بَابُ فَضَائِلِ الْمَدِينَةِ زَادَهَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى شَرَفًا وَتَعْظِيمًاThe Virtues of Madinah

² The statement: "O Abu Umayr..." - At-Tahawi said this occurred in Madinah; if its game had Makkah's sanctity, the Prophet (ﷺ) wouldn't have allowed keeping the bird. At-Turbushti added: If it were forbidden, he wouldn't have remained silent when needed. Our madhab follows Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Umar and Aisha - their practice is better than analogy. (Al-Mirqah) As for Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas' hadith about confiscation, that was when financial punishments were applied for sins (like taking half the wealth of those who refused zakat), but this was abrogated. Ibn Battal said Malik didn't authenticate Sa'd's hadith. (Umdat al-Qari) The confiscation contradicts Madinah having Makkah's sanctity, as there's no confiscation in Makkah's Haram by consensus. (Al-Mirqah) There is no Haram for Madinah in our view (unlike the three Imams), as hunting is permitted unless proven otherwise. (Al-Kafi) The hadith "Madinah is Haram between its two lava fields..." (Muslim) was answered in Al-Muhit as being a solitary narration about a widespread matter, thus unreliable - had it been authentic, it would be widely known.

¹ The statement: “And the date palms were cut”: According to their [scholars’] view, cutting the palms of the Haram is impermissible. Had Madinah been a Haram, he would not have ordered their cutting based on their principle. This is mentioned in Al-Mirqat.

² The statement: “If you were to go to Al-Aqiq...” In Al-Nukhbah, it is said: “This is a clear indication from the Prophet (ﷺ) of the permissibility of hunting in Madinah, for the scholars unanimously agree that Al-Aqiq is part of Madinah, with no disagreement. The Prophet’s (ﷺ) encouragement to hunt there over other places is due to the superiority of its game, as the animals feed on the vegetation of Madinah, making their meat superior to game from elsewhere, just as its fruits are superior to others.” This is also in (Al-Mirqat).

¹ The statement: “Eat from its trees”: This is only permissible by cutting or uprooting, yet we unanimously agree this is impermissible in the Haram of Makkah. Thus, the prohibition elsewhere (outside Uhud) is either recommendatory (not obligatory) or meant to prevent commercial exploitation (not personal consumption), to avoid scarcity and preserve game, similar to the interpretation of the prohibition regarding Wajj Valley’s trees. This is mentioned in Sharh Al-Sunnah: “The Prophet (ﷺ) protected Wajj for public welfare (e.g., charity camels), so hunting there is allowed, as the restriction aimed to prevent public misuse.” Al-Khattabi in Ma’alim Al-Sunan said, “I find no basis for its prohibition unless it was a temporary protection for communal benefit.” If the prohibition was absolute, Al-Tahawi suggested it may have been due to the obligation of migration (Hijrah) to Madinah, ensuring its appeal for settlers. After migration ceased, the ruling lapsed.

¹ The statement: “Let him follow”: An-Nawawi said: The view of our companions and the majority is that the command is for recommendation. Some said it is for permissibility, and others said it is obligatory. This is stated in Al-Marqah and Umdat Al-Qari.

¹ The statement: The one marrying seeking chastity, Thus, it is said in Ad-Durr Al-Mukhtar: It is recommended to take a loan for it.

² The statement: “No one endures the hardships of Madinah...” Al-Nawawi said: “These hadiths, along with others in this chapter, clearly indicate the virtue of residing in Madinah and enduring its difficulties. This merit remains until the Day of Judgment. Scholars differed on residing in Makkah vs. Madinah: Abu Hanifah and others disliked prolonged stay in Makkah, while Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others deemed it recommended. The dislike was due to concerns like diminishing reverence or increased sin (as sins in sacred places are graver, just as rewards are greater). The preferred view is that residing in both is recommended unless one fears falling into the mentioned pitfalls.” Fath Al-Bari adds: “The dislike for staying does not contradict the sanctity of the place, for it stems from human inability to uphold its rights.”

¹ The statement: “Madinah is better for them”: This does not prove Madinah’s superiority over Makkah. As stated in Al-Mirqat.

² The statement: “I will intercede...”: This is not explicit proof of Madinah’s absolute superiority over Makkah, as a lesser place may excel in specific aspects, like Al-Baqi’s virtue over Hajun due to its proximity to the Prophet’s (ﷺ) grave or its soil holding many companions. Alternatively, it may specifically address the Migrants (Muhajirun), as dying in Makkah was discouraged for them. This is in Al-Mirqat.

¹ The statement: “Make Madinah beloved...”: This does not contradict the hadith where the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Makkah, “You are the most beloved land to Allah.” The prayer for increased love was to ease the Migrants’ attachment to Madinah after being compelled to leave Makkah, ensuring they did not resent it. The love here is for comfort, not superior reward. As in Al-Mirqat.

² The statement: "O Allah, bless our fruits..." Our scholars and Al-Shafi'i considered Makkah superior to Madinah, while Malik held the opposite view based on this hadith. However, we have Abdullah ibn Adi ibn Hamra's hadith where the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Makkah: "By Allah, you are the best land of Allah and most beloved to Allah." Also Ibn Abbas narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Makkah: "How pure you are as a city and how dear you are to me! Had my people not driven me out, I would not have lived anywhere else." The Prophet's prayer for Madinah was specifically regarding abundance of fruits, not absolute superiority. As mentioned in Sharh An-Nuqayah and Umdat Al-Qari.

¹ The statement: A man has the right, etc., If someone gives a gift to a non-relative, according to us, they may revoke it after acceptance. Before acceptance, the gift is not complete without a preventing factor, though revoking is disliked, either prohibitively or preferably. Shafi’i said there is no revocation, and this narration supports us. As stated in Al-Hidayah and Ad-Durr Al-Mukhtar.

¹ The statement: "Double the blessings You granted Makkah" refers to worldly provisions, not contradicting Makkah's superiority in multiplied rewards for good deeds. The former is material, the latter spiritual. As in Al-Mirqat.

¹ The statement: They ate, There is no indication of not announcing it or not waiting until it is likely the owner will not claim it. The “fa” may indicate mere sequence, not immediate succession, depending on the context. For example, it is said, “So-and-so married, and a child was born to him,” even if the interval is only the pregnancy period, though it is long. Allah says: Have you not seen that Allah sends down water from the sky, and the earth becomes green? [Al-Hajj: 63]. As stated in Al-Marqah. In Nasb Ar-Rayah: Perhaps the interpretation is that announcement has no specific form to be valid, and consulting the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) publicly is an announcement, supporting sufficing with one announcement. They differed on the announcement period. Muhammad, Malik, and Shafi’i set it at a year, regardless of value, based on some narrations’ apparent meaning. The sounder view according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf is that it is not fixed but delegated to the finder’s judgment, announcing until they believe the owner will not claim it. This is the chosen view of Shams Al-A’immah As-Sarakhsi, and the fatwa is based on it, as in Jami’ Al-Mudmarat and Al-Jawhara. The mention of a year in the narration is incidental, based on the norm, as stated in Sharh Al-Wiqayah, Umdat Ar-Ri’ayah, and Al-Luma’at. ² The statement: Announced it for three days, This supports Shams Al-A’immah’s chosen view that fixing a year or otherwise is not binding, but it is until the finder is satisfied the owner has given up. As stated in Fath Al-Qadir. ³ The statement: Announce it, etc., The sounder view is that no fixed announcement period is binding, and it is delegated to the finder’s judgment due to this narration’s generality. The restriction to a year may be because the property in question required it. As stated in Al-Marqah. ⁴ The statement: Announced it for a year, etc., This supports Shams Al-A’immah’s view that a year is not a fixed requirement, but it depends on the finder’s belief about the owner’s intent, varying by the property’s value. Since it was valuable, he was ordered to announce for three years. As stated in Fath Al-Qadir. ⁵ The statement: Use it, This narration apparently contradicts the Hanafis’ view that a rich finder may not use it. The narration suggests a rich finder may use it, as Ubayy ibn Ka’b was among the Prophet’s wealthy companions, yet the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) permitted him to use it. The response is the narration in the two Sahihs from Abu Talhah: “O Messenger of Allah, Allah says, You will not attain righteousness until you spend of what you love [Aal-E-Imran: 92]. The property I love most is Bayrha’. What do you think, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Give it to the poor among your relatives.” Abu Talhah gave it to Ubayy and Hassan. This clearly shows Ubayy was poor, though he may have become wealthy later. When circumstances allow for probability, evidence is weakened. As stated in Bazl Al-Majhood and Nasb Ar-Rayah, summarized. In Al-Hidayah: Ubayy’s use was with the leader’s permission, which is permissible. Tirmidhi said after Ubayy’s narration: This is the practice among scholars, the view of Shafi’i, Ahmad, and Ishaq, who said the finder may use it if rich. If found property were only lawful for those eligible for charity, it would not be lawful for Ali ibn Abi Talib, yet he was ordered to consume the dinar when he found it and no one recognized it. Tirmidhi’s point is that use does not mean charity. Imam As-Sarakhsi responded in Al-Mabsut: Regarding Ali’s narration, obligatory charity was not lawful for him, but this was not of that type. It was voluntary charity, permissible for the Prophet’s family according to most of us, so we permit found property for ascendants and descendants, distinguishing between zakat and giving found property in charity. As stated in Bazl Al-Majhood and Al-Arf Ash-Shadhi. ⁶ The statement: Give it in charity, etc., Al-Qadi said: If someone finds property, announces it for a year, and the owner does not appear, they may own it, whether rich or poor, as held by Shafi’i and Ahmad. Ibn Abbas said: The rich give it in charity and neither use nor own it, as held by Abu Hanifah’s companions, supported by this narration. As stated in Al-Marqah. ⁷ The statement: It is narrated from Ibn Abbas, etc., As stated in Al-Marqah. ⁸ The statement: Then consume it, and if its seeker comes, deliver it to them, Al-Hafiz said: Scholars differed on whether, after announcing for a year and disposing of the property, the finder is liable if the owner comes. The majority said the item must be returned if it exists, or its value if consumed. Al-Karabisi, a Shafi’i companion, disagreed, as did Bukhari and Dawud ibn Ali, the Zahiri leader, though Dawud agreed with the majority if the item exists. The majority’s evidence includes the upcoming narration, Let it remain a trust with you, and Muslim’s narration, Note its container and tie, then consume it, and if its owner comes, deliver it to them, and more explicitly, Abu Dawud’s narration: If its seeker comes, deliver it to them; otherwise, note its container and tie, then consume it, and if its seeker comes, deliver it to them. The command to deliver it before and after permitting consumption is the majority’s strongest evidence. As stated in Bazl Al-Majhood. ⁹ The statement: Deliver it to them, Meaning if the claimant proves its mark, it is lawful to deliver, but not obligatory without proof, according to us. Shafi’i said delivery is obligatory if the mark is proven. According to us, delivery is not judicially required without evidence, but conscientiously, it should be returned. As stated in Sharh Al-Wiqayah and Al-Arf Ash-Shadhi. In Al-Inayah: We say the command in this narration must be interpreted as permission to reconcile with the well-known narration, The burden of proof is on the claimant. If not interpreted as permission but obligation, it would lead to contradiction necessitating abandonment. ¹⁰ The statement: Spend it, etc., This indicates clearly that found property is a trust with the finder. The command to spend on oneself is not for ownership but because its purpose is charity. If the finder is poor and needy, it is permitted to give charity to oneself, as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered delivery to the owner after spending, meaning the item if it exists or its value if consumed. As stated in Bazl Al-Majhood.

¹ The statement: "To choose between these three" appears problematic since it was already revealed to him in Makkah that Madinah would be his city of migration. This can be reconciled by understanding that he was first given the choice, then specifically directed to the best option. As in Al-Mirqat.

² The statement: "Whoever visits me..." In Fath Al-Qadir, our scholars said: "Visiting the Prophet's grave is among the most recommended voluntary acts." In Manasik Al-Farsi it states: "It is close to being obligatory for those who have the means."

¹ The statement: "Then visits my grave": The sequential conjunction indicates that visiting after Hajj is most appropriate, in line with the principle of fulfilling obligations before voluntary acts. Al-Hasan reported that Abu Hanifah gave a detailed ruling: If the Hajj is obligatory, one should perform Hajj first then visit; if begun with visiting, it is permissible. For voluntary Hajj, one may choose, though starting with Hajj is preferable - to prioritize Allah's right over the Prophet's right, just as greeting the mosque precedes visiting the Prophet's grave. As in Al-Mirqat.

² The statement: "No place on earth where I would prefer to be buried": Scholars unanimously agreed that dying in Madinah is superior after initially differing on whether residing in Makkah or Madinah is better. This shows the virtue of that sacred place, not necessarily the city's superiority. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would pray: "O Allah, grant me martyrdom in Your cause and let me die in the city of Your Messenger." Consensus holds that the Prophet's burial place is superior to Makkah, the Ka'bah, even the Throne. As in Al-Mirqat.

¹ The statement: "Say: Umrah in Hajj": Its correct meaning is that the reward for praying there equals performing an Umrah within Hajj. This indicates that performing Umrah combined with Hajj (when both share one journey) is better than performing Umrah alone. Since this valley is near Madinah, it shares in Madinah's virtues. As in Al-Mirqat.

¹ The statement: In water, grass, and fire, water refers to that in rivers and wells. If taken and placed in a vessel, it is contained, so selling it is permissible. Grass refers to what grows in unowned land or in owned land without the owner’s cultivation. If the owner cultivates it by watering and preparing the land, the narrations differ. In Adh-Dhakhirah and Al-Muhit: If he sells grass in his land that he cultivated by watering for the sake of the grass, and it grew with his effort, it is permissible, as he owns it. No one can take it without his permission. If it grew naturally, it is not permissible, as it is not owned by him but is permissible by default, as anyone can take it. In Al-Quduri: Selling grass in its land is not permissible, even if he brought water to his land and incurred expenses, as the partnership in grass is established naturally, and partnership ends only by containment. Bringing water to his land is not containment for the grass, so it remains shared, and selling it is not permissible. Al-Halwani narrated from Muhammad (may Allah be pleased with him) that grass is what has no stem, and what stands on a stem is not grass. Al-Fadli said: It is also grass. The partnership in fire means benefiting from its light, warming by it, and drying clothes with it. Taking embers is not allowed without the owner’s permission. As stated in Al-Kifayah.

¹ The statement: Whatever remains is for the closest male relative, They agreed that what remains after the fixed shares is for the agnates, with the closest taking precedence, so a distant agnate does not inherit in the presence of a closer one. This hadith is their evidence. Then, after prioritizing by degree of closeness, they prioritize by strength of kinship, meaning one with two ties is preferred over one with a single tie, whether male or female, due to the statement: Full siblings inherit to the exclusion of paternal siblings, meaning full siblings are more entitled to inheritance than paternal siblings. The mention of the mother here is to highlight what gives full siblings precedence over paternal siblings, such as a brother or sister from both parents, when they become agnates with a daughter, being more entitled than a brother from the father. If you say: The statement whether male or female is redundant, as the discussion is about agnates by themselves, and they are never female. I say: We concede this, but since he intended to clarify here that a sister from both parents, when she becomes an agnate with daughters, is also more entitled than a brother from the father, this condition was mentioned. As derived from Al-Marqah, As-Sirajiyyah, Ash-Sharifiyyah, and Al-Bayhaqi.

¹ The statement: “They were advancing payments for fruits”: Meaning, they paid the price immediately and took the commodity later. This is stated in Al-Marqah. ² The statement: “With a known measure”: According to Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), forward sales have seven conditions: a known type, such as saying wheat or barley; a known kind, such as saying irrigated or rain-fed; a known quality, such as saying good or inferior; a known quantity, such as saying twenty measures or two cubits; a known term, which Ash-Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) disputed; knowledge of the capital amount; and specifying the place of delivery, which Abu Yusuf and Muhammad disputed. These seven conditions are detailed in Al-Hidayah and other sources. In Fath Al-Qadir, it is stated: This hadith explicitly mentions the conditions of a known quantity and term, and the remaining five are established by implication due to the clear intent of precision to avoid disputes. ³ The statement: “A known term”: The Imams differed regarding immediate forward sales. Imam Ash-Shafi‘i permitted it, while Malik, Abu Hanifah, and others prohibited it. Those who permitted it said: The mention of a term in the hadith is not to require a term but means that if there is a term, it must be known. According to us, forward sales must be deferred. Our evidence is this hadith, as Allah mandated observing the term in forward sales, just as He mandated observing the quantity, indicating it is a condition like quantity. Also, it is a contract legislated only as a concession, as it involves selling what one does not possess. A concession in Shari‘ah is a change from the original ruling due to an excuse, leading to leniency. The concession in forward sales is changing the original prohibition of selling what one does not possess to permissibility due to the necessity of bankruptcy. In a state of availability and capability, it does not qualify as a concession, so the original strict ruling applies. This is summarized from Al-Bada’i‘.

² The statement: Ruled that debts are settled before bequests, For this reason, their scholars said: Four rights are attached to the deceased’s estate in order. First, burial and preparation without extravagance or stinginess. Then, debts are settled from all that remains of the wealth. Then, bequests are fulfilled from one-third of what remains after debts. Then, the remainder is divided among the heirs according to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus of the Ummah. As stated in As-Sirajiyyah. If you say: If debts take precedence over bequests, why were they mentioned after in the revelation? I say: Due to the importance of bequests, as they resemble inheritance in being taken without compensation, their fulfillment is burdensome for heirs and significant, and their souls are not at ease with it, making it prone to neglect, unlike debts, which their souls are inclined to settle. Thus, bequests were mentioned before debts to emphasize their obligation and urge haste in fulfilling them alongside debts. As stated in Al-Marqah.

³ The statement: Full siblings inherit to the exclusion of paternal siblings, Some of our meticulous scholars said: The notables of a people are their elites, and full siblings are called the notables. The mention of the mother here is to clarify what gives full siblings precedence over paternal siblings. The meaning is that when full siblings are present with paternal siblings, the inheritance goes to full siblings due to the strength of kinship and dual connection. As stated in Al-Marqah. In Dhaw’ As-Siraj: If it is said: The hadith uses the term sons, which includes males but not females. We say: Not so, rather it includes females just as it includes males. Allah says in the Qur’an: O children of Adam [Al-A’raf: 26], and the address includes women as it includes men.