heri tance, .,?f trade and commerce, of criminal · justice, etc_.;.
andthat the Prophet introduced these rules for the first
time. On the contrary, Sblah Wal~ Allah observes:
They had strict rules and conven.tions(sunan
muta' ·.akkidah) about eating, drinking, dressing,
wedding ceremonies, festivals, obsequies, marriage,
divorce, 'iddah (period of waiting), mourning, selling
and purchasing. They censured one another on the
contravention of these rules. They always regarded
marriage with mother, daughter, sister and other m~arim
as unlawful. They had punitive measures (mazajir), e.g.,
gi§se (retaliation), diyah (blood-money), gasimah (compur-
gation) and the punishments ('ugübat) for adultery and
theft. Certain well-developedirti:ta.gat (social institu-
tions)had also penetrated their society. But [reforms
were needed because] they had also adopted some depraved
practices such as cruelty to prisoners of war, robbery,
adultery, certain vitiated types of marriage, usury,
etc.37 .
Shah Walî Allah maintains that the Prophet was not
inclined to negate the entire customary law of Arabia. He
rather attempted to accommodate it into the Islamic Shari'ah
with certain modifications which were required to make some
of the customs compatible with the tenets of Islam, the funda-
mental principles of morality and general good. 38 He expounds
 47
, ' '

the process adoptedby ,t heProphetin this res~ect:

Thoee who have a deep knowledge know that in matters of

marriage, divorce , ,' [munda.n.e] transacti~ns, adornmen t,
dress, 9a48.' " (dispènsation of justice), penalties and
[the rules of] the distribution of war booty, [etc.J$
the JISI~icl~' did :not in~roduce [new laws1 that
would be unfamiliar to thE!m [i. e., the "con temporary Arabs]
or which theywould hesi tateto accepte No doubt, soma
baneful practices were reformed or abolished. [For ,
example when] usurybecame exorbitant, it was prohibited;
and since peoplehad conflicts about the purchase of un-
ripe fruits on the tree [becalise of natural calamities],
it was made unlawful. [But most of the contemporary rules
were left intact su ch as] diyah (blood';"money) wasten J

camels in the time of 'Abd ' al-Mu:j;j;alib; but he increased

it to a hundredcamels when ,he saw that the people did not
stop slayi~. The Prophet retained the increased amount
of diyah. L" S~, mi~~IY] the gasamah, ~ compurgation) was first
enacted by Abu fâl~b [and then reta~ned by the Prophet].
The chief of the tribe received one-fourth of the war
booty, the Prophet fixed it ,as one-fi:Cth [for the head
of thecommunity]. ',' Khar'ij an~ 'uahr were levied on them
by Kobad aild his son Noshirwan [the Emperors of Persia];
the Shar' maintained almost the same [laws of ' revenue].
The JëWs' [of Arabia]stoned the adul terer, eut off the
hand of the thief and took life for life; according~y,
the Qur'an promulgatedthe same [penalties]. If one '
traces [the origins of ' the Islamic Shar!'.ah] one can
find so 'many examples of thistype.39
Shl~ Wal~ Allah does not limit this process of the
enactment of the Islamic Shar'i'ah to civil and criminal law;
but includes the 'ibadat as weIl. He adjoins:
Moreover, if you are intelligent and have a comprehensive
knowledge of aIl aspects of the [Islamic] injunctions,
you can perceive that even in [matters of] 'ib'id'âtthe
prophets only prescribed [literally, "brought"J those
things which were found among their peoples or things
similar to them. Indeed, they did nullify the distortions
of the dahil~yah in them, prescribed their timings, and
arkan (the essentials) which were vague and elucidated
what was obscure.40 ,
As has been eaid before, Shah WalY Allah holds that in
prescribing the religious rituals and practices, the Prophet
 4-8

Mub.ammacl was guided by themillah ·(religious tradition) of

his ances:tors, Ibrë.b.ïm and Isma.'il.41 He revived some of
their beliefs and religious p+,actices and rectified others
which had been corrupted by later ·generations. However, he
did not malte any change in the main insti tu1;ions of al~mi'llah

al-ganlf'iyah of Ibrahim e.xcept by postulating certainlimi ts

'. and qualifications for them.4 2 In orderto prove his theeie t
Shah 'Wall. Allahtraced thehistoryofthe religion of pre-
Islamic Arabia after Ibrë.b.:Im and Isma''!1. He .holds that the
pre-Islande Arabs et,~ietlypractis 'ed ,the truereligion of
their Patriareh, Ienia':II, until 'Amr b. L~ayy, who flour.ished
tlU-ee hundred years before the Prophet ~ammad, distorted
the true religion and introduced certain polytheistie prao-
tiees. 43 In spite of '~'s misleading end eavours, the Arabs
preserved some original beliefs and religiouB practices
though in distorted forms. They had, according to Shah Wall.
Allah, almost aIl the religious .p ractiees whi'ch we now find
in the Islamie Sh~ï'ah, e.g., ~al'âh (prayer), sawm (fasting),
~ (pilgrimage), i' tikaf (worship in seclusion), Wü.Q.ü'
(ablution), 'aglgah, etc. 44
According to him, the Prophet ~ammad was sent to
eliminate the deviations and to rectify the distortions made
in the original religion (millah) of Isma'il. With this
purpose in view, he examined the ways of the Arabs before
Islam; and in order to revive the pristine religion of Ibrahim
 49

and Isma'll," retained only those' beli,efsandreligious prac-

tioes which were foundin accordance"with theway (minhaj) of
Isma':r.l and stro~ly revoked all the distortions and cor-
ruptionswhièh h~d entered, intoit or anything which was akin
ta shirk (polythtüsm) or kufr (unbelief).4,5
In
• - 01 "

short, ineriacting the civil and criminal laws

and religious practices of the Islamic Shar:r.' ah; anà,.:even in
formulating sllch details as fixing the timings of theprayers, 4§..
rates and niea.b of zakah, riieab of theft" the shar':r. 'measure-
ments and quantities, in prohibitihg certain foods, in per-.
mitting certain typesofmarriageand forb~dding others,
etc.,47 the prevalent customs, ,usages, and: socio-economic
condition of the contemporary Arabs, "orin the extreme ease,
those'of the contemporary Persians and Eyzantinians, were
taken into consideration, while those of more distant countries
were disregarded. 48

The Oharacter of the Islanlic Shar'! ';ah

In view of the ab~ve mentioned opinions of Shah Wali
Allah. about shari'ah iil general, and the Islamic Shari'ah in
particular -- that the 'shari'ah of any given people.is related
to that people's predilections, social institutions, etc.,49
that the Islamic Shari' ah, having arisen among the Arabs,
is related to their customs, traditions and social institu-
tions,50 and that the laws of shari'ah change according to
 50

· changing circumstances and the needs of peoples .and places,5l-

it may appear that according to Wal~ Allah, the Islamic
Shar!' ah wasbasically mean't for Arabian society of the sixth
century, or at the most also had in view some of the neigh-
bouring countries, and . only 'for a very short period of time.
This conclusion appearsp~ausible at the first sight parti-
cularly in view of his statement that ànew era begins with
every century or every millenium in which God introduces a
reformed ëliar!'ah according to theneeds and requirements of
, ' '

the age. 52 The conclusion may also be deduced from certain

other statements of his,53 as has been done by some modern
scholars who claim that Shah Wal~ Allah regarded some of the
laws of the Islamic Shari'ah as specifie to the Arabs of the
time of the Prophet and did not favour strictly enforcing them
in the case of future generations. 54 It has also been claimed
that he favoured an Indianised form of the Shari'ah rather
than its Arabian i'orm55 and suggested that the universal
elements in it be sifted from the local ones~56
A thorough scrutiny of Shah Wali Allâh's writings show,
however,that he is firmly opposed to such ideas and firmly
holda that the pristine Islamic Shari'ah in its Arabian form
has been made obligatory on the pèoples of aIl countries and
aIl ages. 57 He stresses ita perfection to auch an extent that
he will allow neither that it can be abrogated nor added to. 58
 51

. This opinion of Shah. Wall. Allah may appear to be in

conflict with his above mentioned ideas about shari'ah accor-
ding towhich he recognisesdifferent sharl'ahs for different
times and elimes. 5 9 But thisapparent contradiction may be
"
solved werewe to note .that here he refers exclusively to the
sharl'ahs of the prophets before -:the Prophet Mub-ammad. 60 He
avers that the earlier, prophets had been appoin.t eq apecifically
for the guidance of their oWn peoples who were comparatively
smaller innumber. Their shari'ahs, therefore, did not have
sufficient comprehensiveness to provide guiding rulesfor
peoples other than their own. 61 Their sharl'ahs ' became obsolete
after the lapse a few generations and wereabrogated by subs'e-
quent prophets who altered the preceding shar'i'ahs corresponding
to the traditions and circumstances of the peoples of their
time. 62
On the other hand, the Prophet ~ammad was sent,
according to Wall Allah,' to aIl the peoples of the world and
his mission w~s to subject aIl the nations and peoples to ' his
shar'i' ah. 63 His shar'i' ah, therefore, differed'dn some respects
from those of the former prophets. It was more comprehensive
than, and superior to, the previous ones in several ways.64
His process of promulgating and enforcing the shari'ah, Wall.
Allah observes, differed from that of the former prophets; for,
a prophet who wants to bring various peoples under the fold of
a millah (religion) is bound to select initially a certain
 52

people; and after he has·reformed them, he usesthem a.s his

instrument for reforming other peoples. It is, therefore,
indispensible for him to treatwithan. amount of deference
the customs, 'u1ÙIn (sciences) andirti.f'âgat (social institu-
tions) of his ownpeople in making thema substantive base of
his s:b.ari'ah.Subsequently, he has to take into consideration
only those laws and customs ofotherpeoples that can be
accepted as the natural religion (al-madhhab al-tabï'i) of
the civilised world (al-agaJ.im' al-ealibah) .65 Apart from
these aIl humanity is to be .urged ta follow the shari'ah of
the prophet's own people. 66
Walï Allah justifies this prophetie method by arguing
that in such a case it is neither feasible nor commendable to
leave the task of formulating shari'ah to each of the peoples
or to the leaders of each generation as doing so would destroy
the very purpose·of the enactment of a shari'ah. He also
considers it to be impracticable for the prophet who has to
guide and reform various peoples and nations to formulate a
different shari'ah for each people, since it is impossible
to examine and comprehend the customary laws and usages of
aIl the peoples of different countries and communities that
would be essential for this purpose. In view of these diffi-
culties, Shah Wa1ï Allah regards it as best and eaoiest that
such a shari'ah should be closely connected with the customs
of the society in which it is introduced. As for later genera-
 53
tions and other peoplea who are expecte,d to come ,under the
domain of tlle shari'ah, there should,neither be complete '.' "; .

' rigidity nor absolute laxity for themin the law. 67

The people, inwhose society this ,universal sharï'~
is introduced find it easy to adopt beca~e of their strong
belief in their prophet andbecausethe shari'ah is related ta
the customs and usages in vogue in their society. As for those
peoples who come under the domain of this shari'ah later,
they find i t easy ot adoption . becaus.e of their tendencyto
follow their leaders and rulers · who succ'e ed theprophet. 68
Now, in the time of the Prophet M~ammad, Shâb Wali
Allah remarks, all the civiliéed world (al-agalim al-ealihah)
was under the sway of two great empires, the Roman and the
Persian; and the customs, usages and. social institutions of
these two empires had penetrated in the life of aIl the peoples
of the civilised worldof that time. The reform of these two
empires mèant, therefore, the reform of aIl the contemporary
world. It was because of these "reasons that the Providence'
willed to reform the Arabs through the Prophet M~ammad and
his Companions; for it would lead to the reform of the two
above~mentioned empires through the Araba, and to the reform
of the rest of the world through those empires. 69
The Prophet M~ammad, according to this theory, was
assigned two missions, one for Banü Isma'il, i.e., the Arabs,
and the other for the rest of the world. It was necessary in
 54

the interest of the former to base the Islamic SharI'ah on

the customs and social institutions (irti.ta.gat) of Be.nü
Isma'il. As for the uriiversal aspect of his mission, it was
accomplished by accommodating what he terms as the fourth
irtifag into the Sharï'ah. 70 Accordingly, the Islamic Shar~'ah
which is related to the customary law of pre-I~lamic Arabia
and was inheritedsubsequently by generations of various
peoples has been made ob~igatory in i ts o.r iginal Arabian form
on all peoples and for all times to come. By the holy decree
of God, Wall Allah avers, it has become a genus which demands
the existence and preservation of its species. Hence, any
attempt to alter or disregard the laws of ·the Islamic Sharï'ah
is tan tamoun t to the sin · of al tering or annihila ting God t s
creation which deserves His wrath. 7l Walï Allah vindicatas a
strict and literal adheren.ce to the Shar'!'ah and denounces
the attempt to alter its external form by seeking guidance
merely from the spirit of its laws, even if this be done for
the purpose of applying it to the changed circumstances of
various societies. 72 .
He firmly believes that the ISlamic Shari'ah has
already been completely purified from the wrong and baneful
customs of the society in which its enactment took place; and
now there is no need of further scrutiny of it, except that
it may be examined and purified, from time to time, by the
mujaddids (renewers), from the aberrant accretions imposed
 55
upon it by the distorters of later times. 73 Thus, even the
process of reform-activity whieh hasbeen àllowed, aeeording
to him, may notchange the external formef " the Shar~'ah. On
the eontrary, it Bhould
, "
be directed towards bringingit closer
to its" original Arabian forme He stands for maintaining the
Shari'ah strietly in its Arabian form, so much aothat he
exhorta his people to abandon the cuatoms of "Ajam and Hindus
and advisea them ta love Arabs, keepto the customs of the
early Araba, and adopt their modes of dressand conduet. He
considers aIl this ta be "a means of adhering to, and extolling,
the Islamie Shari"ah. 74 He takes pride in hŒŒ !rab origin an,d
in "the Arabic language, 75 and alwaysadmirea the early Arabe
for their simplicity and purity of taste. He urges referenee
ta their cust01l1S and usages whenever there arises any dif-
ferenee of opinion in regard to defining a shar'! term or a
maitinnah or a manat. 76
Another aspect of his notion of the Shari'"ah that calls
for examination is its position in relation to human reason.
While deelaring his creed in the Tafhïmat, S~ah Walï Allah
asserts that human reason has no authority in defining things
as good or bad, right or wrong, or in deelaring certain acts
to merit reward and others punishment in the hereafter. The
goodness or badnesa of acts is established solely by the decree
of God and is an imposition from Him. The other alternative
appears to him tantamount to setting up another ~akim (law-
 56

giver) alongside God. 7?

He seems, however, to have modified this view, to some
extent, in the Hujjat Allah where he is inclined toassign
reason a greater role. There he divides actions into two
categories: masalih !!! mafasid (virtues and vices); and
shara'i' ! ! magadir(laws and quantitativelyfixed rUles).78
By the former he means acts wi th moral or ethical implication.s
for which there are no well~defined, fixed, codifiedregula-
tions. They constitute the realm of the cultivation of, self,
domestic economy, manners of living and political economy.79
They can be conceived, .according to him, by human reason wi thout
the help of revelation. 80
The second category, according to Shlth Wali Alll1h:,
stems from the first one. The laws and regulations governing.
actions in thiscategory are aimed at providing an external·
form for a part of, .the above mentioned moral virtues so that
people may be required to observe them and called to account
in case of default. Renee, the ark'S.n (essentials), shurüt
(conditions), ad'âb (embellishments) and other details of these
laws are defined and codified. This category comprises those
actions governed by shar'ï laws which serve the purpose of
safeguarding and preservingthe religion and i ts insti.tutions. 81
These shar"â'i' and magadïr are not to be necessarily penetrated
by intelligence. 82
 57

In his opinion, the ëhar'â'i' (laws) are based on con-

siderations of. masalib. (general good).83 He strongly repudiates
the view that shar'!.laws are merely peremptory andtheir .
purpose is onlyto testpeopl~.84 This does not mean, he further
adj.o ins,thatthe goodness ' and badness of acts (in the sense
of an a'c t .. bèi:p.g d'e serving . of reward orpunishment in the here-
after) are bas.ed on reason in every respect. Nor do es i t mean
that 'the funct10n ofthe .SharI'ah (i.e., Sh'âri') 18 just to
describe the inherentprQperties andqualities of the acts
w1 thout playing any role 1~ mak1ng them lawful or unlawful
like a physicianwhoonly discovers anddescribes the proper-
ties and qualities of medicines and symptoms of diseases.
Sh'Ah Walï.A1.1i!h maintains that apart from the maealip that
are considered in the shara'i', the enactment of the Sh!ri'
(Lawgiver) is itself an important source of authority in
declaring acts and things lawful orunlawful. 85
Thus he attempts toreconcile 'agI Creason) and nagl
(revelation) and tries to strike amiddle course between .t he
wo extremes • . According to his modified view, both [the
inherent qualities of] acts and the enactment of the Sharï'~

are responsible for, and effective in, making acts rewardable

or punishable. 86 But since, practically speaking, the Sh'âri'
(Lawgiver) has not enjoined what is bad according to the
reason and forbidden what is good, and every act of God is
based on hikmah (wisdom) and maslabah (general good),87 the
 58

Shari'ah with aIl its details, such as the fixed tariffs,

timings, etc., is, in C?omplete harmony . with human reason and
nature,·88 in the sen,se that .our facul ty of reasoning can
perceive ·the soundness of t~e shar''! lawsin most cases, if
not in 8.11,89 th.aughit cannat formulatethem independently.90

.
The utility and, wisdom afall shar':t laws cannot
- 1 -, . . ' •

necessarily be pereeivedby human reason. Hence, when a

shar''i commandment is proved. ta be authentic, Sh'lDl Wal'IAll'âh .
opines that i t 1s ~. obligatoryto follow i t irrespective of
whether any utility or reason is pereeived in itor not. 91
Conversely, the doctrines ~egarding which the Shari'ah has .
provided no guidance, negatively or positively, but which ,are
formulated on the basis afhuman reason he empha~ica~ly refuses
ta include in the domain of the Shar'!'ah or ta regard them as
obligatory,though they may actually be sotmd.92 He holds the
same view about doctrines which are not inferred from the
nusüs (texts)by means of giytLs jal'! (self-evident analogy).93
To sum up, Shah Wall. All~h traces the relationship of
the Isl~mic Shari'ah to the customs and usages of pre-Islamic
Arabian society, not for the purpose o.f accommodating into ·i t
the local customs of various societies or aecretions of latèr
generatians; but for stressing its Arabie character and main-
taining that character by purging it of the later accretions
such as local eus toms , etc. Similarly, he emphasises the
rationalistic eharaeter of the Shari'ah, not with a view to
 59

purifying it from laws which seem to beirrational or against

giyas, or in order to elaborate shar'î laws . on the basis of
pure r~ason; butrather to prove that aIl the details of the
Shar'!'ah are in complete harmony with. reason; and to demonstrate
.t he incapabili ty of human reason to scrutinise them or to make
further laws without the help of revelation. In short, his
main purpose seems to be ta stress and maintain the original
and pristine form of the Shary'ah.

Sources of the Islamic Sharï 'ab.

Shah Wall AII~ does not proffer a legal theory which
' . " ' : ' .
is altogether new or different from the' one which is held by
the tradi tional jurists., .However, he stresses oertain aspects
of this theory and attempts to rectify some of the notions in
regard te USül:i.which, according tohim, were wrongly held by
his contemporaries. The purpose .before him was to shake
people out of their self-righteousness in respect of their own
schools and bring:~l1.C about a change in their attitude towards
the doctrines of schools other than their own. This constitutes
one of the elementary stages of hisendeavour to effect har-
monisation of fighi differences. It is in fact the essential
step without which any advance in that direction seems weIl
nigh inconceivable.

The Qur''ân and the Sunnah

In some of his early writings Shah Wali Allah tends to
 60

confine the usüi of the SharI'ah to thé Qur'an and sunnah.

There he condeI!l11s the attempt to add to these wo material ".
sources of the Shar' such subjective elements as ijm~' or
oiy'8.s. 94 Though he ab~dons this view in' his'later writings
and placesijnia' and giy'âs among the sources of the Shari'ah,
he never fails to stress the absolute and final author,i ty of
the Qur''an and ' sunnah. 95 "
Walî All"âh regards some of the ,precepts of the Prophet
as based on revelation and the oth~rs as based on his ijtihl1d
and giy'âs. However, Wall Alli!h likens theijtihad and giyas
of the Prophetto the rev~ll:ltion on the ground that his
opinion was secured from error by virtue of Godls constant
guidance. 96 Another distinctive feature of the Prophetls
giyl1s, which he points out, is that the Prophet was not always
bound, unlike his ummah, to find out 'ilal (effective causes)
of the explicitinjunctions in order toextend them to other
similar cases about which no guidance was found in the text
of the Qur'an. The precepts established or elaborated by ,the
Prophet were not necessarily deduced from the texts (nusüs)
but were rather based on those broad considerations and
policies of the laws97 and the general principles of the
shar'I legislation98 which were revealed to him alongwith
the shar'ï laws.99
This ,contradistinction which he draws between the
giyas of the Prophet and that of the ummah partly accounts for
 61

his repudiation of the principle of the ~anafï legal theory

according to which even a technically ~~ï~ (sound) tradi-
tion, provided it is an isloated one and has been transmitted
by a non-fagïh [Companion] can be rejected if it appears
to be against giyas. 100 He criticises this principle on the
ground that when we have examined the isnad of a tradition
and found it to be eagïg (sound), the only plea for making
this tradition subject to further scrutiny (i.e., to see if
the Companion who narrated it was fagïh or not) would be
that we do not consider the doctrine mentioned in this sound
tradition to be in harmony with our giyas. This implies
that we compare our giyas to that of the Prophet who was
not bound, unlike us, to find out effective causes for
applying giyas in the process of formulating the precepts.
ShahWalî Allah contends that human giyas has a limited
function and authority and is in no case competent to
question the soundness of the shar'î magadïr (quanti tatively:'
fixed rules) when they are proved to be based on eanïh
(sound) reports. lOl Our function is merely to examine the
isnad of a tradition, not to test the doctrines contained
in it on the criterion of our giyas, since human reason some-
times fails to perceive the Qikmah (the wisdom and deeper
meaning) of the shar'ï prescriptions, especially those of
magadïr (quantitatively fixed rules).102 It is in this
context that he does not allow giyas to supersede the
 . 62

sunnah. I03
Shah Walï Allah main tains that the Qur'an may
abrogate both the Qur'an and. 1;ladîth; .· but
~ . .
a b,ad'ïth maynot
supersede the Qur'an. He 'argues thispoint by citinga
rulethat whenever Gad intended ta approve of a doctrine
a t which ,:t he Prophet had .a+rivedby his ijtihâd God did so
by Histacit assent. But whenHediq. not appro"{eof it
and will'ed ta alter it, He didnot let ~ the Prophet allhere
to that doctrine, butrevealed ta himthe :pivine will about
the matter. Thecorrectionwas accomplished either by His
sending down Hiscommandment in the Qiir'an, as in the case
. of .changing the giblah, or elsethe Prophethimself changed
his ijtihë.d which was again tacitly confirmed by Gad. For
ex~ple,the Prophet first allowed nabl.dh to be made only
in a waterskin; but later on allowed the use of any vessel
for this purpose and prbhibited the intoxicants in general.
This was tacitly approved of by God as no countrary arder
came down from Him. 104
Wall. Allah strongly criticises, as we have noted
earlier, the a§1;l~b al_r' ayI05 for abandoning a khabar~
S9ad (isolated tradition) for the sake of what he calls
certain selfTmade maxims of their legal theory.I06 He
regards the rejection as a kind of continuation of the false
doctrine of the Khawërij who maintained a similar notion. I07
 63

As for the science o.f asma 'al-rijalwhich is aimed

at investigating the creden.tials of transmi tters and the value
of their traditions, ShahWali AII'rul discourages, or rather
condemns, those who. engage themselves. in thisàcience, since, .
. according tohim, allthetraditionshave·alreadybeen
collected and classified accQrding to their degre~s of authen- .
ticity in the third c'entury compendla àfter the examination
of the chains of their narrators and elucidation of their'
texts by the traditionists. He deems it asuperfluous and
unnecessary task for a muhaddïth (traditionist) of his time
to engage now in such sciences as 'ilm asm'S.'al-rijal (bio-
graphies of narrators), 'ilmtawfigfi ikhtil'A:f1.t al-riway'ât
(science of conciliation between the wo;r:dings of different
reports), 'ilm al-tar jïb. (science of preference), etc .10& He
condemns those who intend to study these sciences and dubs
them as 'ostentatious 'ulama' who are out to the splendour
of the worldly life and who are not possessed of a single
particle of Faith,.I09 He also labels those who acquire
knowledge of :nadith through these sciences, i.e., by acquain-
ting themselves with the names and degrees of reliability of
the narrators and by learning the meanings of the rare words
as literalists (ashab al-~awâhir). By contrast those who
acquire the knowledge of traditions to get insight into the
spirit of law and legislation he considers as religious
hukama' (sages).110 Thus he lays greater stress on learning
 64

the texts and meanings of traditions ratherthan on their

isnads.
His aversionto, th;escience of asDiâ' al-rijal was
responsible for, 'G'r.:::was perhaps due tohis relatively
deficient mowledge of this science.~llAlthoughhe had
studiedit as a part of the course of Hadith under his teacher,
Abü 1âhiral-Kurd!,112 he,couidnot get depth in i t andhad,
as ever, beenpreoccupiedwith the same predilection for
paying greaterattention te the contents and meaningsof the
traditions tham to their isnids. ll ; It was,perhaps, for this
reason that sc:>me traditionswhich areda'!.f (weak.ih isnad) or
_Wjü' (apocryphal) but which conformed to his theory and
interpretations crept into his writings.ll4
We think it was because ofunder-playing the importance
of the science of asma'al-rijal that, instead of stressing
the critical investigation of the isnads of individual tradi-
tions for the purpose of ,basing legal, doctrines on them, he
suggested assigning to the existing collections of traditions
categories similar to those determined for individual traditions
by the early traditionists in terms of eagïQ, Uasan, da'if, etc.
He wished te treat each collection as a whole rather than each
tradition separately. He holds the view that the scrutiny of
the traditions already performed by the early experts and
compilers of Hadith and their opinions about each of the collec-
tions are so perfect, thorough and correct that they deserve
 65

unquestioning aceeptance. 115 Therefore, he favours .accepting .

the opinions of thE! compil~r-traditionists in accepting or
rejecting the traditions •.
According to his suggested 'scheme, the collections
of traditions fall into thefollowing four categories. He
"

classifies them according to their deg~ee of sibhah, shuhrah

and gubülïyah:116
(1) The compendia belo:p.girig to the first grade of this
category he halds to be of the same standing as mutaw"âtir
traditions; and they consist ,o f only three books: Muwatta' of
Malik, Sab.'!:tLof al-Bulthàr'! , and Sab.±h of ·Muslim. Among these
the Muwatta' has bee~ awarded the top place on the ground that
it is ·actually the substantive base of the.i.lâ.tter t'Wo books
and that the experts have thoroughly investigated the tradi-
tions contained in it. All of these traditions, accordingw
the consensus of the traditionists,~ are 'al;t'!h!l? As for the
other two books, he maintains, again on the authority of the
·ttradionists, that all of their muttasil marfü' traditions
are sahïh, and anybody who holds either of them in little
estimation is regarded by him as an 'heretic' (mubtadi') and
'deviator from ;ihe path of the Fai thful ' .118 Snah Wall. Allah
con tends that the three above said compendia have enjoyed
the deference and approbation of the traditionists and jurists
much more than the collections of the Kufian compilers such
as Shaybanï, Abü Yüsuf and IbmœThii Shaybah (d. 235 A.H.), and
 66

also more than the: compen,die. ', of,' the wo :çlanafi tradi tionists,
al-~~w1 (d. 321 A.H'. ) and al-Khwarizmi (d. 665 A.H. ).118

(2) The se,corid c'a tegoryof collections comprises theSunans

of al-Nasa"!, al-Tirmidh'i and Abü , Dawüd. He also places ,the
Musnad ot .trunadb. :çlanbal,in thesame categery. He excludes,
however, the Sunan of t!'l ,~ Ibn, Majah from i t. , These four
collections ~re,i;n hisopinioll, like mustang. (widespread)
traditions, or likë those oiles, which are absolutely ,sab.!l;t or
presumably sahïh, a factwhich entitles them to be considered
a trustworthyba~is for action. 120 He holds that these, collec-
tions had commonly beeri a'c'èepted ,' by the tradi tionists and j ,
jurists of everyage and had become well-known (mashhür) among
them. ' The scho1ars of earlier times based their figh and aIl
other religious sciences on the traditions embodied in these
books. 121
(3) The third eategory contains collections of a "compara-
tively inferior status such. as the Musnads of ~ayalisi,., 1 Abd
b. ijumayd, AbU Ya'la, and the Mueannafs of Ibn abi Shaybah
and 'Abd al-Razzaq,122 the works of Bayhaqï, ~~awï and
~abara.ni ,123 the Sunans of Ibn Më.jah and Daxaquj;n'i, the

Musnads of Shafi ''1 and mtrim1:, the Sahib. of Ibn :ijibban and
Mustadrak of ij"""akim.'124 The sole abject of these compilers was
ta bring together and preserve the traditions available to
them, and not toeprt out these traditions and give them a
form that wauld ënable people to follow them in practice. 125
 67
,
Their collectionscontain sabî~, ~asan,
%a'ïf, gharïb, sh~dhdh,
munkar, mawdû', and aIl types of traditions. 126 Sinee their
reports .c ouldnotgain as wid.e currency among the 'ulama.' · ~s
those of the second .category, the early traditionists, jurists,
linguists and biographers did not scrutinise their ianads,
contents, etc. Iience, they remained hidden and obscure. 127
Forthese reasons the traditions contained in these worka can
be cited only as supporting evidences for other traditions. 128
(4) The fourth category includeslater collections sueh as
the Musnad of al-Khwarizmi, K. al-Du' af'â' of Ibn aibban,
al-Kamil of Ibn 1 Ad'i, the works of Kha'j;'1b,Daylamï, Abü Nu' aym,
Jüzaqa.n'i, Ibn al_Najjar,129 K. al-Du'ara' of 'Uqaylï, al-Taf~'[r
of Ibn Jarïr al-~abar'1, and ·the works of :ij"""akim, Ibn Mardüye.h,
Ibn Shahin and Abü al-Shaykh. 130 These collections cont~in
aIl those traditions which were found in the early obscure
collections and transmi tted by unreliable and unidentifiable ~

narrators such as braggart preachers, sectarians and story-

tell ers whose reports were not generally accepted by the
traditionists. 1 31 Shah Walî AII~ considers it an unnecessary
botheration and an act of ostentation on the part of the later
fug aha , to have occupied themselves with these collections;
and their traditions he considers unworthy of reference in any
serious discussion. l 32
He considers aIl those [spurious] traditions which are
commonly on the lips of the learned but of which no trace i8
 68

found ,in the abov e ment ioned, four, types of colle ction s to
have been fabri cated by late r gene ratio ns. 133

Ijmë.'
We have alrea dy noted that in some of his wri tings
Shah Wal'i All"âh refus ed ' to inclu de ijma ' among the usül
of
the Shar i'ah; buta t some poin t he seems to have chang ed
this view since in some of his othe r work s he place s ijm"â
'
among the sourc es of ,the Shar l.'ah. 1 34
Whil e reco gnisi ng ijm'â" as the third sourc e of the
Shar i' ah, Sh'rul. Wall. All"âh not only refe rs to the comm
only
ci ted argu ment sfrom the texts of theQ ur''A n and sunn ah,
but
also sets out some othe r reaso ns in its supp ort.
It seems plau sible to rega rd the prin ciple of ijm'â '
as supe rfluo us in the ortho dox lega l ' theor y when one finds
the theor y insi stin gtha t ijma ' on any doct rine may be
estab lishe d only afte r , a proo f has been furni shed for it
from the othe r three sourc es (i.e. , the Qur'an, sunna h and
giyas ).135 Sh~h Wall. Allah prov es the nece ssity of the prin
ci-
pIe of ijma ' by refer ring to its func tion of stren gthe ning
the valid ity of such dedu ced doct rines . Ijm~' in his view
,
ensu res certa inty of belie f in resp ect of a grea t number
of
fighl . doct rines whic h are orig inall y based on giyas or khab
ar
wghi d. 136 More over, when the juris ts agree d on the doct rines
so dedu ced, they regar ded these agree ment s as suff icien t
 69

proofs ; and, therefore,wh1letransmi tting these doctrines

to the following generations, theythought it unnecessaryto
alwaya ::jO refer t.o their original b~aes. They had, in fact,
lost the impetus of retaining the original bases in thememory.
Consequently, their agreements took the place of the original
proofs in the times of the latergenerations. This fact,
Shah Wall All'âh . observes, comp;;üled the jurists to recogliiae
ijma' as the thirdsource of theShar!:' ah. l 37
Apart from this, · Shë.hWa1! 'Allë.h considera the unitY
and integrity of the Muslim people a matter of vital importance
and holds · the principle of ijm~' to be an indispensable means
of achieving this uni ty.l38
In consequence, Sh~hWalï Allah agrees with the orthodox
. jurists in recognising ijm'â' as thethird source; b:ut· he holds
a differentview in ascertaining its canonical value.
Sh'ë.h Wall All'!h regards only that ijDiâ' to be qat''!
(consensus of absolute authority) which is completely free
from disagreements. 1 39 By freedom 'from disagreements he does
not mean that no opinion to the contrary ahould ever have been
expressed on ·the question. He denies the possibility of the
existence of such an ijm~' , since variant views are also
expressed and reported about each doctrine on which ijDiâ' is
established in the days of the salaf (forbears).l40 What he
wants to stress is that a decision of ijma' can be of absolute
authority only when aIl the variants on · that point have finally
 70

been settled by the community. And this, he views, may be .

accomplished . onlybythe endeavolll's of a rashid (rightly
guided) caliphwhose political authority ander~dition in law
are universally accepted by the Muslim people. 141 He~ there-
fore,restric,ts the ijma' ofabsolute authori ty to thoseruJ.es
and laws which were enforced by the rightlY .€;uided caliphs
(al-khula.:rn' al-rashidUn), 'either ~ithor without consul-
tation with -men of judgement, andwhieh'struck firm :Eaots'..dn
the life of the ,Muslim community.142 He vindicates the validity,
indispensability and, above all, irifallibilityof this ijm'§.'
by r~rerring to the Qur"'ë.nic verses 22:41 and 24:55 143 and
to the following tradi tions: "Adhere to my sunnah and tha t
of my rightly guided khula:t1!' (successors).n144 "Be always
with al-jama'ah and al-sawad al-a'~am (the collective body)
[of the MuslimsJ. 11145 He a1so adduces statements and ,· practic~s
of various Companions, Successors, and jurists of the four
schools to stress that .s uchan ijmâ' is a shar'ï evidence of
a rank second only to that of the Qur'an and sunnah.146
In theory, as we have seen, Sh~h Walï Al1~h affirms
the validity of the absolute ijma' for the whole period of
the early caliphate. In actua1 practice, however, Sh~ Walï
Allah tends to confine absolute jj,jm'â" to the reign of the first
three caliphs;147 and amo~ them, he gives significant primary
to the ijma' which took place during the time of 'Umàr ~ho,
in his opinion, exce1led the other caliphs in frequently deli-
 71

berating wi th~lle Companions about fiahiproblems.148 There

' . ' -
were certain 'points w.h.i ch, Shah Wall All'âh observes, could
.

not be settled before the time of 'Umar, 'Umartried sucess-

fully to institute f,tperfêc~ijma.' on th~se points and on
manyother fighi questiensby resolving aIl the differences
and doubts once for all and by practically introducing them
in the c0Inmunity.149 He also exerciseda judicious dontrol.
on the legislative activities of the community. During that
period, therefore, the community followed one and the same
doctrine on all legal and administrative questions -- and
that doctrine was the one at which the .Caltph had~rived .'
after consultation,with his companions. 150 Thus the idea~
ijm!' which was free fromdissent culminated, according to
Shah Wall All~h, during the caliphate of 'Umar. He, there-
fore, regards the doctrines of 'Umar as the core, the kernel
and the mainstay of Islam, and aIl the doctrines contrary to
his, are considered by Wall All8.h to be isolated and irregular
which are to be held unacceptable unless they are supported
by authentic traditions or gilas Jall (self-evident analQgy).151
But for the endeavours and explicit pronouncements of,'Umar,
Wall Allah believes, aIl the consensual doctrines that now
exist could not have been established. 152 On the whole Shah
Wall Allah does not seem to be very sanguine about the possi-
bility of agreement of the community taking place ,on the points
left unsettled by 'Umar. 1 53
A- 72
V
It is noteworthy that wheriever Shah Walï Allë.h
mentions ijma' as the tp.ird source sf the Shart'ah he
generally. ~~fers to . it~ first ' d~gree whi6h ' he terms inter-
changeably as ijm'â'-i salaf (the agreement 0f the forbèars),
ijniâ' -1 . pa.P.abah (the agreement of the Companisns), ijma. '-i ."
khulara' (the agreement of the [rightly guidedJ. Caliphs) and
ijma.'-i tabgah-'i ml! (agreement of thefirst generation);154
and this shows that the doctrine "of restricting ijm:a.'to the .
Companions, which is held by Ibn :tIanbal and Dawüd ~ë.hir!,155
has influenced his theory to a considerable extent.However,
he excludes from this ijma.' the agreemeIits of the. Companions
on questions relating to irti.fâga.t (sscial institutions) as
mostly such'agreements of the Companions, inhis opinisn, were
based merely on reason. 156 He regards it as a distortion of
the Shari'ah to believe that the ijma' which has been formulated
merely in the light of an exigency, with the help of reassn
alone and has not been inferred from the Qur'!n and/or sunnah,
to have a binding character. 157
The second category of ijma.' ,which Shah Walï Allah
considers to be ~anni (presumptive) and to be possessed of· a
secondary position, comprises those doctrines which are not
altogether free from disagreement, hswever rare and insigni-
ficant t~ese might be. Being rare and insignificant, Shah Walï
Allah observes, these disagreementsare negligible and do not
preclude the establishment of an ijma', yet they are signi-
 73

ficant enough to renÇl,~;r their rank to that of a presumptive

(rather than an absolutely certain) ijma'.158 He tries
to accommodate in this category different forms of ijma'
such as ijmë.' sUkütî,159 ikhtilaf 'al~ gawlayn,160 agree-
ments of the people of the two holy cities of Mecca and
Medina,161 and ijma' of the generality of the jurists who
did not possess any caliphal authority.162 He believes
that though these ijma's do not ensure certainty of belief,
they impart binding authority to the doctrines based upon
them. 163

Qiyas

Sliijh Walî Allah also includes giyas among the sources

of the Sharî' ah164 but wi th some reservations and hesi ta- . '
tions. 165 His dislike for the doctrines based on qiyas is
probably due to sorne irregularities and exaggerations in
which sorne fugaha' of the later period have been alleged
to have indulged while trying to resort to giyas. 166 It is
for this reason that he accepts only that giyas which is
jalî (self-evident).167
One of the irregularities which he points out in this
connection is the confusion between giyas which is recognised
and ra'y which is prohibited. Shah. Walï Allah remarks that
the latter is termed by a group of fuqaha' as istih~an.168 To
him, this ra'y or istiQsan means regarding a sabab (prepara tory
 74

cause) or a maWiinnah that indicates' a certain maelabSh.l.(Jl!lder":

lying purpose)169 as 'illah ' (~ffective cause) of alaw. 170
In contrast giyas signifies, in the Shah's opinion,anÜ
extension of lawfrom the ~(text) to a particular case on
the basis of a common 'illah (effective cause)~ As such,
the function of giyas, in his opinion, is not to discover t.i lC

. the maelanah (underlying purpose) of law~ but just to find

out precisely the 'illah (effective cause) on the basis of ,
which a law may be extended to a particular case. 1 71 In order
to illustrate this, Sliah Wali Allah cites the instance of a
settled person faced with the sarne inconveniences and hardshipe
as faced by a traveller. According to 9iyas, he may not be
permitted to avail himself of the same concessions which have
been allowed to a traveller, e.g., ~ (curtailment of prayer)
and iftar (no-observance of fasting during the month of
Rama~an), since removal of the difficulties can be deemedto
be the maelab.ah (underlying purpose) of o :~· allowing these
concessions [to a traveller]; but not the 'illah .c effective
cause) of ~ and ifj;ar which in this case is travelling only.172
He is of the view that giyas based on the mag;innah of a
mae1abah (tinderlying purpose) and not on 'illah (the effective
cause) is permissible only for the ~rophet who is the shari"
(lawgiver)173 As for the ummah, it is permissible for it only
.in maealib._(virtues )174 shara' i' or magadxr (quanti tatively
fixed rUles).175 He illustrates the view by referring to the
 75

law which prohibits .the use of utensils made of gold and

.silver or thE) use of silk by men. After acknowledging that
the maela.nah (underlyingpurpose) of the law is to prevent
habi tuation to luxurious living, adopting an attitude of
arrogailce , towards the . poor, and scrambling for . the accuniu-
lation ofwealth, he avers that if any body usessuch things
even after having eliminated the chances offalling p~ey to
these evils,he will still be held to be atransgressor of
the law, .sirice the prohibi tian is conn.ected "li th these rules
per ~. ' On the other hand, if anyoneuses utensils made of
precious ,stones .whichare much more expensive, . su ch as
sapphire o~ emerald, etc., orwears expansive woollen clothes
which are costlier than silk -- and thishe does with the
intention of living a luxurious life, etc.the · will still not
be held to be a transgressor of the law. However, he may be
criticised for his bad intention of living a luxurious life;
and the case will come under ma sai ih, not under shara'i'. And
if he does not do these things with this intention, there is
no harm at aIl in using them. 176
Thus Shah Wall. Allah stands for a literaI following of
the shara'i' and magadïr, and is opposed to taking their
spirit and underlying purpose for making giyas or following
it without paying heed to the actual words of the texts or
to their external forme
.
In this connection he refers to the
regular practice of the first four Caliphs .and other religious
 76

scholars in preserving the external form of the shara'i'

(laws and rules) rather than their spirit~177
IstiQsan, by which, as we have noted earlier,17S Shah
Wali Allah means resorting to that giyaswhich is based on
the presumable indication of the mae1ahah of a law, without
regard for the external form of the law leads, in his view,
to distor'tion of the Sha.ri'ah,an errorof which the Jews, for
instance, were guilty in the past, when they replacedthe
ordained punishment of stoning the adulterer with that of
lashing him and blackening his face. This change followed
the realisation on the part of the Jews that the former
punishment was a cause of trouble, disruption and disunity
in their communi ty while the latter was less trouble,some but
served equally weIl the purpose of reform. 179 He observes
that it was this ra'y or istiQs2n which has been prohibited '
by the Prophet, criticised by the Companions, and repudiated
by scholars such as Ibn Sir!n, al-~asan al-Ba~ri, al-Shafi'i
and al-Sha'bi who regard it as a means of legalising what is
prohibited and prohibiting what is permitted, and thus enacting
a new shari'ah. ISO
In order to show how an exaggerated use of this ra'y
or istiQsan leads ultimately to the adoption of self-made
rules in preference to nU6û, (texts) and authentic traditions
and thus to the introduction of a new shari'ah, he cites the
following doctrines which are based, according to him, on such
 77

giyas, ra'y andistibsan:

(1) Liquor made of dates has b~en permitted for consumption
being excluded from thecategory , of, kha.nm.:r;.(wine) [which is
explicitly prohibited in the 'Qur'an].lSl
(2) A father has been allowed tohave sexual intercourse
wi th the female slave ofhis sofi~:.i82
(3) Five loads have been fixed as the minimum limit of
cotton which is liable to the payment of zak'âh. 183
(4) The minimum quantity of water that guarantees purity
has been fixed at a pond of ten by ten oubitsinstead of two
vessels of the kind called gullah (pitcher) - a quantity
established by the traditions. 184
(5) A concession has been given to a traveller on board
a vessel ta remain seated in prayer. The propounders of this
doctrine plead that travelling on board a vessel is an indi-
cation (ma~innah) of dizziness which is a legal ground for
this ooncession,185
(6) The attainment of the age of twenty five years haB
been fixed as the sign of rUBhd (majority) of an orphan. 186
(7) An authentic tradition which deals with the condition
for revoking the fraudulent sale of a mu~arr8h (ewe or she-
goat unmilked for many days) haB been rejected on the ~round

that it seems to be contrary to ~as.187

(8) The distance of one mile from waterhas been stipulated
as permitting a person to perform ritual ablutions with sand
(tayammum) instead of water. 188
 78

He avoids, inmost of these places, mentioning the

name of theschool whichformulatèd . th~se doctrines; but it
is weIl known th:at aIl of them are' heldby the :tIanafi jurists.
In the course of d:Lscussingsome of these doctrines, he bit-
ter1y cri ticis'e s thé" fugaha' who are extravagant in the use
of ra'y and istib.san.;and excfudes them from the ah! al-sunnah;
for their activity amounts, according to, him, to the worst
type of distortion of, ortampering\with, the Shari'ah, and
amounts to the enactment of a new shari'ah. 18 9
By condemningthe excessive use of ra'y he does not
want to discourage the use of humanreason. Rather such
facu1ties as reason, goodsense, · intuition and satisfaction
of heart play aprominent raIe in his legal theory.190 Nor
does he reject each and every kind of ra'y. On the contrary,
he allows its use, basing himself o~ the authority of ·the
practice of the Companions; a1beit he restricts its scope.
For instance, he condemns its use for propounding hypothetical
doctrines, 191 or for matters which are ta'abbudï (which
cannot be investigated by reason)19 2 or which relate to the
magadïr (quantitatively fixed rules) laid down in the Qur'an
or traditions. 193 He confines it strictly to deducing solu-
tions of those prob1ems for which no express rule is found in
the Qur'an or traditions. 194 Moreover, such matters as
defining certain fighi terms, rituals and their essentials;
or finding out the direction of gib1ah or sighting the new .
 79

moon, etc., have , also been l 'eft, according . to him, to be

determined with the help or' individual ra'y.195 In most of
these matt'e rs, ' he also recommends reference to the language
and customs of the early Arabs 'in the context of which the
Shar'i' ah has ' b èen .re;v eal ed '.1,96 ,
In any case, he would not allow doctrinet:)based on ra'y
to co~stitute an integral part of the Shar'1'ah or to supersede
the Qur'h or a tradi tian or ijm'â' of, the time of the first
four Caliphs .197 '

The Schools of Figh

Shâ,h Wall. Allah regards the time of the ,death ,of the
third caliph, 'uthman (d. 35 A.H.) as theend , of the era of
the ideal ijma' during which the caliph used to be the pivot
of aIl juristic activity, and whenhis decision generally
enjoyed the universal acceptance of the community. This
consensus, he observes, could not endure longer; for when 'Al~

took the reins of the caliphate into his hands, the unitY of
the ummah was rent asunder. 198 This political disunity also
brought fighî disagreements in its wake, and the silver lini!lg
of the unanimity of the community disappeared for ever as the
succeëding generations experienced, for various reasons, only
an increase in the number and type of disagreements -- political,
theological and juristic. 199 However, divergent opinions could
not form into separate schools of law during the Umayyad rule,
for these divergent doctrines had not been systematically
ct 80

codified. upto that time a scholar interpreted the doctrines

from the original sources of the Shari'ah, i.e., the Qur''§n
and the sunnah according to the method and principles of his
teachers, instead of attaching himself to the doctrines of a
paritcular fagih. He ·would, then, proffer his inference ·not
as a doctrine of a certain schoo~, but as adoctrinederived
by himself which he claimed to be in conformity with the
Shar'!'ab.~200 The fugah9.""ofthat·period were, however, divided
into two major geographical groups, m., the Medinese and
the Iraqians; but their differences had not yet solidified.
Wi th the adv.en t of the Abbasids, Shah Walî Allah avers,
different schools of law came into 'b eing wi th their variant
views on ueül and furü'; and the fugahB.' now came to be known
by their adherence to various fighî schools. These fugaha'
did ,not dare pronounce judgements merely on the basis of the
evidences from the ~ur'an , and the sunnah. They could propound
doctrines only after ' having consulted the doctrines of tp.eir
respective teachers. This pro cess intensified the differences
of inference, and with the passage of time a doctrine which
was formerly considered to be a deduced opinion now assumed
the position of the established doctrine of a school. 20l
In the course of tracing the histroy of juristic dif-
ferences from the time of the Companions to the establishment
of independent schools,202 Shah Walî Allâh attempts to analyse
the various factors which contributed to the rise of some
schools and the extinction of others until only four SunnL '
 81

schools, viz. ,the ~anafi, Malikï, Shafi 'ï and :tfanbalï

remained. Accordingto him,they alone represent the
doctrines of the collective body (al-sawad al-a'~am) of the
community;20~ and hence their orthodoxy and equality in r~.204
NO,twi thstanding theequal status which Shah. Walï Allah
assigns to the four fighï schools, he also admits their
distinctive characteristics which, according to him, are due
to their peculiar historical and geographical backgrounds, the
personal inclinations and capabilities of their founders, and
the requirements of their times. Among the foundere of the
schools Abü :aanïfah (d. 150 A.H.) and hi.s two prominent
disciples, Abü Yüsuf (d. 182 A.H.)and ~uhammad al-Shaybanï
(d. 189 A.H.) are reckoned by ShahWalï Allah as strict fol-
lowers of the doctrines of the Kufian fugaha', particularly
those of Sha'bï (d. 110 A.H.) and Ibrahïm al-Nakha'ï (d. 96 A.H.)
who was the spokesman of the Kufians and the transmitter of
the legacy of Ibn Mas'üd (d. ~2 A.H.), 'Alï (d. 40 A.H.),
'Alqamah (d. 62 A.H.), Shuray~(d. 78 A.H.), etc. 205 Their
strict adherence to the Kufians, and hence the Kufian character
of the ijanafi school as a whole, is evidenced by Shah Walï
Allah from the facts that, even on "the few points where Abü
~anïfah disagrees with Ibrahïm, he adopte only doctrines of
Kufian provenance,206 and the disagreements between him and
his above mentioned two disciples are limited to the four walls
of the Kufian doctrines. 207 They disagree with one another
 82

either in arriving filt different inferential conclusions from

Ibrahïm' s dicta or j.n choosing between the doctrines of
Ibrahïm andthoseof his Kufian contemporaries (agran).208
Abû Yüsuf and Shaybanî differ from Abû ijanïfah on
several pointsboth in ueûl ·and furû', and both of them rank,
by dint of their calibre and work, .as mujtahid mutlag. None-
theless, their doctrines have been identified with those of
Abû ijanïfah, in Shah Walî's view, for two reasons: first,
because of the above mentioned fact of their eommon origin,
i.e., they all agree in taking the dicta of Ibrahim and his
companions as the basis of their doctrines; second, because
their dicta have been jointly codified in al-Mabsüt and !!=
Jami' al-Kabïr. 209
Although, Shah Walï Allah regards the ijanafî'system of
law as based on the traditions and athar contained in Mu.snad
Abï Hanïfah and K. al-Athar of M~ammad al-Shaybattî,210 his
general opinion of the ijanafï school is that in the elaboration
of its doctrines traditions have not been given their due place.
Consequently, its various dicta have deviated from the sunnah
and admitted an element of ra/y (individual reasoning) and
istiQsan (discretionary opinion) to an improper exte~t.211
He admits that Shaybanï did his best to conform the llanafî
doctrines to Hadith by comparing each doctrine with the Muwatta'
of Malik. He left aIl those ijanafîdoctrines intact which were
found in agreement with the Muwatta'. He also retained those
 83

~anafi doctrines which, thoughnot ·in con.rormi ty wi th .the

Muwajïjïa', were supported by otherevidences~ 'sllch as doctrines

of a group of Companions and Successors "Shayba.nl. gave up,

~hë.h Wall. Allah ~sserts, only · thosedoctrines . of his schpol .
which were found to be based on aweak gi1as ora loose
takhrl.j (elabora.tion), or 'which appearedto ·him to contradict
those traditions which were accepted by the fugB.ha'. 'He also
abandoned those doctrinèswhich he found to be opposed to 't he
'amal (practice) of themajority of scholars, (jumhür'ulania.':).
In suchcases, .t he Shah observes,Shaybanï: replaced the
doctrines ' of his school wi tll a preferable doctrine of one of
the forbears (salaf).212 In spite of Shayb'ân"its attempt to
revise ~anafi d'oc trines. in the light of l;Iad'ith and bring them
closer to the sUnnah, the later aanafi fugaha.' showed, Shah
Wall. Allah asserts, little interestin the sc~ence of Tradition
evenupto his own tîme. Shâ,h Wall. Allah accounts for this
deficiency by poin,ting out thatfrom the third century A.H.
onwards this school did not produce any mujtahid mUjïiag
muntasib whose essential qualification, according' to him, was
to be an expert in the science of Tradition. 213 From the
third century this school knew only mujtahidü:n fi al-madhhab
whose minimum qualification was fixed by some of the scholars
as having learnt al-Mabsüt by heart. 2l4 The main cause which
Shâb Wall. Allah saw for their inattention to, and disregard
for, Dadîth was their exaggerated preoccupation with ra'y and
 84

istiQsan, for which he has condemned them inhis various

writings.215 It is probably for this reason that Shah Walï
does not consider the doctrines of this schoolto beas much
in accordance with the actual precepts of the and
Pro~het

the practice of the period of the first three Caliphs 216 as

those of some other Sunnï schools. 217
As for the Malikï school, Shah Walï Allah ·considers
it to be based on Prophetie traditions which are either
inusnad or mursal and mawgüf but transmitted by reliable
reporters; then on the rulingsof 'Umar and the practice of
his son 'Abd Allah; and then on the dicta of other Companions
and Successors of Medina, especially thos.e ·Successors who are
known as the t seven lawyersof Medina'. Shë.hWalï Allah
ascribes the distinctive character of the Malikî school to
the above sa id element·s . 218 He seems to hold this school in
esteem mainly because it stemmed from the unanimous practice
and established tradition of the holy city of Medina which
he tends to consider as authentic on the basis of some tra-
ditions p.!'d -other arguments., 21 9 He also holds in high esteem
Malik's MUwatta' as a work which has enjoyed the approval and
trust of the succeeding generations of jurists as weIl as
traditionists; the former having made it a . basis for their
,

doctrines and the latter a fundamental source fortheir

compendia. 22Q Mujtahidün muntâsibün,however, have been found
in this school, the Shah observes, in a very small number;
 85

and if one of them held isolated opinion, he was not regarded

as sapibal-wujüh, i.e., asamujtahid holding a variant
viewp9'j~Ii.t. t within the school, such as Ibn' Abd âl-Barr
(d. 463 · A.H.) and Abü 'B akr . Ibn al-'Arabï (d. 543A.H.). Th.e ir
opinions are not regarded as authentic .doctrinesof the
school. 221
As regards the Shâfi' ï sChool, Snah Wall. Allah holds
i-t ,t o be ;founded on the investigations and doctrines ' of
reliable lawyers of Mecca and Medina which Shâfi''i (d~ 204 A.H.)
followed after .examiDÏng them in the light of marfü' tradi-
tions,222 amending them according to his principlesof
jurisprudence; and harmonisimg their disagreements. 223
Shah Walî Allahviews Shâfi'ï as an ideal mujtahid
and a perfect traditionist, andalways speaks ·highly of him.224
He regards him as the mujaddid of the second centûr'y A.H. 22 5
In order. to show the contribution of Shafi'i to the develop-
ment of Figh, Shah Walï Allah surveysthe poor condition of
jurisprudence before the appearace of Shâfi'ï. At that time,
Shâh Walï Allah observes, traditions of aIl amsar (lands) had
not been collected together. In consequence the knowledge of
the contemporary scholars was confined to local traditions and
âthar. They had not even laid down the rules for reconciling
the contradictions in their local reports; but rather attempted
to harmonise them with their personal per~acity. When tradi-
tions of aIl lands were collected together in the time of
 86

Shafi'î,the problem becamemore serious; for, in addition

to the contradictions -of tp.e local traditions, discrepancies
among traditions of various lands also camé tolight. Now,
instead of harmonising these contradictions, eachscholar tried
to suppo~ttl1e interpretations of his 'own master which. were
based on his personal disèretion. This resulted in to;tal
disruption;a.n.d controversies arose to sUch adegree that
the scholars were too confused to find a:ny sc>lùtionuntil
Shafi'i came totheir rescue like a miracle ÔfGod. 22 ? Shafi'i
was moved, according to Shah Walî ' Allah,by the irregularities
and inconsistencies of his predece~sors ' and contemporaries
in Figh to erect this science for the first time by formulating
its u§!w. , and inferring thef'urü' thérefrom. 227
Shah Walî Allah summarises the main contribution of ,
Shafi'î to the devâlopment , of Figh as follow,s:
(1) He col1ected the Qur'anic J?recep:ts~ and traditions and
athar of legal import and propounded the principles of in-
ferring doctrines from these sources.
(2) He also formu1atedrules for reconciling the contradic-
tions in reports since the Iack of these rules was a source
of anamoly in ijtihad.
(3) He stipulated certain conditions for accepting muraal
and mungat1 traditions as it appeared to him that a large
number of these were either baseless or opposed to musnad
traditions; and their indiscriminate acceptance created defects
in inference.
 87

(4) As anumber of traditions were not known to the Succes-

sors, they resorted to ijtihad on the' basis of their ,individual
opinion (ra'y) or followed the doctrines of the'Companions.
These traditions which werèunknown to them ,came to : light in
the time of the third tabagah [i.e., in the~eneration of the
tab' tabi'in], and some of them became well-known evenat a
later period, i.e., in the time of the Compi~e~sof traditions~28
Contemporary fugaha ' did not aocept these traditions on the
ground that they~ppeared opposed to the established practice
of their respective cities; and this they considered to be a
sign of ureliability. Contrary to this practice, Shafi'i
insisted on givip.gup ijtihë.d in favour of a tradition, except
in cases where an express def,ect was found in the tradition.
In this connection, Shah Wali Allah cites the examples of the
traditions about gullataynand khiyar al":majlis which, according
to him, had been rejectedby the Maliki and :tIanafi schools in
spite of their being eé!llib. (sound).
(5) Shafi'i did not accept the dicta on which the Companions
disagreed; and in such cases, he referred to Hadith. He
attributed their disagreement to their unawareness of certain
eapl:L (sound) traditions.
(6) He denounced the confusion of ra'y with giyas and refuted
the principle of istihsan which, according to him, amounted
to the enactment of a new sharî'ah. 22 9
With this background Shafi'i appears to Shah Walî Allah
 88

not only as the ·f ounder of the usül and builder of the Figh;
but alsQ as the defender of Hadîth. He regards Shafi'î as
the leader of aIl the traditionists 230 .and his doctrines ·as
the closest . to the sunnahamong the four schools. 23l Sh'âh
Walî Allâh does not at~ribute this characteristic (i.e.,
closeness to thesunnah) to the Shafi'î school only on the
basis of the us'ill enunciated by Shafi'î; but also beoause of
the substantial souroe of his doctrines whioh comprises,
according to the Shah, · th:ose mashhür (well-known) traditions
and âthâr that had been compiled and worked on by noted
traditionists. 232 This chàracteristic of being based on
sound, well-known and codified traditions was held by Sh~

Wali Allah to be peculiar to the Shafi'i school only. · He

also supposes this fact to be .a sufficient ground for condem-
ning those who show enmity towards this school as 'devoid
of the capability ofijtihad mutlag' and 'ignorant of the
science of Tradition'. 233
In addition to ·the appreciation of its systematisation
of and consistency in usul, its closeness to and harmony with
l::Iadîth and the sunnah, and the soundness of its.inferences,
Shah Walî Allah regards the Shafi'i school as superior to
others in other respects also. He considers it the most
strict of the four schools in maintaining the chain of the
transmitters of its doctrines and the most accurate in recor-
ding the dicta of its eponym. He also holds it to .be the most
e 89

precise in differentiating between the dicta of the founder

and the isolated opinions of .the founder'scompanions, and
the most careful in preferring some of the variant dicta and
opinions to others. Another distinctive featureof this· sClhool,
which appears to · ShAhWall, All~ as significant,is
,'. : i .,'
that it
produced more mujtahid~of · the second and third categories
(i.e., mutlag muntasib andf1 al-madhhab), experts inusül,
scholastic theologian~,and commentators of the Qur''!n and
Hadl th than a:n.y other school. The early companions of Shati 'l,
Shah Wall Allah observes, combined the sciences of Tradition,
Figh of the Companions and the science of usül. They were
mujtahids of the second degree; none of them imitated his
master in all hisdoctrines until the advent of Ibn Surayj
(d. 306 A.H.) who formulated and introduced the principles
of taglld (imitation) and takhrïj (elaboration) in this
school. 234
As for the fourth school, i.e., the school of Ibn
~anbal (d. 241 A.H.), Shah Wall. Allah views it as merely a
branch and wajh of the Shafi'ï school. He gives the ~anbalï

doctrines exactly the same position in relatiom.; to the

Shafi'ï school as the doctrines of Abü YUsuf and Shaybanï
occupy in relation to those of Abü ijanl.fah with only one
technical difference -- the former (i.e., the Sanball. and
Shafi'l. doctrines) have not been compiled and codified together
while the latter have been. 235 He considera the lack of codi-
 90

fication the onlyreason for which the ~anbalî and Shafi'i

doctrines have been regarded as those of two separate schools.
Otherwise they are, in the opinion of Wali Allah, one and the
same. 236

Classification of the Doctrines of the

Fighï Schools
There was a tendency'among the contèmporaries of Shah
Wali Allah not to differentiate between various categories of
the doctrines of their schools. 237 AlI doctrines were treated
as equally souhd. They chose doctrines from their manuals of
law without examining their authenticity or considering the
status of the jurist who elaborated them. This attitude was
due either to their partisanship 238 or'to ignorance; for some
of them could not even distinguish, for instance, the actual
doctrines of Abü ~anîfah from those which were alaborated by
later jurists in accordance with his viewpoint. 239 This
imitative, indiscriminatory behaviour contributed to the
stagnation of their systems of law and intensified the fanati-
cism in their inter-school relations. It also drove them
away from the two material sources of the Shari'ah -- the
Qur'an and the sunnah. Shah Walî Allah frequently laments
this practice of his contemporaries 240 and in order to rectify
their attitude directs their attention to the different grades
of the doctrines of the schools and urges them to assign each
 91

to its proper position. He classifies the doctrines into

the following categories: 241
(1) Standard Doctrines (Zahir al-madhhab or Zahir al-
riwayah) :
According to him, the standard doctrines of the ~anafï

school are those contained in its five·fundamental books 242

compiled by Shaybani and which have bee~expre~sly stated by
Shayb'âni in this pentad as the accepted doctrines of Abü
:aanifah. 243
The established doctrines of the Malikî school, accord-
ing to him, are those mentioned by Ibn al-Qasim (d. 191 A.H.)
in al-Mudawwanah·as the doctrines followed by Mâlik. 244
Shafi'its K. al-Umm, al-Mukhtasar of al-Muzanï (d. 264
A.H.) and those doctrines of Sh~fi'ï which ha-ve been followed
by al-Rafi 'i (d. 623 A.H.) and al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) in
making inference and which have been explicitly mentioned by
them as Shafi'its well-known and accepted doctrines are
regarded by Shah Wali Allah as the standard positions of the
Shafi'i school. 245
The practice of the later fugaha', such as al-Marghïnanï
(d. 593 A.H!), etc., had been, Shah Wali Allah observes, to
follow the doctrines contained in these standard works in any
case -- whether they cQnformed ta the uaül or not. 246
(2) Rare and Isolated Doctrines (Nawadir al-madhhab or
Shâdhdh al-madhhab):
 92

AlI those doctrines of the four schools which do not

fulfil the above said conditions are regarded by Shah Walî
Allah asisolated and inauthentic opinions and as rare
doctrines. They have been transmitted from the founders of
the schools and their respective companions by unidentifiable,
and inauthentic narra tors and are found in unreliable and
uncelebrated collections, such as Amalî Abî Yüsuf, Raggîyat,
Harünîyat and .Amalî HasanhZiyad [in the ijanafi aChooi].247
In respect of such doctrines, Shah Walî Allah holds,
that the practice of the fugaha' has been'to follow only those
which are found to be in harmony wi th the usUl of their
school. 248
(3) Elaborations of later jurists (Takhrîjat aSQab ~

wujüh [!!!!] 'ulama' al-madhahib) constitute this category,

auch as the inferences of 'Tsl! b. Aban (d. 221 A.H.), al-
~a~awî (d. 321 A.H.) and al-Karkhï (d. 340 A.H.) in the ~anafï

school; and the elucidations of Abü Is~aq al-Shîrazï (d. 476

A.H.), etc., in the Shafi'î system oflaw. 249
Shah Walî Allah has a poor opinion of the ~ater juriste
in general. He considers thema class of ignorant persons -in
respect both to the sciences of Tradition and the elaboration
of law. He also holds them responsible for creating stagnation
in law and fostering partisanship among the follwers of their
schools. 250
It is partly for this reason that Shah Wall All~h
 93

emphaticallyexcludes the elaborations of the later fugaha'

from the main body of the d,o ctrines of each school; and
condemns his contemporaries for not differentiating between
the two. 251 In thisrespect,his criticism is ,particularly
directed towards the :e:anafi school. 25~L He, goes a , step
further and contends that even most of the ueül of this school ,
mentioned in Mabsüt, Hidayah, Tabyln, Ueül of al-Pazdawï
(d. 482 A.H.), etc., are attributed by th~ later :tIanafi
jurists to Abü tianîfah, Abü Yüsuf a.n4 ' Shàyb~ï.He dubs ,these
uSUl as self-made rules of thelater fugaha' which they derived
from the former' s doctrine,s' wi th a 'view to justifying their
~ ", 1

own doctrines and strengthening theirschool~253

In support of his contention about the derivative nature
and exclusion of ' the elaborations of the later fugah'a, from
the main body of the schools,Wall Allah refers to the opinions
of the :aanafï scholars, Ibn al-HUIil'âm (d • .861 A.H,. ) and Ibn al-
Nujaym (d. 970 A.H.) both in respect of ueül and furü'.254
The fact that the later fugaha, themselves differed from one
another in their enunciation of legal theory and elaborations",
of the law . and sometimes rejected the elaborations of one an-
other he adduces as a corroborative evidence in favour of his
contention. 255
By excluding the elaborations of the later fugaha'
from the main body of the four schools, Shah Wall Allah does
not plead for the outright rejection of aIl their doctrines.
 94

What he aims at by stressing this exclusion is to establish

the right of a mujtahid !1al-madhhab of each school to
scrutinise those later elaborations of his school upon which
the generality of the fugaha' did not agree and reject those
which are found to be . opposed tothe upül and precedents of
the early doctors (salaf) of his school. 2 56 By suggesting
this rule alongwith his claim te be a mujtahid !!. al_màdhhab 257
-- aclaim for a status · equal to that of later fugaha,2 58 -.
Walî Allah consciously strove for assuming the right to revise ·
or discard, according to his own discretion, the later ela-
borations and accretions in aIl the fourschools of law, or
at least in aanafI doctrines. 259 This bold ~tep previded
him with one of the devices whichsubsequently enabled him in
various ways, as we shall see latèr, 260 to rejuvenate the
fighî schools and break some of the barri ers which stood in
the way of his scheme of bringing about reconciliation between
the various legal ~chools.
il
 CHAPTER III

THE ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION

From the tenth century A.H. onwards, as we have noted

earlier, two opposite trends were found among the scholars
of India. One of these stressed strict adherence to a parti-
cular school, which, in this particular case, obviously meant
the aanafî school of law. The other tendency was opposed to
strict adherence to any particular school and emphasised
that the apparent meaning of the sunnah, as embodied in the
Eadîth compendia, ought to be rigorously followed. 1 The
struggle between these two trends had reached, as we have
already seen, its culminating point in the time of Shah
Walî Allâh. 2 Among the scholars of that time, Shaykh
'Abdu-r-Ra~îm, the father of our author, was inclined, despite
his formaI allegiance to the aanafî school, to the latter
trend. 3 He had ahl al-Qadîth proclivities to the extent
that, notwithstanding his moderate disposition and cautious
attitude,4 he occasionally had heated discussion with aanafî
jurists on certain fighî questions, and due to his partial
deviation from some aanan 'doctrines, he was criticised by
a few aanafî scholars of his time. 5 Now, Shah Walî Allah
had received his early education in Eadîth, as will be recalled,
at the feet of his father and from the renowned traditionist

95
of India, Shaykh MuQammad Af~al Siyalkotï. 6 The influence·
of these two distinguished scholars of that time created in
him, in his early age, an extraordinary interest in, and a .
great veneration for, Tradition. The practice and the views
of his father, who left a great impression on his mind,7 seems
to have contributed a great deal to his overriding stress that
the fighî doctrines should be scrutinised with the prophetie
sunnah as the major criterion for determining their validity.
We have also observed in the preceding pages that
eü!ïs were pioneers in disseminating the science of Hadith
in India, and that some of them did not adhere to any parti-
cular school of law; they rather claimed to follow the
Prophetie sunnah. 8 This trend of strictly following the
sunnah, according to Ma~har Jan-i ~~~, a contemporary of
Walï Allah, and some other sü!ïs, was a characteristic feature
of the Naqshbandï order. 9 Now, as Shah Walï Allah, like his
father, belonged to the Naqshbandï mystic order,lO this fact
also might have been one of the· factors which was responsible
for his tendency of upholding the Prophetie sunnah as embodied
in the Hadith compendia.
The notion that Shâh Walï Allah inclined to this view
only after his visit to Hejaz, as some writers tend to suggest,
is not correct. ll On the contrary, Wali Allâh had developed
this trend, as we have indicated above,12 and as appears from
his own writings, long before he proceeded to Hejaz. 13 After
the death of his father, Shah Walï Allah spent twelve years
in studying various books on aIl schools o~law.14 He
failed to ~ind any of these schoole worthy of being followed:
strictly; for, according to him, none of them was fully based
on the original sources of the Sharï'ah, and their later
jurists had lost touch with those sources. 15 He preferred,
therefore, not to bind himself to the doctrines of any parti-
cular school. 16 Heevenbecame averse to the notion of
taglïd;17 and, instead of adhering to a particular school,
he would act according to the sunnah as elaborated by
fugaha'ë m~addisïn.18 Though he was at that time not
satisfied with any of the four schools of law, he found the
Shafi'I school to be on the whole closerto the sunnah. than
the other three schools. 19 This is the reason for his holding
some of the Shafi'ï ' doctrines in his early writings as the
only valid onœ,20 and for the high esteem in which he held
Shafi' 'i Whi.chis evident even from his later works. 21

ii
At that time Shah Walï Allah was an enthusiastic
supporter of the cause of the sunnah and he strongly advocated
the overriding authority of Hadïth in respect of aIl fighï
doctrines. 22 He had, in fact, assumed the role of a
radical reformer and a strict purificationist. In order to
revive the pristine Sharï' ah and réf'orm' the:'diffe:bent,Sünri1 (schcrils
of law he urged them to base their doctrines on the two
essentialsources of the Shari'ah, the Qur'an and the
Prophetie sunnah. He protested against the attempt to add
to these two material sources such elements as ijma' or giyas
or ra ' y.23 It is significant that the defects which he
found in the contemporary 'ulama' of his country were
almost the same as were indicated by ahl al-hadïth of his
time and of the earlier time,24 e.g., the blind, rigid
taglïd of the aanafï school, particularly of its later jurists,
exaggeration in the use of ra'y, disregard for a Prophetic
tradition if it was in conflict with a fighi doctrine of
their school, etc. 25 On the other hand, Shah Walï All~h
strongly advocated unconditional observance of Qadïth texts
regardless of the fact that they were or were not opposed to
certain doctrines of a school. 26 He was so enthusiastic in
this matter that he violently opposed the contemporary aanafï
jurists and criticised them in the same virulent language as
was used, perhaps in a later time, by a contemporary ahl !l=
Qadïth, Fa.khir Za'ir Ilahabadi, who had to suffer for his
harsh language. 27 Shah Wali Allah denounced their resort to
ra'y, and regarded it as a means of tampering with the
Sharï'ah. 28 He even went so far as to exclude those who
used it excessively from the fold of the &hl al-sunnah
(orthodox).29 He considered the aanafï fugaha' of his time
to be the worst type of distorters of the Sharï'ah; for, in
his opinion, they misinterpreted the texts and diverged from
 99 :'

their evident meanings. 30 He accused them of rejecting

sound traditions and accepting some apocryphal ones, and of
resorting to false interpretations 31 and baseless doctrines. 32
He attributed their disregard for t4e texts (i.e., the Qur'an
and Hadith) to their bias in favour of the doctrines of their
imams based on istibsa.n~33 He called these jurists n,,"ula.m:a.'
al-sü'" (evil scholars), "hypcrites," "seekers of worldly
gains," and "the typicals of the Jews in the Muslim communi ty~134
He also characterised them, for holding certain doctrines, as
'impudent liars who had been thrown upside down and had been
deluded by their fancies,.35 He even went to such lengths
as to denounce them as "veritable mushriks".36
By pronouncing such harsh judgements he made himself
a party in the religious polemics and fiqhi disputes which
weregoing on among his contemporaries. His offensive
attitude and virulent language brought upon him a strong
opposition from his people, the great majority of whom
followed the ijanafï school of law. Consequently, he was met
with almost the same kind of treatement as had been meted out
subsequen tly to Z'à :'ir Ilah'âb'adî. 37 Shah Walï Allah reports
that people strongly refuted his opinions, rejected his
advices, and criticised his fatwâs.38 A time also came
when he was faced with active hostility of his contemporaries;
and he even feared for himself and his companions a murderous
attempt from his opponents on the question of fig 'hi disagree-
 lob
ments. 39 The steps which Shah Walï Allah took in order to
reform his people, in fact, worsened the situation and his
purificationist activity portended the outbreak of strife. 40

iii
It was perh~ps around this time that SblahWalï Allah
proceeded to Hejaz where he met scholars of almost aIl the
four schools of law and received under them education in
Hadith and figh. 41 While in Hejaz, in addition to the study
of religious sciences, Shah Walï Allah also pondered over
the situation of his countrymen and tried to work out solutions
to their problems. 42 He also thought over the causes of the
disputes between him and his compatriot sCholars, and tried
to arrive at certain conclusions in this respect. His pre-
occupation with this problem may be weIl illustrated by the
following dream which probably belongs to that period of
time. 43 He saw a people who were involved in a bitter quarrel.
They called each other names. Their conflict then appeared
to Sh'âh Walï Allah in the shape of.ana1lJima.1. resembling a lizard
(dabb). Shah Walï Allah took hold o:f:~ a rod··aild.?:.an after him to
kill him. The lizard turned to him saying that if Shah Walï
Allah killed him, the conflict would re-appear in the shape
of an uglier animal. On that Shah Wali Allah was frightened,
and abstained from killing him. 44
Shah Walî Allah thus came to the conclusion that the
problem was not so simple, and it was not easy to put an endto
such differences; for, there was the possibility that instead
of coming to an end the differences might assume a new form
if an attempt was made to obliterate them. 45 Consequently
Shah Walï Allah started to think along different linee and
tried to search out other methods of eliminating the diff-
erences and creating unitY in the ummah as he felt himself
to have been divinely entrusted with the task of re-uniting
the Muslim community.46
In this connection, Shah Walï Allah was ' mystically
inspired that ;he could not achieve this purpose of creating
unitY and harmony in his community if he instigated the
opposition of his people and openly opposed their fiqhi
doctrines. 47 But at the same time he also felt himself to
have been divinely appointed for the task of the revival of
the pristine Shari'ah by following and preaching people to
follow consistently the Prophetie sunnah as embodied in the
well-known padith compendia of the third century A.H.48 The
matter became more complicated as Shah Walî Allah considered
the ~anafî school of law, which was generally followed by
his people, to be based, to a very great extent, on ra~y, anôl
far removed from the Prophetie sunnah. 49
Thus, conflicting spiritual visions and inspirations
and complex, ev en divergent body of objectives, which were
even sometimes opposed to his temperament and outlook, became,
as he himself admits, a source of contradictions in his thinking
 102::'

and he spent a great deal of his time and energy on harmoni-

sing them. 50
With a view to justifying the inspiration stressing
adha'ence, or, to be more accurate, non-opposition, to the
~anafï school (inspite of Shah Walï Allah's low opinion about
its doctrines), he proffered a double standard for examining
the soundness of a school of law. One of these criteria was
to judge a school by the intrinsic merits of its doctrines,
i.e., whether its doctrines were so perfectly in accordance
with the actual teachings of the Prophet and the practice of
the early Caliphs that no proficient scholar could doubt their
validity. Shah Walï All~ regarded this standard of examining
the soundness as the apparent one, and looked upon the Sh~fi'ï

school to be preferable according to this criterion. 5l The

second criterion which he proffered for judging the soundness
of a school was to examine it in the light of circumstantial
and other extrinsic factors. For sometimes, he averred, the
Providence wills to preserve a particular school of law sin:ce l~

its followers happen to be the only representatives and defen-

ders of the true religion, or sometimes their peculiar
doctrines and liturgical practices (shi'ar) in a certain part
of the world assume the position of a criterion for distinction
between the truth and falsity (i.e., between Muslims and non-
Muslims). In such circumstances this school is identified in
the Mala' A'l~ with the millah (religion), and the precepts
of the religion are defined in terms of the doctrines of
that particular school. 52
Shah Wall Allah was of the opinion that the cause of
Islam had been defended and promoted in his country by those
Muslims who followed the aanafî school; and their peculiar
doctrines and liturgical practices(shi'ar) had assumed the
position of a criterion for distinction between the truth
and falsi ty. Thus the pr,eJepts of Islam had become identified
in India with the doctrines of the aanafî school; and hence
their interdependence in their existence in the sub~continent.53
'As such, though Shah Walï Allah found that school wanting in
certain intrinsic merits and did not regard its doctrines in
complete conformity with the sunnah, he accommodated it in
consideration ,of the position it had acquired circumstantially
in his land, and for the purpose of maintaining the integrity
of the Muslim community of India and reinforcing the defence
of Islam in the sub-continent.54
It was due to these considerations that Shah Walî
Allah tended to moderate his views about the school popular
among his compatriots, so that the divine scheme of the re-
unification and integration of the community could be realised.
At the same time Shah Walî Allah was convinced that he had
been divinely commissioned to follow strictly and promote
adherence to the sunnah as embodied in the well-known Qadîth
compendia of the third century A.H. Moreover, Shah Walï Al1Bh
was of the view that several of thepopular ~anafï doctrines
conflicted with the sunnah. 55 Shah Walï Allah tried to com-
bine both the major considerations -- of not hurting the
aanafi susceptibilities of his compatriots and promoting the
cause of the sunnah -- by coming forward wi th a form'ill;S. which
he claimed to be an inspired one. He claimed that the Prophet
had spiritually directed him to make certain modifications
in the current doctrines of the ijanafi school which wOuld,
in consequence, render these doctrines to be quite in accor-
dance with the well-known Prophetie sunnah as collected and
purged of falsification in the time of Bukharï and other
traditionists.5 6 The method which he conceived was that on
a particular questiori out of the variant doctrines of the
three founder-jurists of the ~anafï school (viz., Abu
aanïfah, Abu YUsuf and ~hayba.nï), only tha t doctrine,: ' should
be followed which appeared to~be~/th:e closest of aIl to the sunnah.
Moreover, the generalisations of these early masters should
be made particular; and the general purposes of their sayings
should be interpreted in the light of the evident meanings
of the sunnah. By this means Shah Walï Allah wanted to bring
about conformity between the doctrines of the ijanafï school
and the traditions of the Prophet. If a recourse to fighï
deductions was further needed, Shah Walï Allah added, then
the doctrines preferred by those prominent ijanafî jurists who
were proficient in the science of Eadïth, should be followed.
 105·=·

In this connection Shâh Walî Allâh also suggested that a

doctrine which had been proved by traditions, and about
which aIl the three founder~jurists of the ~anafï school
were silent in the five standard books of their school, and
had not controverted it, should be made to prevail. Shâh
WalI Allâh viewed that this process would not amount to a:
deviation from the ~anafï school and hoped that in this manner
the shortcomings of ~anafI doctrines such as far-fetched
interpretations,! contradictions in various doctrines of
their school, or the rejection of some sound traditions by
~anafï fugahâ' in preference to the opinions of their masters,
would be removed. And thus, according to him, both the purposes
of the observance of the evident meaning of the sunnah and of
upholding the doctrines of the ~anafI school would be achieved
simultaneously.57 Shah Walî Allah regarded this tarigah
(system) in the ~anafï figh to be as valuable as red go Id or
elixir, provided it was accomplished. 58
Shah Walï Allah seems to be fairly confident of the
feasibility of this selective approach to the ~anafï school. 59
Some ~anafï scholars have also alluded to the possibility of
applying such a method to the ~anafï school. Referring to
the abundance and diversity of viewpoints in the ~anafï school,
they assert that there is found no such do.ctrine on a point
in other schools which does not coincide with one of the
several variants of the ~anafi jurists. 60 But despite his
 -i r,l
106'·'-

enthusiasm for this scheme of effecting reform in the :ijanafï

school, Shah Walî All8.hdid not carry out this scheme, and
for some reasons which are unknown,he quietly abandoned it.
One can merely conjecture about the causes of his ,
giving up the uphill task he had undertaken. It is possible
that he found the variant doctrines of the :ijanafî school
insufficient to make the accepted Uanafi doctrines conform
to the sunnah. It is also possible that he thought this
method to be valid and good only for India or, at the most,
for Anatolia and Central Asia, etc., but not for whole of
the Muslim world. These considerations might have prompted
him to abandon this venture, and to envisage a scheme which
could be followed in all Muslim lands, especially in Arabia;
and could be easily carried out and accepted by the greater
majority of the Muslim community, both in India and outside
it. Shah Walî Allah, of course, could not neglect or leave
aside the other three orthodox schools of law. For, he also
claimed to have been spiritually directed by the Prophet to
attempt to reconcile aIl the four schools, and, despite his
aversion to do so, to remain confined within their four walls.
And this Prophetie commandment was based, he believed, on a
wisdom, and was dictated by consideration for the general
interests of the whole Muslim community.61 Shah Walï Allah,
therefore, intended to extend this scheme of legal eclecticism

Ct and reconciliation to all the four schools.

o
There were, however, some formidable impediments in
the way of the realisation of this wider scheme and it was
necessary to eliminate them before embarking on it.

iv
We have seen earlier various ways in which disagree-
ments on certain fighi doctrines and quarrels between the
followers of different schools of law took place in the
time of Sh'âh Wali Allah,62 wno at one point himself actively
participated in these polemics. 63 The followers of each
school were, as we have noted above, so immersed in their
complacent self-righteousness that they equated disagreements
with the doctrines of their school, even in minute details,
with deviation from the right course of the Shari'ah and the
basic teachings of Islam. 64 The rigorous opposition and
active hostility of the contemporaries of Walï Allah to
those who held views different from their own, and above all,
the fact that some of them considered the followers of other
schools, or even deviators from some of the doctrines of their
own school, to be out of the pale of Islam,65 -- all this
marked their extremist attitude which not only estranged inter-
school relations, but also created the impression as if these
schools had no common source of inspiration, and their diff-
erences were too deep rooted to be reconciled.
In order to create mutal understanding and foster
friendly relations, Shah Wali Allah endeavoured to refute these
extremist views, and put an end to their antagonistic atti-
tude towards each other. He emphasised the common origin of
the doctrines of their sChools, and stressed their mutual
orthodoxy and equal status;i.n respect of their validity -
a point which had become somewhat obscure due to their heated
polemics and strained relations.
With a view to proving that orthodoxy is common to
the four schools, Shah Walï Allah stressed the aspect of
their common source of doctrines which is accordingto him,
not only the Qur'an and the sunnah - (which are also re-
cognised by the sectarian legal schools), - but also the
consensual doctrines of the first two Caliphs, Abü Bakr :·,,::,l~:.

and 'Umar, particularly those of the latter. 66 He regarded

the relationship of the founder of each of these schools to
'Umar as that of a mujtahid muntasib (affiliated jurist) to
a mujtahid mutlaq (independent jurist); and their schools as
commentaries on the text of 'Umar's fiqh. 67 These founders,
Shah Walï Allah observed, followed 'Umar like mujtahidün
muntasibün not only in his usül (principles) but also in his
furü' (positive doctrines). In consequence, they agree in
those doctrines which were expressly pronOllIlO.ed.by' Umar, and
differ from one another only in those which he left undecided.
AlI these schools are, therefore, virtually based on the uSül
and furü' of 'Umar,68 which Shah Walï Allah regarded as the
core, the kernel and the mainstay of Islam. 69 It was because
o
of this fact, insisted Shah Walî Allah, that these four
schools should be considered not as independent millahs or
religions, as his contemporaries tended to do, but as branches
of one and the same Shar!'ah, and as different butinseparable
aspects of the same unity.70 In view of their shared character-
istics, Shah Wali Allah further stressed that these four
schools should be distinguished as ~ahir-i din ~;: sawad-ï

a'~am ([the representatives of] authentic doctrines and the

collective body of the Muslims) unlike other [sectarian] legal
systems [such as those of the Shi'ah, etc.].71
The statements of Shah Walî Allah in which he holds
the four schools to be possessed of equal validity,7 2 should
be seen in this contexte He also ascribed their equality in
status to the fact that each of the four schools contains,
in spite of their mutual disagreements, aIl the essential
orthodox doctrines of the Shari'ah and, despite their
differences, each is capable of reforming human actions and
morals according to the true injunctions of Islam. 73
Shah Walî Allah thus tried to vindicate orthodoxy and
the simultaneous validity of the four fighï schools by proving
them ta be 'the manifestations of the same single essence',
and equal members of the same family, inspite of their
variancés. 74

v
As for their disagreements, which were and have been
an undeniable fact, Shah Walî Allah felt a pressing need to
minimise them and their importance, and to create in the
followers of these schools a tolerant :. àtti tude of accommo-
dating these differences. With a view to achieving this
purpose, Shah Walî Allah endeavoured to depreciate the
differences in general, and to justify them, and to remoVe
some of them by reconciling them.

a
He tried to mollify the opposition and hostility of
the followers of the different schools to each other by
minimising the differences and stressing the points of agree-
ment between the schools.
Several scholars have surveyed the points of agreements
and disagreement between the four schools of law and have
pointed out their agreement on the majority of legal doctrines. 75
Some of them have even estimated the proportion of their
agreement to be three-fourths of the total doctrines, and this
proportion of agreement increases if the agreed points of any
two or any three of these schools are taken into account. 76
In order to revive the original affinity of the schools,
Shah Walî Allah also stressed this fact and tried to show in
various ways the relative insignificance of the disagreements
between these schools as compared with their points of agree-
ment.
 "l i""
111' ,

He asserted their agreement on most of the principl~s

of legal theory.77 The divergence of the schools on fighî

u~ül seems to be intense and enormous, in the opinion of
Walï Allah, mainly because seme later jurists, out of their
partisanaship, looked upon certain polemical maxims as the
principles of their legal theory. As a matter of fact,
however, these schools did not differ substantially so far
as the legal theory was concerned.78
Shah Walî Allah also stressed their agreement on
most of the important positive doctrines and principal
institutions of law. In this respect, as has been noted
earlier, he regarded the consensual doctrines of the time of
the first two Caliphs, especially those of 'Umar, as the
common basis of the doctrines 'o f these schools.79 The number
of such doctrines approximates, according to him, one thousand. 80
He observed their divergence to be confined only to those
subsidiary details which could not be decided during the time
of two early Caliphs. 81 In order to show the narrow range
within which 'the doctrines of the orthodox schools were
mutually conflicting, Shah Walï Allah averr~d that even their
disagreements on such disputed questions were mainly due
to their difference in the interpretation of a doctrine of
'Umar. Shah Walî Allah attributed this difference of inter-
pretation to the following factors:
(1) Certain athar of 'Umar reached some , jurists whereas
 112::

the other jurists did not receive them.

(2) The transmitters of 'Umar's athar differed from
one another; one narrated an opinion, and the other
related a dictum opposed to it.
(3) A saying of 'Umar was equivocal, so the jurists
differed with regard to its interpretation.
(4) Some of the jurists considered certain sayings of
'Umar as opposed. to sound Prophetie traditions or to
some giyas jal~ (self-evident ana1ogy), and, therefore,
abandoned it, as a mujtahid muntasib is entitled to do;
whereas the otherssuccessfully tried to reconci1e these
two kinds of reports, and, therefore, followed 'Umar's
doctrine.
(5) Thejurists also differred in making deductions
and elaborations from the tenor of a dictum of 'Umar.
(6) Lastly, there were some questions which were not
explicit1y mentioned by 'Umar. The jurists, therefore,
resorted to their own judgement in solving them. 82
In arder to show the small range of the disagreements
of the jurists of the four schools, and to stress the extent
of their agreements, Shah Walî Allah frequently points out
in al-Musaww~ and al-Mueaff~, his two commentaries on the
Muwatta' of Malik, ta the doctrines on which the 'ulama'
concur,83 and also stresses the main points of a problem on
which the general1y of the jurists agree, though they may
 113

differ in respect of questions of trivial importance. 84 In

such cases, ai'ter mentioning the important points of c'o n-
sensual agreement in respect of a question, under a given
subject, Shah Walî Allah generally remarks that having agreed
on the main points, the jurists differed in respect of subsi-
diary details. 85 It is also not uncommon in these commentaries
to find, usually in the beginning or in the end of a chapter,
the ceremonial form of a ritual or a doctrine on which all
the i'our schoolsagree on the whole, and the stress of Shah
Walî Allah that these points sho~d be strictly followed. 86
Thus the main feature of the i'our schoo~s which
becomes obvious from the observations of Walï Allah is their
agreement on most of the important fighï problems, though
they may sometimes disagree in regard to subsidiary details.
This emphasis on the points of agreement among the fug ahâ ,
was, in fact, essential for creating a sense of unitY and
homogeneity and for eliminating the feelings of alienation
and animosity among the followers of different schools.

As for the disagreements of the schools on some fighï

doctrines and their subsidiary details, Shah Walî Allah tried
to justify them by regarding them as natural and inevitable. 8 ?
He attributed these differences to various methodological and
historical factors. According to him, the complex process
of ijtihâd, due to several reasons, is bound to result in
 114

varying conclusions. 88 For one thing, the fact tha t ,.the

transmitters of traditions were possessed of differ.ent
aptitudes and capacities, they varied in their powers of
retention and comprehension, and a hast of other factors
have created discrepancies in the textsof the traditions
which serve as the main basis. of ijtihâd. This led the
jurists ta different inferences. Secondly, the process
of ijtihad is itself not free from such subjective elements
as the inborn disposition and inherent aptitude of the jurist
who, of necessity, uses a good deal of his personal judgement
and discretion in deducing doctrines from the texts. In the
selection of relevant texts touching a problem, in harmonising
the apparently conflicting reports, in deciding which of them
have been abrogated by others, in preferring one interpre-
tation as against the other, in deducing the effective cause
(' illah) of a shar'ï ihomction and extending i ts verdict
ta similar cases -- in aIl these matters a jurist often
resorts to his personal judgement and intuitive conviction
(taharrî), rendering uniformity of conclusions impossible. 89
Shâh Walî Allah stresses this aspect of the activity of
ijtihâd, which accounts for divergence in inferences, in the
following:
If you were to place before an intelligent person an
old book in which some of the words have become obsc~e
or have undergone mutation, whenever he is in doubt he
will inevitably follow the context and determine what is
correct by intuitive conviction (tabarrï). In such a case,
 115

any two intelligent persons are likely to disagree.

Whenever two courses appear to an intelligent man, he
does a good deal in tryi~ to follow the sign-posts; he
scrutinises the virtues [of the two alternative courses],
and chooses the one which is preferable, the one which is
less injurious. The same happened with the people of the
past when they received conflicting traditions. They
considered them very carefully. Th en , their effort to
form a judgement (:L!;i.ttlihad) led them to the conclusion
that some of them should be considered abrogated, some
of them should be harmonised with others, and someshould
be given preference against the others.
In the same way, when theu confronted questions on
which the forbears (salaf) had not expressedthemselves,
they extended the verdict in respect of one case to an- ·
other which was similar to it and deduced the effective
causes [of the injunctions of the Shari'ah]. In short,
they used the methods towards which they were led by
their inborn aptitudes.90
Thus Shah Wali Allah stresses that explicit injunctions
are not found in the texts in respect of each and every ques-
tion, and the fugaha' have been enjoined to .resort to ijtihad
in order to find out the answers to su ch questions according
to the terms of the texts. 9l Now, the fug ah'â , are circumscribed
in their activity of ijtihad by their 'inborn aptitudes' which
differ from person to person. Naturally, their inferences
will also differ from one another. 92
By justifying the fighi differences and evincing their
inevitability because of inherent differences between human
beings, Shah Wali Allah tried to persuade the a~ents of
different schools to give up their rigid attitude of self-
righteousness and respect the viewpoints of others. He also
urged them to accommodate the divergent opinions especially
when disagreements were not in regard to fundamental matters. 93
 116

In order to inculcate in the followers of different

schools a feeling of respect for the doctrines of schools
other than their own, and in order to create in thema real-
istic ap~rlh ta fighï differences, Shah Walï Allah tried to
show these differences in their proper perspective. He inter-
preted, therefore, with remarkable objectivity and impartiality
the causes of the origin and growth of fighï disagreements
which took place first among the Companions and the Successors
and then resulted in the formation of different schools and
subsequently in the taglïd of individual doctors. The following
summary of his analysis of th~ . causes of fighï disagreements
would show how he strove to create insight ànd broad-mindedness
and tolerance among his contemporaries:
(1) After the death of the Prophet, disagreements arose
among the Companions, firstly, because of the fact that each
and every injunction was not received by every one of them.
When this was the case any of the following happened:
(a) Some of the Companions resorted to ~~j~~

which, later on, on the availability of a

relevant tradition was found to be in
conformity with the injunction of the Shari'ah.
(b) Discussions among the Companions led those
who were unacquainted with the tradition
bearing on a problem to become aware of it.
In case this tradition was considered authentic,
 116

In order to inculcate in the followers of different

schools a feeling of respect for the doctrines of schools
other than their own, and in order to create in thema real-
istic ap~rlh to fighï differences, Shah Walî Allah tried ta
show these differences in their proper perspective. He inter-
preted, therefore, with remarkable objectivity and impartiality
the causes of the origin and growth of fighï disagreements
which took place first among the Companions and the Successors
and then resulted in the formation of different schools and
subsequently in the taglïd of individual doctors. The following
summary of his analysis of th~causes of fighi disagreements
would show how he strove to create insight and broad-mindedness
and tolerance among his contemporaries:
(1) After the death of the Prophet, disagreements arose
among the Companions, firstly, because of the fact that each
and every injunction was not received by every one of them.
When this was the case any of the following happened:
(a) Some of the Companions resorted to ~~~~ad

which, later on, on the availability of a

relevant tradition was found to be in
conformity with the injunction of the Shari'ah.
(b) Discussions among the Companions led those
who were unacquainted with the tradition
bearing on a problem to become aware of it.
In case this tradition was considered authentic,
 117

the ijtihâd on the related problem was

given up.
(c) If a tradition seemed to the Companions
to be of doubtful authenticity, they
persisted in their ijtihad, and rejected
the tradition as unreliable.
(d) Sometimes sorne of the Companions did not
come to know of a particular tradition at
all [even though that tradition was
r1elevant to some fighî question].
(2) Even when the tradition which formed the basis of
a fighî ruling was received by all or most of the Companions,
and ev en when they agreed about its authenticity, they dis-
agreed in respect of its legal significance, i.e., whether
it merely expressed the permissibility of a thing or had an
obligatory character.
(3) Differences also arose because of lack of correct
remembrance of events or because of lack of correct under-
standing and exact recording of certain statements or- -actions
of the Prophet.
(4) There were also disagreements on the question of
the real import of a certain sunnah. The Prophet is reported,
for instance, to have stood up as he once saw the bier of a
Jew passing by him. Why did he do so? Was it because he
wanted to show respect to the dead? Or was it because, as
 118

one report says, he ~id not want the bier to rise above him?
Here, the two interpretations lead to two entirely different
conclusions.
(5) There were also differences with regard to the
contradictory traditions concerning the rulings of the Prophet,
such as those pertaining to temporary marriage.94
This was the situation in the age of the Companions.
When some of the eminent Companions dispersed in· the varioua
Muslim lands they were recognised by the people of those
lands as their leaders. Their legal opinions were sought
and accepted by the people of their respective localities as
authoritative rulings on the problems which cropped up in the
society. As the people of the second generation were deeply
impressed by those Companions who lived among them, the
disciples of these Companions imbibed the fighï principles·
and doctrines of their masters. These disciples were, in
their turn, recognised as their successors to the leadership ~':

of the seats of learning in the principal cities, and were

characterised by different attitudes and trends in figh.
They were then succeeded by the scholars of the
following generation (tab' tabi'ïn) who inherited from their
predecessors not only local traditions and positive doctrines,
but also their particular principles and fighï attitudes.
These Successors were recognised as authorities in figh in
their respective localities, and hence their title of fugaha'
 119

al-am~ar. AlI this gave a local complexion to fighî dif-

ferences as they had little chance to meet and see each
other for discussing the fighî problems and .harmonising their
differences. These di.fferences, therefore, solidified and
became apparently deep-rooted. The doctrines and opinions
of some of these jurists took, in the later period, the shape
of different schools of law.95
In the course of describing the causes for the rise
and growth of fighï sChools, Shah Wali Allah stresses, first,
that each of the schools has a basis for its doctrines, and
is justified in maintaining its legal theory and doctrines as
this was, in his opinion, an inevitable outcome of the
historical process and the geographical and social factors
which were operative in the growth of the science of Islamic
law.
Secondly, he points out that inspite of aIl these fighî
disagreements, the scholars who flourished during these ages
did not bear any hatred or antagonism towards those who held
doctrines contrary to their own.96 They rather showed respect
for opinions other than their own, and evinced an attitude of
mutual tolerance. What prompted them to adhere to the opinions
of certain jurists was not the spirit of partisanship, but
rather a natural, human tendency of following the dicta of ·
one's own master, and also the strong evidences produced by
their masters in support of their doctrines. 97 Their dis-
 120

agreements were, according to Shah Walî Allah, di~ferent in

their spirit and substance from those of the people o~ later
generations. For, the later fugaha' practised, for several
reasons, unquestioned following (taglïd) of their imàms.
They looked on what had been inferred by their masters from
the sunnah as the sunnah itself, and based their differences
on their allegiance to certain schools. This opposition to
each other on the basis of allegiance and partisanship was
responsible for hardening their attitude and making them
adamant. They frittered away their energies in inter-school
polemics, and ln emphasising the points of disagreement between
different schools. By doing this they tried to strengthen
the doctrines of their own masters. For this purpose they
formulated certain polemical maxims which their successors
regarded as fundamental principles of their legal theory.
After "ta.à1îd came into vogue, every jurist vehemently supported
his own school and declared his master to be on the right path
in respect of every doctrine, even though he was himself aware
that some of his master's doctrines were unsound.98 The
fighî disagreement (ikhtilaf) thus turned into conflict
(niza'); and the later period of history witnessed scenes of
hair-splitting polemics, antagonism, and such an extremist
attitude as to regard the holder of an opposite view as repre-
hensible and sometimes even outside the pale of Islam. 99
In order to point out the original attitude of these
 121

schools towards disagreements, ShahWalî Allah denied such

antagonism in the early phase of 'the schools, and enumerated
very manyinstances of the tolerant attitude of the early
doctors. lOO He thus attributed the origin of the bitterness
and hostility found in the followers of different schools to
the factors which operated in the later periods of the schools,
and urged a return to the position and attitude of the early
masters.
It should be clear from the foregoing that Shah Wall
Allah did not deny the existence of fighî differences, nor
did he oppose, as such, adherence to doctrines of a particular
jurist or school, provided they remained within certain limits.
What was reprehensible in his opinion was the spirti of parti-,
sanship in the followers of different sChools, their anta-
gonism and hostility to each other, their opposition to
borrowing doctrines from schools other than their own, and
their futile debates, and the bitter polemics in which they
engaged for the sake of justifying their stand point and
refuting that of others. IOI This was, in his opinion, quite
opposed to the tolerant and accommodative attitude of the
early masters. I02

c
Although the official theory held by the contemporaries
of Shah Walî Allah was that the doctrines of their school of
law were certainly right and presumably wrong whereas those
 122

of the other schoo1s were presumab1y right and certainly

wrong,103 this subtle distinction between right and wrong
which underlies the theory was scarcely maintained in :::
practice. 104 Since this question played a prominent part
in the formation of the attitudes of the followers of

different schoo1s towards each other, Shah Walï Allah dealt

with it in his characteristca1ly conci1iatory manner.
His approach to the problem is ref1ected in his answer
to the classical question: "On subsidiary questions relating
to which there is no exp1icit injunction, is each of the
mujtahids right or only one of them? Or should one consider
it wrong· and even sinfu1 for others to hold opinions which
do not conform to one's own?" The classica1 viewpoint of the
Sunnî Muslims is clear in respect of the latter part of this
question, according to which error in 1ega1 judgement does
not entail sin. 105 But the former part of this question has
been controversial even among the Sunnî 'ulama'.
Before presenting his own detai1ed view on this problem,
Shah Walî Allah examined the arguments of those who did not
consider more than one divergent doctrine to be right. He
took al-Bay~awï as the representative of this view, and
refuted his arguments one after the other. The fo1lowing
summary of Wall Allah' s refu ta tion.· of BayQ.awi' s main argu-
ments reflects his own viewpoint clearly:
(1) "BayQ.awî claims that in respect of every situation
there is only one fixed [divine] verdict which is
 123

indicated by a conclusive or a presumptive evidence."

According to Shah Walï Allah, to say this cons ti-
tutes 'a judgement about the unseen (al-ghayb) with-
out any evidence'.
(2) Bay~awï refers to the following statement of Shafi 4 ï
in favour of his view:
"In every matter there is a fixed [divine]
verdict and an indication [pointing to it].
Whosoever finds out that indication hits the mark,
and whosoever fails to find it misses the target."
Shah Walï Allah points out tha t wha t Shafi' ï-'
actually means can be understood in the light of
what he said in the beginning of his Kitab al-Umm:
'When an 'alim says to another 'alim, "Youhave made
a mistkae", he me ans to say, "You have missed the
right path which the 'ulama' should follow." In
the light of this passage the statement quoted
by BayQ.awï may be interpreted like this: "In
respect of each case there is an opinion which
conforms to the usül (principles) and juristic
methods more than any other viewpoint, and to it
indicates a manifest evidence of ijtih'âd. Whoso-
ever finds i t hi ts the mark •••• " Or Shafi 'ï
perhaps means that if there is an isolated tradition
(khabar aQad) relating to a question, whosoever
 124

finds it, arrives at the right judgement;

whosoever misses it, makes a mistake.
(3) Bay~awï is of the view that if two [divergent]
ijtihads were to be regarded as right, this would
constitute a concurrence of two contradictions.
Shah Walï Allah denies this and holds that
"the two [different] ijtih'ads are like [alternative]
prescriptions for kafr-arah (expiation), each of
which is binding and not binding [at the same
time]."
(4) Bay~awï quotes the prophetie tradition:
"If a judge arrives at the right decision through
ijtihad, he shall be doubly rewarded; if he errs,
he shall be rewarded once." (Bay~awï quotes this
tradition in order to indicate that this implies
the possibility of the correctness of only one
ijtihad). Refuting this view, Walï Allah says:
"This goes against you rather than in support of
you. For, the error which brings reward cannot be
[an act of] disobedience. Then the two [ijtihads]
are bound to be two commands of Allah, the
Exalted, one of them being more meritoriQus than
the other such as is the case in respect of 'azîmah
(strict form of a law) and rukh@ah (law of indulgence).
Or this traditionis with regard to ga~a' (administra-
 125

tion of justice) where only one view can be

established, either that of the plaintiff
or of the defendant."
(5) Bay~awï admits that a mujtahid by falling into
error becomes a mukhti' (mistaken), and not a mubtil
(falsifier of the truth).
Walï Allah avers that if he is not a mubtil, it
means tha t he is not opposed to the truth (~).

For, a mubtil is the one who is opposed to the

truth. 106
Shah Walî Allah thus refuted the sweeping judgement
of those who regarded the possibility of only one of the
ijtihads to be right. He attributed their misunderstanding
to the f'act that they did not differentiate between two
aspects of' this problem. One of them is to discover the
real truth, which is permanently fixed in the sight of God,
and does not depend on the opinion of any mujtahid. In this
sense only that mujtahid can be right whose ijtihad cQincides
with the real truth. But this coincidence cannot be known
to human beings, as i t is an unseen thing and is only known
to God and his Prophet. Hence this aspect of truth is out
of question in this enquiry and no one can judge a decision
of a mujtahid on this criterion.
Another aspect of this problem to which Walï Allah
refers is that in case when the authoritative texts embody
 126

mutually opposed doctrines or when the meanings of the texts

are equivocal, the mujtahid is under the obligation to resort
to ijtihad in order to seek the right solution. In such a
case, when a mujtahid has arrived at a decision and he
believes it to be the closest to the sources of the Shari'ah,
it is incumbent upon him to follow it. Shah Walî Allah
illustrates this by referring to the question of the direction
of giblah in the prayer. For each place its direction is fixed
and is known to God~ But when in some cases people are in
doubt about it, for instance in a dark night, they are called
upon to resort to tabarrï (intuition) in determining it.
They are required to pray in the direction towards which their
intuition leads them, even if in fact it might not be correct. 107
Shah Wal~ Allah avers that ijtihad means striving in
search of signs leading to true doctrines; and man can only
strive[in search of truth]; he is neither capable of, nor
necessarily responsible for arriving at it. 108 Shah Walï Allah
therefore, viewed that the judgement of any mujtahid, even of
a Companion, is liable to being incorrect, since nobody is
protected from committing error except the Prophet. 109 ~s
such, nobody can say with absolute certainty which opinion
represents the truth and which error. Any one of the divergent
opinions, therefore, is liable to be right, and none should
reject outright the judgement of a scholar who holds a view
different from his own. 110
 127

Shah Walï Allah, however, goes a step further and

asserts that in many cases aIl sides having divergent
opinions may .be right, and none of them who uses independent
judgement (ijtihad) may be considered at fault or in error. lll
We have already noted his refutation of the view which negates
the possiblity of .each of the two divergent doctrines on a
point to be right. Walï Allah also adduces positive arguments
to support his viewpoint by referring to the practice of the
Prophet. For example when 'Umar, 'Ammar and some other Com-
panions differed on the permissibility of tayammum for a
person in a state of major ritual impurity, the Prophet
explicitly approved of the divergent views of both sides on
this problem. 112 Similarly, when the Prophet ordered some
of his Companions, whom he had commissioned to attack Banü
Quray~ah, and had instructed them to hasten and offer their
'asr prayer after reaching the colony of Banü Quray~ah, a
party of the Companions, perceiving the time of the prayer
short, offered the prayer before arriving there, while the
othersprayed only after having reached the destination. The
Prophet did not censure either of the two parties. 113 Walï
Allâh likewise refers to the above mentioned doctrine, which
enjoys consensual agreement, that when on a cloudy day people
determine different directions of giblah, none of them can
be reproached. 114
Shah Walï Allah does not consider the practice of
 128

repro achin g the hold ers of opin ions diffe rent from oner
s own
on trivi al matt ers to be justi fied from any poin t of view
- "
.
For, even those who regar ded only one mujt ahid to be righ
t
[and the othe rs to be in erro r, but not sinn ers], _ they
did
not deny the poss ibili ty of erro r in resp ect of thei r
own
opini on even as in resp ect of the dive rgen t opin ion. 115
Shah Walî Alla h, there fore, urge s agai nst deno uncin g
the judge ment of a scho lar who hold s a diffe rent view ,116
and
agai nst cens uring those who follo w a doct rine diffe rent
from
oner s own; for, every one, in the opin ion of the Shab , pursu
es
the truth . 117

d
Shah Walî Allah did not allow , howe ver, any disag ree-
ment in resp ect of the doct rines based on defi nite, categ
mric àl
texts , i.e., expl icit Qur'a nic injun ction s, or those uneq
ui-
voca l, sound , must afïQ (wid espre ad) tradi tions whic h are
embodied in the colle ction s of Bukhar~, Muslim, Mali k, Abü
Dawüd and Tirm idhî, and have been acce pted as norm s for
actio n
by the grea t mass of 'ulam a' of the early and late r gene
ra-
tions . 118 Walî Alla h regar ded the doct rines based on the
above said sourc es as so self- evid ent that he tende d to
calI
them defi nite divin e proo fs, the truth of whic h was deci
sivel y
deter mine d. 11 9 He conte nded that they forme d the esse
ntial
part of the Shar i'ah, and the esse ntial shar 'î resp onsi
bilit y
mani festl y lay in rega rd only ta the doct rines based on
those
proo fs. 12Q He did not, there fore, recog nise any accom
moda tion
 129

for disagreement on su ch questions, and regarded only one

doctrine as valid, the opposite of which should, therefore,
be repudiated. 121
As such, if a mujtahid formula tes a doctrine on a
point in respect of which there is found a definite, cate-
gorical text in the above mentioned sources, his doctrine,
according to Walî Allah, is automatically rendered void and
the mujtahid cannot be excused for his ignorance of the
text. 122
Shah Walî-Al1"â.h also did not allow divergence in
respect of the following types of doctrine:
(i) the doctrines based on sound akhbar âbad (isolated
traditions) embodied in the above mentioned five
badîth compendia and followed by a great body of
'ulama' .123
....;;;==~,

(ii) the doctrines based on the consensus of the

Companions and the Successors, especially on that
of the early scholars of Medina which is reported
by Malik and has not been impugned bythe wel1-known
traditionists;124
(iii) the doctrines formulated by the founder jurists of
the four Sunnî schools from the shar'î sources by
means of the established principles (ueül) of figh
on the questions not explicitly provided for in
the traditions from the Prophet, the Companions and
 130

the Successors, provided that these doctrines

had been followedby a great body of fugaha' .1 2 5
Shah Walî Allah observed that the soundness of those
doctrines was presumptively established, and the opposite of
themwere, therefore, presumptively wrong. 126 If a mujtahid,
being unaware of a relevant ruling in the above said sources,
formulates a doctrine on a matter independent of, and opposite
to the terms of the above said sources and' doctrines, his
judgement is, according to Walî Allah, not valid presumptively.
But the mujtahid, in such a case, will sometimes be excused
on grounds of his unawareness of the relevant evidence,
until that evidence reaches him andmakes the matter clear
to him.127
Shah Walî Allah compared this case to the ijtihad
exercised in the ascertainment of an incident which has
occurred, for instance Zayd's death, etc., but the state of
which became doubtful because of unavailability of trust-
worthyreports. The correct view in such a case could only
be one, i.e., of that one who came to know of the actual
happening, although the one who erred may be excused for the
error until he cameto know the truth,128
Shah Walï Allah termed the two above mentioned cate-
gories of sources and the consensual doctrines of the four
schools based on them as Zahir al.Sharî'ah
, (the Categorical
Sharï'ah)129 which represents, in his view, al-jaddah al-
 131

jalîyah (the straight, manifest, highroad) of the Shari'ah. 130

Shah Walî Allah contended that this jaddah (highroad) consisted
of those doctrines on which aIl the four schools, or at least
the Medinese and the Kufians, concurred. 13l Wali Allah
stressed the binding character of 'this jaddahand emphasised
that legal activityshould remain confined within its bounds. 132
Shah Wali Allah admitted, however, that within this
jaddah variant rulings were found on many questions. He held
that since aIl of those variants were based on evidences of
equal authority and aIl of them served the actual purpose and
considerations of the Shari'ah, aIl of them were, despite
their divergence, definitely valid and equally pe~missible,

even as the seven variant readings of the Qur'an and different

items of expiation were equally recognised in the Shari'ah. 133
Walî Allah compared these variants found within the
jâddah to the different viewpoints found within a school of
law which were recognised by its jurists equally valid and,
authentic. 134 Walï Allah stressed that the jaddah ought to
be considered in the manner that we consider a school of law
and should choose from its alternative doctrines,135 aIl of
which were, according to him, equally valid. 1 36

e
Apart from these, there w-ere still some questions,
Shah Walï Allah observed, which were not explicitly provided
for in the above mentioned sources of the jaddah :jalïyah
 132

gawimah; and they had been left, as ~uch, to be deduced by

the traditionists and juristswho based their deductions
and judgements concerning such questions on presumptive evi-
dences, such as giyas khafï (hidden analogy), etc. 137 Shah
Walï Allah held that in such cases if the sources and consi-
derations [of two or more juriste] did not differ widely and
none of them was so far away from the common sense and the
authentic sources of the Shari'ah that it would seem to be
obviously erroneous then the judgements of both or aIl the
mujtahids would be regarded as valid and acceptable;138 for,
each viewpoint can marshal some supporting arguments. 139
Shah Wali Allah contended that in respect of such doctrines
the choice to follow any one of them was allowed presumptively
[and not definitely], such as in the case of fixing the
direction of giblah with the help of tanarrï (intuition).140
Since no explicit, definite evidences are found in
the jaddah for such points, they are left to be decided by
tabarri and ijtihad, and thus remained mujtahad fïh (liable
to ijtihad). The following of any one of the divergent
doctrines formulated by the fug aha , on such points has not
been made obligatory in the Shari'ah; for, these doctrines
have become disputed either because of non-dissemination of
certain traditions, or due to some conflicting evidences and
inferences on presumptive evidences. In respect of such
questions, therefore, everybody isallowed toadopt the view
 133

to which his ta.b.arrî leads, and disagreement on them is no't

reprehensible. 141
It is these 1ast two categories of doctrines which,
according to Sblah Walî Allah, form the subject of disagreement
between the four Sunnî schools of law;14 2 and it is these
doctrines in respect of which Walî Allah remarks that in
the majority of cases the truth is common to both the parties
of the case, and it is futile to be adamant in regard to one's
view and to be determined to reject the viewpoints of those
who differ from oneself; ' for, there is room for such differ-
ences in fighï matters. 143
On the basis of the above-stated classification of
the fighî doctrines, Shah Walî Allah attempted in his Musaww~

and Mueaff~ to harmonise various divergent views on the

questions relating to the two latter categories by regarding
each of them as legitimate and valid inference. He tried to
harmonise those doctrines either by showing that the disagree-
ments among the jurists were merely verbal,144 or by attribu-
ting their disagreement to the existence Qf conflicting tradi-
tions which supported each of the divergent views. 145 . Some-
times he tried to demonstrate that there were valid grounds
for more than one interpretation ' of the "~"tè:tmB : ; of a text,146
and asserted tha"t an outright rejection of any one out of the
various views would be tantamount to an arbitrary judgement. 147
By these attempts Shah Walî Allah stressed that each
 134

school had some justification for, and arguments in favour of,

its doctrines, and that in most cases any of them cannot be
easily refuted or dubbed as false and baseless.
Shah Walî Allah remarked that the classical fugaha'
agreed on the legitimacy of aIl such doctrines;148 they
mostly disagreed only in respect of giving preference to one
of these doctrines as against the ot~s~ especially with
regard to those in respect of which the Companions had also
disagreed,149 such as· the doctrines concerning the number of
takbîr pronounced in the days of tashrlg and in ~Ïd prayers,
the permissibility of marriage in the state of ibram, the
utterance of basmalah and Amin at prayers in a loud voice,
etc. 150 Notwithstanding their disagreements on such points,
Walî Allah observed, aIl the Companions were and have been
considered on the right path. 151 Similarly, he added, the
scholars had always approved of the divergent fatw~s of muftîs
concerning the issues which were liable to ijtihad. 152 They
would also submit to the judgements of the gaQ.ïs who based
their judgements on the rulings of a different school. 153
The early jurists sometimes even followed the doctrines of a
school other than·. their own. 154 It is because of this fact
(i.e., the validity and rightness of aIl such divergent
doctrines) that on such controversial issues the founder-
jurists of the four schools mention the variant doctrines
alongwith their own, and confirm the validity of aIl, though
o 135

they express their preference for any one of them. 155 But
it was the later fugaha', in the opinion of WaIî Allah, who
strictly adhered to the doctrines preferred by their early
masters and thus solidified the differences and fostered
partisanship.156
In short, Shah Walï Allah did not regard disagreements
on subsidiary details as something whichwas reprehensible
or as a matter of distress, unless it led to intolerance,
futile polemic~, partisanship, the spirit of despising the
opposite doctrines or hostility to their upholders. Such an
attitude would not only create, in his opinion,enmity among
the Muslims and bring about the disintegration of the Muslim
community, but would also lead to tampering with religion
itself. For, such rigid and fanatic followers of a school·
tended to equate their doctrines with revealed religion or-
the truth, and regarded and deviation from the doctrines of
their school as tantamount to departure from the Sharî' ah
and religion itself. 157

vi
Shah Walï Allah not only considers fighî disagreements
on subsidiary details to be natural and inevitabIe, as we have
already noted,15 8 but also regarded them as a bounty of God,159
which he supports by referenee to a well-known Prophetie
tradition. 160 The reason for their being a bounty of God, in
Walî Allah's view, is that sueh peaeeful disagreements provide
e 136

a widè scope for the ummah in its attempt to live up to the

injunctions of the SharI'ah in different circumstances and
makes the Shari'ah more practicable for aIl human beings who
differ from one another in ~.es.p'e.d;t of their predilection ·
and ability.16l Shah Wall Allah is emphatic that people have
different vocations and temperaments; some of them do not have
much time and energy to perform supererogat6r~ acts of worship
and other duties, and are content with performing the minimum
obligations of the SharI'ah whereas others have enough time,
energy and inclination towards the performance of super-
erogatory acts of worship. In view of this, two grades of
injunctions have been laid down in the SharI'ah which
represent two scales of law, one lenient and the other strict,
i.e., rukhsah and 'azImah. 162 The lenient one comprises only
the essential duties and rituals in alleviated forms which
is actuated by the consideration toprovide ease. 163 This
demands the performance of the easiest form of an act of
worship or abstinence from the things which are categorically
prohibited164 whereas the strict one concerns the sunan, a.dab
(embellishments) of acts of worshipl65 and those doctrines
which are aQwat (based on precaution and are most compre-
hensive in relation to the principles of law applying to a
case),166 i.e., avoidance of anything that might fall short
of ideal standards of conduct.
Shah Wall Allan stressed the distinction between the
injunctions belonging to these two different categories;
 137
for, in a number of cases the disagreement of 4ulama' arose,
in his opinion, from their failure in differentiating
between those two categorie's.167 · The true understanding
of, and discrimination between these .two categories of law
could, in his view, help in reconciling a good number of the
apparently contradictory traditions168 and divergent fighî
doctrines. 169
Shah Walî Allan has himself often applied this rule
in his various works, especially in Musaffa and Musawwa. He
attempted there to harmonise many divergent doctrines of
different schools of law by interpreting them to represent
these two different grades of legal injunctions, ~.,

rtikhsah and 'azïmah. 1 70

vii
Shah WalY Allah was not satisfied, however, with
merely moderatlng the attitude of the lega1 schools towards
each other. For he not only aspired to bring these schools
closer to each other, but also to fuse them together on the
basis of a set of principles. For this purpose he proposed
certain doctrines to be applied to the spheres of their usül
(principles) and their furü' (positive doctrines).
One of his steps in this direction was his attempt
to bridge the age-old gap between the two main strands in the
Islamic juristic tradition, i.e., those represented by ahl
al-badîth (or ahl al-riwayah) and ~ al-takhrïj (or ahl ~
 138
ra'y) • The former group was known for its aversion to '
employing personal judgement and to using the principles
of a particular jurist in formulating positive doctrines.
It would rather prefer to remain very strictly bound to
traditions. The latter groupt on the contrary, showed less
disinclination in using personal judgement and resorted to
takhri j .171

Shah Walï Allah affirmed the validity of the attitude

of both the groups and showed that both had graunds ta justify
their standpoints in religion. 172 He remarked that botn' the
methods had been employed by the early jurists of whom
some inclined ta the former tendency and others ta the
latter. 173 He admitted, hawever, that each of the methads
had its merits and drawbacks and, therefore, there was the
need of striking a middle course be~leen them, so that one
could supplement the other. 174
In order to harmonise these two methods and to fuse
them into a composite process, Shah Walî Allah proposed
some modifications in the methods employed by both the groups.
He suggested, for instance, that ~ al-çadïth should examine
their deductions in the light of the opinions and principles
of the early jurists. On the other hand>, ahl al-takhrlj
should see that their inferences should not in any way be
opposed to the categorical terms of sound traditions, and they
should also abstain from formulating doctrines on ,questions
 139
concerning which there already existed traditions or ath"âr. 175
It was not proper for ahl al-hadï th,. he further sugges-
ted, to adhere too strictly to the rules of the traditionists
which led them to reject even a sound giy8.s or a tradition
which could be proved to be sound. 176 Similarly, ahl al-
takhrïj should not reject a tradition or an athar which was
agreed upon by aIl traditionists out of their consideration
for the principles and legal maxims laid down by themselves
or by their masters. For, a sound traditiondeserved greater
consideration than a man-made rule. The traditions which
seem to be opposed to these rules should, therefore, be
considered too high to be subjected to the scrutiny of these
self-made fighï principles. 177
Moreover, ahl al-hadith should not exaggerate in
drawing conclusions from the actual words of traditions, such
as on the basis of the precedence or the sequence of a con-
junction, e.g., wa (and), fa (then), etc. 178 In the same way,
ahl al-takhrïj should refrain from deriving that effective
cause (manat) from the dicta of their early masters which was
a point of disagreement even among ~ al-wujüh (jurists
holding different viewpoints within a sChool). They should
also abstain from making those far-fetched takhrïjs (elabora-
tions) and ta'wïls (interpretations) which are not in keeping
with the spirit of the actual doctrines of their early masters.
For, takhrïj is permitted, in Shah Walï Allah's opinion, only
 140
because it is, in fact, a kind of taglîd of a mujtahid;
and it is no longer a taglîdif it is not in conformity with
the actual saying of the mujtahid who is followed. 179
Shah Walï Allah believed that if both the main groups
adopted this balanced attitude, it would lead not only to the
elimination of their mu tuaI. conflicts and to the harmonisation
of their divergent doctrines, but also to the observance of
the terms of the well-lmown sunnah and the rules of takhrïj
and tagIîd; and the doctrines that would thus emerge would
be the best. ISO
In Shah Walï Allah's opinion this middle course was
followed. by the well-lmown compiler-traditionists lSI who
flourished during the period extending from the second half
of the third century A.H. to the first half of the eighth
century A.H. i.e., from 'Abd b. ~umayd to Khatïb Tabrïzï
(d. after 737 A.H.), and among wham Bukharï, Muslim, Abü Dawüd,
Tirmidhî, Baghawî and Bayhaqï were prominent. IS2 Shah Walï
Allah lamented the attitude of his contemporaries who disre-
garded thisgraup of what he called the middle-roaders and
considered the scholars to belong ta either of the ~~o extre-
mist groups, viz., that of the ahl al-zahir (Zahirïs, Litera-
lists), such as Dawüd b. Khalaf and Ibn aazm, and the other
of ahl al-ra'y.IS3 Shah Walï Allah, therefore, drew the
attention of his contemporaries ta the group of compiler-
traditionists who, in his opinion, struck a middle course
 141
between two extremes. 184 He characterised them by the
composite name of "al-fugaha' al-muttaddithün" " (traditionist-
jurists), and sometimes styled them as "mub.aggigün" (seekers
of the truth). He looked upon them as the models who ought
to be followed;185 for, their doctrines represented, in "his
opinion, the 'highroad' of the Sharï'ah. 186
Shah Wall Allah thus introduced a new element in legal
thinking, viz., the works of compiler-traditionists in order
to judge the disagreements between the four schools of law.
The doctrines of the four schools were to be examined in the
light of the above mentioned compendia of Uadith which, as
will be remembered, he held to be possessed of mu ch greater
authority than the doctrines of aIl the schools. 187

viii
Another step which Shah Wall Allah took for bringirig
together various schools of law was his condemnation of the
practice of unquestioning, rigid taglïd. On this point too
Walï Allah tried to foster a moderate, flexible and accommo-
dating attitude.
We have already referred to the fact that Shah Wall
Allah was, by his very nature, averse to the notion of taglïd. 188
He, therefore, often encouraged and exhorted his pupil to
employ ijtihad and to derive doctrines direct from the original
sources of the Shari'ah. 189 But in view of certain higher
considerations, he not only accommodated the practice of taglïd,
 142
but also regarded it as indispensible. 190 But alongwith his
emphasis on the necessity and indispensibility ofta.qlïd,
and his insistence that it should remain confined to the
quartet of the recognised schools of law,191 Shah Walî Allah
also laid considerable stress, as we have noted earlier, on
the conformity with the ~ahir al-sunnah (evident meaning of
the sunnah and Ùadîth) as embodied in the gadïth compendia
of the third century A.H.19 2 These two principles, as we
have seen earlier, sometimes resulted in a conflict; for,
there were certain doctrines in each of the schools which were,
according to Wall. Allah, not completely in keeping with the
~ahir al-sunnah. 1 93

In order to reconcile these two opposite strands, one

of which was his aversion to taglîd and his stress on follow-
ing the ~ahir al-sunnah, and the other was that of legitimising
taglîd, Wall. Allah distinguished between the two categories of
tagll.d. He recognised one of these to be obligatory and the
other to be prohibited (Ùaram). By the former he meant a man's
adherence to the doctrine of a mujtahid on account of its having
been based on a Prophetic tradition, with the understanding
that the opinion of the mujtahid was not immune from error,
and with the intention that the mugallid would always be in
search for the relevant Qur'anic text or the explicit Prophetie
sunnah, and also with the determination that whenever he would
become acquainted with an explicit Qur'anic text or a sound
tradition the terms of which were opposed to the doctrine of
 143
the mujtah~d, the mugallid would not insist on following the
doctrine of the mujtahid for the sake of partisanship. He
would rather abandon the tag11d of the mujtahid and would
follow the relevant Qur'anic text or the tradition. 194
As for the latter category of taglïd which Shah Walï
Allah considered to be prohibited (baram) , it consisted,
according to him, of following a mujtahid with the conviction
that he .was infallible and that the tag11d of that particular
mujtahid was obligatory to the extent that the mugallid was
determined not to abandon the doctrine of the mujtahid even
though he came to know that there was an explicit and sound
Prophetic tradition which was opposed to the doctrine of
his school. In such a case it would be obvious that he
adhered to the doctrine of that mujtahid merely because of
his excessive partisanship.195
Shah Walï Allah thus attempted to replace the principle
of rigid tagl1d by that of a flexible one; and he was so
enthusiastic about this kind of tag11d that he r .ecommended
it not only to scholars,196 but also to laymen ('am1 sirf),
who were quite ignorant of shar'1 sciences. 197 He suggested
a layman to seek fatw~ on a prob1em from muftis of different
schools and follow that fatwâ which satisfied his heart most. 198

ix
AlI the above mentioned steps taken by Shah Walï Allah
were aimed at urging the followers of different schools not
 144
only to accommodate fiqhî disagreements,but also to adopt,
without any inhibition, doctrines from schools other than the
one to which they usually adhered. These endeavours of Shah
Walî Allah, therefore, opened new avenues for reconciling the
various schools of lawby fusing them together through the
processes of takhayyur (selection) and talfiq (combination),
which was the main aim of Shah Walî Allah. 199
Shah Walï Allah believed in the feasibility of pre-
paring such an eclectic system of law out of the doctrines
of the four schools; for, he viewed them, as we have seen
\
' 'V

earlier, to be based on one and the same source -- the legal

principles and doctrines of 'Umar, and regarded the founders
of these schools as mujtahids muntasib in relation to 'Umar. 200

a
Before we delve into an investigation of the method
through 'which Shah. Walî Allah tried to accomplish his scheme
of takhayyur and talfïq, let us first examine the basic prin-
~iples or considerations by which he was guided in this
scheme of selection and combination.
It should be clear from what has been said above that
the workof Walî Allah in the field of law was motivated by
the two-fold purpose of reconciling the different schools of
law, which would serve as a basis for the unit Y of the Muslims
and to revive the Sharî'ah in its pristine form. 20l
It was because of this consideration that while postu-
 145
1ating the conditions of practising takhayyur and ta1f1g,
Wa1î Allah recommended the jurists to adopt doctrines of
schools other than their own if they found the doctrines of
their schoo1 on that point to be inadequate while that of.
any other schoo1 preferable on grounds of intrinsic merit. 202
In order to achieve this he suggested that aIl fighî doctrines
shou1d be subjected to examination according to the exp1icit
terms of the sunnah as embodied in the compendia of the third
century A.H., which he considered to represent the highroad
(jaddah) of the Sharï c ah. 203
It was because of the same dominating passion of Shah
Walï Allah that he pleaded, as has a1ready been noted, for
the rejection of those doctrines which aimed at formulating
magadïr (quantitatively fixed rules) on· the basis of ra'y,
etc.; and restricted the scope of ra'y to the do main of
maealib, ~nstead of shara ' i'.204 This would, in his view,
reinstate many a doctrine to the domain of individual cons-
cience and personal piety which had been wrongly held to belong
to the domain of law. 205 Similarly, Shah Walï Allah rejected
the arbitrary ruling of later fugaha ' of various schools to
recognise only those doctrines as standard and binding
which the aebab al-tarjïQ206 of a school had chosen and pre~
ferred from among the divergent doctrines of the early jurists
of that school. 20 7 Shah Walî Allah also considered many
elaborations of later fugaha' to be weak and to be the source
 146
of straitness and rigidity in respect of those problems
regarding which there was a wide scope of choice in the
early days of Islam. Torecognise such elaborations as an
integral part of the standard doctrines ·of a school, and
hence binding on its followers, amounts, in his opinion,
to tampering with the Shari'ah, and making its laws narrow
and difficult to follow. Sh8.h. Walî Allah, therefore, gave
a mujtahid fi a1-madhhab, and for that matter to himse1f,
the authority to reject or accept those elaborations and
preferences on his discretion. 208 This helped in breaking
down the barriers which the later jurists had erected between
different schools of 1aw.
By suggesting this Shah Walî Allan tried not onl~ to
achieve reconciliation between and integration of the various
juridical schools on the basis of the purified Shari'ah, but
also to make the practice of the Shari'ah easy for the common
man. It becomes evident from the above discussion that by
proposing the principles of takhayyur and talfïq, Shah Walï
Allah also intended to alleviate the difficulty fdund in
practising aIl the doctrines of a particular school, with
consif?tency 50 that "the original, facile, lucid religion"
(al-millah al-sambah al-Qanifïyah al-bayada') could be
revived. 20 9 He was inspired by this very motive when he
laid down that if one involved in a difficult situation and
could not carry out a shar'i obligation by following a
 147
doctrine of his own school on a certain question, one could
adopt a rul,e of a school other than one's own which could
extricate 'one out of the difficul t situation in which one
found oneself. 210
This principle of taysïr (facilitation) was commonly
practised, according to Shah Walï Allah, even by the Com-
panions and the Successors. 211 This principle of preferring
a lenient rule was meant mainly for common people ('awamm)
who could not, for .one reason or another, practise a
strict rule. 212
Another consideration which prompted Shah .Walî Allah
to recommend takhayyur and talfig was for khawa~~ (people of
distinŒion). He wanted the khawâss to follow those doctrines
which were in keeping with strict standard and ideals of
the Shari'ah. This consideration, as would be obvious, was
to an extent in opposition to the preceding one. In pur-
suance of this consideration he suggested that the doctrine
that ought to be adopted on a certain point should be the one
which was simultaneously in conformity with the terms of the
various schools and which was the surest and the most compre-
hensive one in the sense that by adopting it no doctrine of
any school was contravened.
It was under the inspiration of this motive that Walï
Allah laid down that when there were two divergent doctrines
based on two contradictory traditions a jurist was entitled
 148
to adopt that one which appeared to him to be based on
'azîmah and as representing the surest and most comprehensive
course even thought the doctrine might be formulated by a
school other than his own.2l~
These were the three main considerations whioh formed
the key-stones of Walî Allah's proposed methodin respect of
the operation of takhayyur and talfîg.He refers to these
considerations in selecting or preferring a doctrine by
characterising it as agw~ (mbst authentic and sound)214 or
arjaù (preferable) ,215' anfa' (most conducive to utility)2l6
o,r arfag (most convenient), 217 and aùwat (most comprehensive) .2i8

When Shah Walî Allah intended to put the proposaI 'of

takhayyur and talfîg into practice, he decided to make the
Muwatta' of Malik the basis on which the superstructure of
this selective system could be erected and a pattern of the
reconciliation and fusion of divergent fighî doctrines could
be produced. He wrote for this purpose two commentaries on
this book, one in Arabie and the other in Persian. 2l 9
Walî Allah points out severai reasons because of which
he chose al-Muwatta l of Malik from among the several works
of Qadîth. For one thing, he considered this book to be the
most authentic and perfect work in the fields of figh and
Qadïth, because of the excellence of its compiler, i.e., Malik,
because of the extra-ordinary care that had been taken in its
 149
compilation, because of its comprehensiveness and the syste-
matisation of fighî subjects and because of the wide acceptance
and currency acquired by the traditions and the athâr that
it contains. 220
Secondly, the Muwatta' of Malik was, according to Wall
Allah, not only considered ,by the founder-jurists of the four
schools to be an authoritative collection of sound traditions
from the Prophet and athar from the Companion~ and the Succes-
sors, but it also formed the basis of aIl the four Sunnl schools
of law. 221 Hence the opinion of Walî Allah that the doctrines
of these schools were in the nature of commentaries on this
book. 222
Thirdly, this book also formed the foundation of such
celebrated Qadïth compendia as the SapïQs of Bukhârî and
Muslim, and the Sunans of Tirmidhï, Abü Dawüd and Nasa'î. The
chapters of these compendia concerning fighî problems have
been based, according to Wall Allah, on both the contents and
model of the Muwatta' .223. The purpose before the compilers
of the five above said compendia was, in the opinion of Wall
Allah, to complement, supplement and amend the reports of the
Muwatta' and the chains of their transmitters. 224 Sh~h Walî
Allah, therefore, looked upon the Muwatta' as the main source
and , springhead of both the sciences of Tradition and figh. 225
Fourthly, most of the doctrines of the 'founder-jurists
had been, according to Wall Allah, transmitted through inter-
 150
rupted chains of transmission. These doctrines, therefore,
required to be re-examined in the light of the principles
of ijtihad and traditions and athar. 226 Shah Walî Allah was of
the opinion that only the knowledge of marfü' traditions from
the Prophet was not sufficient for this purpose. He rather
thought that proficiency in sound athar from the Companions
and Successors was also needed in this connection. 227 WalY
Allah did not find any book other than the Muwatta' which
embodied both traditions and athar, and which had been worked
on and . examined by successive generations of scholars. 228 It
was because of these merits that the Muwatta' acquired, in
the opinion of Walî Allah, the status of a criterion according
to which the doctrines of the four schools could be scrutinised
by exercising ijtihad f! al-madhhab; and because of these
merits it also deserved to be the channel through which these
schools could be recJnciled and brought together by me ans of
selective borrowing, etc. 22 9
It should also be noted that by writing the commentaries
on the Muwatta' Shah Walï Allah did not aim at compiling aIl
the fighî doctrines on aIl the particulars or at enuciating
a new school of law in aIl its details. We think it was
neither his purpose nor did it lie within his jurisdiction.
What he attempted in these commentaries was to show the ways
and me ans by which the divergent doctrines of various schools
could be harmonised and sometimes fused together, and also to
 151
show the possibilities of further development along the pro-
posed lines.
In his commentaries on the . Muwatta' Shah Walî Allah,
however, paid special attention to bringing about concilia-
tion and fusion between the disagreements . among the ijanafi
and the Shafi'i schools. 230 For, he considered the ijanbali
school, as has been noted earlier, to be a wajh (aspect) and
a branch of the Shafi'i sChoOI,231 and considered it quite
easy to compile their doctrines together. 232 As for the
Malikî school, its doctrines would automatically come into
consideration in the course of writing commentaries on the·
1

Muwatta' of Malik. ln fact the difficulty mainly lay in

harmonising sorne of the doctrines of these three schools,
viz., the Malikï, the ijanafî and Shafi'ï; for, among them
the two former systems were opposed to each other as they
represented the two rival schools of legal thinking, one of
the Medinese and the other of the Iraqians. As regards the
Shafi'ï school, though it originally aimed at combining the
two above said schools, it turned out to be a criticism of
both of them. 233
However, the crux of the problem lay, in the opinion
of Walï Allah, in bringing about conciliation between the
ijanafî and the Sh~fi,l schools. For, besides the above
mentioned reason, their controversies were accentuated by the
polemics of the later jurists who engaged themselves exclu-
sively in disputing over the ijanafï-Shafi'ï disagreements. 234
...
 152
The integration of these two schools required special attention
also because their followers constituted, according to Wali
Allah, the bulk of the Muslim communi ty, and because th,e two
schools were, relatively speaking, the richest df aIl in figh
literature; and their followers deserved, therefore, to be
regarded as the leaders of the ummah. 235
In view of these considerations, Shah Wali Allah tried
to bring about an amalgamation of their doctrines on the basis
of the Muwatta' which could unify them into one school. 236

c
There were,. however, some serious impediments in the
realisation of this scheme. There were some deep-rooted
misconceptions created by the age-old polemics of the later
jurists of both the schools in respect of their principles
as weIl as positive doctrines. Shah Wali Allah considered
it necessary to remove those impediments before attempting to
bring about the fusion of the aanafî an4 Shafi'i doctrines.
One of the obstacles which Wali Allah perceived was .:the
misunderstanding of his contemporaries who generally exaggerated
the disagreements in respect to legal theory between Abü
aanïfah and Shafi'i. The main reason for this misunderstanding
was that they identified the legal theory embodied in the works
of later aanafî authors to be identical, even in their details,
wi th the legal theory of Abü aanîfah.. Renee, they inferred
disagreements between the two founders on aIl those points on
 153
which the principles of legal theory as embodied, for instance,
in Pazdawî's Usul differed from those laid down by Shafi'î.
Shah Walî Allah firmly asserted that most of the principles
of the ijanafï legal theory contained 'in later works had rather
been inferred by the later jurists from the writings of the
founder-jurists. 237
In order to moderate the attitude of his contemporaries
towards their fighî principles Shah Walî Allâh tried to explode
the myth of the , sanctity of such basic principles of the
ijanafî legal theory as:
(i) the particular (khasp) [text] is explicit; it needs
no explana tion; .
(ii) general ('a mm ) is as definite as particular (khas§);
(iii) no preference may be given [to a tradition] on the
basis of the greater number of its transmitters;
(iv) a tradition transmitted by a non-fagîh transmitter
cannot be followed if its content is not in agreement
with giyas;
(v) any addition [to the terms of the text] constitutes
abrogation; etc. 238
Shah Walî Allah strongly repudiated each of the above
mentioned principles and considered them to have been propounded
by later ijanafî jurists for the sake of justifying and support-
ing the doctrines of their school. 239 Walî Allah did not,
therefore, consider those principles to be binding on ijanafî
 154
jurists and refused to consider the jurist who disregarde.d
them to have deviated from the aanafi school. 240
Another notion of some of the contemporaries of Walî
Allah which he subjected to scrutiny was their belief that
their school was based on the argumentative formulas as
embodied in Mabsüt, Hidâyah, Tabyîn, etc. Shah Walï Allë.h
refused to accept those formulas as the bases of .the school.
He held them to have been first introduced by the Mu'tazilah
and then adopted by later jurists for sharpening the intel-
lects of their acolytes;241
Shah Walï Allah thus tried to confute the notion of
his contemporaries about the absolute certainty and sanctity
of many of their cherished notions and urged people not to
hesitate in abandoning man-made rules whenever they appeared
to be opposed to an explicit, sound tradition. 242
Shah Walï Allah also attempted to refute another notion
of his contemporaries in respeét of some positive doctrines of
the ~anafï school. He remarked that his contemporaries wrongly
identified the doctrines embodied in the exhaustive commentaries
on the ~anafï legal texts and in the voluminous fatâw~ works of
the later period wit~the doctrines formulated by Abü Uanïfah
and his wo companions. HIS criticised the common tendency of

his compatriot scholars of not differentiating between the

original dicta of Abü Uanïfah and his two companions and the
doctrines which the jurists had inferred from them at a
later period of time. He also deplored their inability to
 155
perceive the implications of such phrases of the fataw~

manuals as: U[the doctrine] according to the elaboration of

Karkhî is so and so; and according to that of ~~awî is so
and sou", and their failure to discriminate between expression.
~uch as: "Abü :tranîfah said sou and "the answer according to
the doctrine of Abü :tranîfah is so and so.,,243
It should not be conceived from the above discussion
that Shah Walî Allah suggested reforms and modifications only
in the :tranafî legal theory and cri ticis ed only'-the :tranaiï
jurists for their misconceptions. Of course, he dealt mainly
with the :tranafî school for the reasons we have already pointed
out. 244 Nevertheless, he admitted that such accretions had
made inroads in other schools as wellj245 and he suggested
similar reforms in, and change of attitude towards ysü1 and
furü' to the jurists of the non-:tranafî schools as weIl, al-
though perhaps there was some difference in the degree of
emphasis, his attitude towards non-:tranafîs being generally
milder. 246

Before writing the commentaries on the Muwatta l ,

Shah Walî Allah had at one point laid down the method of
takhayyur and talfîg for the reconciliation and fusion of the
:tranafî and Shafi'î doctrines. He proposed that the doctrines
of both the schools should be reviewed in the light of the
traditions embodied in the ~adîth compendia compiled by the
 156
traditionists of ' both the schools. The doctrines which would
be found after this examination to be unsupported should be
abandoned whereas those which would appear to be in conformity
with the traditions might be retained. Now the doctrines
retained after the examination would belong to either of the
following two categories:
(1) The doctrines on which both the schools concur. Shah
Walï All"âh. stressed that such doctrines should be strictly
followed.
(2) The doctrines upon which both the schools are at
variance. Shah Walï Allah further classified such doctrines
into two categories:
(a) The doctrines which would appear to be more solidly
based on the evident and well-known meaning of a sound
tradition. Walï Allah suggested that such doctrines
should be preferred to others irrespective of their .
origine
(b) There should be two or more doctrines on a point
which would be found to be equally based on sound evidence;
and none could be preferred to the other. Walï Allah
proposed to regard them as equally valid on the following
grounds:
(i) The problem would be reckoned among the matters
on which the jurists had agreed to differ, and
concerning which more than one variant opinion
 157
was considered to be valid and acceptable;
(ii) or disagreement on such points should be looked
upon in the manner one looks at the legitimate
differences in the variant readings of the Qur'an;
(iii) or one of them may be held to be a rukheah (rule
based on convenience) and the other as 'azïmah
(strict precept);2 47
(iv) or they may be considered as twodifferent alter-
natives for meeting a hardship such as the
provision of various forms of expiation;
(v) or they may be held as two equally permissible
doctrines. 248
Shah Wali Allah felt confident that this formula would
be comprehensive enough to resolve aIl types of disagreements
betwëen the aanafï and the Shafi'i schools.
Though Shah Walî Allah described these rules in respect
of conciliation and. . fusion of the aanafï and the Shafi'i
doctrines, he extended them to the reconciliation of aIl the
four schools wh en he attempted. to write his commentaries on
the Muwatta' •
However, his usual way of practising takhayyur and
talfîg was, as has already been noted, to choose that doctrine
among the divergent doctrines of the different schools which
appeared to him agw~, agtas (closer to giyas), arfag or
a:Q.wat. 249
 158
e
Let us see now, how he manipu1ated the available fighï
material in the process of takhayyur and talf'ig. The broad
categories in which they fall are the following:
(i) In some cases he prefers and chooses the doctrines of
an eponym of a school (of Shafi'i, for example) and refers
to an identical opinion of one of the founder-jurists of a
school (of Abü Yüsuf or Shaybani, for example), which he holds
to be sound, though it is not regarded by the jurists of that
school as the accepted doctrine of the school. 250
(2) Sometimes he adopts the doctrine" of a later jurist
of a school on the grounds of the above said considerations
and then shows it to be in agreement with the doctrine of a
founder-jurist of another school. 2 51
(3) At some places he recommends the application of the
doctrine of a non-Shafi'i school and adduces in its support
either an old or a new doctrine of Shafi'i, irrespective of
whether it is the established doctrine of the current: Shafi'i
school or not. 252
(4) It is also not uncommon in his commentaries on the
Muwatta' to find the Shah invoking the support of an extinct
school or the authority of a compiler-traditionist in favour
of a doctrine which he selects from among the four recognised
schools. 2 53
(5) In some cases he attempts to formulate an intermediate
 159
and compromise solution,
(a) either by exercising ijtihad and interpreting the
paradoxical traditions on which the two divergent
doctrines are based;254
(b) or by applying that doctrine of an orthodox school
by which two or more divergent doctrines of other
orthodox schools could be reconciled;255
(c) or by adopting a doctrine of a compiler-traditionist
which could provide a compromise, or even by adopting
such an opinion of an individual jurist or a founder-
jurist of a school whose doctrines are no more
recognised. 256

x
Takhayyur and talfïq, however, were liable to misuse
and could be attacked on several grounds. It could be argued,
for instance, that they give man freehand to evade aIl those
doctrines of one's school that one "finds to be inconvenient
and follow only those which are in keeping with one's interests
and biases, making a mess of the law. 257 In order to prevent
such a misuse, to eliminate the inherent dangers and to safe-
guard the integrity of the law, Shah Walï Allah laid down
the following conditions for practising takhayyur and talfïg:
(1) He strictly prohibited the following of the easier
or more convenient doctrine for the fulfilment of
one's fancies and desires, or for achieving a worldly
 160
enâ,258 SI ince by do'i ng so one would cast off the
tie of the Shari'ah. 259 He a110wed, however, to
choose those convenient rules (rukhiahs) which were
valid and had their bases in the Shari' ah. 260 This
condition cou1d be observed, according to him, by
. restricting to the doctrines of the four schoo1s. 261
(2) He stressed that the practice of takhayyur should
not be aimed at contravening or evading any verdict
of a judge or any order of a ruler. 262 For instance,
when a judge decides a case contrary to the doctrine
of the schoo1 of both or of any one of the parties
concerned, it is incumbent on both the litigants
to abide by the decision, irrespective of its being
in agreement or disagreement with their respective
schoo1s. 26 3
(3) Wali Allah averred that no jurist, judge or mufti
was a1lowed to adduce a new opinion concerning those
questions which had been finally decided by the
Shari'ah and were not open to ijtihad. 264 He asserted
that this condition could also be observed by remain-
ing within the bounds of the orthodox schools of
law. 265
(4) He mentioned the condition stipulated by some scholars
that one should follow the doctrine borrowed from
other schoo~in aIl its details until the completion
 161
of the act and should not combine doctrines of more
than one school in such a way that their combination
would result in a rule for which no authority existed
in any of the orthodox schools. 266 But Walï Allah
considered the preceding condition to be comprehensive
enough to cover this one. 267
(5) Walî Allah observed that if one had performed an act
according to his school, one did not need to repeat
it according to the doctrine of another school which
one preferred after the completion of that act. For
the act was valid at the time when it was performed
according to the doctrine of one of the schools. 268
(6) Shah Walî Allah recommended the practice of the
principle of "selection~' mainly in personal acts of
devotion. Concerning such questions one might
prefer, according to him, one opinion to the other,
or may regard both of them as valid, or may follow
both of them at different times. But when one was
acting in the capacity of a judge and deciding a case
of litigation, one should, in Walï Allah's opinion,
adhere only to one doctrine and should not show any
sign of fickleness which was likely to create doubt
about the integrity of the judge.
For this last consideration, Shah Walî Allah
recommended in such a case to remain within the bounds
 162
of the four schools. In case a judge found himself
unable to prefer one doctrine to the other because
of the absence of any evidence in favour of either
of them, Walî Allah suggested that he should follow
the legal practice in, and the doctrine of the school
prevalent in his area, or the school of the ruler. 269
(7) Shah Walî Allah tended to allow a layman ("''!mI) who
was incapable of exercising ijtihad to follow a
hadith which was opposed to a doctrine of his school
provided that any one of the founder-jurists was
known to have accepted the badîth. 270
(8) Walî Allah would not, however, allow a layman ('~mI)
, -
to practise talfïq or borrow doctrine from other
schools when he was at a place where no scholars or
books of other schools were available; this would
probably lead him to transgression of the Sharî'ah. 271

xi
Shah Wali Allah had received the advice from his father
and, according to his claim, spiritually from the prophet
M~ammad to abstain from publicly expressing opinions contrary
to those held by the majority of his countrymen. 272 Shah Wal~
Allah tried his best to be cautious in this respect when he'
returned from his pilgrimage. But strongly moved as he was
by his passion for the revival of the pristine Sharî'ah and
for the integration of various groups of the community, he
o IE?3
propounded, for achieving this purpose, the above mentioned
ideas and schemes which were not ih keeping with the dominant

--
attitude of the people of his time, viz., the unquestioning
.

acceptance of the doctrines of their school. The contemporaries

of Shah Walî Allah believed that the'gate of ijtihadhad been
closed for ever, and there existed, therefore, no mujtahid
in their time. 273 They held that aIl the Muslims should,
therefore, strictly follow a particular school,even minute
details of their doctrines. 274
Now the proposed scheme of Shah Walî Allah, viz., that·
of subjecting the fighi doctrines of the systems of law pre-
valent among the co-religionists of his country to scrutiny
and e:xamination in the light of the Qur'an and the sunnah,
and of sélecting the doctrines from among the different schools
of law, his contemporaries considered to be bid'ah; for it
amounted to opening the gate of ijtihad and brought the in-
fallibility of the doctrines of their school in question and
allowed deviation from itœ 275 Moreover, these proposaIs and
his high sounding claim to a status equal to. that of mujtahid
fi al-madhhab,276 and even of mujtahid mutlag,277 filled his

contemporaries with dislike for him and antagonism for his

plans. 278 They interpreted his ideas as a me ans of boosting his
own prestige and establishing himself in the position of a
mujtahid which, in their opinion, had then become out of
question. 279
 164

Sha.h Wa1i Allah was naturally worried about the sus-

picions harboured by his contemporaries, and the opposition
~ld criticism made by them. He tried, therefore, to satisfy
them by removing their misunderstandings~

He tried to repudiate their notion of regarding the

re-examination of fighi doctrines in the light of the original
sources of the Shari'ah as a bid'ah (innovation).280 He
justified the examination of fighi doctrines, as we have a1-
ready seen, on the ground thatmost of them had been reported
fromthe early jurists tbrough interrupted chains of trans-
mitters. This fact rendered the doctrines unreliable unless
they were scrutinised afresh in the 1ight of the original
sources [of the Shari'ah] and according to the principles
of ijtihad. In his view such a procedure would not on1y he1p
reso1ve some of the existing fighi disagreements but also
provide solutions to the prob1ems that. woü1d arise later.
There was no end, he observed, to the rise of such new
problems whereas what was codified and compiled in the lega1
manuals was limited and insufficient to provide answers to
each and every new peob1em. Hence the need of having recourse
to ijtihad for finding out their answer and solutions. 28l He
declared, therefore, that the gate of ijtihad istigla.1ï
(independent) was, of course, closed, but not that of ijtihad
mutlag muntasib or ijtihad fi al-madhhab, the exercise of
which was, for the above said reasons, not on1y permissible,
 165

but also a collective duty (far4 kifayah) of Muslims of every

age. 282 He, therefore, denied that he claimed for himself
the status of a mujtahid mustagill like Shafi'i, etc.; but
affirmed his claim to be a mujtahid fi al-madhhab or at the
most mujtahid mutlag muntasib 28 3 who te entitled, according
to him, to exercise the above mentioned types of ijtihad. 284
He also declared that,a mujtahid of the two latter categories
was entitled to practise talfïg (lahü ~ yulaffiga ~ ~

madhhabayn) and to choose on a legal issue any of the

doctrines of the different schools of law. 285
In order to rectify the views of his contemporaries
about the validity of the principles of takhayyur and talfîg,
Shah Wali Allah demonstrated these principles to be univer-
sally accepted by the jumhür (the generality of the 'ulama,)286
despite their disagreement in respect of their conditions and
other details. 287 He also attempted, for this purpose, to
revive the original theory of taglid acc'ording to which one
may, with regard to any individual issue, follow,the doctrine
of a school other than that to which one habitually adheres. 288
He marshalled arguments to prove the legitimacy of this princi-
pIe, and also referred to the opinions and practice of various
scholars and jurists, including some founder-jurists of the
four schools such as Shafi'i, Abü Yüsuf and the like, who
aIIowed choice from among the several divergent doctrines. 289
 166
xii
To sum up, Shah Wali Allah was inclined from the very
beginning to strict adherenceto the Prophetic . sunnah.and had
a passion to revive the pristine Shari'ah. When he viewed the
doctrines of the ijanafi school whichwas prevalent in his
country he found several of them to be in conflict with the
sunnah. This led him to bitterly criticise .those doctrines
and condemn their upholders in some of his early writings.
This aroused strong opposition against him among his compatriot
. .
scholars. Subsequentlyhe proceeded to Hejaz where he review.ed
the situation and moderated his attitude. Although his trend
of thought in respect of the sunnah did not change much and
his aspiration to revive the pristine Shari'ah endured,he
combined w.ith these another purpose, ~., to bring about
unity among MUslims by enabling them to deal judiciously with
the problem of disagreements among their schools of law, which
seemed to menance the solidarity of the ummah. Hence we find
that in his legal thinking he was guided not by a single but
a complex of considerations and purposes, and some of these
considerations at times conflicted with one another.
He attempted initially to reform the ijanafï school
since he considered a number of its doctrines to be at variance
with the sunnah. He proposed, therefore, to adopt only those
from among the variant doctrines of the ijanafï jurists which
were in keeping with·the evident meaning of the sunnah.
 167

Shah Walî Allah later tried to extend the scope of

this selection so as to embrace aIl the four schools and to
integrate · and reconcile them on .this basis. Before embarking
on this scheme, Walî Allah tried, however, to moderate the
hostile attitude of the follwers of the different schools
towards one another and to create harmony among them. In
order to achieve this purpose, he stressed the validity and
orthodoxy of the four schools. He tried to show that each
one of them was a manifestation of the same Sharî'ah and that
on a majority of legal problems they were in agreement. As
for their disagreements, he tried to minimise their signifi-
came by . poin ti~g out tha t they rela ted only to subsidiary
details. He viewedthem as an inevitable result of ijtihad,
and as a bounty of God as long as they could be accommodated
judiciously.
He tried to reconcile ·some of the existing fighî
differences byshowing them to be legitimate interpretations
of the shar'ï injunctions. He also attempted to fuse together
the different methods of deduction adopted by ~ al-badîth
and ~ al-ra'y. He also strongly urged moderation in taglïd
and suggested that the various schools schould not hesitate
to borrow doctrines from one another. This paved the way for
effecting the scheme of takhayyur (selection) and talfîg
(combination) among the four schools of figh. He laid down
the conditions and principles for carrying out this scheme
 168

and also attempted to proffer a pattern for the implementa-

tion of this idea in his two commentaries, Musa~TW~ and
Mu~affâ on the Muwatta' of Malik.
 CONCLUSION

We have shown in the foregoing pages that the age of

Shah Wali Allah was marked by the struggle between those
scholars who stressed authority of Hadith and opposed ex-
clusive allegiance to any particular school on the 'one hand,
and those who stood for strict adherence to the ijanafi school
on the other. Heated controversies also arose between the
followers of the different schools of law even onfighitrivia .
which occasionally led to outbr.e ak of violence. These conflicts
threatened the uni ty and the integri ty of the ummah. The pre.,.
vailing state of affairs was serious enough to calI for a
reconciliatory endeavour such as the one attempted by Shah
Wali Allah.
While studying Wali Allahls concept of the Shari'ah
and the broad principles of the legal theory that he main-
tained we have shown that he stood for maintaining the original,
pristine Arabian form of the Shari'ah and was opposed to sub-
jecting its laws to revision under rationalist inspiration.
It was because of this zeal for reviving the pristine Shari'ah
that he tended, in his early writings, to confine the sources
of the Sharï' ah to the Qur'an and the sunnah and to exclude
from them such elements as ijma', giyas and ra'y. In those
days Wali Allah found his compatriot scholars given to exag-
geration in respect of the use of ra'y to the extent that
theyallowed some doctrines of their school (with he viewed
169
 170

to be based on ra'y) to prevail ev en in disregard of sound

traditions. Shah Walï· Allah openly condemned such scholars
in a venomous language. He traced some of the principles
of their legal theory to the Iegal thinking of the Khawarij
and the Mu'tazilah. He also tended to exclude those scholars
from the fold of orthodoxy. This attitude of WalY Allah
provoked strong resentment and opposition among his contem-
p~rary 'ulama'. Consequently the reformist endeavour of Walï
Allah aggravated the already serious situation, and won for
him unpopularity and hostility among a considerable section -
of the 'ulama'.
It was perhaps around this time that Wali Allah went
to Hejaz where he reviewed the situation and felt the need
of moderation in his attitude. Since then he combined with
his aim of reviving the pristine Shari'ah and re-establishing
the paramount authority of the sunnah the ideal of creating
and maintaining uni ty and solidari ty in the ummah. Hence in
his legal thinking he wasguided by a complex of considerations
which at times conflicted with one another.
When Walï Allah returned to his country he had in
his mind some fairly weIl conceived proposaIs to re-establish
the authority of the sunnah in legal matters and to reconcile
the different schools of -figh without necessarily destroying
their separate entities.
One of these proposaIs was to scrutinise the doctrines
 of ~he ijanafî school so as to bring them into conformity
with the sunnah. For this purpose he suggested that from
among the divergent doctrines of the aanafl doctors only
those doctrines should be adoptedwhich were' found to be in
conformity with the evident meaning of the sunnah. He did
not, however, carry out this scheme of restricted choice as
we do not find any further elaboration of it in his writings.
We think, therefore, that he went for a wider scheme o'f
selection which could embrace aIl the four schools andcould
bring them together on that basis. This apparently seemed
to him to be conducive to creatingunity and harmony in the
ummah a t large.
For the implementation of this scheme it was necessary
to generatean attitude of tolerance and accomodation in the
followers of the different.schools. With this purpose in
view, Walî Allah began to stress the simultaneous validity
and orthodoxy of aIl the four schools and stressed their
. common source of inspiration. He also tried to show their
agree~ent on a majority of fighî problems and to depreciate
their differences by showing them to be related only to
subsidiary details. He tried to show their disagreements
not only as legitimate and inevitable, b~t also a sign of
divine indulgence; for they provide a variety of opinions
and thus widen the area of choice.
o Walî Allah endeavoured to harmonise the existing dif-
 172

ferences both in respect of 1egal principlesand positive

doctrines. He asserted that on many a legal question there
could be morethan one equally valid opinion., . He also
proposed reforms in the different approaches of the twb
major group's of jurists, ahl al-ra' y and ahl al"';badï th to
the fighï problems and suggested that their methods of
inference should be amalgamated.
Though Walï Allah was averse to tag1ïd in his early '
period, he later not only accommodatèd this 'principle but
also considered it necessary. He criticised, however, the
practice of rigid and unquestioning taglïd of a particular
school. He strongly advocated the practice of borrowing
a doctrine from the schools other than that which one
habitually follows. Nevertheless, he emphasised that rulings
should remain within the quartet of the recognised Sunnî
schools of law. This paved the way for implementing the
wider scheme of takhayyyr (selection) and talfig (combination)
among the .four. schools through ijtihad Q al-madhhab.
In suggesting this scheme Walî All~ was guided by
thetwo above said considerations, viz., to create harmony
and uni ty in the ummah and to revive the pristine SharI ' ah
by reforming the schools of law in the light of the sunnah.
He not only laid down the principles and conditions to which
one should be bound in practising takhayyur and talfig, but
also proffered a pattern of this scheme of legal eclecticism
 173

and conciliation in his Musaww4 and Mu~affa.

By suggesting this idea and proffering itspattern
Walï Allah did not aim at initiating a new school of law.
He explicitly confined his scheme to the four walls of the
recognised Sunnï schools. What he intended to do was, as
we have already said, to foster a tolerant attitude among
the followers of the different schools and to prepare them
not only to accommodate fighï differences, but also to make
a good use of them. Since these disagreements provided a
variety of doctrines one could adopt a doctrine of the
school other than one's own if one found that doctrine to be
based on the sunnah. One could also extricate oneself from
the inconvenient rules that one found in one's own school.
Again, one could fallow su ch a doctrine as represents the
strict standard and comprehends aIl other doctrines on a
point.
The scheme enunciated by Wali Allah was in conformity
with the original classical theory of taglïd according to
which a Muslim individual could change his school at will,
and could borrow doctrines from schools other than his own.
The scheme was al·so likely to create harmony and tolerance
among the followers of the various schools and thus prove
helpful in uniting the umm~, The scholars of Walï AI~ah's

time, nevertheless, not only showed no signs of welcoming

the scheme but quite a few of them came out in open opposition
 174

to it on various grounds. Firstly, the proposaI of legal

electicism necessitated resort to ijtihad the gate of. which
they believed to have been closed long ago. Secondly,
according to this scheme, several of the doctrines pre-
ferred by the aebab al-tarjIb of the schools and recognised
as their established doctrines were bound to be replaced by
other doctrines. They did not consider any scholar of that
time entitled to do this. Thirdly, they apprehended that
this scheme would oreate a rift in the body of the doctrines
of their school and the permission of choice from among
the ;dootrines of various schools would lead to misuse and
corruption. Wall Allah tried to clarify his position and
to dispel their fears. Notwithstanding this, it is a fact
that the generality of the tradional 4ülama' of aIl the four
schools still dislike this idea. l They wOuld, however,
appreciate and approve of any endeavour .aimed at eliminating
the antagonism and hostile attitude of the followers of the
different schools towards one another.
On the other hand, the so-called modernists have
welcomed the scheme of Wal~ Allah, but only in respect of
his method of takhayyur and talfig. They have even exceeded
the limits prescribed by Shah Walï Allah. He favoured res-
tricting the choice to the doctrines of the four recognised
schools. But the modernists adopt doctrines even from those
schools and jurists of the past whose doctrines are no longer
recognised. 2
 175
"-
Though the modernists of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent
consider Wali Allah to be the founder of Modernïsm and claim
to be inspired by his thought,3 it will be evident from the
foregoing pages that the considerations that underlay the
legal activi ty of Wall Allah were sigI:!.ificantly differ:e nt
from the considerations and objectives cheri shed by the
modernists. Walï Allah stood, as we have seen, for re-
viving the Shari'ah in its pristine, original, Arabian forme
He was opposed to subjecting it to revision under any rational
inspiration. He did not favour setting up reason or expe-
diency as the basis of formulating law • . The purpose under-
lying his scheme of reforming the prevalent doctrines of the
different schools was to bring them into conformity with the
teachings of the Prophet. On the contrary, the source of
the inspiration of the modernists is the West. In the words
of Schacht, "the ideas'-and arguments of the Modernists come
from the Wes t •••• ,,4 To cite another noted scholar of Islamic
law, the modernists attempt "to fashion the terms of the law
to meet the needs of society objectively determined. This
new attitude of modern Islamic jurisprudence, which is, of
course, the antithesis of the classical view that the only
legitimate standards for society are set by the law [Shari'ah],
was inherent in the pro cess of ~odernist] reform from the
very outset; for in fact, takhayYUX was essentially the
selection of views on the basis of their suitability for modern
 176

conditions. ,,5
The modernists are, as such, guided by "practica1 and
social considerations,n6 and have a non-Islamic civilisation
as the source of their inspiration, which is quite different
from the case of Wa1i All8.h .the motivating consideration of
i

whose reform was a thorough Islamisation of the 'd 0etrines

of aIl schoo1's of 1aw andgrea ter unitY ·among Muslims by
helping them .not to allow legal aisagreements todisrupt
their solidarit.y.
NOTES
 INTRODUCTION
1. For 'a detailed account of the condition prevailing in
India during that time, see Mahmud Husain, et al.,
eds., A History of the Freedom Movement, Karachi, 1957,
vol. l, passim, esp., pp. 49l-541~

2. His pupil M~ammad 'Ishiq wrote his biography entitled

al-Qawl al-Jalî fl Dhikr Ith~ al-Walî (see Shah Walî
Allah, Anfasu-l-'Irifîn, Delhi, 1917, hereafter cited
as Anfas, p. 202; 'A-~:R~J::nL:-~~iyâ;,; Magala t-i Tari ga t,
Hyderabad (Dn.), 1291 A.H., pp. 8,17}.
3. Several editions of his magnum opus Hujjat Allah ~

Ba1ighah have so far been pub1ished in Egypt. Besides,

many contemporary scho1ars in Egypt and other Arab
countries refer to his ideas and writings, ,for which
see Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, "Renaissance in Indo-Pakista..··u
Shah Wa1ï A11'âh Dihlavi", in M.M. Sharif, ed., A History
of Muslim Philosophy, Wiesbaden, 1966, II, 1757 f.
4. See his article "Imam Valîyullah Dihlavî kî :e:ikmat ka
l jmalî Ta' aruf" in âl-Furgan, Bareilly, "Shah Valïyullah

Nambar" , 7:9-12 (1359 A.H.) [,§,Q,. 1360 A.H./194l] (here-

after cited as Fürgan) , pp. 233-320. This article suhs-
quently came out in a book form entitled ~ Walïyullah
~ ~ ka Falsafah, ed. M. Sarvar, 3rd ed., Lahore, 1964.
Sindhî wrote it in May, 1940 and he had already been
looked upon as "the greatest upholder and propounder of

178
 179

the philosophy of Walî Allah." (see Furgan, p. 3).

In October,1941 he wrote another book, Shah Valî-
yullab. ~ ~ E. Siyasî Ta.b.rïk, ed. M. Sarvar, 3rd ed.,
Lahore, 1965 (hereafter referred to as Tanrîk).
5. The wri tings of most of these wri ters have appeared in
Furg'ân.
6. Two instances of the special issues of magazines:
(i) Furgah, as has been mentioned above; and
(ii) Paygham-i ~, Lahore, "Shah Valîyull'âh
~.~1?!3F..", 14:2 (August, 1948). As for the
books, articles, etc., most of them are
mentioned in our bibliography.
7. One instance from India: Fîrozu-d~Dïn submitted a
thesis on Walî Allah to Nagpur University. We do
not know the exact title or the date of its submission.
We have only heard about it from some of his friends.
Another instance from Pakistan: M~ammad Ma~har Baqa
has recently submitted a thesis on the U~ül al-Figh
of Shah Walï Allah to the University of Karachi for
his Ph.D. We have not yet seen it as it is still under
examination. Two instances from outside the sub-continent:
(i) A.J. Halepota did a research work on "Philosophy of
Shah Waliullah" at Oxford. This work has been published
by University of Sind, Hyderabad (Pak.) in 1959.
(ii) e.A. Kamalî submitted his doctoral dissertation
 180

entitled "The Concept of Human Nature in J;tujjat Ullah

al-Balighah and its Relation to Shah Wally Ullah's
Doctrine of Figh" to Mc Gill University, Montreal in
1959. Some parts of this dissertation have been
published in different magazines (see our bibliography).
8 ·. "Shah Vallyull8.h Akë.9:,imï, "Hyderabad (Pak.) which has
been founded in the beginning of 1963 under the sponsor-
ship of the Awqaf Department, Government of West Pakistan.
For the details of its aims and objectives, see its organ,
al-Rabïm, 1:1 (June, 1963), pp. 2 ff.
9. al-Rabim, the first issue of which came ont in June,

10. See W.C. Smith, Islam in Modern History, Princeton,

N.J., 1957, p, ~ 44n; Fazlur Rahman, "The Thinker of
Crisis ~Shah .Waliy-Ullah", in Pakistan Quarterly,
Karachi, 6:2 (1956), p. 46. Both of them have indi-
cated to this fact.
Il. See M. Thsuf Banürl, "Imam Sh8.h Valîyullah awr :e:anafiyat" ,
in Furgan; IQ1ayr ~ammad Jë.lindhar!, n:e:ap:ra t Shah Valïy-
ullah awr Taqlid", in Furgan; M. 'Ali ~iddiqï Kandhlavî,
~ Valiyullah ~ Taglld, Sialkot, n.d. There are
so many other writings on the same sb.b~.aec:t~ ;)j·:.c;t .

12. See for instance, Abü yatLyâ Imam Khan NOshahravï,

Tarajim-i 'Ulama'ë Eadïs-i Hind, Delhi, 1356 A.H., 1,
pp. 16-40; M. Ibrahim Mir Siyalko!i, ~arîkh-iAhl-i Eadis,
 181

Lahore, 1953, p.p. 411-416; M. Ismâ'!l Salan, Tahr!k-i .

lzadî-'i ~ ~ aa~rat Shah Valïyullâh !! Tajdid~
Mas~''!, Kasur, 1966, passim, esp. pp. 62-101.
13. See for ihstance, Fazlur R~h, 2:é.. cit; pp. 45, 48;
Mu'ïnu-d-Dîn A.Q.mad Khan, "Shah Walî All~h's Conception
of Ijtih'âd," in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society,
vol. VII, part III, pp.165-94 (1959); H.Malik, Moslem
Nationalism in India and Pakistan, Washington, 1963,
pp. 125-140. For other instances, See below Chap. II,
reff. 54,55.
14, See for instance, M.Man~Ur Nu'm'â.nî, "~alrat Shah Vall.-
.'

u11i3.h" in Furg'ân, pp. 399 ff.; Z.I. Ansari, "Shah Wa1i

Allah and Figh'I Disagreements", in Igbal, Lahore, XV:
3 (January , 1967), pp. 44-?2; Aziz Ahmad, "Political and
Re1igious Ideas of Shah Wali-Ul1ah of Delhi", in The
Muslim World, Hartford, 52:22-30 (1962) which he lat'er
incorporated in his book Studies in Islamic Culture in the
Indian Environment, Oxford, 1964, pp. 201-209; S.M.lkr'âm,
Rawd-i ,Ka.w.§.ar, Lahor e, 1958, pp. 487-564. A mention
may be made of twb works: Kamalî, .Q.P.. cit., and G.N.
Jalbani, Teachings of Shah Waliyullah of Delhi" Lahore,
1967 in which a detailed study of the fighl ideas of
Walî Allah has been undertaken; but the former deals
more wi th the philosophy and ethics underlying the figh:,
of Walï Allah rather than his fighï ideas and the latter
 182

is aimed at representing the teachings of Walî Allah,

more or less in hisownwords, under various headings!
15. M.Ma~har Baqâ, "Shâh Valïyullâh kë Fiqhï Ruj~a.nat al-
Musawwl1 awr al-Mu~affl1 kï Roshll.ï mëJ;L", in al-Rab.îm,
vol. 2, no.12 (May, 1965); pp. 14-23; vol. 3, no. l
(June, 1966), pp. 25-37.
16. See Shâh Walî Allâh, hM al-Haramayn, wi th Urdu tr.
'Ibid al-Ra.bJnan randhlavi, Karachi, n.d. (hereafter
referred to as ~), p. 319.
17. Id., al-Budüx al-Bâzighah, Dabhel, 1354 A.H.(hereafter
referred to as BUdür), p. 127; id., Hujjat Allah al-
Bâ1ighah, with Urdutr. 'Abdu-l-~aqq ijaqqanî, Karachi,
n.d. [1953?] (hereafter cited as Rujjat), l, 380 ff.
18. Id., al-Khayr al-Kathir!, Dabhel [1934] (hereafter
referred to as Khayr), p. 124.
19. Id., al-Tafhïmât al-IL'âhïyah~~~~.~~~~~, Dabhe1, 1936
(hereafter cited as Tafhïma.t), II, 250; FQyu~, pp. 90f.
20. Ibid., pp. 196, 198; Tafhîmat, 1, 156; ~, p. 204.
21. Tafhîmat, 1, 209; ~; a1-Fawz al-Kabir, Lahore, 1300
A.H. (hereafter cited as ~), p. 10; FuyUg, p. 188;
id., Mueaffl1 ~ MusawWâ Delhi, 1346-1347 A.H.(bereafter
cited separately as Mu§affl1 and Muaawwl1), l, Il.
22. Fuyüq, p. 187; 'ls, p. 31ff.
23. Tafbïmat, II, 118; cf. ~., l, 40f.
24. Id., Izâlat al-Khaf8. 'an Khi1âfat al-Khulara', Bareilly
 183

[1286 A.H./1869] (hereafter referredto as Iza1at),

109,262,267,283; ~., 'Igd a1-Jîd fi A4kam al-Ijtihad
!!!! al-Taglîd, wi th Urdu tr. M.A. S .lf"ano tan, Delhi,
1344 AeH. (hereafter referred ta as'Igd), p. 6.
25. Thé terms "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" are peculiar to
the Christian tradition and have theo1ogica1 conno-
tatio~às such the validity of their use in connection
with legal schools is questionab1e. We have used these
terml;J, however, for "Sunni" and "sunnîyah" in keeping
with the genera1 usage of these terms by scho1~s of
Islam. In fact some fighi doctrines and liturgical
practices have become signs of distinction between
Sunnah and Shî'ah, See for instance, J.Schacht, "WuQ,ü''',
in Shorter Encyc10paedia of Islam, Leiden, 1953 (here-
after cited as Shorter E.I.).
26. Tafhîmat, l, pp.148ff.; ibid., II, 133,217 ,249; ~·:, .:~î

.:'"-L I::·~>, Mu§!aff~, l, 3; Musaww/!, l, 15.

27. See,for instance, the works cited above in ref. 14.
 OHAPTER I ,

THEBAOKGROUND
1. M~ammad MUjeeb, The Indian Mus1ims, Montreal, 1967,
pp. 58.
2. 'Abd a1-~ayy a1-ijasanY, a1-Thagafah a1-Is1amïyah !l
al-Hind, Damascus, 1958 (hereafter referred to as "
Thagafah), pp. 11, 16; G.M.D. Sufi, Al-Minhaj, Lahore,
1941, pp. 20 ff., 73 ff.
3. Their sense of self-righteouness is evinced by their
popular belief that "when the Prophet 'ls~ will come
down to earth he will fol1ow the 4ianaf'1 scho01" (see
Shaykh Atunad Sirhindî, Maktübat-:., ' Lucknow, 3rd ed.,
1886, I, 365~ Shaykh 'Abdu-l-4iaqq Dih1avY, "Ta.b-~'il

al-Ta' arruf fi Ma' rifat al-Fiqh wa al-Ta~awwuf", MS.

photostat copy in the possession of Mawlana M~ammad

,Abdu_l_ijalîm Ohisht'i, hereafter cited as Tape'i1,

fol. 55 v .).
4. Thagafah, p. 12; 'Abd a1-~ayy al-ijasanî, Nuzhat !l:
Khawatir, Hyderabad, Dn., 1350-1378 A.H., (hereafter
referred to as Nuzhat), I, 125 f.; M~ammad Is~aq,

India's Contribution to the Study of Hadith Literaturë,

Dacca, 1955, p. 55; S.Sulayman Nadvî, "Hindüstiin më:tt
'Ilm-i ijadî,!!." in Ma'arif, Azamgarh, 22:4-5, pp.254f.,
330.
5. Cf. Thagafah, p. 12.

184
 185

6. Thagafah, pp. 135 f.; M~ammad Zahid al-Kawtharî,

Magalat al-Kawthari, Cairo, 1373 A.H., p. 73; Is~aq;

.QE.. ci t., pp. '117 ff.; Sulaynian Nadvi, .Q.].. ill,.,

pp. 253f., 257.
7. Thagafah, pp. 11; Is~aq, 2E. cit., p. 49;S.Nadvî,
.QE.. cit., p. 254.
8. Thagafah, p. 16.
9. Is~aq,.QE.. ~., pp. 77 f.
10. Cf. Is~aq, 2l2.. cit., chap. III, passim, especially
pp. 45 ff., 56. It is noteworthy that the ~üfis

showed a great deal of tolerance tewards the scheols

other than those to~,' hich they belonged as some of them,
though affiliated to the J;Ianafi school,followed some
doctrines which are not recognised in the J;Ianafi school,
such as raf' al-yadayn, gir'at khalf al-imam and salat
al-janazah 4al~ al-gha'ib (see ~., pp. 55, 59, 74:
Nuzhat, 1,126; ibid., v, 199). This characteristic,
perhaps, came about because of their basically telerantam
broad outlook and the study of Hadith which further
widened their ou tlook. See also below;,p. 22.
Il. Is~aq,~. ~., pp. 59,75 f.; SbLah Walï Allah,
"Makatïb" in Abü-l-Khayr ~ammad Muradabadï, ed.,and
comp., Kalimat-i Tayyibat, Mur ad ab ad , 1891-94(hereafter
referred to as Kalimat), p. 30.
12. Thagafah, pp. 12, 135 t., Is~aq, QE. ~., pp. 84 f.;
 186

S.Nadvi, QE. cit., p. 254.

13. Ibid., cf. Thagafah, p. 15; Is:tLaq, .2].. cit., pp.117
ff.
14. For their life sketches, see Ra.:ttm'ân. 'Ali,' Ta,ikirah.,.'i
'U1'ama'ë Hind, Lucknow, 2nd. ed., 1914, passim; Nuzhat
(relevant volumes); M.G.Zubaid Ahmad, The ContÉibution
of India toArabic Literature, Lahore, 1967, passim.
1

15. Thagafah, p. 15.

16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.; Mir Ghulam 'Ali lzad B~lgira.mï, Ma''âsiru-1-
Kiram, Agra/Lahore, 1910-1913, I, 210; Nuzhat,. V, 201
ff. Cf. Mas'üd 'A1am Nadvi, "Imam Valiyul1ah Dih1avi
së pahlë Isl8.nii Hind Ki Dînî :e:a,lat awr Tadrîji Irtiq'a.''',
in ~ga.n, pp. 20, 37.
18. See the opinions of Shaykh 'Abdu-l-~aqq and Shaykh a1-
Muttaqî in the fo11owing paragraphe
19. TabSi1, fols. 57 f.; cf. Shaykh 'Abdurl-ijaqq, SharQ-i
Sifru-s-Sa'adat, 2nd ed., [Lucknow], 1885, (hereafter
referred to as Sharb-i Sifr), pp. 22 f.
20. Ibid., pp.~ f.; Khaliq A:tLmad Ni~ami, Eayat-i Shaykh
'Abdu-l-Hagg MuQaddis Dihlavi, Delhi, 1953, pp. 169,
172 f.
21. Ibid., p. 169; c.f. Sharb-i.ê141:., pp. 22 f.; Tab.~il,

fols. 72 f.; M.G.Zubaid Ahmad, QE. ~., p. 43.

22. Shaykh Mu:tLammad Sa'îd, Maktübat-i Sa'ïdïyah, ed.,
 187

c Abdu-I-Majîd ~ad Sayfi, Lahore, 1385 A.H., pp.

163 ff., 171 f., 205 ff.
23. Ibid., p. 163~

24. Nuzhat, VI, 251 f.

25. See Mulla Jîvan, Wur al-Anwar, Lahore, 1957, passim.;
id., [a1-1 Tafsïrat [al-l AbmadîYah, ed. 'A. Karîm and
'A.La~if, Deoband, n.d., passim.
26. Nuzhat, VI, 112 f.; Isbag, ~. cit., pp. 156 f.;
Ni~a.mî, 2R. cit., p. 262.
27. See below pp. 25 f.
28. By Tradition and the sunnah they generally meant the
reports and norms embodied in the sibM sittah (six C

sound compendia) compiled by al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-

Nasa'!, Abü Dawüd, al-TirmidhI, and Ibn M8.jah. Some
of them regarded Muwatta' of Malik as the sixth
compendium; and some Sunan al-Darimï in place of Sunan
Ibn M8.jah. (See M.M. AbU Zahw, al-Hadith ~ ~

MuÙaddithÜll [Cairo], 1958, pp.418 f., 423.

29. See above, pp. 15 f.
30. See the excerpt from UVal al-sama' of Fa~u-d-Dîn

Zarradï (d. 748 A.H.), a disciple of Shaykh Ni~amu-d­

Din Badayünî, in Nuzhat, l, 105 f. See also ibid.,

l, 126; and ~., V, 198 f., where Shaykh Ni~a.mu-d­

Din Badayünî (d. 725 A.H.) and Shaykh 'Abdu-l-Baqî of

Delhi (d. 1014 A.H.) have been mentioned as the up-
ho1ders of the similar ideas. Cf. Is~aq, QE. cit.,
 188

pp. 55, 59, 74. For this trend of eü1~s, see also
Shor ter hl.. , !.:.!. "Tak lîd ft •
31. For insta nce Shaykh JalU u-d- Dîn 'l'ha.nësarî (d.96 9
A.H. ?) recommended to apply Shaf i'i law in resp ect
té' the ques,tion of the owne rship of land in India (see
his Taha gig Araq'i [al-l Hind , Delh i, 1303 A.H. , pp. 4,
8; cf. M.G.Z. Ahmad, ~. ~., 75 f. se~ also below ,
ref. \.;gO.
32. Our conc lusio n in resp ect of laymen is based on the
quer ies made by comm onpe ople to the ~ontemporary
'ulama' in whic h they asked abou t the valid ity of
follo wing a doct rine of a scho ol othe r than their own.
See Kalim at, pp. 30 f.; 'Igd, pp. 6, 88 f.
33. Shaykh 'Abdu-r-R~im prac tised sorne non- aana fî rites
thoug h he was affil iated to the ijana fî scho ol (se'e
Anm s, pp. 47, 70, 86}.
34. For their life sketc hes, see Nuzh at, VI, 340 f.,
50 ff., 351 ff.
35 • M~ammad Fakh ir Za' ir Il8.h abad î, Risa lah Naja tiyah ,
tr. M~ammad Is~aq, Laho re, 1956 (here after refer red
to as Naja tiyah ), p. 15; M~ammad eidd iq ijasa n Khân,
NafQ al-Ti b min Dhik r a1-M anzil ~ al-Ha bib [Bhh pal,
1296 A.H. ] (her eafte r refer red to as NafQ), pp. 14, 17.
36. ~., pp. 14 f., 16, 19; Naja tïyah , p.15
.
37. Nafp , p. 17.
 189

38. Najatlyah, pp. 36 f.

39. Na~, pp. 13 t., 16.
40. Ibid., pp. 13 ff.; Najatïyah, pp. 15 f., 36.
41. See NafP, pp. 12 f., 15, 17 ff.
42. Nafp, pp. 14, 16.
43. Ibid., pp. 18, 21; NajatïYah, pp. 41 f.
44. NafQ, pp. 13, 15, 16, 19, 22.
45. Ibid., p. 22.
46. Selections from these two books have been given by
M. ~iddiq ijasan Khën in the preface to his ~,

pp. 11-24. Cf. Nuzhat, VI, 340 ff.

47. NafQ, pp. 13, 15 f., 19, 22.
48. ~., pp. 18, 22 f.
49. He admits the existence of such atrained relations
between them (see ~., pp. 18 f., 22 f.). See also
the statement of Shah Wali Allah, p. 26 below.
50. Abu Y~byâ Imam Nëshahravï, ~. cit., I, 22 t., 339.
51. Both of them learnt Hadith from Shaykh M~ammad

Af~al Siyalkë1î (see Nuzhat, V, 280 f.; Kalimat,

p. 14).
52. See Bilgiramî, ~ cit., II, 218.
53. Kalimat, pp. 29 f., 78, 90 ff.; cf. Nuzhat, VI, 52 f.
SaS! ~ammad alias M~sin b. Y~ya al-Tirhatî, &::.
Y-ani' al-Jan! fi Aaanîd al-Shaykh. 'Abd al-Ghanî,
published on the margin of Rushd Allah Shah a1-Sindhl,
 190

Kash f al-A star Gan Ri j al Ma' ânl al-l th'8.r , ed.

~ammad Shaf i', Deoband, 1930 , (here after
refer red. to as rani '), p. 67.
54. Ka1imat, pp. 24 f., 31.
55. Ibid ., pp.31 , 78 n.; Nuzh at, VL, 52.
56. ~ammad Mu'ïn al-Si nd!, Dira sat al-La bïb !! !!:
Uswah al-Ha sanah Bi al-Ha bib, Kara chi, 1957 ,
(here after refer red to as Dira sat), pp. 252 ff.
57. Dira sat, pp. 7 ff.
58. Ibid ., pp. 402 ff.
59. See Dira sat, passi m, espe ciall y pp. 70 ff.
60. Nuzh at, VI, 352, 363. Cf. 'Abd al-La~ïf al-Si nd!,
Dhabb Dhba bat al-D irasa t, Kara chi, 1959 -61, l,
608n ., 728n .; M.G.Zubaid Ahmad, ~. ~, p. 331.
61. See Dira sat., passi m.
62. ShLah Wall Allah , Hujj at All8.h a1-B aligh ah, with
Urdu tr. 'Abdu-l-~aqq ~aq~ani, Kara chi, n.d. [1953 ?]
(here after refer red to as HUjj at), l, 290, 384; ~.,
Makt übat ma'ah Mana gib-i ••• al-Bu khar i, Delh i, n.d •
.(her eafte r refer red to as Makt übat) , pp. 20-23 ;
Kalim at, p. 177; Budüx, p. 127.
63. Acco rding to the ~anafi doct rine such a wife could
obta in disso lutio n on the groun ds of puta tive widow-
hood only afte r 90 or e.veru.120 1una r year s had elaps ed
since the birth of his missi ng husba nd (see M~ammad
 191

Ja' far al-Bübakan'i, al- Matanah f i Marammat al-

- -
Khizanah, Karachi, 1962, p. 627).
64. The aanafï school does not accept the tradition:
"When the wa ter amoun ts to the quanti ty of two
vessels of the kind calledgullah, it does not admit
thebearing of impurity"; and fixes the quantity of
su ch water at 10xIO cubits. For this and other
ijanafî doctrines regarding the purity of water, see
~., pp. 37 ff.
65. For i ts details, see Thâ.nësarï, 212,1"1. ci t., passim,
esp., pp. 4, 8 f.
66. See Shah 'Abdu-l-'Aziz, Surür ... i 'Azizi al-ma'rüf
[tarjamah] Fatav~ 'Azlzi, tr. M~ammad 'Abdu-l-Yajid
NüIavi Ghazipüxi, Kanpur, 1322-44 A.H. (hereafter
referred to as Fatav~ 'Azïzi1 l, 33; cf. M~ammad

~adru-d-Dln, al-Durr al-Na~ïd f! ~lkm Imra'at al-

Mafgüd, [Delhi], Ma~pa' ~adï, n.d., passim. See also
Thanësari, ~. 6it., passim, esp., pp. 4, 8 f.
67. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Ist ed., :;:,Lèiden/London,
1913-38 (hereafter cited as E.lf), s.v. "Tailld"; 'Abd
al-Wahhab al-Sha'ranï, al-Mîzan al-Kubra, Cairo, n.d.,
I, 39 ff.; Kalimat, p. 31.
68. See Kalimat, p. 169; 'Ibd, p. 67; Eujjat, I, 350;
Nuzhat, VI, 40; Shah 'Abdu-l-'Azïz, Malfü~at-i Shah
'Abdu-l-'Azïz, tr. M~ammad 'Ali Lu~fï and Inti~am
 192

Allah Shihabî, Karachi, 1960, p. 156.

70. Tafhîmat, I, s,.
71. lÈ.!!!.; Shah Wall All'âh, Qurrat al-' Aynayn g Tafi:îl
al-Shaykhayn, Delhi, 1,10 A.H. (hereafter referred
to as Qurrat), p. 1,5.
72. ~.; Tafhîmat, l, S,.
7,. Ibid., l, 214 f.
74. This attitude is indicated by the following two well-
known couplets in which they'-'.valued the Hidayah of
al-Marghlna.nl (d. 59, A.H.) next only the Qur'a.n:
~Û" t~) li ~; \~ r. ~ u:; ol,.AJl< ~)~, u~
H ur/-.
'-;-' ~0- JI i:!:.'; cr ..!JJ \:iL.- ~ l,k VJ-/;; ()4 j;ja> t;
(Verily the Hidayah has, like the Qur'an, abrogated
aIl the literature on the Shar' that was written
before. So master its principles and follow its
paths, so that your dictum may be safe from error
and untruth). See M.G.Z. Ahmad, ~. ~., p. 7,.
75. See Tafhlmat, l, 151; M. 'Alam Nadvï, ~. ~., p. ,9.
76. AI-Fataw~ al-'Ilamglrlyah, Cairo, 1276 A.H., l, 2 f.
77. Ibid.
7S. See ibid.
79. Ibid.
SO. Fatav~ 'Azîzi, II, 9. Nuzhat, VI, l,l, 1,5
Sl. Fatav~ 'Azlzî, II, 9. Cf. 'Ubayd Allah Sindhl,
QE. cit., in Furgan, p. '04.
G
'l~.~~i,

S2. Fatav~ 'Azizl, II, 9. For a review of these books, see

 193

Nuzhat, IV, 82; Introduction by Ghulam Mu~~af~

al-Qasimî to al-Bübak:anî, ~. cit., pp. 44 f. ;

Introduction by G.M. al-Qasimï to al- Qudüxi, ~

Mukhtasar, Karachi, 2nd ed. , 1964, pp. 12 f.;

Zubaid Ahmad, ~. ill., pp. 71 f.
83. Izalat, II, 84; Qurrat, pp. 134 f.
84. Ibid., pp. 177 ff.; Musaff~, l, Il. Cf. Tafhim'ât,
l, 214 f.
85. See SharQ.. i Sifr, pp. 80 f.; al-Bübakanî, .Ql?_ ci t.,
pp. 176 f.; Ibrahim al-Ualabi, Ghunyat al-Mutamallï
SharU Munyat al-Musall!, (Halabi-'i Saghir), Istanbul,
1325 A.H., p. 157.
86. Ibid., p. 177n.; Sharli-i §ifr,p. 80.
87. Sadid al-Din M~ammad al-Kashghar!, MWQyat al-Musallî,
Bombay, 1317 A.H., pp. 93 f.
88. Lu~f Allah al-Kaydani, Khulasat al-Kayda.nî, Karachi,
n.d., p. 13.
89. Shaykh ~ad Sirhindi, ~. cit., I, 448.; cf. Kalimat,
pp. 29 f.
90. Nuzhat, VI, 222 f.; Y-ani', p. 66.
91. Sharb-i Sifr, pp. 80 ff.
92. Nuzhat, VI, 195 f.
93. ~., VI, 363; al-Bübakani, ~. cit., p. 177 n.
94. Y-ani', p. 67; cf. Nuzhat, VI, 52.
0 95. The conflict over this issue was found in the time of
Shaykh 'Abdu-l-aaqq (see SharU-i Sifr, p. 82), and it
 194

was not settled even until the time of Shah WalY

Allah (see Hujjat, II, 47; Kalimat, pp. 29 f.)
96. For the titles and other particulars of some of
these treatises, see al-BubakanY, . ~ cit.;
Introduction to ~., p. 118; Thagafah, p. 111;
Nuzhat, VI, 223; rani', pp. 66 f.; Sharh-i Sifr,
p. 81; Kalimat, p. 29; Atunad Sirhind'!, .Q.J2.. ill.,
l, 448,451.
97. This was done especially by the Afghans and Rohillas
who had become influential in Delhi during the life-
time .of Shah WalY Allah; and they were notorious for
their rigidity and strictness (see Y-ani', p. 83;
~uru-d-Dïn ijusayn FakhrY, camp., Fakhru-t-1Calibïn,
Delhi, Mujtaba'Y, 1315 A.H., p. 25; Mana~ir ~san

Gilanï, Tazkirah Hazrat ~ Valîyullah, Karachi,

1965, pp. 195 f., 201.
98. See M. Mu'Ynu-d-DYn al-K~avY al-Ka~imi al-Mashhadï,
Tibyan n Ahkë.m Shurb al-Dukhë.n, Kanpur, 1914, p. ;.
99. The culture and the use of tobacco were introduced
into India in the.17th century (see The Encyclopedia
Americana, New York, 1963, ~. "Tobacco"). It
follows that any ruling regarding its validity or
otherwise was possible only after that time. Mashhadî
also determines the early llth century A.H. as the
period when the cultureandthe use of tobacoo were
 195

introduced into India and otherMUslim countries

(see Mashhadl, 2:12.. cit., pp. 3 f.).
100. See Nuzhat, VI, 369; Anras, pp. 78 f.; Gilë.nl, Q.E..
~., pp. 196 f. Cf. Fatavâ 'Azlz1, I, 328, 337 f.;
Mashhadï, 2:12.. cit., pp. 2 f.
101. Fatavâ 'Azizl, I, 328, 337.
1~2~. Anfas, pp. 78 f.; Gilanl, 2:12.. cit., pp. 196 f.
103. See Fatavâ 'Azïzï, I, 271. For the particulars of
the polemical treatises written by thepredecessors
of Wall Allah on this question, see Zubaid Ahmad,
~. ~, pp. 321 f.
104. For their such teachings, see 'Abd al-Wahhab al-
Sha'ranl, Q.E.. ~., I, 39 ff.; Shah Wall Allah,
Kashshaf fi tarjamah Ineaf, wi th Urdu tr. M.Attsan
~anëtavi, Delhi, 1935 (hereafter referred to as
In~af), pp. 90 f.
105. See Anias, passim; S.M.Ikram, 2:12.. cit., pp. 495 ff.;
M. R~lm Bakhsh, Bayat-i Vall, Lahore, 1955 (here-
after referred to as Bayat), passim.
106. Y-ani', p. 79; cf. Nuzhat, VI, 398.
107. Anfas, p. 24; Hayat, pp. 277 ff.
108. ~ayat, p. 414.
109. These courses of study which slightly differed from
the currmft courses, comprised,inter alia,the meaning
~ and the text of the Qur'an, i ts exegeses by al-Bay4a:wl····
 196

and by al-Nasafi, al-Shama.' il of al-Tirmidhî, !!=.

Mishkat, and a few chapters of S~lQ al-Bukhari.
In figh he read Shar~ al-Wigayah and al-Hidayah; and
in u~ül al-figh, al-Husamï, al-Taw~iA and al-Talwig.
(See Antas, p. 203).
110. Anias, pp. 64, 201. Cf. Nuzhat, VI, 281, 399; Hayat;
pp •. 406 ff., 492.
Ill. Anfas pp. 203 f.; cf. Hayat, po 413.
112. Anias, pp. 203 f.
113. ~.

114. Ibid.
115. Ibid.,
116. Anfas, pp. 203 f.
117. See above, pp. 26, 30 ff.
118. See Tafhlmat, I, 148.
119. Qurrat, p. 59.
120. Anfas, p. 204; Tafhlmat, l, 149 ff.; ~., II, 133,
249; cf. Ka1imat, p. 190.
 CHAPTER II

sHiH WALÏ ALLAH' s CONCEPT OF THE SHARÏ' AH

1. Hujjat, I, 182 f., 193, 222; ~., II, 487; Izalat,
l, 258.
2. Hujjat, l, 183, 192, 194; Izâlat, l, 259.
3. Hujjat, l, 183, 185, 194.
4. -Ibid., 183, 194; Izalat, l, 259.
.

5. HUjjat, l, 182f.f.
6. Ibid., l, 188-192.
7. The fac"t that revelation, which is an essence, takes
its shape in a certain language is also attributed by
him to this cause. He saysl "Likewise the revelation
oceurs only in the words, phrases and styles of ex-
pression that are stored in the mind of the person
who receives it. That is why God inspired the !rab
in Arabic and Syr:Lân in Syriacu. (FuM, p. 56).
8. Hujjat., l, 188 f.
9. ~., l, 187 f.
10. Ibid. l, 186, 203; cf. Qur'an 3:93.
Il. Hujjat, l, 190.
12. Tafhïmat, II, 23.
13. Hujjat, l, 188, Izalat, l, 259; Qurrat, pp. 256 f.,
327 f.

14. Hujjat, l, 182.

197
 198

15. Qurrat, p. 256; Izalat, l, 259; HUjjat, l, 187.

Here Sh8.h Walï Allë.h compares the role of shari'ah
to that of a physician and at one place he actually
mentions the prophet as 'the divine physiciant(Budüx,
p. 166), and God as 'th Real Physician' (~, p.lO);
but at ano'ther place he denies their comparison in
other respe~~ (see below p.57).
16. For a detailed exposition of this metaphysical
principle, see Hujjat, l, 29 ff.; Qurrat, pp. 256 f.,
327 f. See also Fazlur Rahman, .QE. cit., p. 46.
17. Ta fhï mat , l, 67 f.
18. See Qurrat, pp. 256, 327 f.; Izalat, I, 258, 284, 287;
BUjjat, I, 188; Fuyüq, p. 56.
19. Wujüh al-irtifagat, 'adat, and sharâ'i'.
20. Sha'a'ir, sunan ~wujüh al-irtifâgât, ma Hi ya'ri:runa
aelan, m! yubayin al-ma'lüf.
21. BUjjat, I, 187, 267; Fawz, pp. 9 f., 18; cf., Budür,
p. 177. (Ma ' lüf, ma shhürât, musallamat).
22. What he seems to mean by al-ra ' y al-~lï is the consi-
deration of those universally accepted fundamental
purposes which underlie the rules taught by the prophets.
(6ee Shah Walï Allah, Ta'wïl al-APâdîth, ed. G.M. al-
Qa.simî, Hyderabad (Pak.), (hereafter ci ted as Ta'wïl ) ,
p. 82. See also Bujjat, I, 100 f.).
A ..
V 23. Hujjat, I, 221 ff., 265 f., 272; Fuyü~, p. 56; Budür,
 199

22L f';; ~, pp. 9 f. , 15.

24. Cf. lIu jjat, l, 99.
25. ~., 1,22 f.
26. See above, pp. 38-43.
27. lIujjat, l, 217, 220, 245, 267, 271, ~, 15.
28. lIujjat, II, 425, f.
29. Ibid., l, 271. Cf. ibid., l, 267; Fawz, p. 15;
SharQ Tarajim Abwab Sah1Q al-Bukhari Karachi,1961
(hereafter referred to as SharÙ), p. 32.
30. According to him the eus toms are the essential part
of the irtifagat:"The customs are to the irtiragat
what heart ia to the body" (Hujjat, l, 99, 221).
31. Ibid., l, 221. f.
32. Ibid., l, 267; cf. ~, p. 15.
33. Hujjat, l, 272, 280, Tafhimat'- II, 139; ~, p. 15.
34. lIujjat, l, 223.
35. ~., l, 223 f., 267, 272; Fawz, p.9, 15; Shar~, p.32.
36. Hujjat, l, 271; Fawz, p. 15; SharÙ, p. 32.
37. lIujjat, l, 279 f. Cf. ibid., II, 412 f.; Iza1at, II,
134.
38. ~, pp. 9, 15. Cf. !i1u jjat, l, 266 f., 271 f., 280;
SharQ, p. 32.
39. lIu jjat, l, 223 f.; cf. ~, l, 279 f.; BUdür,
pp. 221 f.
0 40. Ji1;ujjat, l, 224. It is evident from the context that
 200

here he particularly refers to the Prophet M~ammad

and his Shari'ah. It is further corroborated by his

explicit âtatements in ibid., l, 277-79,where he
draws similarities between the religious practices
of the pre-Islamic Arabs and those prescribed in the
Islamic Shari'ah.
41. Tafhimat, II-, 139; Hujjat, I, 271 f.
42. ~, p. 18.
43. 5.!ujjat, I,272, 279; cf. Fawz, p. 5.
5.!ujjat, l, 277 ff.; ibid. , II, 412 f.; !!!!, p.4.
44.
-
45. 5.!ujjat, l, 271, f.; cf. Shar;t!, p. 32 ; ~f p. 15.
46. Tafhimat, II, 113.
47. HUjjat, l, 189; ~., II, 425 f., 509 f. Cf. Izalat
II, 134.
48. HUjjat, l, 216 f., 235; cf. ibid., 190
49. See above pp. 38 ff.
50. See above pp. 44 ff.
51. See above pp. 41 f. Cf. Qurrat, pp. 256, 327
52. HUjjat, l, 165, 191 f.; Tafhïmat, l, 198; cf. ibid,
l, 228 f.; Qurrat, pp. 256, 327.
53. See above pp. 45-49,passim.
54. See Shibli Nu'mani (d.1914), 'I1mu-l-Kalam ~ ~

Kalam, Karachi, 1964, pp. 237 f.; Muhammad Iqbal

(d.1938), The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in
Islam, Lahore, 1965, pp. 171 f.
 201

55. See Freeland Abbott, "The Decline of the Mughul

Empire and Shah Waliyullah" in The Muslim World,
Hartford, 52: 116-123 (1962), pp. 117 f.
56. See Fazlur Rahman, .Q.l?. ill.; p. 48
57. Tafhïmat, l, 147, 209; ~., II, 72 f.
58. Ibid., l, 24.
59. See above, pp. 41 f.
60. See Hujjat, I, 271,
61. Ibid., l, 270 f.
62. ~.

63. Ibid., I, 176 f., 254 f., 266 f., 270 f.

64. Ibid.
65. For the connotation of this term, see ~., l, 98
where he uses the terms al-agalîm al-ma'mürah and
al-umam ahl al-amzijah al-mu'tadilah ~ al-akhlag
al-faQ.ilah. See also Muhsin Mahdi, Ibn Khaldful 1 s
Phi1osophy 2! History, London, 1957, pp. 184 ff., 193 f.
66. Hujjat, l, 254 f., 266 f.
67. Hujjat, I, 254 f.
68. Ibid, I, 255.
69. Ibid. l, 255 ff.
70. Ibid., l, 266 f. By the fourth irtifag he means the
universal khilAfah and the customs and institutions
which are universa11y accepted as constituents of a1-
~ a1-tabî'î ~ a1-madbhab al-tabler (the natura1
 202

relig ion) • (Cf. abov e p. 52). For its deta iled

defin ition , see }i!uj jat, l, 96 ff. , 230.
71. Ibid . , l, 230. Cf. ibid . , l, 258, 262, 288;
II, 424.
- ~.,

72.
73.
-Ibid
TafhI
., l, 218, . 258, 288; Anfa s, pp. 80 f.
m'â t, l, 40; ill.2:.., II, 113 f. It is this revi -
va1i st proc ess to whic h he refe rs wher e he asse rts
that afte r every centu ry a new era sets in whic h
demands a renew a1 of the Shar I'ah (see above p. 50) •.
As for the mi11 enary refor m in the Shar I'ah, it is
accom p1ish ed, acco rding to him, by the succe eding
prop hets. (See Tafh ïmat, l, 198; HUjj at, l, 165, 191) .
74. Hujj at, l, 245; ~., II, 521; Tafh ïmat, II, 245 f.
75. Ibid .
76. }i!uj jat, I, 200, 217, 220,. 237 f., 241; cf. ~., II,
5Q9 f., 521. Compare these ideas of the Shah with the
state ment s of Shib 1I Nu'm anï, Iqba l, Abbo tt and
Faz1 ur Rahman ment ioned above p. 50.
77. Tafh Imat, l, 146.
78. Hujj at, l, 284, ; cf. ibid ., l, 199, 293.
79. Ibid ., l, 284.
80. Ibid ., l, 285, 293.
81. Ibid ., l, 285 ff.
82. Ibid . l, 286 f., 293.
83. We have above trans lated this word, maea liQ (sing .
~ 203

maelaQah) as virtues (see above p.56). But here it

is used in a slightly different meaning. We have
tried to express this changed nuance of ~eaning in
this translation.
84. Hujjat, l, 21.
85. Ibid., l, 24.
86. ~.,I, 25, 243.
87. Tafhlmat, l, 146.
88. Tafhïmat, l, 68.; ~., II, 113 f., 220; Budüx,
p. 191; HUjjat, l, 190, 211 ff., 281; ibid., II, 305,
315. Shah. Wall has devoted almost d!1fle hwbole '::'(rf -:,his book,
the Hujjat to show the effective causes, maealiQ,
utilities, wisdom, and under1ying reasons for various
shar'ï commandments and to prove them rational.
89. Hujjat, l, 196 ff., 211 ff., 258. Shah Wall Allah,
however, does not accept the domain of reason in the
.
area of dogmasB and tenets (see Budüx, pp. 197, 204).
90. Hujjat, l, 284 ff., ~., II, 330; Tafhlmat, I, 241;
Anfas, pp. 80 f.; Maktübat, p. 24; Atyab al-Nagham,
MUradabad, [1304 A.H.],p. 15. He cites the example
of a shar'ï law that the minimum amount of the assets
liable to zakah is 200 dirhams or 5 wasqs. Human mind
can perceive its suitabil~ty but could not initially
fix it, if it had not been revea1ed (see liujjat, l,
~
~ 286 f.).
 204

91. Ibid •., l, 25. In 0 ther words, they are 0 bli-

gatory even if they seem to be irrational or against
gi18s (cf. ~., l, 16).
92. Maktübat, p. 28. In this connection, he gives the
example of the doc~rine of fixing the minimum
limit of the quantity of water that does not admit
the bearing of impurity at 10xlO cubits which is held
by the 5anafi school (1:lli.); and at other places he
ci tes the doctrine of fixing the minimum limi t of
cotton liable to zakah, at 5 a.bmë.l (load.a) (Hujjat,
l, 287),wHitittls~ld by Bhaybanî, and the doctrine of
prohibition of tobacco (see Anias, pp.80 f.). For
further instances, see below p. 77.
93. Anfas, p. 81.
94. Tafhimat, II, 118; cf., 1:lli., l, 40 f.
95. Izalat, l, 109, 262, 267, 283; Qurrat, pp. 59 f.,
135, 240, 312, 317; 'Igd, p. 6. Bee also below
pp. 68 ff., 73 ff. See also Appendix I.
96. HUjjat, l, 282.
97. Magasid al-shar', bikmàit [al-b,ukm] wa sababuh [:!!!]
al-ma slaJ;Lah.
98. Qa.nUn al-tashri' ~ al-taysîr :!!! al-ibjam.

99. Ibid., l, 230, 268, 282; ibid., II, 389; Khayr, . p. 87 •

100.. l;Iujjat, l, 10, 16, 380, 382; ~., II, 330; Tafhîmat,
l, 41; Insaf, pp. 82, 85.
 205

101. See above p. 58.

102. Hujjat, II, 330; cf. ~., l, 10, 16, 217 f., 285
ff., 382; Ineaf, p. 85.
103. Tafhimat, l, 41; HUjjat, l, 382; Inenf, p. 85.
104. HUjjat, l, 268 f.
105. Here he alludes to the later ijanafi jurists (see
Ineaf, pp. 82 ff.).
106. Qurrat, pp. 147 f.; Iusaf, pp. 82 ff. Cf. above p.61.
107. Qurrat, pp. 147 f. When this khabar al-sad is
supported by some other evidences, such as the complete
conformity of its contents with the exp1icit text or
with sound reason or with the self-evident giyas,
Wall Allah agrees to the viewheld by some of the
jurists that such a khabar al-apad gives certainty
of belief and carries conviction 1ike khabar mashhür
(Iza1at, l, 283, 301, 311).
108. Anf8.s, pp. 195; Snah WaTt Allah, "al-Intibah fi
Salasil Aw1iya' Allah", MS. copy in the possession of
Maw1ana M~ammad 'Abdu-r-Rashld Nu'manl (hereafter
referred to as Intibah), fol. 139.
109. Tafhimat, l, 37. It is noteworthy that he expressed
this view in the Tafhïmat after writing the Hujjat
Allah and al-Khayr al-Kathïr as it appears from the
context (see Tafhlmat, l, 33 f., 38).
110. Khayr, p. 128.
.e 206

Ill. One instance from Mueaff~, l, 17, where he mentions

'Abd al-Karim b. abi al-Mukhariq al-Jazarî as a
thigah(reliable) reporter. He has confused here the
names of two different personalities, 'Abd al-Karim
b. abi al-Mukhariq al-Ba9ri (d.126 or 127 A.H.) who is
an unreliabl e transmi tter, and 'Abd al-Karim b. Malik
al~Jazarï (d. 127 A.H.) who is a reliable reporter
(see Ibn ijajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhlb,
Hyderabad (Dn.), 1326 A.H., VI, 373 ff., 376 ff.;
Shams al-Din al-Dhahabï, Mlzan al-I'tidal fi Nagd al-
Rijal, Cairo, 1325 A.H., II, 144 f.). It is also
strange that at one place Wali Allah mentions ~ad

b. tyanbal as the pupil of Malik (see Musaffl1, 1,6).

112. Intibah, fol. 113.
113. Cf. Iz~lat, l, 161. His teacher, Kurdl would say,
"He [Shah Wall Allah] used to ascertain from me the
ascription of the wordings [of the traditions]; and
l used to inquire of him respecting [their] correct
meanings and implications". (Y-ani', p. 81; 'Abdu-r-
Ra.Q.im ~iy-e.', 2],. cit., pp. 8 f.).
114. See, for instance, Htijjat, 1, 26; ~., II, 270,
where he accepts some apocryphal traditions which
deal with the creation o~ 'agI and its indispensability
for one's religion. These reports have been proved
apurious by al-Suyu~î, al-pattani, etc. (see Jallil al-
 207

Din 'Abd al-Ra.:tunan al-Suyüj;ï, al-La'aJ.a al-Maenu' ah,

Cairo, [1352-~.H~]; l, 129, ff.; M~ammad ~ahir al-
Fattanî [~. a1-pattanî], Tadhkirat al-Maw~ü'ât, Cairo,
1343 A.H., p. 28.; cf. M~ammad b. 'Ali al-Shawkani,
a1-Fawa.'id al-Majmu'ah, Cairo, 1960, p. 477; Abü al-
:tIasan 'Ali a1-Kananî, Tanzïh al-Sharî'~, Cairo, n.d.,
l, 203 f., 215, 2~4).
He accepts again a fictitious report about Abu
Sh~ b. 'Umar in Iza.1at, II, 151 which has been
reckoned among the spurious ones in al-Suyü1ïï, ~. cit.,il,
J l. ~ 1 9194'ff~, and al-Fa ttanî, .Q.E.. ci t., p. 180.
See also Tafhim~t, II, 246 and !UYü4, p. 166
where he be1ieves in a tradition about 'amâ' trans-
mi tted by Abu Razîn in the Sunans of al-Tirmidhî and

Ibn Majah, etc., and which has been criticised by

Zâhid al-Kawtharï on the ground that some of its
narrators are not reliable (see M~ammad Zahid al-
Kawthari, Husn al-Tagadî, Cairo, 1948, pp. 98 f.).
See also Hujjat, II, 254 f., and Ta'wï1, p. 92
where Shah Wali gives credit to some unreliab1e
traditions which prohibit meditation on God. These
reports have been proved weak, abandoned (~a'~f,

ma~) by a1-Sakhâwi and al-Haythamî (see M~ammad

'Abd al-Ra~an al-Sakhawi, al-Magaeid al-Hasanah,

Cairo, 1956, p. 159; 'Ali b. abi Bakr a1-Haythamî,
Majma' al-Zawa'id, Cairo, 1352, A.H., 81).
 208

115. Hujjat, 1, 294 ff. This is in fact an antithesis,

of the opinion of his predecessor, Shaykh 'Abduyl-
i~qq Mul;Laddi§. Dihlavi (do. 1052 A.H.) who strongly
refuted this view. The Shaykh argued for the
examiilation of individual traditions instead of
taking any of the hadith collection as a whole for
the purpose of making inference. (See Sharh-i ~,

pp. 14 ff.).
116. I.e., their being sound, well-known, and having
been accepted as norms for action.
117. Hujjat, 1, 296 ff.; Musaww~, 1, 6 ff.;~, p. 42.
118. Hujjat, 1, 297.
119. Ibid. The context and the form of expression used by
Shah Walî Allah in this discussion and also his deli-
brate selection of the works of the ~anafï and Kufian
compilers for the purpose of comparing them with the
Muwatta' of Më.lik and the "Sâl1îhs of Bukh"ârî and of
Muslim is noticeable.
120. ~., 1, 296, 298 f.
121. Ibid., 1, 298 f.
122. At another place, he reckons the Mueannaf of 'Abd al-
Razzaq with the Muwatta' of Malik (see ijujjat, I, 413).
123. ~., I, 300.
124. The last six works have been mentioned in Intibâh,
~ fol. 109. r
 209

125. HUjjat, I, 300.

126. ~., '1, 299; Intibah, fols. 108r 109. r
127. ~.; Hujjat, I, 299.
128. ~., l, 301.
129.~., l, 300.
130. The last six works are mentioned in Intibah, fol.109. v
131. HUjjat, l, 300.
132. Ibid., l, 301.
133. ~.

134. See above pp. 59 ff.

135. Qurrat, p. 240; Rujjat, I, 263 • . See also ~ammad

al-Khu~arî, Ueül .al-Figh, Cairo,,4th ed., 1962,

pp. 310; Sh8.k:ir al-ijanbalî, Ueül al-Figh al-Islam,
Damascus, 1948, pp. 270, 284.
136. Qurrat, pp. 59 f., 240.
137. ~., p. 240.
138. ~., pp. 59 f.
139. Ibid., pp. 254 f •
. 140. Ibid., pp. 251 f.; Izalat, II, 85.
141. Ibid., I, 165.
142. Ibid., l, 26, 116 f., 119, 262, 283, 306; cf. ibid.,
I, 23; Qurrat, pp. 136, 159.
143. Izalat, I, 19, 23.
144. ~., l, 26, 116.
145. ~., l, 117 ff. It is noteworthy that he refuses
to refer in this cennection te the tradition: "My
 210

communi ty will no t concert in going astray", a tra-

dition which was and is generally qited to prave the '
authority and infallibility of ijma' in general. He
avers that this tradition does not refer to ijma';
but to the fact that there will always be a group of
people in the communit,y who will, in any case, adhere
to the true religion (see ibid., l, 118 f.; Tafhîmât,
II, 118).
146. Iza1at, l, 15 f., 74, 78, 89 f., 92, 116 f., 262;
cf. Qurrat, pp. 134 f.
147. Izalat, l, 283, 306; cf., Qurrat, pp. 136, 159.
148. Ibid., p. 159.
149. Ibid.,pp. 59 f., 159.
150. Izalat, II, 140 f.
151. Ibid., II, 82.
152. Ibid., II, 85; cf. Qurrat, pp. 59 f. In support of
his contention Wa1ï Allah refers ta the discussions
which took place in the time of 'Umar before the
formulation of the ijmâ' on the doctrines of four
takbïrs in the funer al prayer and of ghus1 (major
~itual ablution) for a person who had indulged in
sexual intercourse without emission (see Izalat, II,
85) •
153. Qurrat, pp. 59 f.
154. Izalat, I, 7, 26, 109, 262, 283, 311; ~., II, 85;
 211

Qurrat, pp. 56, 159, 312.

155. M. Sa11am Madkür, a1-Madkhal 11 al-Figh a1-Is1aml,
2nd ed., Cairo, 1963, p. 218.
156. Hujjat, l, 293.
157. Ibid., l, 263. Cf. Iza1at, l, 56.
158. Qurrat, p. 255. Cf. Tafhïmat, II, 118.
159. Qurrat, p. 27; Iza1at, l, 311 f., 314; ~., II, 85.
By this he means the identica1 dicta of a large number
of fugaha' which the rest sanctioned by tacit approval,
provided that it look place beforethe codification
of the schools of law and not after that (see Qurrat,
p. 27; Izalat, l, 311 f., 314). It i~helâ qat'l
(abso1ute) by the ~anafïs; but regarded invalid".by the
Shafi 'ls and others (see al-KhuQ.arl, .Qll. ci t., p.301.).
160. Izalat, II, 85; cf., Qurrat, p. 312. It is also known
as ijma' murakkab (composite consensus). According to
the majority of thejurists, it is valid and signifies
the agreement of the fugaha' on only two views on a
particular question which precludes a third view. To
a few of them it signifies the agreement of the fugaha'
on that point which is common to the two prevailing
views on a particular question. This has the effect
of ijma.' in sa far as to exclude an opinion which is
contrary te their agreed point (see al-KhuQ.arl,
~. 2i1., p. 299). Shah Wall Allah 8eems ta hold the
former meaning (see Izalat, II, 85).
 212

161. Izalat, II, 85; cf., Hujjat, l, 294. This ijma'

is not regarded as valid by the majority of the
jurists (see al-Khu~ar!, ~. cit., pp.304 f.). Shah
Wali Allah recognises it on the basis of the tradi-
tion that "the Religion [of Islam] will shrink into
Hejaz as a snake coils in his hole" (Izalat, II, 85).
He also observes that it was improbable for the in-
habitants of these two cities to accept an obvious
error sinee these cities were the seats of the Early
Caliphs and had always been visited by 'ulama'
(Hujjat, l, 294).
162. Izalat, l, 119.
163. Qurrat, pp. 254 f.; Izalat, l, 119; Tafhïmat, l, 40;
ibid., II, 118; 'Igd, pp. 31 f. In Qurrat; p. 251,
he considers the ijma' of mujtahids as gat'ï (absolute).
This apparent contradiction ean be solved by referring
to the eontext whieh shows that he refers there to
the mujtahids from among the Oompanions. Moreover,
he tries to draw a eomparison between the agreement of
the mujtahids and the doctrines held by some of the
ah1-i tag1ïd (imitators). He wou1d ho1d the ijma'
of the mujtahids to be an absolute proof as compared
with the doctrine : of a few ahl-i taglïd (imitators).
Cf. also p. 72 above, where the Shah denies the binding
charaeter of the ijma' which is based mere1y on
 213

expediency without any reference ta the Qur'an and

sunnah.
164. 'Igd, pp. 6 f.; Qurrat, pp. 148, 312, 317.
165. See Khayr, p. 122; ijujjat, l, 262.
166. Ibid., l, 338. He dees not mention the name of the
schoel of this group of fugaha'; but it appears from
the examples of the doctrines citedin the discussion
and from other indications that he al1udes ta ~anafî

fugaha' (see below p. 77).

167. Anias, pp. 80 f.; IZalat, l, 7, 109, 267; ijujjat, l,
199. In Khayr, p. 124, he also recpgnises that giyas
khafî (hidden analogy) which is based on general
consideration of the public good (~maelapah

'ammah) •

168. This group is not other than that of the ianafî ;..
fugaha' (see the context in ijujjat, l, 338).
169. Here Walï Allah uses the word maelabah in tàe sense
different from those we have a1ready mentioned. For
two other meanings of this word, see above ref. 83.
170. Eujjat, l, 262, 287, 338; Ineaf, p. 31. Another mean-
ing of ra'y which he gives, is to formulate doctrines
by making inference according to the principles of
any imam of the past or deduce a rule from his dictum
concerning a similar case and not ta have recourse
to traditions. (See Eujjat, l, 383; Ineaf, pp. 87 f.).
e 214

171. Rujjat, I, 287, 338; Ineaf, p. 31.

172. RUjjat, I, 287.·
173. See above p. 60.
174. Here the word maea1ib is used in the sense different
from the above mentioned one. See a1so above reff.
83, 169.
175. Anfas, pp. 80 f.; RUjjat, l, 284 ff. For the difference
betWeen ~~a1iç and shara'i', see above p. 56.
176. Anfas, pp. 80 f.; RUjjat, ~88 f.
177. Ibid., l, 218.
178. See above pp. 73 f.
179. Rujjat, I, 262 f.
180. Ibid., l, 262 f., 339 f., 407.
181. Budüx, p. 127; cf. Tafhïmat, l, 155.
182. Buaür, p. 127. This is a twisting by the Shah of the
actua1 doctrine in which the father is not a110wed
to do so. He is rather exc1uded from being punished
by çadd, and made 1iab1e to ta'zïr. (See a1-Bübakanî,
~. cit., p. 538).
183. Rujjat, l, 287.
184. Ibid.
185. Ibid.
186. Ibid., l, 338; Ineaf, p. 31.
187. RUjjat, 1, 29; ~., II, 329 f •

•
W 188. Mueaffâ, l, 27. This doctrine is he1d by the ~anafï
 215

schoo1. The point criticised here is not the measure-

ment of the stipulated distance; he objects rather to
formu1ating any doctrine which determines a quantity
on the basis of mere ra'y. The Shafi'i and Malik!
schools stipu1ate the distance of ha1f aparasang and
of two miles respectively. Both are a1so based on
ra'y; but, strange1y enough, the Shah~ticises only
the stipulation made by the ijanafl school. He maintains
the -sarne attitude on soma other points a1so (see Musaff~, .
l, 24 f.). This attitude may, perhaps, be exp1ained
by our note no.252 be1ow.
189. Khayr, p. 124; BudTIr, p. 127; Musaff~, l, 27.
190. See HUjjat, l, 291, 319, 344, 383; In8af, pp. 8, 87 f.;
~Igd, pp. 21 ff.; Iza1at, l 283 ff.
191. Hujjat, l, 339, 414; cf. Iza1at, II, 86.
192. ~., l, 273.
193. HUjjat, l, 287.
194. See Ineaf, pp. 9, 39 f., 87 f.; 'Igd, p. 36; Hujjat,
l, 319, 346 ff., 383; Qurrat, pp. 56.
195. 'Igd, pp. 23 ff.
196. Bujjat, I, 200, 217, 220, 237 f., 241, 245, 267;
cf. pp. 44 ff., above.
197. Tafh'imat-, II, 118, 133; Iza1at, l, 116.
198. ~., II, 140, f.; Qurrat, pp. 159, 162.
199. Iza1at, I, 130 f.
 216

200. Ibid., l, 157.

201. llli·
202. See Insaf, passim, esp. pp. 4-31; cf. Eujjat,
l, 316-329.
203. 'Igd"p. 32.
204. Tafhimat, II, 250; Fuyü~ pp. 90 f.
205. Hujjat, I, 326 ff., 331, 333 f.; Insaf, pp. 22, 25;
Qurrat, p. 172.
206. Eujj~, l, 333 f.; Insaf, p. 25. Almost the same view
has former1y been expressed by a1-Muwaffaq a1-Makkï
(d. 568 A.H.) in his Managib ,al-Imam a1-A'~am Ab!
Eanïfah, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1321 A.H., l, 90; but
M~ammad Abü Zahrah refutes the contention of Shah
Wa1i Allah and denies that Abü ~anifah was a mere imi-
tator~ Ibrahim or other Kufians. He asserts that Abü
~anifah fol1owed,on a number of points, dectrines of
non-Kufian provenance. He admits, however, that Abü
~anïfah was greatly influenced by Ibrahim and that there
was simi1arity in their ways of legal thinking in many
respects (see M~ammad Abü Zahrah, Abü Eanifah, Cairo
[l947], pp. 224-28) Shah Wa1ï All~ also admits at
sorne other places that Abü Eanïfah did deviate from
some Kufian doctrines. He cites more than one point
on which Abü ~anifah abandoned the doctrines of Ibrahim
and other Kufians in favour of sorne non-Kufian dicta
(see Eujjat, I, 430; Musaffâ, l, 34).
 217

207. Hujjat, I, 334; Insaf, p. 26.

208. Ibid.
209. Ibid., p. 27. Abu Zahrah adds to them certain other
~actors (see Abu Zahrah, ~. cit., pp. 435 f.).
210. Qurrat, pp. i7i, 185.
211. See Hujjat, I, 380 ff.; cf. ~., I, 368; Musaff~,

l, 6; Fuyü4, pp. 181 f., 315, 319. Similar views have

been expressed by other scholars, both ancient and
modern, :t;Ianafis · and non-:t;Ianafis, such as Ibn Khaldün
(d. 808 A.H.) in his al-Mugaddimah, Beirut, n.d., pp.
802 ff. ;M~ammad Mu'ïn al-Tattawï (d. 1161 A.H.) in
Dirasat al-Labîb, Karachi, 1957, passim; Abdur Rahim
(d. ? ) in The Principles of Muhammadan ~" èli"tm;tsprudence,

Lahore, 1963, pp. 24 f.; Muhammad Iqba1 (d. 1938),

Qp,". ci t., pp. 176 ff.; M~ammad Abu Zahrah, .Q.E.. ill.,
pp. 291 ff., 325~ ~l~Khat~~ al-Baghdad1 (d. 463 A.H.)
narra tes su ch views from a number of ancient scholars
in his Ta'r1kh Baghdad, Cairo, 1931, XIII, 394-421.
The above mentioned scholars, however, differ in
explaining the reasons. Several writers have attempted
to refute this view, among whom al-~~âw1 (d. 321 A.H.),
Sibj; Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654 A.H.) and Ibn al-Huma~l

(d. 861 A.H.) are the pioneers. In the sub-continent

of India and Pakistan, the fol1owing writers may be
noted in this respect: Shaykh 'Abdu-l-ijaqq Dihlavi
 218

(d.l105 A.H.), in his SharQ-i Sifr, pp. 22 ff., and

in his TaQeïl, fols. 55 ff.; M~ibb Allah Ilahabadî
(~. 1191A.H.), as quoted in Nuzhat,VI, 251 f.; 'Abd
a1-La~If al-Tattawï al-Sindï, (d. 1189 A.H.) in his
Dhabb Dhubabat al-Dirssst, Karachi, 1959-61, 2 vols.,
passim.
212. Hujjat, l, 334; Inesf, p. 26.
213. Ibid., p. 77. For further qualifications of this type
of mujtahid, according to the S~ah, see 'Igd, pp. 10,
42.
214. Inesf, p. 77. For other qualifications of this type
of muâtahid ..as stipulated by Shah Wall, see 'Igd, pp.
Il, 44 ~ ff.; Hujjat, l, 354.
215. See above pp. 76 ff.
216. Fuyüel, p. 315. Rere he uses the phrase "al-gurün al-
mashhüd laha bi al-khayr" (the generations whose
excellence has been attested [by the Prophet]). This
term is generally taken to denote the periods of the
Prophet, the Companions and the Successors. We have
rendered it here according to his own interpretation
of these gurün, for which see Iza1at, l, 75, 121, 151,
332.
217. See Fuyü4., p. 319. He avoids here the mention of the
name of any particular school or schools; but expresses
it in Khayr, p. 124. See also below p. 88.
 219

218. Qurra·t, pp. Il, 17 f., 171.

219. Ineaf, pp. 22, 24 f.; Izalat, II, 85; Eujjat, l, 294,
331 ff.; Mueaff~, l Il ff.

220. Mueaww~, l, 6 ff.; Eujjat, l, 296 f. Cf. above p. 65.

221. Ineaf, p. 77.
222. Obviously, he refers to those traditions which have
been narrated by Shafi'i in his works; and then compiled
by al-A~amm (d. 346 A.H.) in Musnad al-Shafi'I which
has been held by the Shah to be the basis of the
Shafi'i school (see Qurrat, p. 171).
223. ~., p. 172.
224. Ibid., pp. 186, 242, 316; Izalat, l, 56; Ineaf, pp.
72 f., 76 90; Eujjat, l, 335 ff.; ~, p. 10; Khayr,
p. 124; Mueaff~, l, Il.
225. Izalat, l, 271.
226. Ine~f, pp. 76 f.; Qurrat,p. 242; cf., Izalat; l, 271.
227. Eujjat, l, 335 ff.; Ineaf, pp. 27 ff.; 71 ff.; 'Igd,
p. 10; Qurrat, p. 186; Izalat, l, 271.
228. Which is the third century A.H.
229. Eujjat, l, 335 ff.; Ineaf, pp. 27 ff., 71 ff.; 'Igd,
p. 10.
230. Qurrat, p. 242.
231. Khayr, p. 124.
232. Ineaf, pp. 79 f. An overwhelming majority of the com-
piler-traditionists mentioned by the Shah in this
 220

connection flourished after Sh~fi'î, and some of them

do not belong to the Shafi'i school.
233. Ibid., pp. 79 f.
234. Ibid., pp. 78 f.; ~, p. 42.
235. In~af, p. 78; 'Igd., p. 50. Coulson attributes the
coincidence of the ~anbali and Shafi'i schools to the
precedence of the theory of u~ül to the elaboration
of their doctrines (see N.J. Coulson, A History of
Islamic Law, Edinburgh, 1964, p. 89).
236. On the other hand, his predecessor, Shaykh 'Abdu-l-
ijaqq Dihlavî views the ~anbalî school as so close to
the ~anafï school and their doctrines as in such a
harmony with each othér that he inclines to dis-
tinguish the ~anafls by the composite name of ijanfalis
(i. e ., ~anafis + ~a.nballs), ev en as al-Zamakhsharî
(d. 538 A.H.) was known as ijanafzilï( i.e., ijanafi + .
Mu'tazilî). (See TaQ~il, fols. 95, 87Y B8r ).
237. EUjjat, I, 360, 379; In~af, p. 93.
238. See ibid., pp. 88 ff.; EUjjat, I, 375 f.
239. Ibid., I, 379 f.; In~af, pp. 86 f.
240. EUjjat, I, 360, 379 f., 384; Ineaf, pp. 86 ff.;
Izalat, 1, 313.
241. He reviews them at two places, in Tafhîmat, 1, 153
ff., and in Intibâh, fol. 171. These two sources
differ from each other in a few details. We have
 221

poin ted to some notew orthy diffe renc es that we

found in them.
242. They are: (1) al-Ja mi'a l-Ka bîr, (2) al-Ja mie al-
Sagh îr, (3) al-M abeu t, (4) al-Z iyad at, and (5) !1=
Siya r (see 'Abd al-N abî al-~ad Naga r'!, Jâ.mi', al-
'UlUm, Hyde rabad , Dn., 1329 A.H. , l, 130) .
243. Intib 8.h, fol. l7l; r Tafhï m'ât, l, 153.
244. Ibid. " .
245. Intib 8.h, fol. l7l r ; Tafh îmat, l, 153. K. al-Umm and
al-M ukhta eer of al-M uzan ï"hav e been ment ioned in the
form er; and Rafi 'ï and Nawawî in the latte r.
246. 'Igd, p. 47.
247. Tathî mat, l, 153; Intib ah, fol. 171.
248. 'Igd, p. 47.
249. liiti'D'ë.h, fol. 171v •
250. Inea f, pp. 88 ff.; Hujj at, l,36 0, 375 ff.; 'Igd, p.47 .
251. HUjj at, l, 379 ff.; Insâ f, pp. 86 f. Cf. above p.9o .
252. This was perha ps partl y due to his poor opin ion of
this scho ol and its reco rders , for examp1e, in com-
paris on to those of the Shaf i'i scho ol (see abov e pp.
83 f., 88 f.), and partl y becau se he wasp~m,arily conc er-
'; ' · ,(ll.;;:,;!..~ned wi th the J;;Ianafi scho ol in the sense that not only
did he perso nally belon g to it; but the majo rity of
his count ryme n also follo wed it. For this reaso n he
wante d to have it refor med along lines whic h we shal l
 222

discu s.s late r (see below pp. 104 f.).

253. Hujj at, I, 380 ff.; Inea f, pp. ff.; Qurr at, p.186 ;
cf., ibid ., p. 148. Shah Wali Allah shows some in-
cons isten cy in this discu ssion . At one place he
emph atica lly asse rts that the princ iple of Sana fI
lega l theor y: "Add ition cons titut es abro gatio n"
does net prove te beauth entic ally trans mitte d from
Abü Hani fah or his two comp anion s, Abü YUsuf and
Shayb'âni (see Hujj at, l, 380; Ines f, p. 82); but on
anoth er occa sion, in the same book s, Wali Allah
ment ions Shay banî as the upho lder of this rule wher e
he relat es the incid ent of the polem ics betw een
Shay banî and Shaf i'i on this issue (see ibid .,
p. 28; Hujj at, l, 335 f.).
254. Shah Walï Allah rega rds these two scho lars as mHhaggigs
(see Inea f, pp. 85 f.; Hujj at. I, 379, 382) .
255. Ibid .; Inea f, pp. 85 ff.
256. ~,pp. 33, 47; Hujj at, I, 32 ; cf. Tafh ïmat, II, 235;
Kalim at, pp. 203 f.; Intib ah, fol. 187.
257. ~,p. 52; Tafh ïmst, II, 26; cf. 'Igd ., pp. 6 f.,
Muea ffâ, 1, II, 18; Intib ah, fols. 168, 174v , 187.
258. Kalim at, pp. 203 f.; HUjj at, 1, 32; Tafh ïmat, II, 235.
259. Intio ah, fols. 173 v , 187.
260. See below pp. 152 ff.
 CHAPTER III

THE ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION

1. See above pp. 17 ff.
2. See above pp. 2; ff.
;. See above p. 2;. See alsoAnf8.s, pp.47, 70, 86.
4. See ~., p. 8~.

5'. ~., pp. 70, 85 f.

6. Anias, pp. 202 f.; Taf.hïmat, II, 238; cf. above p. 34;
Nuzhat, VI, 281.
7. Anfas, p. 64
8. Se·e above p. 22. Rence the well-known saying: liA sufï
does not belong to any particular school [of law)."
(al-iüfï la madhhab ~). See Sharb.-i ill!" p. 21.
9. Kalimât, p. 82. Shaykh ~ad Sir~indï, though himself
a staunch ijanafi, has expressed similar views on the
Naqshbandi order (see his Maktübat,I, 215, 258.
10. Anfas, p. 202; Tafhïmat, II, 238.
11. For instance, See M. Zahid al-Kawtharï, Rusn al-Tagaqï,
Cairo, 1948, pp. 96 f.
12. See above pp. 3~ f.
1;. Anias, pp. 20; f.; Fuyü4, p. 149. See a1so Tafhïmit.
II, 2;7 ff., where a sanad (certificate) is mentioned
which Shah Walï Allah conferred on his pupil, Badru-l-
:tIaqq in 1142 A.H., i. e., before Shah Walï Allë.h pro-
ceeded to Hejaz. Shah Walï Allah assigned his pupil

22;
 224

through the sanad with the task of calling people

to follow only those fighï doctrines which were in
conformity with the sunnah and closer to the terms of
evident ~eaning of Uadïth.
14. Anfas, pp. 203 f.
15. Fu..YÜ!l, pp. 187 f.; ; Kalima t, p. 205, where he says:
"Ma'ë taOgïg !:!. khWIL';'i mashrabhi' ~Ül'! dïdam Khurüj !!
gayd-i mashrabha. namï kardam . ~· !B! kardam." He himself
explains the verse in these words:
"Isharah ast ba an kih ~ ma'arifë kih ta' allug :2.!!
shara' i ' ~ darad tagl'ïd-i shakheï pasandïdah nist." .
16. Ibid.
17. FQyü4, p. 188.
18. Anfas, p. 204.
19. Khayr, p. 124.
20. For instances of su ch doctrines, see BudUr, pp. 76 f.,
127, 205, 207, 209, 212 f. It is noteworthy that later
he abandoned some of these Shafi'ï doctrines and strongly
refuted them. For instance, on the question of the
conditions for holding the Firday prayer he strongly
supported the doctrines of the Shafi'ï school in Budüx,
p. 212; but refuted them even more strongly in his
Mu~affâ, I, 153 f.
21. See above pp. 85 ff. We find him extolling Shafi'ï in
such later works as Mueaffâ, I, 11; In~af p. 80; Izalat,
 225

l,56; Qurrat, pp. 242. See also Appendix I.

22. Tafhïmat, II, 237 f.
23. Ibid., II, 118, 133; cf. ~., l, 140. See a1so above
pp. 59 ff.
24. For its examp1es, see above pp. 23 ff.
25. Tafhïmat, l, 209, 211, 214 f.; ~, p. 10; BudUr, p.127.
26. ~,p. 44; Tafhïma:t, l, 215; ~., II, -1 34.
27. See above p. 24.
28. Tafhïmat, II, 133, 135; BudUr, p. 127.
29. Khayr, ,p. 124.

30. ~,p. 10; ; BudUr, p. 127.

31. Fawz, p. 10.
32. BudUr, p. 127; Tafhïmat, II, 135.
33. ~,p. 10.
34. ~,pp. ' 10, Cf. Tafhïmât, II, 134.
35. Budüx, p. 127.
36. Ibid.
37. See above p. 24.
38. See ijujjat, I, 20; ~., II, 47, 101; Budüx, p. 127.
39. See HUjjat, l, ;84; Budüx, 127. Some biographers of
Walï Allah report that some people of Delhi attempted
to ki11 Shah Walï Allah because he was the first to
translate the Qur'an into Persian (see ijayat, pp.418
ff.; Mirza ijayrat, Hayat-i Xayyibah, 3rd. ed., Lahore,
1958,pp. 26 ff.). We agree that such an attempt was
 226

made, but doubt the reason they give in respect of

this incident on the following grounds. Shah Walî
Allah himself. mentions in the preface to his trans-
lation of the Qur'an that s.everal translations of the
Qur'an had been attempted before him. He further adds
that his translation wasvery much liked and appre-
ciated by his cont,e mporaries. He does not make any
mention of opposition in this respect. (See his
Preface to Fat~ al-RaJ;unan .!i Tarjamat al-Qur''an,
Karachi, n.d., pp. iii f.). In view of these facts
and because he himself refers to a murderous attempt
made by his contemporaries on the question of fighï
differences, we think that the biographers or narrators
retained the incident; but could not recall the real
reason when they reported the incident. It i6 notable
that 'Ubayd Allah Sindhï also does not agree to the
cause of this violence as mentioned by Mïrza ijayrat.
He rather attributesit to some political differences
between Walï Allah and his contemporaries, but does not
cite any evidence which could support his contention
(see 'Ubayd Allah Sindhî, Tabrik, p. 47).
40. Fuyü4, pp. 91, 94; ijujjat, l, 384; Intiblih, fol.174 v •
41. See above p. 35.
42. Kalimat, p. 209.
43. We consider this dream to belong to that period because
 227

he mentions it a10ngwith the other dreams and mytica1

experiences which he had during his stay Hejaz.
44. Shah Wa1î Allah, a1-Durr a1-Thamîn .fi Mubashsharat
a1-Nabî al-Amin, 2nd ed., Delhi, n.d., p. 16.
45. See~.

46. ~YÜi, pp. 180 f.; Tafhîmai, II, 249.

470 FRyüg, pp. 180 f.
48. Ibid., pp. 149, 196. Cf. Tafhîmat, II, 242.
49. See above pp. 76 ff.; 82 ff.; Insaf, p. 77; Musaff~,

l, 6. See a10 Fuyü4, pp. 136 f., 182, 311 ff.

50. FuYÜd, pp. 188 f.

51. FuvÜQ., pp. 314 f. , 319; cf. Kha;lr, p. 124.

52. Fu.yüi, pp. 317 f. He asser.ts that this latter deep·;;

aspect of rightness can be discovered on1y by those
who are possessed of prophetie insight into the divine
scheme of the human wor1d. Whereas the former apparent
aspect will be observed by anybody who is weIl versed
in the traditiona1 re1igious sciences and figh. (See
~., pp. 318 f.).
53. Fu;lüg, pp. 317, 319.
54. FuyüQ., pp. 311-320; cf. ibid., pp. 129-135, esp.
pp. 134 f.
55. See above pp. 76 ff.; 98 f. Cf. Tafhîmat, II, 135.
56. Fuiüg, pp. 136., 181 f.
57. Ibid.
 228

58. Ibid., pp.182.

59. Ibid.
60. 'Abd al-Qadir al-Qirshï, al-~awahir al-MuQ.i'ah, II,
244, as quoted in Furg"ân, p. 311n. See also M.:;lidd'1q
ijasan Ehan, HiaUyat al-Sa'il ila Adillat al-Masa'il,
Bhopa+, 1292 A.H., p.22.
61. FRyuq, pp. 187 f.; cf. ibid., p. ~81.

62. See above pp. 23 ff.

63. See above pp. 4 ff.
64. S.ee above p. 28.
65. Tafhïmat, 1, 151.
66. See Izalat, II, 82 ff., 140; Qurrat, pp. 59 f.,
134 f., 171, 185, 209.
67. Izalat, II, 82 f., 140.
68. See ibid., II, 83 ff., 140; Qurrat, pp. 59 f., 134 f.
69. See above p. 71.
70. Izâlat, II, 85.
71. Ibid.
72. Tafhîmat, II, 250; Fuyü4, pp. 90.f.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid.; Tafhïmât, 1, 150.
75. M.Z. a.J:rK~!'I.:t;h~I·; Magalat al-Kawtharî, Cairo [1373
A.H.), p. 'A.W. al-Sha'r"âni, al-Mïzan al-Kubr~, 2 vols.,
Cairo, n.d., passim; Ibn Rushd, QE. cit., passim.
76. Kawtharî, 2E. ~., pp. 86. 121.
_ 229

77. Inesf, pp. 82 ff.

78. Ibid.
79. Izalat, II, 84; Qurrat, pp. 59, 1}4.
80. Izalat, II, 84.
81. See above p. 71, Qurrat, p. 59.
82. Iz~lat, II, 84.
8}. Musaww~, l & II, passim. On such points he usually
remaks "!!! 'alayh i ttafaga ~ al-' ilm". For instance,
see ibid., l, 426. Similarly he says in Musaff~

11~ hamîn ast ittifi.g-i 'ulama' (see for instance,

. ibid., l, 207).
84. See for instance Musaww~ , l, 152, 272; Mueaffâ, l,
152.
85. For instance, see Musawwâ, II, 16}; Mueaff~, II, 97,
167.
86. See for instance, Musaffâ, l, }09 ff.; Musaww~, l,
118 f.
87. Qurrat, pp. 59 f.
88. Tafhïmat, l, 153, 210; ~limat, pp. 18} f.
89. See'Igd, p. 18.
90. ' l 9d., pp. 19 f.
91. 'Igd, p. }O.
92. See Tafhîmat, l, 153.
93. Ibid.
94. Ji!ujjat, l, 320-}25.
 230
e
95. Ibid., l, 326ff. See also above pp. 79 ff.
96. Hujjat, l, 376 f.
97. ~.

98. Ibid., l, 360, 363; Tafhîmat, l, 1515, 209; 'Igd, p. 28.

99. Ibid., l, 151.
100. Ineaf, pp. 90 f.; Hujjat, l, 376 f.
101. Ibid.
102. ~.

103. MutLibb Allah Biharî, Musallam al-Thubüt, Delhi,

1899, pp. 280 f.
104. The above mentioned incidents occured in the time of
Shah Walî Allah show that his contemporaries could not
maintain this theory in practice (See above pp. 25 ff.).
105. See'Igd, p. 143; Izalat, 1,19, 282 f., Qurrat, p. 295,
M. Allah Ilahabadî, 10c. cit.
106. 'Igd., pp. 12 ff.
107. Ibid., pp. 14, 29 ff.
108. Hujjat, II, 471.
109. Ibid., l, 263, 293.
110. 'Igd, p. 27.
Ill. Ibid.
112. Izalat, II, 89.
113. 'Igd, pp. 25 ff.; Izalat, II, 19, 89.
114. 'Igd, pp. 25 ff.
~ 115. Izalat, l, 19.
 _.,._-- 231

116. Tafhlmat, II, 202.

117 • . ~., II, 202; 'Igd., p. 66.
118. Tafhîmat, l, 154.; IntibBh, fol. 174.
119. Iz~lat, l, 109, 282 f.
120. Ibid.; HUjjat, l, 412 f.
121. Taihlmat, l, 211 f.; Izalat, l, 282.
~122. Tafhlmat, l, 155.
2_12'. Ibid., l, 154, Intibab., fols. 171r f., 174v •
124. Tafhïmat, l, 154; Intibâh, 172r.
125. Ibid., fol. 172; Tafhîmat, l, 154 f.
126. Intibah, fol. 174 r ; 'Igd., pp. 15 f.
127. Tafhimat, l, 155; Intibah, fol. 172. 'Igd, p. 16.
128. Ibid.
129. Taihlmat, l, 155 f.
130. Ibid.
131. HUjjat, l, 412.
132. Taihimat, 1, 155. He mentions the following examples
in, order to illustrate the doctrines which, according
to him, transgress its limits:
(i) to allow wiping of the feet wuqü' (ri tuaI
ablution) instead of washing them;
(ii) to ~egard mut'ah (temporary marriage)
as lawful;
(iii) to hold the drinking of a small quantity
of an intoxicant (muskir) other than wine
(khamr) as permissible;
 232

(iv) to regard the extent of the time of the

~1Jhr prayer uptil the time when the length
of the after-noon shade of a thing becomes
double of its height plus the length of its
shade at noon time.
Among the four above mentioned doctrines, the two former
belong to the Shï''i school, and the two latter are those
of the ijanaf'i school fo law.
133. Ibid., l, 153; 'Igd., p.16.
134. Tafhïmat, l, l55 f.
135. Ibid.
136. Shah Wal'i Allah cites the following variants to illus-
trate the disagreement which does·not amount to
deviation from the jaddah,
(i) disagreement on the doctrine of regarding the
brushing of teeth with stick in the afternoon
·as reprehensible (or otherwise) for a persan
who fasts;
(ii) disagreement on choosing from among the
various formulas which are required to be uttered
in prayer. before the recitation 6f the Fati~ah;

or not uttering any formula at all;

(iii) disagreement in choosing from among the dif-
ferent formulas of the tashabhud · transmi tted
by various Companions;
 233

(iv) the different number of rak'at in the witr

prayer. (Tafhïmat, l, 155 f.).
137. Izalat, l, 282 f.; 'Igd., p. 16.
138. Ibid.
139. Intibah, fol. 173!
140. Ibid.; 'Igd .. , p. 16.
141. Ibid.; Intibah, fols. 173I174r •
142. Tafhïm~t, l, 153; Uujjat, l, 412, 'Igd., p. 18.
143. Ibid., p. 27.
144. For instance, see Mueaff~, l, 28, 104, 144; Mueaww~,

l, 142 f.
145. For instance, see Mueaff~ , l, 55, 83, 103 f., 116 f.
146. For instance, see ibid., l, 121, 211; ibid., II,
5 ff., 93, 97 f.
147. For instance, see ~., l, 103, 115 f., 143, 233.
Cf. 'Igd., p. 66.
148. Tafhïmat, l, 210 f.
149. Ibid., Ineaf, pp. 89 f.
150. Ibid.; Mueaff~, l, 143; Ineaf., p~ 89.
151. Tafhïmat, l, 210 f.
152. Ine'âf, p. 89.
153.
-Ibid.
154. Ibid., pp. 90 f.
155. ~., p. 89.
e
~~.
156. Uujjat, l, 375 ff.; Ineaf, pp. 89 f.
 234

157. Tafh!mat, l, 153; lzalat, l, 148; i!U4., II, 85;

Hujjat, l, 366, 376 f.,415; Ineë.f, pp. 80, 90 f.;
'Igd., pp. 28, 37, 39 f.
158. oSee above, p. 113. Cf. Tafhïrnat., l, 153, 210.
159. Musaww~, l, . 3; 'lgd, p. 80.
160. "Disagreement of my communi ty is the sign of (divine)
indulgence". (Ibid.).
161. 'Igd., p. 14; Tafh!ma.t,~:21;2 ~:.t.

162. Ibid.
163. ~.; HUjjat, II, 210.
164. Ibid.; Tafhïmat, l, 212 f.
165. Ibid.
166. ~.

167. Ibid.
168 •. Shari, p~'20;

169. 'Igd, p. 14. Cf. Ineaf, p. 89.

170. See Mueaff~, I, 36, 41, 64, 244.
171. Hujjat, I, 369 f., 383; Ineaf pp. 58, 87 f.; Mueaff~,

I, 4.
172. Hujjat, l, 366 f.; Ineaf, pp. 49 f.
173. Ibid. Wall Allah observed that Ibn ijanbal, Is~aq b.
Rahway and Sufyan al-Thawrî belonged to the former
group (see HUjjat, l, 369, 383; Ineaf, pp. 58, 87 f.);
whereas Abü ijan'ifah, Abü Thsuf, Shayb'8.n!, Awza'!,
Nakha'ï-; 'A1qamah, ijammad and most of the other Kufians
 235
ct
belonged to the latter (see I;Iujjat, l, 352 f.;
Insaf, pp. 46 f.; Mupaff4, l, 4 .f.; Izalat, l, 327).
174. HUjjat, l, 366 f.; In~ë.f, pp. 49 f.; Tafhïmat, l, 209;-
~, II 202. Shah Walï Allah regarded Malik and
ShAfi'i as the middle-roaders in this respect; but
Mnlik, according te the Shah, confined himself to the
traditions and practice of the people of Medina.
Whereas Shafi'i as weIl as Ibn aanbal, extended this
balanced compromise process also to the traditions
and ath~ of other cities. This attitude of keeping
balance between the above mentioned two trends, Wali
Allah observed, could not be maintained by the
generality of later fugah~' of almost all the schools
(Hujjat, l, 367; Insaf,p. 49).
175. HUjjat, l, 367.
176. Ibid. In this connection, Shah Wali Allah referred to
their practice of rejecting a tradition in the isnad
of which there is found a very inaignificant doubt of
irsal or ingita' (break in the chain a of transmitters),
as had been done by Ibn Uazm in respect of a tradition
reported by Bukhârï concerning the prohibition of the
use of musical instruments. Shah Walï Allah regarded
it a muttasil, sound tradition. Another instance of
ctheir strictness in applying such rules, whi'ch Walï
Allah gives, is their practice of giving preference
 236

to one trad ition on the othe r only becau se the

narra tor of the form er Ws,s lmown for his good memory,'
thoug h the latte r trad ition may be prefe rred for a
thous and othe r reaso ns. (see Hujj at, 1, 367) .
177. HUjj at, 1, 180 f., 290, 366 ff.; Inea f, pp. 49 ff.;
'lgd, pp. 21 f. Walî Allah refer red in this conn ec-
tion the tradi tions touch ing the ques tions of the
fraud ulen t sale of the muea rrah (ewe or she-g oat un-
milke d for many days) , the puri ty of the wate r
amou nting to the quan ti ty .of two gulla hs, and the
appo rtion ment of the share of the Prop het' s fami ly --
(i. e., Banü Hashim and Banü 'Abd al-M uj;j;a lib) from
the war-b ooty (Huj jat, 1, 368; Inea f, p. 49, Cf.
Hujj at, 1, 10 f.).
178. Hujj at, 1, 367 f.; Insa f, pp.49 .
179. HUjj at, 1, 368.
180. Hujj at, 1, 180 f., 290, 292 f., 366; 'Igd, pp. 21 f.;
Inea f, pp. 49 ff., 82 f.
181. Tafh lmat, II, 240 f., Hujj at, l, 343 ff.
182. Iniaf , pp. 43 ff.; ~, pp. 42 ff. It is notew orthy
that these soho lars have gene rally been regar ded as
colle ctors of tradi tions rathe r than juris ts prop er.
But Walï Allah insis ted on cons ideri ng them both as
trad ition istsa nd juris ts, and some times he had heate d
discu ssion s with his conte mpor aries on this poin t
 237

(see Kalin ïat, 1'.17 7, cf. Hujj at, l, 343-3 50).

183. Ibid ., l, 383; lnea f, p. 88.
184. Ibid .
185. Inea f, pp. 43 ff.; 'rgd , pp. 42 ff.
186. Inea f, 36 f., 42; 'lgd, p. 44; Fuyü~, pp. 149, 196,
198; Tafh imat, · II, 240, 242 • .
187. See above p. 60.
188. See above p. 97; Fuyüi, pp • . 187- 9; Kalim at, p. 205;
Intib' 8.h, fol. 170.
189. Tafh imat, l, 125; Iz~lat, l, 257.
190. See Inea f, pp. 63, 69, ff. He ment ioned the follo wing
facto rs and circu mata nces whic h made taglï d indi s-
pens ible:
(i) Unne cessa ry troub le and diffi culty in dedu cing
doct rines fram the shar 'î sourc es ('lgd , pp.
31 ff.);
(i1) the inab ility of [mos t of] the scho lars to
dedu ce the rule s of law (Huj jat z I~ 361; 'lgd.,
pp. 31 ff.);
(iii) the risk of goin g agai nst the verd ict of ijma '
(~.).;

(iv) the self- conc eit of the indiv idua ls and the
dang ers of disru ption in the law;
(v) the risk that judge s and muft is would become
corru pt and would misu se their offic es in the
 238

absence ·of a certain wel1-defined code of

lawand school; (ibiq.);
(vi) personal conviction and belief of an indivi- .
dual in the soundness of aparticular school
of law. ('Igd, pp. 31 ff.; Insaf, pp. 69 f.;
Hujjat, l, 161 f.; Fuyü;, pp. 91 ff.)
191. Fu.yüd, p. 187, ; 'Igd., pp. 31 ff.
192. See above, p. 96 ; cf. FQyü~, p. 149; '.Igd, pp. 21 f.;
Hujjat, l, 263, 308, 4.0 9, 414; ibid., II, 543; Izalat,
l, 44, 313. For instances of positive doctrines
upheld by Walï Allah beca:use of their having been
on ,~hir al-sunnah, seeSharh, p. 27, col. 1; Hujjat,
l, 458 f.; ~., II,101.
193. See above p. 97.
194. 'lgd, pp. 39 f., 69 f.; HUjjat, I, 263 f.; Intibâh,
fols. 168 ff.
195. 'lgd, pp. 36, 70 f.; HUjjat, l, 263 f.; Iz~lat, l,
27; Tafhïmât, I, 209, 211; ibid., II, 134.
196. 'Igd, pp. 69 f.; Intibâh, fols. 168 ff.; Tafhïmat, l,
209; ~, pp. 10 f., 15.
197. 'lgd, p. 38.
198. 'Igd, pp. 38, 78 ff., 91; cf. Hujjat,I, 374; 'Igd,
pp. 76 ff., 88.

199. See abo~e p.l06.

200. See above p.lll.
 239

201. See above p. 59.

202. ~,pp. 59, 63 f.; Intibâh, fol. 174; Hujjat,
l, 370; In§'âf, p. 61; Tafhimat, l, 153.
203. Tafhïmat, l, 156; ~., II, 240, 242; Mueaff~, .I, Il.
204. See above p. 56 f.
205. Mueaffâ,.I, 36, 349; Anfas, pp. 80 f.
206. I.e., jurists who can pronounce authoritatively which
from among the divergent doctrines of their school
ought to prevail • .
207. Intibah, fols. 168v , 171, 187; Hujjat, l, 379.
208. IntibBh, fol. 187; HUjjat, l, 32; Tafhimat, II, 235;
Kalim'ât, pp. 203 f.; 'Igd, pp. 33, 47.
209. Hujjat, l, 281. (al-samhah = facile; al-Qanïfïyah =
original; al-bayqa' = lucid).
210. ~,p. 64.
211. Ibid., p. 74.
212. Ibid., p. 73.
213. 'Igd, pp. 64, 73; Tafhïmat, l, 212 f.
214. Mueaff~, l, 343, ;67, 409; Tafhïmat, l, 156.
215. Musaff~, l, 155, 224.
216. Ibid., l, 343.
217. ~., p. 49
218. Musaffa, l 215; Hujjat, II, 146; Tafhîmat, l, 156.
219. Mu§affa, l, 3; Musawwa, l, Ilf.
220. Mueaff~, l, 3.
 240

221. Ibid., I, 6.
222. Ibid., I, 7 f., 343.
223. Ibid., l, 7.
224. Ibid.
225. Tafh!ma.t, II, ·245; Musaww;i, l, 8.
226. Mueaff;i, l, 11.
227. ~.

228. Ibid.
229. Ibid.
230. MusaWw;i, l, 12 f.
231. Inesf, po 78; 'Igd,.p. 50.
232. Ineaf, p. 78.
233. While in Iraq,.Shafi'î ~ttempted to criticise and
reform the Uanafî school; and when he went to Egypt
he reviewed the doctrines of the Malik! school.
Bence, his two kinds of opinions, one of the earlier
and the other later. (See Kawtharï, Magslat, p. 120).
234. Ineaf, p. 81; cf. al-Ghazali, Ihya' 'Ulüm al-Din,
Cairo, l, 48.
235. Mu~aww;i, l, 13; Tafhînïat, l, 211 f.
236. Ibid.
237. l;!ujjat, l, 380; In~af, pp. 82, 87.
238. I;Iujjat, l, 380.
239. Ibid. ; In~a.f, p. 82.
e
't.
240. ;e;ujjat, l, 380, 382.
~ 241

241. HUjjat, l, 379.

242. Qurrat, pp. 148, 186; cf., HUjjat, I, 29, 382.
243. HUjjat, l, 379, Insaf, pp. 86 f.
244. See above Chap. II, ref. 252.
245. See Qurrat, p. 186.
246. Se~~, pp. 49 f; Ine~f, p. 80; Khayr, p. 124.
247. Cf. above p. 147.
248. Tafhïmat, l, 211 f.
249. Ibid.
250. See, for instance, Musaffâ, l, 339, 349 f.
251. For instance, see Musaffâ, I, Ill, 142.
252. For instance, see Musawwâ, II, 68 (This doctrine
concerns the question::: of the divorce of the wife a
missing persona This instance fully il1ustrates the
Shâh's method and considerations in the practice of
talfïq.
253. See Mueaffa, l, 78, 98, 237 f., 162; Musawwa, II, 175.
254. See Mueaffâ, I, 241, 249 f., 275 f., 407, 410.
255.See ~., l, 123, 349.
256. See ~., l, 36, 78, 98, 251; ~, II, 31.
257. See ~., pp. 62, 89, 93; ~adru-d-Dïn, 2E. cit., 3 ff.
258. 'Igd, p. 64.
259. 'Igd, p. 76
260. 'Igd, p. 61.
261. ~,pp. 61, 67, 76.
 242

Ibid.
'Igd, pp. 62 f.
'Igd, pp. 62 f.
'Igd, pp. 60, 67 ; Mu~affâ.

280. ~ujjat, I, 32.

281. Mu~affâ I, Il.
282. Mu~affâ, I, 26; Musawwâ, l, 2-4; Intibah, fol. 175.
283. Mu~affâ, l, 18; 'Igd. pp. 6 f., Tafhlm~t, II, 26, Ilf.;
~, p. 40; IntibBh, fols. 170, 187.
284. Mu,affâ, I, Il, 18.
 243

285. Huj jat, l, 36 f., Insaf, pp. 60 f., 74., 'Igd,p. 42,
44, 57 ff., 63 ~.;. Intibah, fol.i74.
286. ' .Igd, p. 69.
287. 'Igd., pp. 58-60.
288. Schacht, Introduction, ~. ci t., p. 68 n.; id.,
t1T~lïdt1 in Shorter Eol.
289. 'Igd, pp. 28 f., 49, .53,67 ff., 75 f., 80-85; Hujjat,
376 ff.; Inesf. pp. 90 f.
 CONCLUSION
1. For instance, see Kawtharî, Magalat, pp. 117, 129. He
regards that non-adherence to any particular school
leads to atheism.
2. COulson, 2E.. ill., pp. 196 f.;- Schacht, hrtrodubtFi on,:pll.06 •
3. F. Rahman, 2.:Q.. ci t., pp. 44, 48.
4. Schacht, loc.cit.
5. Coulson, op. cit., p. 201.
6. Ibid.

244
APPENDICES
 .. "
.

, APPENDIXI,

' ,OBROlmLOGY OF ' SBlaWALl ALLÏH"S' WRlœII~GS

, ~hefollowing ;la, 't he ~o;nology : otsomeotthe
importan't worka, of. 'Sh~ ., WaJ.t' .All'l.h •. ' We
.: ,. .
,have ' df)terJnined
. ': :' , ' .
.
" .

, . .
ih:e~e dates and ' per1Qds, .tr~ 'eome 1nternal and. e~temlal ,
. . , '

eavidenoês found 1llh1$

.' .
'ilr1ti'tlglh
.. . . '

"Q'pto 1142 A.;a. 1Ù~l3U4~ "al.~~b:1&AAh

d al_~ ' âl~Kath1i" '
,a'wS:l '· ,al·..~Ah.dtth
... . . .
', ," ' '.

1142-l159 A.H ..
. "

•• ...;.. 1143 A.~. al.:'Fawz

" .. ,... .
à1 ...Xabtr
.:. . . . " ,

1143-1151A.H. Fat,h '. al-RH!g§ "

1143-1146 A.H. ~i:..al~i~. ., -, ', ' ~

1149- •• A.H. Anne ' !l~f·iri'gp

•• - 1153 A.H. ai-Intibl.}l '

1154-1155 A.H. ~ujjat All~ al..Bâl1shah

al-In,1:t
•• -
,
1156 A.H. '
Al1;l1{al.-Quds
Hawbi~'

al-Qa.w1 a.l ....Ja.mIl

246
 247

•• - 1159 A.H. Dari !l!a:r~;U.m Abwâb al-Bukh'ftrl

...,..... 116oA a.·
4I Qsrra t, aJ.:"';AYnarn '
.~- 1162' A.H .. "lad al-na.
al-Musaww4
al-I.ft18att4
IaUat al-KhaB
e 248
APPENDIX II
TRAHSLITEBA nON TABLE

~~~l.l9.Q!y '.1l 9 ;:t f initial: unexpress~ 1- medial · and final: J

Arabie Persian 1'urlti.sh U1'du Arabie Fenian Turkieh Urdu

~ b b b b LJ'> ~
, , ,
'-'
':' p p p J- ~ ..z z ..
Z

.b ~ ~, ~ ~
t.::.I

J!,
't t t t
J:; ~
, f' ,
,~ th 1. .!.
.1
1. t
, , t t

~ j j c j t. sb gh Il È.
~ t
,
f f f
G:. oh Cf ch

c. 0 Q. Q. q
\l ~ li \l
~ k k k ,k
t th ') ch
h kll
~ d' d d d .1' g g g
; 1.
ii
;, à \,:.1

;) db .! .! .!. J l l l l

)
~
r r r r r m
n
m
n
m
n
•
n
,
Ù
) ' !:
) z z z z . u

J
. zh
Il h h h h

If B
zh
B
zh
S a , w v v v
.
v:. sh ah sh ...s Y' Y Y "1
Il

Vowe1a, diphthongs, etc.

short: -
, a. -;; 1; -
. ~
u•

. long: \ i;..J ü, and in Pera1an and Urdu &lso renderad 0; .'ri i. alld Ùl Urdu.
alao rcclered br i, ~ (in Urdu) i.
, ,
al i f maqpûrah 1 :..s ,. diphth0DP& fJ ~" av.
l',.J _ tI' ... , _
~Oftg vith taehdid: . -+.; 1,., " 1lV&. ji' marbiits, b. ah; iD.!ürS: a t.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbot, Fre:elaild, "The Decline of the Mughul Empire and

Shah Waliyullah" , in The Muslim World, Hartford,
52:116-123 (1962).
'Abdu-l-'Az!z, Shah. Fava'id-i Jami'ah bar 'Ujalah-'i
Nafi'ah, with tr. and comm. M~ammad 'Abdu-l-ijalïm
Chishtî, Karachi, Nlur M~ammad, 1964.
Malfü~at-i Shah 'Abdu-l-'Azîz,Urdü tr. M~ammad

'Ali Lu~fî and Inti~am Allah Shihabï, Karachi, 1960.

---_. Surür-i 'Azizî al-ma'rüf [tarjamah] Fatav~ 'Azîzï,

tr. M~ammad 'Abdu-l-vajid Nlulavî Ghazîpüxî, 2 vols.,
Kanpur, 1926.
'Abdu-l-aaqq, Shaykh. SharÙ-i Sifru-s-Sa'adat (al-Minhaju-l-
Qavîm fi SharQ al-Sirat al-Mustagîm), 2nd ed., Lucknow,
Nivalkishôr, 1885.
"Ta~~ïl al-Ta'arruf fï Ma'rifat al-Fiqh wa al-
Ta~awwuf", MS. photostat copy in the possession of
Maw·l ana M~ammad 'Abdu-l-Ualîm Chishtî.
Abdur Rahim. The Principles of Muhammadan Jurisprudence,
Lahore, 1963.
Abü Zahrah, M~ammad. Abü Hrul.ifah, Cairo [1947J.
Abü Zahw, M~ammad M~ammad. al-Hadith ~ al-MUQaddithün,
[Cairo], Ma~ba'ah Mi~r, 1958.
Ahmad, Aziz. "Politica1 and religious ideas of Shah Wali-
ullah of Delhi", in The Muslim World, Hartford,52:22-30
(1962) •
250
o 251
Ahmad, Aziz. Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian
Environment, Oxford, 1964.
~ad, Bashîr. Imam Vali Allah D1h1avï awr un ka falsafah-'i
'umranïyat ~ ma'ashïyat, Lahore, 1945.
~ad, Bashlru-d-D1n. V:agi'at-i Daru-l-Hukümat-i Dihll,
3 vols., Agra, 1919.
Ahmad, M.G. Zubaid. The Contribution of India to Arabic
Literature, Lahore, S.M. Ashraf, 1967.
Al;unad Khan, Mu'înu-d-Dîn. "Shah. Walï Allah' s Conception of
Ijtihad" , in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society,
vol. VII, part III, pp. 165-94 (1959).
~mad Nagarî, 'Abd al-Nabî, al-. Jami' al-'Ulum, al-
Mulaggab bi Dustür al-'Ulama', 4 vols., Hyderabad(Dn.),
1329 A.H.
'Alam, Ab~ë.r. "Fatawa 'Alamgîrî", in Chiragh-i ~, Islamï
ganün nambar, Karachi, XII: 6, pp. 399-413 (June 1958).
Al-Furqan, Shah Valïyullah Nambar, Bareilly, VII, 9-12,
1359 A.H.
'Ali, Ra~an. Tazkirah-'i 'Ulama'ë ~, 2nd ed., Lucknow,
Nivalkishor, 1914.
AmInï, Mu1;lammad Taqi. Figh-i Islam! ka Tarîkhï ~ Man~ar,

Lahore [1961].
Mas'alah-'i ijtihad par tabgïgï na~ar, Ajmer
[1962].
Amîru-r-Ri vaya t, Amïr Shah Khan, et al. ArvaQ-i ~alaSah,

ed. M~ammad ~ayyib, 3rd ed., Saharanpur, 1370 A.H.

e 252

Ansari, Zafar Ishaq. IlShah Wali Allah and Fighi Disagree-

ments", in Igbal, Lahore, vol. XV, No.3, pp. 44-52
(January, 1967).
Ar-Ra.b.ïm, Hyderabad (Pak.), vol. l, no. l, June, 1963_ __
Asîrî, Fazl-e M~üd. "Shah Walî Allâb, in Visva - Bharatî
Annals, IV (1951).
"Shah Walî Allâh as a politician" , in Islamic
Literature, vol. VII, no. 3, pp. 35-41 (March, 1955).
'Asqalanî, Ibn ~ajar al-. Tahdhîb al-Tahdhïb, 12 vols.,
Hyderabad (Dn.), 1325 -- 1327 A.H.
Àzad Bilgiramî, Mir ~hulam 'Ali. Ma'asiru-l-Kiram, ed.
'Abd Allâh Khan, 2 vols., Agra/Lahore, 19l0~19l3.

Baghdadî, al-Kha~îb al-. Ta'rîkh Baghdad, 14 vols., Cairo,

1931.
Bakhsh Dihlavi, M. R~îm. Bayat-i Valî [2nd ed.], Lahore,
1955.
Baqi, Muhammad Abdul. "Theories of state and problems of
socio1ogy as expounded by an Indian Muslim divine of the
eighteenth century", in Islamic, Review, Woking, vol. 38,
no. 10, pp. 9-14 (October, 1950).
Bausani, Alessandro. "Note su Shah Waliullah di Delhi" in
Annali de 11'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli,
Nouva Serie, 10:93-147 (1961).
Biharî, Mu~ibb Allah. Musallam al-Thubüt, Delhi, al-Ma~ba'

al-An;?a.rî, 1899.
 253

Bübak"ânî, M~ammad Ja' far, -al. al-M at'âna h fi Marammat

al-Kh iz'ân ah, ed. Abü Sa'ïd Ghulan
ç Mu~J;af~ al-Q asim î,
Kara chi, The Sind hi Adabi Boar d, 1962 .
Coul son, N.J. A Histo ry of Islam ic Law, Edin burgh [196 4].
Dar, B.A. "Wali Alla h: His life and Time", in Igba l Revie
w,
Kara chi, vol. VI, no.3 , pp. 1-36 (Oct . 1965 ).
Dhah abI, Shams al-D ln, al-. Mizan al-I 'tida l fi Nagd
al-R ija1, 3 vols . Ca.:iX.o, 1325 A.H.
Ency clope dia Amer icana , The. 30 vols ., New York , Amer icana
Corp orati on, 1963 .
Ency clopa edia of Islam , 4 vols ., lst ed., London, 1913 -1938
.
EncY lopae dia of Islam , 2 vols ., New ed., Leid en, 1961 .
F~ï, Sayy id ~uru-d-Dïn ~usayn, Comp. Fakh ru-t- Ta1b in,
Delh i, Maj;ba' Mujt aba'i , 1315 A.H.
Fatta nï, Muhammad b. ~ahir, al-. Tadh kirat al-Maw~ü'ât,
Cairo , 1343 A.H.
Fataw~ al-'ll amg ïrïya h, al-., 6 vols ., Cairo , Bula q Pres s,
1276 A.H.
Ghaz alî, Abü Hamid M~ammad, al-o. Ibya ' 'UIÜn1 al-D ïn,
4 vols ., Cairo , 1939 .
Gibb , H.A.R. Modern Trend s in Islam , Chic ago, Chica go
Univ ersit y Pres s, 1947 .
Gïla ni, Mana~ir ~san. Hind üstan mën Musalmanôn ka Ni~am-i
Ta'lî m-o Tarb îyat, 2 vols ., Delh i, 1944 .
2:=)
\oc.:,,~'

--- _. Tazk irah Hafir at Shah Val! Allah , 4th ed.,

Kara chi, 1965 .
 254
Godh ravï, Abü- l-Ula ' M~ammad Isma 'Il. Valî Allah ,
Delh i, Jami 'ah Prés, n.d.
aala bî, Ibrah îm, al-. Ghunyat al-M utam allï sharQ Munyat
al-Mueallî(Ualabî-~i Sagh ïr), Cons tanti nopl e,
Shirk at
~~aftyah -'i 'Uthm anlya h, 1325 A.H.
Hale pta, A.J. Philo sphy of Shah Wali ullah , 2 vols ., Hyderabad
(Pak .), 1962 .
Hamiuddin Kh~,M. Histo ry of Muslim Educ ation , vol. 1,
Kara chi, AlI Paki stan Educ ation al Conf erenc e,196 7-68.
aanb all, Shâk ir al-. USül al Figh al-Is lamî , Damascus,1948.
Hasan !Qhan, Mub-ammad :;Iiddîq. Abjad al-'U lum, Bhop al,
1295 A.H.
--_ . Hida yat al-s a'il il~ Adil lat al-M asa'i l,
Bhop al, 1292 A.H.
al-M ittah ~ ~ikr Sibag al-S ittah , Kanpur ,1866 .
--_ . Ibga 'u-I-M inan ~ Ilga ' i-l-M iQan , Bhop al,
1305 A.H.
Itba f al-N ubal a', Kanpur, 1871 .
--- "
NafQ u-t-X ib min Zikr i-l-M anzil va-l- Uabî b [ed.
ëu1f iqar ~ad Naqv ï, li al, Bhop al, Maiba' ~iddîqï,
1296 A.H. ].
Tarju man- i Vahhablyah ma'ah Mu'~hadah-'i
Ittita gîya h, Laho re, Maiba' M~ammadî, 1312 A.H.
~asanl, 'Abd al-aa yy al-. Nuzhat al-K hawa tir ~ Bahj at
al-Ma sami ' ~ al-Nawa~ir, 7 vols .• , Hyderabad (Dn. ) ,
1350 -1378 A.H.
 255

~asani, 'Abd al-~ayy al-. al-Thaqafah al-Islamiyah fi

al-Hind [Ma'arif al-'Awarif fi Anwa' al-'UlÜID ~

al-Ma'arif], Damascus, 1958.

~ayrat Dihlavi, Mirza. Eayat-i ïayyibah, 3rd ed., Lahore,
Maktabatu-s-Salam, 1958.
Haythamï, 'Ali b. abi Bakr, al-. Majma' al-Zawa'id ~

Manba' al-Fawa'id, 2 vols., Cairo, Maktabat al-Qudsï,

1352 A.H.
Husain, Mahmud, et al., eds. A History -of the Freedom
Movement 1707-1947, vol. ' l, Karachi, Pakistan Historical
Society, 1957.
~usayn Dihlavî, Sayyid Na~ir. Mi'yaru-l-Eaqg, 3rd ed.,
Kasur, 1965.
Ibn KhaldUn. al-Mugaddimah, Beirut, n.d.
Ibn Mulla Farrukh, M~ammad ibn 'Abd al-A~im. al-Qawl
al-Sadid fi ba'~ Masa'il al-Ijtihad wa al-Taglîd, ed.
M~ammad Rashid Ri~a, Cairo, 1332 A.H.
Ibn Rushd Mutlammad. Bidayat al-Mujtahid ~ Nihayat al-
Mugta~id, 2 vols. 3rd ed., Cairo, 1960.
Ikram, Shaykh M~ammad. History of Muslim Civilisation in
India and Pakistan, Lahore, n.d.
Ra~d-i Kaw~ar, Lahore, Ferozsons, 1958.
Iqbal, Muhammad. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought
in Islam, Lahol:'~, Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1965.
Is~aq, M~ammad. India's Contribution to the study of
 256
Hadîth Literature, Dacca, The University of Dacca,1955.
Jalbânî, Ghulâm ijusayn. Shah Walî Allah kî Ta'lîm,
ijaydarâbad Pâk, Shah Walî Allah Akëdimï, 1963.
Jalbani, G.N. Teachings of âhah Walîyullah of Delhi, Lahore,
Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1967.
Kamalî, ~abîl;1 Atunad. "The concept of Human Nature in ijuJjat
Ullah al-Balighah and its Relation to Shah Walîy Ullah's
Doctrine of Fiqh", typescript, doctoral dissertation,
Library of the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill
University, approved for the degree 1959. This thesis
has been partially published in Islamic Culture,
36:207-224, 256-274 (1962).
Kananî, Abü a1-ijasan 'Alî, a1-. Tanzih al-Sharî'ah al-
Ma~rüfah 'an al-Akhbar al-Shanî'ah al-Maw~u'ah,Cairo,n.d.

K8.ndhlavî, Mul;1ammad 'Alî Siddï·q ï. Imam-i A' zam §.!!: .

'Ilmu-l-Hadïs, Sialkot, 1966.

~ Valïyullah ~ Taglïd, Sialkot, n.d.
Kâshgharï, Sadîd al-Dîn M~ammad, al-. Munyat al-Mueallî,
Bombay, Matba' Gulzar-i ijusaynï, 1317 A.H.
Kawtharï, Mul;1ammad Zahid, al-. Bulugh al-Amânî f i Sîrat al-
Imam MHQammad ~. al-Hasan al-Shaybânî, Cairo, 1355 A.H.
Husn al-taga~ï fi sîrat .al-Imam Abî Yüsuf al-
Qa~î, Cairo, 1948.
Magalat al-Kawtharî, ed. Mul;1ammad Yüsuf al-
BahüXï:"Cairo, 1373 A.H.
~ 257

Kaydanî, Lutf Allah al-Nasafî al-Fa~il, al-. Khulaeat

al-Kaydanî, Karachi, Nlur M~ammad, n.d.
Khu~arî, M~ammad, al-. U~ül al-Figh, 4th ed., Cairo,1962.
Kinlanî, 'Alî b. M~ammad, al-. Tanzîh al-Sharî'at al-Marfü'ah
Cairo [1378 A.H.].
MadkUr, M~ammad Sallam. al-Madkhal li al-Figh al-Islâmî,
2nd ed., Cairo, 1963.
Mahdi, Muhsin. Ibn Khald~'s Philosophy of History,
London, 1957.
Makkï, al-Muwaffaq, al-. Managib al-Imam al-A'~am Abî
ijanîfah, 2 vols., Hyderabad, Dn., 1321 A.H.
Malik, Hafeez. Moslem Nationalism in India and Pakistan,
Washington D.C., 1963.
Mashhadî, Abü-l-Khayr M~ammad Mu'inu-d-Dîn al-K8.!,avï, al-
. K8.~imî, al-. Tibyan fi AQkam-i Shurb al-Dukhan, 2nd ed.,
Kanpur, Nivalkishor, 1914.
Ma'~ümî, M.Saghîr Uasan. "al-Shah Walî Allah al-M~add-ith

al-Dihlawï wa Kitabuh al-Budüx al-Bazighah", in al-

Dirasat al-Islamîyah, 2:3 (September,1967) , pp.14-32.
"An appreciation of Shah Walîyullah al-M~addith

ad-Dihlawi" , in Islamic Culture, 21:340-352 (1947).

Mawdüdî, Abü-l-A'lâ. Tajdîd va iQya'ë dîn, [6th ed.],
Lahore, Jama'at-i Islam! [1955J.
M~ammad Jihlumî, Faqîr. Hada'igu-l-aanafïyah, [Lakhna'ü],
Nivalkishor, [1886].
 258

M~ammad Shah, Sayyid, ed. Payghâm-i ~aqq, Shah Valî Allah

nambar, Lahore, XIV, 2, August, 1948.
M~sinî, Shamsu=r-Ra~an. Shah Valî Allâh kë 'umranï
na~~rîyë, Lahore, Sindh Sagar Akâdimï [1946].
Mujeeb, M. The Indian Mulsims, Montreal, McGill University
Press, 1967.
Mulla Jïvan, ~ad b. Abî Sa'îd alias. Nïur al-Anwâr [fî
shari al-Manâr], Lahore, Malik Sirâju-d-Dîn, 1957.
[al-] Tafsîrât [al-] AQmadîYah, ed., 'Abdu-l-
Karîm and 'Abdu-l-Latîf, Deoband, n.d.
Muradâbâdî, Abü-l-Khayr M~ammad, ed., & Comp., Kalimât-i
îayyibat, Murâdâbâd, Matba' Matla'-u-l-'UlÜID, 1891.
Nadvï, Abü-l-:ijasan 'Alî. IIIjtihad awr taqlïd, Ibn Taymïyah
awr Shah Walî Allâh kî na~ar më:ç.", in Chiragh.-i Rah,
Islâmî ganfrn nambar, Karachi, XII: 7, pp.114-121
(July, 1958).
Nadvi, Abü-l-ijasanât. Hindüstan kî gadîm Islamî darsgâhë:p.,
A'~amgarh, Ma'arif, 1936.
Nadvi, Mas'üd 'Alam. Na~arat ijmâlïyah fî ta'rîkh al-
da'wat al-Islâmïyah f i al-Hind wa al-Bâkistan,Rawalpindi
and Lahore, [circa 1950].
Nadvî, S.Sulayman. "Hindüstan mën 'Ilm-i ijadîs", in
Ma'ârif, Azamgarh, 22:4-5, pp. 250-271, 328-349.
Ni~âmî, Khalîq ~ad. J,;Iayât-i Shaykh 'Abdu-l-ijagg
M~addi~ Dihlavî, Delhi, Nadvatu-l-Mu~annifîn,1953.
 259

Ni~amî, Khaliq Ahmad. "Shah Wali-ullah Dehlavi and

Indian Politics in the 18th.century", in Islamic
Culture, 25:133-145 (1951).
NOshahravî, Abü Y~y~ Imam Khan. Tarajim-i 'Ulama'ë
~adîs-i Hind, vol. I, Delhi, 1356 A.H.!1937.
Nu'manî, M~ammad .'Abdu-r-Rashîd. Imam Ibn Majah 'Ilm-i
aadï~, Karachi, ~ur M~ammad [1376 A.H.].
Nu'manî, Shiblï. 'Ilmu-l-Kalam awr al-Kalam, Karachi,
Mas'üd Pablishing Ha'us, 1964.
Qudürî, Atunad b. MuJ;lammad, al-. al-Mukh ta~ar ed. and
Comm., Ghulam Mu~ta~â al-Qasimî, 2nd ed., Karachi,
~ur MuJ;lammad, 1964.
Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husain. The Muslim Community of the Indo-
Pakistan Subcontinent (610~1947), 'S-Gravenhage,
Mouton & Co., 1962.
Rahman, Fazlur. "Muslim Modernism in the Indo-Pakistan
Subcontinent" , in BSOAS, XXI (1958), pp.82-99.
Rahman,. "The Thinker of Crisis - Shah Waliy-ullah", in
Pakistan Quarterly, Karachi, vol. 6, no.2, pp.44-48
(1956) •
Islam, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966.
Islamic Methodology in History, Karachi, Central
Institute of Islamic Research, 1956.
:;ladru-d-Dîn, Muttammad. al-Durr al-ManQ.üd f i J;Iuk:m Imra'at
al-Mafgüd, [Delhi], Matba' A~adI, n.d.
o 2~
Sahisvanî, M~ammad 'Abdu-l-Baqî. al-Yagüt wa al-Marjan
fî Dhikr 'Ulama' Sahiswan al-ma'rüf[~] Hayat al-
'Ulamâ', Lucknow, Nivalkishor, 1922.
Sa'îd, Shaykh M~ammad. Maktübat-i Sa'îdîyah, ed. 'Abdu-l-
Majîd ~ad Sayfî, Lahore, Maktabah-'~ Uakîm Sayfî,
1385 A.H.
Sa'îdî, 'Abd al-Muta'al. al-MujaddidUn fi al-Islam:
100-1370 A.H. (700-1950). a1-Qahirah, [1959J.
Sakhawî, M.' Abd al-RaÇ.man,a1-. a1-Magasid al-Hasanah,
Cairo, Maktabat al-Khanjî, 1956.
Salafî, Muhammad Isma'î1. Taprîki Azadi-'i Fikr awr
Hazrat Shah Valîyullah kî Tajdîdî Masa'î, Chichawatni,
Maktabah Na~îrîyah, 1968.
Sha' ranî, 'Abd al-Wahhab, al-. al-Nizan a1-Kbr~, 2 vols.,
Cairo, Dar I~ya' al-Kutub al-'Arabîyah, n.d.
Sharif, M.M., ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 2 vols.,
Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1966.
Shaybanî, M~ammad ibn al-Uasan al, al-Iktisab fî al-rizg
al-mustatab, ed. MaQmüd 'Arnüs, Cairo, Matba'a a1-
Anwar, 1938.
Shayyal, J. a1-. Mubaqarat 'an al-Qarakat al-islaQïyah,
Qahirah, 1957. pp.34-51.
Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1953.
Sindhî, Rushd Allah Shah, al-. Kashf al-Asrar 'an Rijal
.0.....
,,;,.)
:

It,,;.. .', ; Ma'anî al-Athar, ed. M~ammad ShafI', Deoband, 1930 •

, 261

Sindhï, 'Ubayd Allah. Shah Valî Allah awr Qur1an va

Qadîs, Dihlï, 1ulü'-i Islam, n.d.
Sh8.h Valî Allah awr un ka falsafa, ya'nî imam
Valî Allah kï Qikmat ka ijmalï ta'aruf, ed. M~ammad

Sarvar,[3rd ed.] Lahore, Sindh Sagar Akadimi, [1964].

_______ • Shah Valî Allah awr un kî siyasî taQrîk, 2nd ed.,
Lahore, Sindh Sagar Akadimi, 1944.
Sindï, 'Abd al-Latif, al-. Dhabb Dhubâbat 'an al-MadhBhib
al-Arba'ah al-Mutanasibât, ed. M~ammad 'Abdu-r-Rashîd
al-Nu'mânî, 2 vols., Karachi, The Sindhi Adabi Board,
1959-61.
Sindï, M~ammad Mu'în, al-. Dirasat al-Labïb f i al-Uswah
al-ijasanah bï al-ijabîb~ ed. M~ammad 'Abdu-r-Rashîd
al-Nu'manî, Karachi, The Sindhi Adabî Board, 1957.
Sirhindî, Shaykh ~ad. Maktübat-i Imâm Rabbanî, 3 vols.,
3rd ed., Lucknow, Nivalkishor, 1886.
Siyalkotï, Muhammad Ibrahîm Mir. Tarikh-i Ahl-i ijadîs
-,
Lahore, 1953.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Islam in Modern Ristory, Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1957.
"The 'Ulamâ' in Indian politics" in C.R.Philips,
ed. Politics and Society in India, London George Allen
and Unwin, 1963, pp. 39-51.
Sufi, G.M.D. AI-Minhâj being the Evolution of Curriculum
in the Muslim Educational Institutions of India, Lahore,
 262

Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1941.

Suyütî, Jalal al-Dîn 'Abd al-Ra~an, al-. al-La'alï
al-masnü'ah f i al-aQadïth al-maw~u'ah, 2 vols., Cair?,
al-Maktabat al-Uusaynïyat al-Mi~rïyah [1352 A.Ho].
Thanësarï, Shaykh Jalalu-d-Dîn. TaQaggug [sic. TaQgïg]
Ara§î [al-] Hind, [Delhi], Matba' AVmadï, 1303 A.Ho
Tirhatî, M~ammad alias, M~sin ibn Ya~yâ, al-. al-Y-anî'
al-janî f i asanîd al-Shaykh 'Abd al-Ghanî, published on
the margin of Rushd Allah Shah al-Sindhï, Kashf al-
Astar 'an Rijal Ma'ënî al-Athar, ed. Muhammad Shafî',
Deoband, 1930.
Titus, M.T. Indian Islam; a religious history of Islam in
India, 2nd edo, Calcutta, Y.M.C.A. Publishing House,
1,959.
Walï Allah, Shah. Altaf al-Quds f i Ma'rifat Lata'if al-
Nafs, with Urdü tr. 'Abdu-l-Uamîd Suvatî, Gujranwala,
Madrasah-'i Nu~ratu-l-'Ulüm, 1964.
Allias al-'Arifîn, Delhi, Matba' Mujtaba'î, 1917.

Atyab al-nagham fi madQ Sayyid al-Arab wa al-'Ajam,

ed. M~ammad Ma~har ijasan Muradabadi, Murad ab ad , Matba'
Munshî Amjad 'Alî [1304 A.H.].
al-Budür a1-Bazighah, Cede M~ammad Ra~a'],
Dabhel, al-Majlis al-'I1mî, 1936.
(al-] Durr a1-Thamïn f i Mubashsharat al-Nabi al-
o 263

Amïn, 2nd ed., Delh i, Hind ustan Prin ting Vark s, n.d.
FatQ al-kh abîr bimâ lâ budd min biffi h fi 'ilm
al-ta fsïr, publ ished with Walï Allâ h, al-Fa wz al-k abîr
,
Laho re, Matb a' Muhammadî, [1300 A.H. ].
FatQ al-Ra bmân bi tarja mat al-Q ur'ân , Kara chi,
~ür M~ammad, n.d.
Figh -i 'Uma r, tarja mah Risâ lah dar mazh ab-i

Farü g-i A'~am, Urdü tr. Abü Ya~y~ Imam ~ân NOsh ahrav î,
Laho re, Idar ah-'i .§.aq âfat- i ISlâm îyah ,i952 .
Fuyü~
al-Ba rama yn, with Urdu tr., tr. 'lbid u-r-
Rabmân Sidd îqî ~andhlavï, Kara chi, M~ammad Sa'îd a~d
Sanz , n.d.
Ham a'ât, ed. and com. ~uru-l-Uaqq al-'A lavî and
Ghulâm Mu~tafâ Qâsim î, Hyd erab ad , Pak. , Shâh Valî yullâ h
Akëd ïmî, n.d.
Havâ mi' SharQ Eizb u-l-b aQr, Delh i, Matb a' ~madî,
1302 A.H.
Eujj at Allah al-B âligh ah, ma' tarja mah Urdü Ni'm at
Allah al-sâ bigh ah, tr. Abü M~ammad 'Abd u-l-U aqq ~aqqa
nï,
ed. Mubammad Latï f va Mi'r âj M~ammad Bâriq , 2 vols .,
Kara chi, Nlur Mubammad, n.d. [195 3?].
al-In lilâf fi Baya n Asbab al-Ik htilâ f, with Ur'dü
tr. Kash shâf, tr. M~ammad Absa n Sidd ïqî ~anotavî,
Delh i, Matb a' Mujt abâ'î , 1935 [-36 J. [See also Walï
Allah , Kash shaf ••• ].
 264
Walî Allah, Shah. "al-Intibë.h f i Salasil Awliya' Allah",
MS. copy in the possession of Mawlanâ Mu1;;l.ammad 'Abdu-r--
Rashîd Nu'manî.
'Igd al-Jîd f i AQkam al-Ijtihad wa al-Taglîd,
with Urdü tr. Mu1;;l.ammad A~san Siddïqi ~anotavi, Silk-i
Marvaxîd, Delhi, Ma~ba' Mujtabâ'î, 1344/[1926]. [See
also Walî Allah, Silk-i Marvarîd ••• ].
al-Irshâd itamuhimmât 'ilm al-asnad, Delhi,
Ma~ba' A~adï, 1307 A.H.
Izalat al-khafa 'an khilâfat al-khulafa', ed.
Mu1;;l.ammad ~san Siddlqï Nanotavï, 2 vols., Bareilly,
Ma~ba' ~iddïqi, [1286/1869J.
Kashshaf fi tarjamat-i In~âf, with Urdü tr.
Mu1;;l.ammad ~san ~iddîqï ~anotavï, [2nd ed.,], Delhi,
Matba' Mujtabâ'i, 1935[-1936].
al-Khayr al-Kathïr, Cede Mu1;;l.ammad ~ad RaHâ' ,
Dabhel, al-Majlis al-'Ilmï, [1934].
LamaQât, ed. Ghulâm Mu~tafa al-Qasimi, Hyderabad
(Pak.), Shâh Walîyullah Academy, 1964.
Majmü'ah va~ayâ-'i arba'ah, ed. tranSe Mu1;;l.ammad
Ayyüb Qâdirî, Hyderabad (Pak.), Shah Valiyullah
Akë.9:.imî, 1964.
r1aktüba t ma' ah manâgi b-i Abî 'Abd Allah Mu1;;l.ammad
ibn Isma'îl al-Bukhari va faüïlat-i Ibn-i Taymiyah,
C'>.:<, '/.""\
-7'~·

Delhi, Matba' ~adI, n.d.

 265
Walî Allah, Shâh. Mu~affd [shar~ Fârsî Muwakka' Imâm

Malik], ed. [Ashfaqu-r-R~ân and Kifâyat Allah],

2 vols., Delhi, Kutub Khânah R~îmîyah, 1346-1347 A.H.
Musawwa [shar~ 'Arabî Muwakka' Imam Malik], ed.
[Ashfâqu-r-R~an and Kifâyat Allah], 2 vols., Delhi,

Kutub Khânah Ra~îmiyah, 1346-1347 A.H.

al-Qawl al-jamîl ma' shari UrdU Shifâ' al-'alil
[tr. !hurram 'Alî Balhorî; comm. Shâh 'Abdu-l-'Azîz
and Qutbu-d.Dîn ~ân], Kanpur, Matba' Majîdî, 1938.
Qurrat al-'aynayn f i taf~îl al-Shaykhayn, [ed.
and commentary M~ammad ~san ~iddîqî Nânotavî,
Delhi, Matba' Mujtaba'î, 1310 A.H.
Sharb tarâjim abwab SaQi9 al-Bukhârî, with al-
Bukhârî, SatîQ al-Bukharî, 2nd ed., Karachi, Nrur
M~ammad, 1961.
Sata'ât, ed. and comrn. Ghulam Mu~tafa al-Qasimï,
Hyderabad (Pak.), Shah Valîyullâh Akëdimî, 1964.
Shah Valîyullah Dihlavî kë siyasî maktUbât, ed.
Khalîq ~ad Ni~âmî, Aligarh, Muslim University, 1950.
Silk-i marvarïd, tarjamah-'i 'Igd al-jîd, with
Urdü tr. M~ammad ~san Siddîqî Nranotavî, Delhi, Mat~a'

Mujtaba'î, 1344 A.H.

al-Tafhîmât al-Ilâhîyah,[ed., M~aIDlliad ~mad

Ra~â'], 2 vols., Dabhe1, a1-Maj1is al-'Ilmi, 1936.

Ta'wîl al-AQadîth fi Rumuz gi~a~al-anbiya~,
 266

ed. Ghulam Mu~taf~ al-Qâsimi, Hyderabad (Pak.),

Shah Valïyullâh Akëdimi, 1966.
yasin, M. A Social History of Islamic India, 1605-1748,
Lucknow, Upper India Publishing House, 1958.
Zâ' ir Ilah"âbadï, Mub-ammad Fakhir. Ris'âlah Naja tiyah
('Aga'id-i Salafïyah tarjamah Risalah Najatiyah),
ed. M~ammad Siddiq ijasan Khan, tr. M~ammad Is~aq,

Lahore, Jam'ïyat ~l-i ~adï~, [1956].

uiya', M~ammad 'Abdu-r-Ra~im. Magalat-i tarigat ma'rüf
bih Fa~a'i1-i 'Azizïyah, Hyderabad [Dn.], Matba' Matin
Kart~, 1292-93 A.H.