Mawara an-nahr (or Transoxiana) — what is beyond the Amu Darya — is the ancient name used for the portion ofCentral Asiacorresponding approximately to modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, southernKyrgyzstanand southwestKazakhstan. Medieval biographical source attest that most of the scientific centers of Transoxiana operated in the territory of modern-day Uzbekistan. Institutions of Islamic legal teaching in Bukhara, Samarqand, Nasaf and Dabusiya served as alma mater to thousands of Hanafite fuqahā’. The Uzbekistani jurisprudents produced a huge corpus of Islamic legal literature which later served as the basis for jurisprudents of other Hanafite regions like India, the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans. In this article I will try to show how legal opinions of Uzbek Hanafite scholars were adapted by the jurisprudents in Iran.
Jawāhir al-fatāwā (Arab. “Pearls of Fatwās”), an object of this study, was compiled by Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ‘Abd ar-Rashīd al-Kirmānī [GAL SB 1: 641, 13a]. The book has been studied by neither Muslim, nor Western Islamicists so far. There are more than ten copies in Istanbul while there are several others in European libraries. Attribution of the work to Muḥammad al-Kirmānī is indisputable since the author’s name is stated in the beginning of each manuscript.
This work is of importance for at least two matters:
‒ to elucidate scientific interaction between Central Asian and Khurasani jurists up the end of the 6th/12th century;
‒ through many fragments in JF we will be able to have reliable information on the content of the lost Hanafite sources.
Apart from the JF, bibliographical sources tell us about three more books written by our author Muḥammad al-Kirmānī:
‒ Zahrat al-anwār[HA 2: 96] on hadith subject.
‒ Ghurar al-ma‘ānī fi fatāwā Abi-l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī[HA 2: 96; FB 176]. In this book, Abū Bakr Muḥammad commented fatwas of his mentor Abu-l-Faḍl.
‒ Ḥairat al-fatāwā [HA 2: 96; FB 176]. None of these three works seem to have survived.
Muḥammad al-Kirmānī’s first mentor was Jamāl ad-dīn al-Yazdī (d. 591/1195) [FB 215] whom he mentions at the very beginning of the book: “When I asked our master (shaikh) Jamāl ad-dīn al-Yazdī he answered that....” (fol. 3a). In some Hanafite MSs al-Yazdī is written as ‘al-Bazdawī’, consequently Shihāb ad-dīn al-Ḥamawī (d. 1687) and Ibn ‘Abidīn (1783–1836) erroneously cited this name as Jamāl ad-dīn al-Bazdawī. Al-Yazdi’s full name is al-qādī Abū Sa‘d Jamāl ad-dīn al-Muṭahhar b. al-Ḥasan b. Sa‘īd b. ‘Alī b. Bundār al-Yazdī [JM 3: 485]. Yazdī wrote several books including at-Tahdhīb Sharḥ al-Jāmiʻ aṣ-ṣaghīr, which was finished in Jumādā I 559 / April 1164 [KZ 1: 563].
2) Rukn ad-dīn aṣ-Ṣadr as-saʽīd Abu-l-Faḍl ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān b. Amīrūya al-Kirmānī (b. Shawwāl 457/September 1065 in Kirman — d. Dhu-l-Qaʻda 20, 543/2.4.1149 in Marw) [JM 2: 388–90, 4: 74–5: FB 91–2; GAL SB 1: 641, № 13]. He was more productive jurisprudent, and titles of at least six of his works are known to us:
at-Tajrīd ar-ruknī fi-l-furūʻ [KZ 1: 345]. It comes to us in three copies: Kütahya İl Halk Kütüphanesi (Turkey), Köprülü 540 (Turkey) and al-Aqsa Mosque library 94 (Jerusalem). A critical edition of the text was published in Saudi Arabia.
al-Īḍāh fi sharḥ at-Tajrīd. According to Ḥājjī Khalīfa, this commentary consisted of three volumes [KZ 1: 345]. It is suggested that copies of this book have not been found so far.
Fatāwā Abi-l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī [KZ 2: 1220].
Kitāb al-ḥaiḍ [KZ 2: 1414].
Sharḥ Jāmiʻ aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd [KZ 1: 563].
Sharḥ al-Jāmiʻ al-kabīr [KZ 1: 569].
It is suggested that Abu-l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī was influenced by Mu‘tazilite authors for he lived for a while in Khwarazm. His teachers line to Abū Ḥanīfa is as follows: Fakhr al-quḍāt Abū Bakr al-Arsābandī (d. 512/1118) [JM 3: 145–46] — al-qāḍī al-Marwazī — Abu Zaid ad-Dabusi (d. 430/1039) — Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981) — Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Karkhī (d. 340/951) ─ Abū Saʽīd al-Bardaʽī (d. 317/929–30) ─ Nuṣair b. Mūsā ar-Rāzī ─ Muḥammad as-Shaibānī (d. 189/804) ─ Abū Ḥanīfa. However, al-Kirmānī’s attitude towards Muʻtazilism needs to be proved against the chapter on theology in the book (fol. 318v-333v).
Quotations from Jawāhir al-fatāwā could be found in almost all Hanafi works written after the 6th/12th century. Moreover, al-Ghazmīnī (d. 658/1260) (Qunyat al-munya) used Arabic lettersfā’-kāf to mark fatwas of al-Kirmani. Jawāhir al-fatāwā also served one of a few sources to al-Fatāwā an-naqshbandīya, a 11th/17th century fatwās collection from the Indian subcontinent.
As a traditional Hanafi work, JFhas the same structure as others: it begins with kitāb aṭ-ṭahārah, kitāb aṣ-ṣalāh. However, in the very end of the book, after the chapter on inheritance (mawārīth), al-Kirmani added chapters on Islamic jurisprudence (kitāb uṣūl al-fiqh), theology (kitāb uṣūl ad-dīn)and the virtues and excellence of Abū Hanifa (Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa). These chapters are hardly to be found in fatwa collections. In fact, those chapters are of great value for the history of Islam in Eastern Islamic lands. For example, uṣūl ad-dīn occupies a rather large part (fol. 318v-333v), and this means the theological debates were still urgent in late 6th/12th century.
For instance: “Is it allowed to say “If Allah had not created Muhammad (Peace be upon him) then Allah would not have created Adam”? The answer: This is the thing mentioned by orators on Minbar. Their meaning is veneration of Prophet (Peace be upon him). It is better to keep away from the speech like this because the status and rank of Prophet (peace be upon him) in the court of Allah is very high but every Prophet has high status and rank (in the court of Allah). And (each Prophet) had some specialty which the other had not, so each Prophet has a place” (fol. 140v-141r).
Another peculiarity of JF is that Kirmānī used his own style in constructing the book: every chapter (kitāb) has six sections (bāb). The author commented on it as follows: “I made every chapter of six sections: the first section is consisted of fatwās of Rukn ad-dīn al-Kirmānī, the second from Jamāl ad-dīn al-Yazdī, the third from ‘Aṭā’ b. Ḥamza as-Sughdī, the fourth from Najm ad-dīn Abū Ḥafṣ an-Nasafī, the fifth from Abū Muḥammad Sulaimān al-Kirmānī, and the sixth chapter from fatwās of prominent imams and the later scholars (muta’akhkhirūn) while citing their names”.
Al-Kirmānī devotes the second and the biggest part of each chapter to the legal views of his master al-Yazdī. However, he sometimes differs from him. For instance, like in mainstream Hanafite jurisprudence Yazdī holds the view that it is forbidden to touch the Qur’an while being in the state of major ritual impurity (junub) while Kirmānī said it was allowed in some cases [fol. 3a].
— al-Kirmānī held a rare legal view among the Hanafites that it was not allowed to follow a Shafiʽi imam in the Friday prayer (5b). Strange to say, he also allows fasting after sodomy and tribadism, despite the fact that the strictest penalty was considered for them (15b).
JF contains rare facts on religious situation in Central Asia. In the second section of the chapter on prayer al-Kirmānī describes a legal dispute between the contemporary jurists ‘Aṭā’ b. Ḥamza as-Sughdī and Shams al-a’imma al-Ḥalwā’ī. There were people in Bukhara who prayed the Morning Prayer after the sunrise, and Ḥalwā’ī didn’t reject them. When he was asked why he would not stop them, he argued that this was true according to some aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth scholars (9a).
— Another legal dispute on a reading of a Qur’anic verse occurred between Najm ad-dīn an-Nasafī (d. 537/1142) and as-Sakkākī al-adīb in Samarqand(JF Müftülük 12r; JF Rpaşa 19v).
The fifth section of each chapter consisted of fatwās of the Qāḍī Majd Abū Muḥammad Sulaimān b. Ḥasan al-Kirmānī. This scholar had several titles like “judge of the judges” (qāḍī-l-quḍāt), “prop of the religion” (‘umdat ad-dīn) and “glory of the Shari‘a” (majd ash-sharī‘a). I was unable to locate this figure in any of the standard biographical dictionaries. Since JF remains the only source to study the legal views of Sulaimān al-Kirmānī, to collect these passages would bring this Hanafite scholar into scientific circulation. Qāḍī Majd was son of Abū Naṣr al-Ḥusain b. ‘Alī (fol. 90r).
— Several Persian terms related to ethnography and social history were used in the book. For example: “If a husband sends gifts to his wife at the time of marriage and says: “It is as kashān — which is according to our custom, while the Khurasani people call it dast-e payman, and the Iraqis and Persians call shir-baha — then says that it is a part of his mahr — his words will not be accepted” (fol. 34v). As we see from this passage, Kirmānī was familiar with marriage customs in all parts of the Eastern Islamic lands.Dast-i paimān was paid in 50 dinars.
A short survey of the aforementioned Persian terms showed that dast-i paymān was in practice at least by the 11th/17th century since the al-Fatāwā al-hindīya’s author, too, has discussed issues related to dast-i paymān.
There is a special book which sheds more light on its usage. Sen McGlinn in his “Family Law in Iran” has a short discussion of the practice of dowry to the bride. He writes: “In rural Iran and among recent immigrants the dowry is overshadowed by a bride price (shirbaha) paid to the bride’s family, and used in theory to provide her with household necessities. In this case the dowry that is registered in the contract may be a minimal amount to comply with the legal requirement”. I may add that the origins of this Iranian custom go back to Central Asia.
Like local Hanafite books there are quite q few Persian sentences that were cited in JF.
Having applied textual analysis to JF, it was clear that the most authoritative jurists for al-Kirmānī were two scholars — one from Bukhara and the second from Nishapur:
a) as-Samarqandī with the title ‘scholar of the scholars’ (‘ālim al-‘ulamā’). Many of his Arabic poems were cited, but according to their poor grammatical style it may be concluded that the author is not of Arabian origin. This scholar is identical to the quite famous ʻAlā’ ad-dīn Abu-l-Fatḥ Muḥammad b. ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Usmandī (488–552/1095–1157) [JM 3: 208–9; AJ 2: 601], known as al-‘Alā’ al-ʻālim, the author of Ṭarīqat al-khilāf fi-l-fiqh bain al-a’immat al-aslāf (Cairo: Dār at-turāth, 2007), Badhl an-naẓar fi-l-uṣūl (Cairo: Maktabat Dār at-turāth, 1412/1992), and Lubāb al-kalām (Istanbul, 2005).
Al-Usmandī was born in Bukhara. He also wrote a commentary to al-Jāmi‘ al-kabīr of ash-Shaibānī (109b) [KZ 1: 570].
b) Abu-l-‘Alā’ an-Nāṣiḥī, al-qāḍī al-imām, malik al-mulūk [FB 179–80] is identical to Abū Bakr Abū-l-Ḥusain Muḥammad b. ‘Abdullāh an-Nāṣiḥī (d. Rajab 484/August-September 1091), whom Alp Arslan appointed as chief judge of Nishapur. In JF, beginning from the second chapter, al-Kirmānī frequently cites an-Nāṣiḥī’s legal opinions. However, in almost every case there is a lack of legal sources for the fatwas. I assume that Nāṣiḥī was cited here not because of his deep understanding of law, but rather for he held an authoritative position in society since the Ṣāʻid family held chief judicial positions in Nishapur for centuries.
JF also contains information on which theological groups were active in Central Asia: “In his work Abū Salama who was from the noble men of Samarqand, held view that it was forbidden to pay alms tax(zakāh) to Karrāmīya and Mushabbiha (fol. 13v). This phrase is important from historical point of view. Abu Salama is identical with famous, yet unstudied Abū Salama Muḥammad b. Muḥammad as- Samarqandi, author of Jumal uṣūl ad-dīn[JM3: 326–7]. As he studied under Abū Aḥmad al-‘Iyāḍī (3rd/9th century), we may conclude that Karramīya and Mushabbiha were quite active in the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century in Uzbekistan. On the other hand, since Jumal uṣūl ad-dīn is considered to be lost, apudJF we have a little fragment of it.
Cases with Farsi phrases from daily life have repeatedly been discussed in JF. For example, reciting Qur’an in Farsi was thoroughly discussed. This shows that apart from the Arabic-speaking scholarly elite the ordinary people always used Farsi in daily life. Another argument that supports my conclusion is that quoted phrases in the chapters of commerce (baiʽ) and marriage (nikāḥ) are always in Farsi. The jurists were posed questions in Farsi, and subsequently had to respond them in that language as well. This peculiarity is clearly shown in a fragment with Bukharan imāms Ẓahīr ad-dīn al-Marghinānī, al-Ḥākim al-jalīl, Qāḍīkhān and Qiwām ad-dīn aṣ-Ṣaffār (fol. 25a).
The Samarqandian Maturidite scholar ‘Umar b. Abī Bakr al-Farrā’ was also questioned in Farsi (fol. 25a). His full name is Abū Ḥafṣ ‘Umar b. Abī Bakr b. Abi-l-Ash‘ath al-Farrā’. ‘Umar al-Farrā’s hadith transmission line is as follows: Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdullāh al-Kadakī (Farrā’s son-in-law; d. Sha‘bān 29, 471/6.3.1079) — ‘Umar al-Farrā’ — Abū Sahl Sa‘īd aṣ-Ṣaffār al-Ghaznawī (was alive in 429/1037–8) [al-Qand 204; 339].
JF contains rare facts about the founders of Hanafism, too. Likewise, Abū Yūsuf followed Maliki law-school for six months, and then returned to Hanafism (fol. 19v).
The book is an important source for Iranian studies as well since it contains valuable material for linguistic research. Farsi phrases were borrowed directly from everyday spoken Farsi. Therefore, d was written as dh in most verbs. For example, būdh instead of būd, khudhā (= khudā), kharīdham (= kharīdam), ferestādham (= ferestādam).
JF’s copies faced several redactions in different times. Comparing Raghib Pasha and Müftülük copies reveals several interesting details. For instance, al-ʻIyāḍī’s concept of belief differs in both, while a pejorative appellation of the Shiʻa as rawāfiḍ was dropped in Raghib Pasha copy.
In the end, it is appropriate to mention that the JF’s influence on the next generation of fuqahā’ is not limited to the Eastern Islamic lands only. The book served as one of the main sources for the Macedonian Ottoman scholar Pīr Muḥammad of Skopje (d. 1020/1611) in compiling his Muʻīn al-muftī. Uskūbī refers to JF in more than 30 places.
The book should be thoroughly studied from the aspect of Islamic legal traditions as well as its critical edition is to be prepared. Such critical text might be of interest for both historians of Islamic law and Iranists. Finally, JF served as a bridge to convey Central Asian Hanafite traditions to the Balkans, which increases its importance for the history of all Hanafite regions.
Indices of people:
ʻAbd al-Jabbār, al-imām, az-zāhid (fol. 8r). I was unable to find any information on this person except he was quoted in Qunya al-munya, too. He might be identical to a Hanafite chief judge ʻAbd al-Jabbār al-Hamadānī (d. 415/1025) [JM 4: 425]. Hajji Khalifa mentions his Amālī [KZ 1: 165].
ʻAbd al-Karīm (fol.82r) might be identical with a Bukharan scholar Abū Muḥammad al-Mīghī [d. Jumādā II 378/September — October 988; JM 2: 457; FB 101], who issued a fatwa on heretication and total cleansing of the Qarāmiṭa sect.
Abu-l-ʻĀṣim al-ʻĀjizī, al-qāḍī (fol. 18r; JF RPaşa 30r) might be identical to Abū ʻĀṣim Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-ʻĀmirī [FB 160]. He was contemporary of Tāj ad-dīn as-Sadr as-saʻid Aḥmad b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (the beginning of the 6th/11th century).
Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. al-Faḍl al-Kamārī (fol. 132r) (d. 381/991) [JM 3: 300–2; AJ 2: 612–3]. This scholar was very famous at his time and taught quite a few Hanafite scholars in Bukhara. Although Kamārī did not leave any written legacy, he is one of the most frequently cited scholars in Transoxanian Hanafite legal books.
Kamārī held a rare legal opinion regarding men’s ʻawrah which was criticized by Marghīnānī in Hidāya.
Abū Jaʻfar al-Hinduwānī, al-faqih’s (fol. 67v) (d. Dhu-l-ḥijja 392/ September-October 1002 in Bukhara) [JM 3: 192–3; FB 179; AJ 96–7] name is Muḥammad b. ‘Abdullāh. He was famous as the Minor Abū Ḥanīfa (Abū Ḥanīfa aṣ-ṣaghīr) for his deep understanding of Hanafite law. Hinduwānī has travelled to Bukhārā and was a close friend to Maidānī and Kamārī.
Abu-l-Haitham, al-qāḍī al-imām (fol. 43r) (d. 16 Jumādā II 406/13.1.1015) is identical to ‘Utba b. Khaithama an-Nīsābūrī [JM 2: 511: FB 115].
Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (fol. 140r). He is founder of the Maturidite theological school (d. 333/944).
Abū Shujāʻ, as-saiyid [al-imām in Samarqand], Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Ḥamza (fol.138r) [mid of the 5th/11th century; JM 3: 38, 4: 53 № 1931; FB 155; Qand 179, 396, 549, 571]. He was contemporary of qāḍī al-Ḥasan al-Maturīdī [JM 4: 307] and qāḍī ʻAlī as-Sughdī (d. 461/1069) [FB 65], and wrote Mabsūṭ [KZ 2: 1580].
Abū Shujāʻs sons Muḥammad (b. 437/1045–6, d. Shawwāl 491/September 1098) and Qāsim [Qand 691] were also eminent specialists in jurisprudence and hadith. Muḥammad has taught at Qutham Islamic college (madrasa) in Samarqand [JM 3: 317–8].
ʻAlā’ ad-din as-Samarqandi (fol. 76r) (d. 450/1145) [FB 158] is Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Aḥmad (d. 539/1144).
ʽAlī al-Bazdawī (fol. 25v) was known as Fakhr al-islām ʽAlī b. Muḥammad al-Bazdawī [d. 482/1089; FB 124–5]. His brother was known as Ṣadr al-islām.
Qāḍī ʻAlī as-Sughdī (fol. 84v) is Rukn al-islām Abu-l-Ḥasan ʻAlī b. al-Ḥusain as-Sughdī (d. 461/1069), author of an-Nutaf fi-l-fatāwā and Sharḥ al-Jāmiʻ al-kabīr [JM 2: 567]. He comes from the family ʽAṭā’ b. Ḥamza as-Sughdī, and studied fiqh with Shams al-a’imma as-Sarakhsī [FB 121].
ʻAṭā’ b. Ḥamza as-Sughdī, shaikh al-islām (third sections of each chapter)[JM 2: 529–30, № 937, 938].
His son Abū ʻAlī al-Ḥasan as-Sughdī has taught Ibn as-Samʻānī’s teacher Maḥmūd as-Sāgharjī (born in 480/1087).
Baqqālī’s (fol. 56v) full name is Abu-l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Abi-l-Qāsim al-Khwārazmī (490–562/1097–1167) [FB 161–2]. His nisba is based upon his occupation as a grocer. Baqqāli’s influence was very strong in Mu‘tazilite Khwarazm.
Burhān ad-dīn al-kabīr,al-imām al-kabīr, Khwāja-imām of Bukhara (fol. 25r) is ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. ‘Umar b. Māza al-Bukhārī, founder of the Ṣadr family of Bukhara [JM 2: 437; TS 4: 250–1]. He is father of aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd and aṣ-Ṣadr as-saʻīd.
Dabūsī, Abū Naṣr (fol. 42v, 82r). His full name is Abū Naṣr Manṣūr b. Jaʻfar b. ʻAlī al-Muhallabī ad-Dabūsī(d. 352/963) [JM 3: 509, 4: 94; FB 221]. He was the master of ʻAbd al-Karīm al-Mīghī [JM 2: 457]. Abū Naṣr ad-Dabūsī usually issued his fatwās in Farsi.
al-Ḥākim al-jalīl in Bukhara (fol. 13v). Al-Qurashī cites a fatwā of a certain ‘al-Ḥākim al-ʽalīn’ (?) [JM 4: 65], who, I suppose, is identical to this person.
Ḥusām ad-dīn al-Bukhārī’s (fol. 10v) full name is Ḥusām ad-dīn ʻUmar b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz al-Bukhārī (483–536/1090–1141). He had fallen as a martyr in the famous battle against the Qarakhitay army near Samarqand. He is more known as aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd as comes from the Ṣadr family in Bukhara.
Ḥalwā’ī’s (fol. 10v) full name is Abū Muḥammad ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz b. Aḥmad al-Ḥalwā’ī (d. 448/1050)[JM 2: 429–30; AJ 2: 481; FB 95–6]. He is one of the four Transoxanian jurisprudents who were entitled Shams al-a’imma (Sun of the imams).
Ḥammād b. Ibrāhīm aṣ-Ṣaffār, Qiwām ad-dīn, al-imām b. al-imām ((fol.58r) (b. Dhu-l-ḥijja 493/October 1100 and d. 576/1180–1 in Samarqand) [JM 2: 145–6; AJ 1: 417; FB 69]. Kirmānī added ash-Shāristānī (ash-Shahristānī?) to his nickname (nisba), which was not found in available biographical sources.
Ḥasan b. Mālik (fol. 23v). I was unable to identify this scholar. However, he can not be identical to Abū ʻAbdallāh Ḥasan b. Mālik az-Zaʻfarānī, author of Aḍāḥī [FB 60], since Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī (d. 373/983) narrated from him.
Ibn al-Bittī (fol. 23v; JF Rpaşa 40v). Al-Qurashi tells about Abu-l-Fath al-Bittī who originally comes from Ghazni, territory of modern Afghanistan [JM 2: 716].
ʽImād ad-dīn ʽAbd ar-Raḥmān as-Sukkarī (fol. 25v) was the Shafiʽite jurisprudent, who held the judge position in Cairo.
al-Isbījābī, al-qāḍī al-imām (fol. 20v) is shaikh al-islām Abu-l-Maʽāliī ʽAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ismāʽīl al-Isbījābī (b. Monday, Jumādā I 7, 454/19.5.1062 and d. Monday, Dhu-l-qaʻda 23, 535/30.7.1141 in Samarqand) [JM 2: 591–2; FB 124]. He is author of al-Mabsūṭ and Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar aṭ-Ṭahāwī.
Isḥāq b. Aḥmad aṣ-Ṣaffār, ash-shaikh (fol. 15v) [JM 1: 365].
Ismāʻīl az-zāhid (JF Müftülük 25v) is identical to Ismāʻīl b. al-Ḥusain b. ʻAlī al-Bukhārī al-mutakallim (d. Shaʻbān 402 / March 1012) [JM 1: 399–400, 437; FB 46]. He was among the four Bukharan theologians, who in opposite to the scholars of Samarqand, held the view that the faith was uncreated (al-īmān ghair makhlūq).
ʻIyāḍī, al-imām(fol. 25v). Abū Naṣr Aḥmad al-‘Iyāḍī [3rd/9th century; JM 1: 177–9] had two sons — Abū Bakr and Abū Aḥmad [FB 220] — both of them were eminent scholars in Samarqand.
al-Khāṣī, Najm ad-din Yūsuf b. Aḥmad (fol. 17v, 57v, 78v) (second half of the 6th/12th century) [JM 3: 617; AJ 2: 692–3]. Kirmānī attributes to him Tajnīs which could not be proved through available sources to me. Najm ad-dīn al-Khāṣī lived in Bukhara and studied fiqh under Qāḍī-khān [FB 65].
Khāṣī mentions his father Aḥmad b. Abī Bakr in his Fatāwā [JM 1: 132].
In some sources (FB 226; al-Aʻlām7: 333) Najm ad-dīn waserroneously identified as Abu-l-Mu’aiyad al-Muwaffaq b. Muḥammad al-Khwārazmī (d. 634/1236–7) [KZ 2: 1271; AJ 2: 666–7].
ʻAlī al-Qārī mentioned certain Abu-l-Maʻālī al-Ḥafṣī [AJ 1: 692], who was author of al-Fuṣūl, the book, which later was abridged as Mukhtaṣar al-Fuṣūl by al-Khāṣī. However, to Ziriklī [Aʻlām 7: 333] Fuṣūl was written by al-Muwaffaq al-Khāṣī (d. 634/1236–7). There should be error either in ‘Alī al-Qārī’s or Ziriklī’s entry.
Kūfī, al-qāḍī Fakhr, Fakhr ad-dīn, qāḍī al-quḍāt, al-imām, Imām ad-dīn (folio 5r). He is identical to the influential judge of Nishapur who was bought as a slave and raised Qutb ad-din Aibak (1150–1210), the founder of Turkic dynasty in Delhi.
Maidānī, al-imām(fol. 25v)is Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm aḍ-ḍarīr al-Maidānī [JM 3: 16; FB 155]. He is said to have disputed Abū Aḥmad al-‘Iyāḍī in theological questions. It should be noted that he achieved great successes in fiqh and theology despite being blind [AJ 2: 597].
Makḥūl’s (fol. 10v) full name is Makḥūl b. al-Faḍl an-Nasafī (d. 318/930) [JM 3: 498, 499; FB 216]. He is author of al-Lu’lu’īyāt fi-l-mawāʽiẓ and ash-Shu‘ā’. Makḥūl is famous for his narration from Abū Ḥanīfa regarding invalidity of the prayer with raising the hands.
Muḥammad b. Ḥamza, al-imām al-khaṭīb(fol. 21r). He was the only scholar among his contemporaries who opposed as-saiyid al-imām Abū Shujā‘’s legal opinion regarding oath in Farsi. He might be identical to Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ḥamza al-khaṭīb (was alive in Rabī‘ II 457/April 1065), whose house was a center of hadith transmission in Samarqand [Qand 226, 583]. His brother Abū Ḥafṣ ‘Umar b. Ḥamza has also transmitted hadith [Qand 482].
Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd as-Sijzī, Fakhr ad-dīn (fol.138r) was muftī in Sijistan. Laknawī mentions Sijzī as being contemporary of Muḥammad al-Kirmānī [FB 201].
Muḥammad b. al-Muqātil ar-Rāzī (fol. 17r) [JM 3: 372; FB 201].
al-Muwaffaq al-Bukhārī, ash-shaikh al-imām (fol. 11r; JF Rpaşa 17v) might be identical to al-Muwaffaq b. Muḥammad al-Khāṣī al-Khwārzmī [d. 634/1236; al-Aʻlām 7: 333; AJ 2: 666].
as-saiyid al-imām Nāṣir ad-dīn (fol. 11r)is Abu-l-Qāsim Muḥammad b. Yūsuf as-Samarqandī [JM 3: 409; AJ 2: 638; FB 219–20]. He is author of al-Multaqaṭ fi-l-fatāwā al-ḥanafīya, an-Nāfiʻ fi-l-fiqh, Mabsūṭ [KZ 2: 1580] and other books [al-Aʻlām 7: 149]. Two different dates are given as the year of his death — 556/1161 and 656/1258.
Nāṭifī (fol. 118v) should be identified as Abu-l-ʻAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad an-Nāṭifī (d. 446/1054) [JM 1: 297–8; FB 36].
Nuṣair b. Yaḥyā al-Balkhī (fol.15v, 42v) (d. 268/881–2) [JM 3: 546; FB 221].
Qāḍī-khān, Fakhr ad-dīn, Ḥusain b. Manṣūr al-Uzjandī (fol. 10r) [d. 593/1197; JM 2: 93–4]. His Fatāwā is one of the most cited sources in Hanafite legal works.
Rustufaghnī, Abu-l-Ḥasan ʻAlī b. Saʻīd (fol. 142r) (d. 345/956) [JM 2: 570–1; AJ 2: 511–2; FB 65]. He is an eminent Maturidite theologian who was born in the village of Rustufaghn near Samarqand. Rustufaghnī is famous for his debate with Māturīdī regarding correctness of each of the two opposite legal decisions.
Ṣāliḥ b. Ḥaiyān, al-imām (fol. 117r). I was unable to locate him to any of available biographical works.
Sankbāthī, al-imam (fol.7v; JF Rpaşa 12v). I was unable to locate this figure in any of the Hanafite biographical dictionaries. However, Samʻānī cites seven people with this nickname [al-Ansāb 12: 274–6]. All of them were engaged in hadith transmission. Sankbāth is a name of the village in Sughd, Samarqand. This Sankbāthī differed ‘Abd al-Jabbār az-zāhid in a question regarding the prayer.
Najm ad-dīn an-Nasafī’s [Qand 543] ʽAlī b. Aḥmad as-Sankbāthī (d. Dhu-l-ḥijja 9, 452/4.1.1061) could well be Kirmānī’s Sankbāthī as well.
Sarakhsī, shams al-a’imma (d. 490/1097) (fol. 38v) [JM 3: 78–82; FB 158–9] is one of the most brilliant figures in history of Hanafism. He is author of al-Mabsūṭ.
ash-Shiblī, al-adīb(fol.12r). I was unable to identify him.
al-qāḍī aṣ-Ṣadr al-Bazdawī (fol. 24v) might mean Ṣadr al-islām Muḥammad al-Bazdawī (d. 493/1100), author of Mabsūṭ [KZ 2: 1581]. His brother ʽAlī is also said to have compiled his Mabsūṭ, which consisted of eleven volumes.
Ṣāʻidī, al-qāḍī al-imām (fol. 43r) might be identical to Abu-l-ʻAlā’ Ṣā‘id b. Manṣūr aṣ-Ṣāʻidī [d. Ramaḍān 506/February — March 1113; JM 2: 265–7; FB 83].
Ẓahīr ad-dīn al-Marghinānī, al-imam (fol. 137r). His full name is Ẓahīr ad-dīnal-kabīr Abu-l-Maḥāsinal-Ḥasan b. ʻAlī b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz al-Marghinānī [JM 2: 74; FB 62–3]. He served as muftī in Bukhara.
Qāḍīkhān’s granddad Maḥmūd al-Uzjandī is his uncle. Ṭāhir al-Bukhārī (d. 542/1147) is his nephew.
Indices of books:
Fatāwā al-Baqqālī al-Khwārazmī (fol. 5a) belongs to Baqqālī (for the author, see above).
Fatāwā al-Faḍlī (fol. 38r) belongs to Abū ʻAmr ʻUthmān b. Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Faḍlī an-Nasafī (d. 508/1114) [JM 4: 279–80; KZ 2: 1227].
Fatāwā al-faqīh Abi-l-Laith (fol. 2v) means Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī’s (d. 373/983) fatwās. It is unclear whether this is an independent book or is oral reference to his uncollected fatwās.
al-Fatāwā al-kubrā (fol. 111v) is written by aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd (d. 536/1141). Qāḍī Faṭiṣ’s al-Fatāwā al-kubrā is less popular [KZ 2: 1229].
Fatāwā Māwarā’ an-nahr (fol. 7r, 15v). Hajji Khalifa mentions this book having referred to Tātārkhānīyah [KZ 2: 1229]. Its fragments can be found in al-Fatāwā al-hindīya and ʻUmdat al-qārī [Dār al-kutub al-ʽilmīya, 2001, 2: 353], too. However, it is unclear whether Fatāwā Māwarā’ an-nahr was an independent work or is general oral reference to Transoxanian jurists’ legal opinions.
Fatāwā Samarqandī’s (fol.78v) author is different from Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī (d. 373/983) since this source and Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī’s an-Nawāzil contradict each other in the legal question. Ḥajjī Khalīfa ascribes this work to Muḥammad b. al-Walīd as-Samarqandī (4th/10th centrury) which seems to be right.
al-Fatāwā aṣ-ṣughrā (fol. 17v). It is suggested that this collection was originally compiled by aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd (d. 536/1141) while Najm ad-dīn al-Khāṣī (end of the 6th/12th century) later revised the text [KZ 2: 1224–5].
al-Firdaws (fol. 15r) might be Firdaws al-fatāwā [KZ 2: 1255], which was quoted in Fatāwā Muaiyid-zāda of the Ottoman jurisprudent Mu’aiyid-zāda ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān b. ‘Alī al-Āmāsī (b. 860/1456 and d. 922/1516) [FB 89–91; KZ 2: 1607; al-A‘lām 3: 318].
al-Gharībain (12r) belongs to the qalam of Abū ʻUbaid Aḥmad al-Harawī (d. 401/1010–1) [KZ 2: 1209].
al-Ḥāwī (fol. 19v) is to be identified as al-Ḥāwī al-qudsī of Jamāl ad-dīn al-Ghaznawī (d. 593/1197) [KZ 1: 627].
al-Jāmiʻ al-aṣghar (fol. 138r) is written by Abū ‘Alī Muḥammad b. al-Walīd as-Samarqandī (4th/10th century) [JM 2: 248, 3: 390; AJ 2: 634; FB 202; KZ 1: 535].
al-Jāmiʻ aṣ-ṣaghīr (fol. 58v) was written by different authors. The most famous among them is Muḥammad ash-Shaibānī [KZ 1: 561].
al-Kashf (25r). This work is written by the judge (qāḍī) Abi Yazid, whose personality I could not identify in available sources.
al-Manāqibī fi-l-fiqh (fol. 13r) is written in non-Arabic (al-ʻajamīya) language by shaikh al-islām Abu-l-Maʻālī. The author should be identical to al-Isbījābī (see above).
Manāsik (fol. 15v). Kirmānī referred to Isḥāq b. Aḥmad as-Ṣaffār’s (was alive in 405/1014) [JM 1: 365; FB 44] work, which I was not able to find in available bibliographical sources. In 1424/2003, Abu Manṣūr Muḥammad al-Kirmānī’s (6th/12th century) al-Masālik fi-l-manāsik was published by Dār al-bashā’ir al-islāmīya in Beirut. According to Ḥajjī Khalīfa, there was al-Masālik fī ʽilm al-manāsik by Muḥammad b. Mukrim b. Shaʽbān al-Kirmānī (d. after 975/1567) [KZ 2: 1663]. This topic needs further investigation.
al-Muntaqā (fol. 57r) is written by al-Ḥākim ash-shahīd al-Marwazī (d. 334/945) [JM 3: 313–5; 4: 590; KZ 2: 1801–2].
an-Nawazil (fol. 27v) was also written by Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī (d. 373/983).
Rawḍah (fol. 15r) is of Nāṭifī (see above) [KZ 1: 931; al-Aʻlam 1: 213].
Sharḥ al-Jāmiʻ al-kabīr (fol. 5r) means a commentary to al-Jāmiʻ al-kabīr of ash-Shaibānī. More than forty scholars commented it [KZ 1: 568–70]. One of them belongs to Fakhr al-islām ʻAlī al-Bazdawī(fol. 12v) (d. 482/1089) [JM 1: 309–10; 4: 424–5; KZ 1: 568].
Sharḥ al-Jāmiʻ aṣ-ṣaghīr (fol. 5r) is written by the Khwarezmian jurisprudent Ẓahīr ad-dīn Aḥmad b. Ismāʽīl at-Timurtāshī al-Fiqhī (d. 600/1203) [JM 1: 147, 148; KZ 1: 562; FB 15; GAL SB I, p. 652, № 27a].
Sharḥ al-Kāfī (fol. 25v) means Mabsūṭ of Abū Sahl as-Sarakhsī (d. 490/1097) [KZ 2: 1378, 1580]. There was also Sharḥ al-Kāfī written by al-Khaiyāṭ (al-Khaiyāṭī?) (fol. 69v).
Sharḥ aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī (fol. 24v) means al-Isbījābī’s (d. 535/1140–1) commentary on Mukhtaṣar of Abū Jaʻfar aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/933). The book is also called Sharḥ al-Isbījābī (fol. 6v) [KZ 1: 569].
Sharḥ az-Ziyādāt (fol. 82v) is a commentary on ash-Shaibānī’s az-Ziyādāt by Bazdawī (d. 490/1097) [2: 962].
at-Tajrīd (fol. 15v) belongs to the qalam of Abu-l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī [KZ 1: 345].
Uṣūl Qāḍī Ṣadr ad-din (fol. 140r)is Kanz al-wuṣūl ilā maʻrifat al-uṣūl of ʻAlī al-Bazdawī (d. 482/1089)[KZ 1: 112–3].
al-ʻUyūn’s (fol. 134v) full title is ʽUyūn al-masā’il and it belongs to the qalam of Abu-l-Laith as-Samarqandī (d. 373/983).
al-Waqf (fol. 68v) is written by Hilal ar-Ra’y (d. 245/859).
Wāqiʽāt al-imām ash-shahīd (fol. 29r) belongs to aṣ-Ṣadr ash-shahīd Ḥusām ad-dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 536/1141).
Wāqiʽāt an-Nāṭifī (fol. 23v) belongs to Nāṭifī (for the author, see above).
Names of groups, terms etc.
mashāyikh Balkh [= al-mashayikh bi-Balkh, a’immat Balkh]
a’immat Māwarā’ an-nahr
AJ — ʻAlī al-Qārī. Al-Athmār al-janīya. Edited by ʻAbd al-Muḥsin ʻAbdallāh Aḥmad. Volumes 1–2. Baghdad: Dīwān al-waqf as-sunnī, 2009.
HA — Hadīyat al-ʻārifīn. Beirut: Dār iḥyā’ at-turāth al-ʽarabī, n.d.
FB — al-Fawā’id al-bahīya. Edited by Na‘sānī. Cairo: Dār al-kitāb al-islāmī, n.d.
JF — Istanbul Muftuluk Library MS 345
JF RPasha — Raghib pasha MS 603
JF — King Saud University Library MS 1437 — http://makhtota.ksu.edu.sa/makhtota/1669/1#.WFQT_dKLTIU
JM — al-Jawāhir al-muḍī’a fī ṭabaqāt al-ḥanafīya. Edited by al-Ḥulw. Volumes 1–5.
KZ — Kashf aẓ-ẓunūn ʽan asāmi-l-kutub wa-l-funūn. Edited by Yaltkaya. Volumes 1–2.
TS — aṭ-Ṭabaqāt as-sanīya fi tarājim al-ḥanafīya. Edited by al-Ḥulw. Volumes 1–4.
Qand — al-Qand fī dhikr ʽulamā Samarqand. Edited by Yūsuf al-Hādī. Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr at-Turath al-Makhtut, 1420/1999.
This research was possible due to the support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, Freiburg University 2012) and the Center for Advanced Study Sofia (Gerda Henkel Program 2016-2017)
In the meantime, there is a three volume work with the same title, and it was written by the late Iraqi Shafi’ite scholar Abd al-Karīm al-Mudarris (Baghdad: Maṭba‘at dār al-baṣrī: 1389/1969). Interestingly, Abd al-Karīm’s work also contains some Hanafite fatwas, and there are even extracts from Persian Hanafite works as well. Mudarris never mentions al-Kirmānī in his book. Nor was I able to find any information on whether Mudarris was inspired by Kirmānī’s work.
 Brockelmann mentions only one manuscript in Rāmpūr I, 184.
 Unless otherwise noted, reference to JF’s manuscript means Istanbul Muftuluk Library № 345.
 al-Aʻlām 6: 204; Īḍāḥ al-maknūn 1: 619. Also, al-Jawāhir al-muḍīya (Heidarabad edition, 2: 81-82, footnote).
 Ad-Dāghim’s 10-volume catalogue of Raghib Pasha Library remains the only source for the description of JF so far. However, he claims that Mafātīḥ al-aghānī fi-l-qirā’āt wa-l-maʻānī also belongs to our author (5: 782-3). Indeed, Mafātīḥ al-aghānī was compiled in Jumādā I 563/February – March 1168 by another scholar named Abu-l-ʻAlā’ Muḥammad b. Abi-l-Maḥāsin b. Abi-l-Fatḥ al-Kirmānī [KZ 2: 1755]. Dāghim’s information regarding publication of the JF in 1934 in Hyderabad should also be re-considered. I was able to find this neither in Sargis, Mu‘jam al-maṭbū‘āt al-‘arabīya (Cairo: Maṭba‘at ath-thaqāfat ad-dīnīya, n.d.; 1: 917), nor in al-Muʻjam ash-shāmil li-t-turāth al-ʻarabī al-maṭbū (Cairo: Ma‘had al-makhṭūṭāt al-‘arabīya, 1993; 3: 7-9).
Ghamz ʽuyūn al-baṣā’ir, 1: 438 (footnote 1)
Radd al-mukhtār (2003 edition), 8: 36
 Kardarī, Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa, 267.
 The author of JF erroneously identified as Abu-l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī in Tashkent catalogue of ‘Sobranije Vostochnyh Rukopisej’ – 6: 450-1.
 Sobranije Vostochnyh Rukopisej, 8: 327.
lāṭa rajul maʽa rajulin ‘alaihima-l-ghusl wa-l-qaḍā’ dūna-l-kaffārah, wa-saḥiqa-l-mar’atu bi-l-mar’ati fi Ramaḍān fa- ‘alaihima-l-qaḍā’ in anzalatā, wa-in lam tunzilā la ghusl wa-la qaḍā’. wa-in anzalat iḥdaihumā fa-ʽalaiha-l-qaḍā’ wa- l-ghusl dūna-l-ukhrā.
wa law ṣallūhā fi hādhihi-l-ḥāla fa-qad ajāza min aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth
I was unable to find information on as-Sakkākī in Hanafite ṭabaqāt works. However, Najm ad-dīn an-Nasafī himself mentions certain Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Jalīl al-adīb aṣ-ṣakkāk (!) al-Yadhkhakatī (b. Dhu-l-ḥijja 9, 435/8.7.1044 and d. 498/1104-5 in Samarqand) who might be identical to this person [Qand 397].
 There is an entry on Abū Naṣr al-Ḥusain b. ʽAlī b. Jaʽfar an-Nairīzī in Samʽānī’s al-Ansāb (Hyderabad: Maṭbaʽat Dā’irat al-maʽārif al-ʽuthmānīya, 1397/1977, 13: 233). This Nairīzī was active in hadith, and lived in Shiraz.
 a Persian phrase which literally means “hand of agreement”
 a Persian phrase which literally means “breast-feeding fee”
 law ba‘atha ilaihā shai‘an waqta-d-dukhūl, qāl: in rū-yi kashān ast, wa fi ‘urfinā yuqāl lahu kadhālika, wa fi ‘urf ahl Khurāsān yuqāl dast-i paimān, wa fi ‘urf ahl ‘Irāq wa Fārs yuqāl shīr-bahā, thumma qāl: hiya mina-l-mahr - la yuqbalu qawluhu li-annahu yurādu bihi ṣilatan li-ru’yatihā wa takrimatan, wa la ṭāʽatan ‘alaīha fa-la yakunu mina-l-mahr fi shai’
 bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mcglinn_family_law_iran.pdf (p. 54).
 On Ṣā‘id family see; Madelung, The Spread od Maturidism and the Turks, 114 (footnote 22).
wa lā yajūz daf‘ az-zakāh ila-l-karrāmīya wa-l-mushabbiha - dhakarahu-l-imām Abū Salama min mashāyikh Samarqand fi kitābihi
rajul la yaqdir ʽalā taʽallum al-Qur’ān bi-l-ʽarabīya wa-yaqdir ʽala-t-takallum bi-l-fārisīya
aw fi-l-bayʽ qāl: ‘furukhtī?’, wa-yaqūl li-l-ākhar ‘kharīdī?’, fa-yaqūlān ‘furukht’ wa ‘kharīd’ fa-innahu yaṣiḥḥ. wa-in lam yaqul ‘furukhtam’ wa ‘kharīdam’, wa kadhālika fi sā’ir al-ʽuqūd (19a); bal qawluhu ‘be-khāham’ tafsīr nakaḥtu aw tajawwajtu fi ‘urf ahl zamāninā aw baldatinā (20b).
wa dhukira fl-l-Ḥāwī anna Abā Yūsuf kāna ʽalā hādha-l-madhhab (i.e. madhab ahl al-Madīna) sittat ashhur thumma rajaʽa ilā madhhab Abī Ḥanīfa
 al-Muntakhab min muʻjam ash-shuyūkh (Imam Muḥammad b. Saʻūd University Press, 1417/1996) 3: 1682-4
 on general description of Baqqālī’s life and works see: Hassan Ansari. Kitāb-i Tarājim al-aʻājim va Zain al-mashayikh Baqqālī (http://ansari.kateban.com/post/1763) and Tafsir-i Qur’ān ta’līf-i Baqqālī Khwarazmī (http://ansari.kateban.com/post/1917)
 Bazdawī, Kitab fī uṣūl ad-dīn (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-azharīya li-t-turāth, 2003), 158.
 ʻAlī aṭ-Ṭantāwī. Rijāl min at-ta’rīkh (Jeddah: Dār al-manārah, 1990), p. 255.