The Imam begins by saying that he starts with the “Hamdalla” which is the word that the scholars use to mean saying “Alhamdulillah”. The hamd linguistically means praise. After that, he sends blessings upon the Beloved, blessings and peace be upon him, who is indeed of the greatest of ranks. The word salat when it is from Allah refers to mercy. When the angels send salat it is a prayer of istighfaar, which is a prayer to increase someone in rank. When mankind sends salat, it is a prayer for blessings.

After sending praise and blessings, the Imam asks Allah for aid and assistance in clarifying the nomenclature of the Maliki school. In Arabic, nomenclature is istilaah which comes from the root word صلح which carries the meaning of being good, appropriate, etc. So istilaah is when a group of people- in this case, the Maliki scholars- deem something appropriate for a certain usage. In other words, they appropriate a word, such as “mashhur” to have a certain usage in Fiqh. Mashhur linguistically means something that is famous, but in Maliki fiqh, it refers to the rank and strength of a certain opinion in a Fiqh ruling.

The nomenclature of each science is different, and in Fiqh, it differs across the four Madhabs as well. Due to this, it is not possible for an individual to learn the terminology of that particular group unless they learn it from someone who is part of the group. For this reason, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Hassaan wrote this poem as a way to record the Maliki-specific terminology so that it can be preserved and taught to students.

The Imam writes the poem on the rajz poetic meter, and prays that blessings descend in the writing, teaching, memorizing, and learning of the poem. In Arabic, a du’aa can either be done by formulating the prayer in a request form, such as “Oh Allah, I ask you to put Baraka in this”, or it can also be done by stating it as a declaration with the intention of it being a du’aa such as “Allah puts baraka in this.” Out of humility, the Imam says that whoever wants to benefit from it can choose to do so, and whoever does not find benefit in it can leave it.

The Imam starts the poem by first talking about the Ummahat which would literally translate as “The Mothers”, i.e., the sources of the Maliki school. These are the books that were written by Imam Malik’s students and early scholars of the school and contain the sayings of Imam Malik and his students.

He starts with Al-Mudawwana, which was a collaborative work by Imam Malik’s most authoritative student, Abdul-Rahman Ibn Al-Qasim Al-Utaqi, and two scholars and students of Ibn Al-Qasim and Imam Malik, Asad ibn Furat and Sahnun.

He means that when a text simply says “the Book” such as it saying “the opinion is found in the Book” without explicitly saying which book, it means the Mudawwana. It is referred to like this because the Mudawwana is so present in every Maliki’s mind that it does not need to be specified that it is the Mudawwana.

The Mudawwana is also referred to as Al-Umm (the Mother/Source), and sometimes, it is simply referred to as “fiha” (in her/it). Qadi Iyyad, the famous saint and Maliki jurist referred to the Mudawwana is the greatest book ever written in Fiqh from all of the collections (dawawin) and the foundation of the school and its reliance.

Hattab, Mawahib ul-Jalil, 34. Qadi Iyyad, Tartib ul-Madarik, 274/1.

The Mudawwana is the first of the four well-known source books of the school and is the most authoritative. Almost always, the position of the Maliki school is whatever is recorded from Imam Malik and narrated by Ibn Al-Qasim in the Mudawwana. Since Imam Malik taught Fiqh for many years and many instances and questions came up, there are often different narrations about what Imam Malik said about a matter. Due to Ibn Al-Qasim’s seniority as well as the care and precision that was taken in crafting the book, if the Mudawwana contradicts another narration of Imam Malik in another book, the Mudawwana nearly always takes priority.

Qadi Iyyad explicitly mentioned that according to the Maghrebi Maliki scholars, its narrations take precedence over any contradictory narrations from another book.

Hattab, Mawahib ul-Jalil, 34. Qadi Iyyad, Tartib ul-Madarik, 274/1.

Imam Abdul Salam Abu Sa’id Sahnun ibn Sa’id Al-Tanukhi (161 - 240 AH) is the scholar from Qayrawan who compiled the Mudawwana and revised it multiple times. Initially, the Mudawwana was called the Asadiyya and written by Asad ibn Furat after the death of Imam Malik when he went to study with Ibn Al-Qasim. Afterwards, Imam Sahnun took the Asadiyya, and went back to Ibn Al-Qasim to revise it and reorganize it. He also went to the other living students of Imam Malik such as Ibn Wahb, Ashhab and added their opinions as well to the book.

He was also praised by those scholars, such as Ashhab, who was asked, “who was the most knowledgeable from those who came to you from Al-Maghreb?” He replied that it was Sahnun. They asked him, “What about Asad [ibn Furat]?” In response, he replied, “By Allah, Sahnun was more knowledgeable in Fiqh than him by ninety-nine times.” He also stated that no one from Al-Maghreb was as knowledgeable as Sahnun.

Throughout his life, until the year 234 AH, Imam Sahnun refused to become the Qadi (judge) of Ifriqa (Tunisia and North Africa). Finally, a time came where he could not refuse the ruler. At this time, scholars considered the appointment of being a judge as one of the worst trials and tribulations that a scholar could be subjected to due to its political nature and extreme responsibility. On the day that he finally was forced to accept the position, he went to his daughter Khadijah, and told her, “your father was slaughtered without a knife today.” After this, he remained a judge until 240 AH when he passed away.

The writing of the Mudawwana until its final state is also an important story in the Maliki school. Asad ibn Furat was a student of Imam Malik who was known for being extremely inquisitive and unafraid to ask the Imam questions despite his awe-inspiring presence and dislike for hypothetical questions. Finally, Imam Malik took Asad to the side and advised him to go to Kufa in Iraq and study with Imam Abu Hanifa and his students since his learning style was more akin to that of the scholars of Kufa. Asad took his advice and went to Kufa, where he began studying with Imam Abu Hanifa’s students, but his heart still lingered in Madinah. When the news of the death of Imam Malik reached him there, he saw how the scholars of Kufa wept over his passing and he realized that he had made a grave mistake.

As a result, Asad ibn Furat compiled a list of matters of which he knew the Hanafi position, but he sought to know Imam Malik’s positions. He found that the most knowledgeable of Imam Malik’s fiqh were the Egyptians, so he travelled to them, first going to Ashhab. He found Ashhab to be an ocean of knowledge, but he disliked how Ashhab would first relate Imam Malik’s position, but then state how the position was mistaken and then give his personal position on the matter. As a result, Asad would say to himself a line that is now well-known among the Malikis:

“This person with his teacher is like a man who goes to the ocean and urinates on the beach. Then he looks at his urine and says, ‘this urine is an ocean just like how that ocean is an ocean.’”

After leaving Ashhab, he finally came across Ibn Al-Qasim and found him to be righteous, humble, and an ocean of knowledge when it came to relaying the opinions of Imam Malik. He asked Ibn Al-Qasim all the questions that he had, marking down the answers. However, at times Ibn Al-Qasim would state that he was unsure of a certain answer and would instruct him to confirm the answer from the notes that Ibn Al-Qasim had taken from Imam Malik. Ibn Al-Qasim had taken over three camel-loads worth of notes from his time with Imam Malik. However, Asad bin Furat did not refer back to the notes. When Asad bin Furat returned back to Qayrawan, he met Sahnun there, who asked him if he could borrow the book to copy it. While he initially refused, he eventually relented, allowing Sahnun to borrow the book for a night. By the morning, Sahnun had transcribed the entire book, which is several volumes in length. When Asad ibn Furat realized what Sahnun had done, he grew extremely angry, but what was done could not be reversed.

Sahnun then traveled to Ibn Al-Qasim to read the book with him and revise it. Sahnun revised it based on the notes of Ibn Al-Qasim, correcting many of the mistakes in it. When Sahnun returned with the revised version of the Mudawwana to Qayrawan, Ibn Al-Qasim wrote to Asad ibn Furat, urging him to accept the revisions of Sahnun. Asad refused, and as a result Ibn Al-Qasim is reported to have made a du’aa against Asad’s book for it to be stripped of all baraka. To this day, the original Asadiyya is lost and was totally forgotten in exchange for the revised Mudawwana of Sahnun. Later on, Sahnun continued to revise the book, adding additional quotes from the Muwatta, recording the opinions of the other senior students of Imam Malik such as Ashhab and Ibn Wahb, and organized its chapters to be more logical and orderly. However, he passed away before the second revision was completed, causing a part of the book to remain unrevised and disorganized.

Al-Utbiyya, also referred to as Al-Mustakhraja is the second mother-book of the school. The author of the book is Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Abdul Aziz bin ‘Utbah. It was initially rejected by many scholars due to its narrations often seemingly contradicting the Mudawwana. However, Ibn Rushd wrote his magnus opus, Al-Bayan wal-Tahsil, which was a commentary on the ‘Utbiyya which showed that the ‘Utbiyya and the Mudawwana were not in contradiction and rather there was usually a way to reconcile the seemingly contradictory narrations. The ‘Utbiyya’s manuscript itself is lost, but its entirety remains in Al-Bayan wal-Tahsil which is still in print up until today.

Ibn Mawwaz is attributed to have written the last of the fourth mother-book, Al-Mawazziya. This book is known for building off branching matters baased on the foundations of the school. For this reason, this special feature of the book gives it an advantage over the other three books.

These four books, and another two books are referred to as the Dawawin, or “written collections”. These books are the relied-upon sources of the early school. The first is Al-Mabsuta written by the Iraqi Maliki scholar Al-Qadi Isma’il and the second is attributed to Ibn ‘Abdus.

The Imam also clarifies that the Mukhtalita (The Mixed Book) of Ibn Al-Qasim is the same thing as the Mudawwana but with a different name. The Mudawwana’s full title is Al-Mudawwana wal-Mukhtalita or “The Collection and the Mixed”. It is referred to like this because the first part of the book was reorganized by Sahnun to be more topical. However, before he fully reorganized the book’s narrations in accordance with their chapters, he passed away leaving a portion of the book to be mixed. It is well-known that many of the matters found in the Mudawwana are not found in the chapter that one would expect. Here, the Imam clarifies that the Mukhtalita is simply another name for the Mudawwana.

The Maliki school is the vastest school in terms of geographical reach in the early years of the four madhabs. It stretched from Al-Andalus in the West all the way to Iraq in the East and it covered everything in between. Even today, there are Maliki regions in all of these areas. Imam Malik had four main schools, comprised of groups of where the students originated from. There were four- the Medinan school, the Egyptians, the Maghrebis, and the Iraqis. While for the most part, all of these schools equally represented the school and did not have major differences of opinion, each of the four schools had special distinguishing features such as the sources the prioritized and their writing style.

The Shaykh starts with the Medinan school because of the special rank of the City of the Prophet ﷺ. When the Malikis refer to “the Medinans” they are referring to the group of scholars that he mentions. By “sons of Kinanan and Majishun”, he is referring to Ibn Kinana and Ibn Majishun. The Shaykh will use this phrase “the son of” multiple times due to the constraints of the poetic meter. Whenever he says “the son of”, the reader can assume he means “Ibn ...”.

Meaning, Ibn Nafi’, Ibn Maslama, and Mutarraf. He also says that there are other scholars that he did not mention, but if they were from Medina, then they are attributed to the Medinan school as well even if he did not explicitly mention them here.

Next, the Shaykh mentions the Egyptian school. He mentions Ashhab, Asbagh, and Ibn Abdul Hakam. Then, he mentions Al-’Utaqi, referring to Imam Malik’s most senior student, Abdul-Rahman Ibn Al-Qasim Al-’Utaqi, the source of the Mudawwana as previously mentioned. He also mentions Ibn Wahb, the great scholar of Fiqh and Hadith who Imam Malik affectionately referred to as “Al-Faqih” or “the Jurist” which was the highest possible praise that could come from someone like Imam Malik.

The Imam also mentions that the Egyptian school is given precedence over the other schools, due to their intelligence and integrity in representing the school of Imam Malik.

Likewise, the Medinan school had priority over the other two schools. The Imam also mentions that the sun never set over the Maghrebi school, which is a reference to the Bouthlayhiyya which states: “and rely upon what is made mashhur by the Maghrebis (the Western Malikis in West Africa). However, the son has not yet set on the Mashreqis (the Eastern Malikis).” By this, he means that the special feature of the Maghrebi school is that it was never cut off from the Maliki madhab, and there is an unbroken chain of teaching and ruling by the Maliki school. This is unlike the other three schools which faced interruptions in the transmission of the school for one time or another.

The Imam then mentions the scholars of the Maghrebi school, such as Al-Baaji, who wrote the commentary on the Muwatta titled “Al-Muntaqa” as well as other works in Usul and the other sciences. He is also credited for stopping the spread of the Dhahiri school in Andalusia. Then, he mentions Ibn Muhriz, and Ibn Abi Zayd, the author of the famous Risala and other invaluable works in the school such as his Ikhtisar (summary) of the Mudawwana and Al-Nawadir wal-Ziyadat that records the narrations of Imam Malik that are not found in the Mudawwana and ‘Utbiyya that would have otherwise been lost. Then, the Imam mentions Al-Lakhmi who is the scholar from Siciliy who wrote Al-Tabsira and the teacher of Imam Al-Maziri. He also mentions the Hadith scholar and great Maliki jurist, Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-Arabi.

Then, he mentions Ibn Shablun and Al-Labbad, as well as Al-Qaabisi.

Then, the Imam mentions Qadi Sanad, Ibn Rushd (the grandfather), Al-Makzumi, and Ibn Abdul Barr, the famous Hadith scholar with multiple commentaries on the Muwatta.

Then, the Imam mentions Ibn Sha’ban. He also states that their opinions and transmission of the school is more authoritative than the Iraqi school, whose scholars he will mention below.

The Shaykh says “if you are asked...” both as a way to complete the poetic meter but also as a subtle indication towards the lack of knowledge that people have about the Iraqi school which is typically seen as more obscure than the other three schools. However, he says that we still have plenty of information and works from the great scholars of this school, such as Al-Qadi Isma’il and Abi Al-Faraj.

Then, he mentions Al-Abhari and Qadi Abdul-Wahhab, the author of Al-Talqin and the commentary of the Risala of Ibn Abi Zayd. Then he mentions Ibn Al-Qassar who wrote ‘Uyun ul-Adilla, a book defending the Maliki positions and showing their superiority over the other schools as well as Ibn Al-Jallab.

In many books, rather than referring to the entire full name of the scholar whose work or opinion they are citing, the Maliki scholars would use nicknames that had become ubiquitous among the Maliki tradition to refere to those scholars. There is often confusion about who is meant by these (even by very high level classical scholars in the school such as Ibn Al-Haajib), so the shaykh gathers them all here.

Then, when “the Imam” is used and it is also clear that it is not referring to Imam Malik, then this refers to Imam Al-Maziri, the student of Imam Al-Lakhmi. He was the author of multiple crucial books in the Maliki school in Usul, Fiqh, and Hadith, such as a commentary on Al-Talqin by Qadi Abdul Wahhab, a commentary on Imam Al-Juwayni’s Al-Burhan in Usul ul-Fiqh, and an unfinished commentary on Sahih Muslim which was later completed by Qadi Iyyad and later developed by other scholars. When “Al-Shaykh” is mentioned, it refers to Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani. This is apparent in how Imam Ibn Arafa uses it, although “the Shaykh” may also refer to other scholars. Usually, “Al-Shaykh” refers to the author’s direct teacher, such as how when Imam Al-Dardir says “our Shaykh” he is referring to his teacher Imam Al-Adawi.

While “the Shaykh” refers to Ibn Abi Zayd himself, “the Two Shaykhs” refers to Ibn Abi Zayd and Al-Qaabisi. Additionally, Ashhab and Ibn Nafi’ are referred to as “the Two Friends” because they were two students who used to be best friends despite Ashhab being from Egypt and Ibn Nafi’ being from Medina.

When the term “the Two Judges” is used, it is referring to the two Iraqi scholars, Qadi Abdul Wahhab and Qadi Isma’il.

Mutarrif and Abdul Malik were two brothers, so they are often referred to as “the Two Brothers”. Likewise, “the progeny of Mawwaz and Sahnun”, i.e., Muhammad ibn Mawwaz and Muhammad ibn Sahnun are referred to as “the Two Muhammads”. It is also said that in fact, Muhammad ibn Sahnun is not the second of “the Two Muhammads” and instead, it is Muhammad Ibn Abdul Hakkam.

Next, the Imam mentions “the Two Sicilians” who were from Sicily which was historically a Maliki and Muslim land. When he says “the son of Yunus”, he is referring to Ibn Yunus, the author of Al-Jaami’ which is a commentary of the Mudawwana. This book was so authoritative and important to the Malikis that it was referred to as “the Mushaf of the Malikiyya”.

Then, the Imam mentions that all of the aforementioned “Muhammad’s” were in a single era: Muhammad ibn Abdul Hakkam, Muhammad ibn Abdus, Muhammad ibn Al-Mawwaz, and Muhammad ibn Sahnun were all from a single era, the likes of which has never been seen again in terms of its knowledge.

After completing the discussion of important books and figures in the school, the Shaykh starts discussing the terminologies that are often used in Maliki books. He also brings up the differences of opinion and similar terms such as “narration” (riwaya) and “opinion” (qawl) that one may think have the same meaning but in fact are very different.

I also translate qawl as “opinion” even though it literally translates to “saying”. “Opinion” is still a linguistically valid translation of qawl and it better represents what is meant by the word when the scholars use it.

The Imam refers to Imam Malik as al-Najm or the Shining Star due to him being the guide for us to understand Fiqh in accordance to the Qur’an and Sunnah. When a book refers to there being multiple “narrations” on a matter, it is referring to multiple narrations that all go back to Imam Malik or his companions about a particular matter.

This is in contrast to “opinions” which refers to different opinions of the later scholars “who tread the way afterwards”, i.e., were Maliki scholars that followed the Usul of Imam Malik but came later and thus had less authority in the school compared to Imam Malik and his companions.

This difference is important because sometimes there may be two different positions of the school on a particular matter and it may be due to multiple narrations going back to Imam Malik. In another case, there may be two different positions, but they go back to two different opinions by two later scholars. Typically, when the difference is due to multiple narrations, it is a stronger difference of opinion as opposed to when the difference is due to differing opinions of the later scholars. Likewise, when there are two positions on a matter and one is based on a narration of Imam Malik and the other is based on the opinion of a later scholar, the difference of opinion is much weaker and the direct narration will take precedence over the opinion.

When a Maliki text refers to “consensus” (ijmaa’), it is referring to the terminology of Usul ul-Fiqh which is a complete consensus of all mujtahid scholars of an era. On the other hand, when they say “agreement” (ittifaaq), it refers to only the agreement of the scholars of the Madhab.

When the word “the Majority” (al-jumhur) is used, it is in reference to the four Imams and their schools. So, for example, if three of the four Madhabs have one position and one out of four holds another position, then it is said that “the Majority” are on the first position.

Next, the Imam begins defining the parameters of what exactly is the Maliki school. There are differing opinions on what the parameters of the Maliki school/methodology is. For example, is the Madhab only limited to the statements of Imam Malik since he is the mujtahid mutlaq (unrestricted jurist) who founded the Madhab? Or, does it include Imam Malik’s opinions as well as his students like Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Qasim and Ibn Wahb who also reached the rank of ijtihad and did it within the parameters of Imam Malik’s methodology. Or, does it include their opinions, in addition to the opinions of the later scholars who may or may not have reached unrestricted ijtihad but they did derive opinions of the school based on existing rulings of the school?

The Imam answers this question by explaining that it means different things depending on who is using the term. When “the Madhab” is used by the later scholars, they are referring to the position of the school that is relied-upon and legal edicts (fatwa) are given in accordance to this position. For example, when a later scholar would be asked about dalk (passing the hands over the limbs during wudu’), he may say, “the Madhab is that dalk is obligatory.” In other words, the prominent position of the school is that it is obligatory, without differentiating between if it was directly stated by Imam Malik and his students or if it was derived by later scholars.

The Shaykh then explains why this terminology is used by the later scholars. One may object to this usage of the “Madhab” being used to exclusively refer to what the fatwa is given by, because there are many examples of Imam Malik’s students and even Imam Malik himself holding an opinion and the fatwa being given by another opinion. If one were to say that only the positions that the fatwa is given by is the Madhab, then they would even be excluding some opinions of Imam Malik.

The Shaykh explains that the response to this is that it is linguistically valid to refer to something by a major part of it, even if there are other parts. For example, if we were to divide the opinions of the entire Maliki school into two sections- the first being the subset of the opinions by which the fatwa is given, and the second part being the subset by which the opinions are not given- it would be valid for us to refer to the Madhab by only one part. This is a form of figurative speech (majaz) that is used in instances where a certain part of something is a crucial, defining aspect of the whole. The Shaykh proves the validity of this by the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he says “Hajj is Arafa” to show the importance of Arafa to Hajj, despite there being other pillars of Hajj as well.

This answers the aforementioned question about whether the Madhab refers to the opinions of just Imam Malik, or does it also refer to the opinions of his companions. The author clarifies the correct opinion by saying that both are considered the Madhab of Imam Malik. After that, he gives the proof for this position. The proof is that the statements and opinions of the companions of the Imam, and likewise the opinions derived from those statements done by the later scholars, are all based on the Usul (principles) of Imam Malik. Either, the opinion was derived by a companion of Imam Malik or a scholar within the school who reached the level of ijtihad by examining the Qur’an, Sunnah, and various sources directly based on Imam Malik’s principles (istinbaat ul ahkaam min al-adilla al-asliyya), or it was reached by a scholar doing a lower level of ijtihad by examining the opinions of the mujtahid Imams and deriving additional rulings from those principles.

Next, Shaykh Al-Hassaan clarifies how the school is transmitted. In certain matters, there is a particular modality by which the Madhab is transmitted. These differences may arise due to higher level differences among the original schools of the Madhab or other factors. When this is examined by the later scholars, it is referred to as a tariq (pathway). Sometimes, an opinion may have multiple pathways as will be mentioned.

In other words, there are instances where a scholar held that the Madhab’s opinion on a matter is a particular way. For example, they may about a certain action that the previous scholars of the Madhabs either held that it was permitted (mubah) or disliked (makruh) and there were no scholars in the school that held any other opinion.

In conjunction with the previous example, there are times where another scholar may have a different way that the Madhab was related to him. He may say about the same exact matter that the scholars of the school held that the ruling of that action was either makruh or haram. When there are more than one modes by which the Madhab is transmitted, then there are multiple paths (turuq).

After this, the Imam mentions the permissibility of how a later scholar must transmit the Madhab. For example, in the books of the later scholars, they will transmit that the school had multiple turuq for a certain matter. Is it permitted for the later scholar to suffice with only one tariqa and neglect to mention the other one? The Imam mentions the answer to this, saying that it is permitted only when someone meets the following conditions.

In order for a scholar to only mention a single tariqa, they must gather the levels of knowing all the principles of the school, its Mashhur opinions, and have the ability to do qiyas or analogical reasoning. By principles, either the author means the Usuli principles of the school, or he means the scholar must be knowledgeable of the root propositions (the narrations and texts of Imam Malik and his companions) upon which the matter is built. If a scholar is capable of doing this, then he will have the ability to do tarjih, or preponderate between the different turuq and reach a conclusion.

In other words, the ability to do this only comes with the utmost effort and ijtihad. It is not something that an individual who does not have the ability to do ijtihad in any of its forms will be permitted to do.

The exception to this, i.e., sufficing with only one tariqa and not mentioning the other, is permitted if the scholar who is teaching attributes the tariqa to the original scholar that it is relayed from. For example, the scholar can teach his students that the tariqa of Ibn Rushd on this matter was such-and-such. In this case, it would be permitted for him to only mention one tariqa and leave the others, since he absolves himself from blame by merely transmitting the opinion of Ibn Rushd without commentating on its validity or invalidity compared to another tariqa.

After this, the Imam explains some other terminology that is used by the latter scholars (mutaakhirun). He explains their era, as well as some of the terminology used by them. Often, the terminology of the latter scholars is found in the commentaries of Mukhtasar Khalil, so it is critical for someone to understand their terminology since one cannot give fatwa without reading Mukhtasar Khalil and its commentaries.

The Imam explains that the latter scholars of the Maliki school are the scholars that came after Ibn Abi Zayd. Ibn Abi Zayd is considered the last of the early scholars (mutaqaddimun) while simultaneously being the first of the latter scholars.

Then, the Imam explains the corollaries of various terminologies, such as “the more correct” (al-assah). One may think that when a text says al-assah, it means that the opposite opinion is incorrect. The Shaykh clarifies this, saying that in fact, the corollary of the opinion that is “more correct” is the opinion that is “correct”. In other words, both opinions are valid, but one is more valid than the other, perhaps due to its strength.

Likewise, when a scholar says the apparent, it is referring to the apparent position of the school in the absence of an explicit evidence from an earlier scholar. It may also refer to what is more apparent to that particular scholar. The Shaykh clarifies that in some cases, two opinions both may be apparent, and thus valid to follow, but one may appear more valid than the other to a scholar. This is to correct the notion that the corollary of “more apparent” is “not apparent”.

Then, the Shaykh explains the grammatical basis for why the previous line is true. He says that the definition of a superlative (a word such as “more important” or “stronger”, etc.) according to the scholars of grammar is that it shares in the root meaning (importance or strength, respectively), but it also carries the meaning of being more intense than the original word (important or strong). Thus, the corollary of “stronger” is “strong”, not “weak”. This can be applied to all terminology that uses a superlative word.

Additionally, the Shaykh mentions the correlate of mashhur. Its opposite is gharib which linguistically means strange or unknown. In the next few lines, he will explain what is the definition of mashhur. Likewise, he explains that the opposite of “correct” (sahih) is “incorrect”.

All of these are important for when a student is reading the books of the Maliki scholars and must do inference by way of negation (mafhum al-mukhalafa). For example, if the text says, “the more valid opinion is that dalk is obligatory”, then they should understand that “the less but still valid opinion is that dalk is not obligatory”. Similarly, if the author says “the correct opinion is that dalk is obligatory”, then they should understand from the text that “the weak opinion is that dalk is not obligatory,” and so on.

Then, the Imam defines some of the aforementioned terms. The first is rajih which linguistically means “preponderant” or “correct”. So, the rajih is the opinion that has a stronger proof in terms of Usul or its basis in the Madhab. Then, the Shaykh mentions that a weak opinion holds that the mashhur is actually equal, i.e., a synonym of the mashhur and they in fact are the same thing. He uses the passive voice (“it is said...”) to indicate that this is a weak opinion.

Then, the Shaykh explains the relied-upon understanding of what the mashhur is, which is the opinion that was held by more people. By “people”, he means the people of the Maliki madhab, referring to the early scholars of the school, not the later scholars or the laymen who follow the school.

Another opinion states that the mashhur is referring to the opinion of Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Qasim Al-’Utaqi, the great student of Imam Malik, that he relates from Imam Malik as found in Al-Umm. Al-Umm, or “The Mother” or “The Source” refers to the Mudawwana. So, this opinion states that the mashhur is defined as what Ibn Al-Qasim states is Imam Malik’s opinion recorded in the Mudawwana.

The Shaykh then answers the question about what one should follow in the case of contradiction between the mashhur and the raajih. While there are different opinions about this, the Shaykh selects the opinion of Imam Al-’Adawi as found in his marginal gloss on Sharh al-Khurashi on Mukhtasar Khalil, where he states that when the two contradict, the mashhur is given precedence.

However, he qualifies the statement of Imam Al-’Adawi, saying that in some instances, the Imam stuck to this principle, but in other instances, he actually preferred the Rajih over the mashhur. Different scholars, such as Imam Al-Wansharisi, and many others held different opinions about how one should deal with the raajih over the mashhur. Another consideration is that sometimes it is differed upon what is the mashhur and different scholars, such as Ibn Al-Haajib, may hold that one opinion is the mashhur and another scholar like Ibn Rushd may hold that another opinion is the mashhur. In that case, the mufti would need to be knowledgeable about the ranks of the various claimants of what is the mashhur (tashhir) to reach the right conclusion. Likewise, a certain opinion may appear as the raajih to a certain scholar, and the opposite opinion may appear as the raajih to another scholar, all based on their knowledge of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and other evidences.

Finally, the Shaykh refers to himself as short-sighted, out of humility in front of Allah. He asks for kindness and clemency from his critics, stating that it is more befitting for someone to be kind in the way that they criticize since they are not the first one to ever criticize another.

He reminds the student of knowledge and the critic that all humans share in the fact that they make mistakes, and thus, he too is capable of making mistakes. This is based on the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ where he says, “All of the Children of Adam make mistakes...”

The Shaykh also explains that the facts that he wrote in this composition were not based out of his own knowledge, but rather, he based it off of the knowledge of two giants- Imam Ali Al-’Adawi and Imam Muhammad Al-Hattab. This line fulfills two purposes as he is saying that if a critic seeks to criticize him, then they ought to think twice, because these are the opinions of Imam Al-’Adawi and Imam Al-Hattab. His second purpose is to tell the reader about the sources of his composition. This is customarily done either in the beginning of the text, such as how Imam Khalil explains the main sources he relied on in his introduction, or it is done at the end of the text, such as how Imam Abdullah ibn Hajam Al-Shinqiti explained his sources at the end of his poem, Maraqi al-Su’ud.

Finally, the Imam ends the book how he began it, with praise of Allah, the Most High. He specifies that it is a gift, i.e., a kindness that one does not deserve, from Allah to be given any good deeds, since Allah owns all of creation and any mercy that He shows to His creation is out of His generosity, and any punishment is from His justice. Thus, Shaykh Hassaan Al-Khadim, may Allah preserve him, ends his book in acknowledgement that all good comes from Allah. He also specifies that the praise matches Allah in His blessings, which are innumerable, and thus his praise is also innumerable.

Finally, he ends the book by sending salawat upon our Master Muhammad ﷺ who he attributes with two matters- the perfection of character and being the Seal of Prophethood. This is based on the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ informing us, “Indeed, I was sent to complete perfect character” as well as the knowledge that the Prophet ﷺ is the Final Prophet and Messenger, which is known in the religion by necessity. He completes his versification with these lines and salutation on the Beloved because salawat on him ﷺ are accepted unconditionally, so if one begins something with salutations on him ﷺ and ends them with salutations on him ﷺ, then there is good hope that everything in between will also be accepted by the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

I conclude with blessings and peace be upon our Master, the Beloved, and upon all the Prophets and Messengers, his family, companions, and all of those upon his way.