Excerpt from ‘Alfiyyat Al-^Iraqiyy
الإجَاْزَةُ
License/Permission
440 – ثُمَّ الإِجَازَةُ تَلىِ السَّمَاعَا … وَنُوِّعَتْ لِتِسْعَةٍ أَنْوَاعَا
Then there is ijazah[1] (license/permission); It follows hearing[2], and was categorized into nine types:
441 – أرْفَعُهَا بِحَيْثُ لَا مُنَاولَهْ … تَعْيِيْنُهُ الْمُجَازَ وَالْمُجْازَ لَهْ
Its highest, when no copy was handed over[3], is [the scholar] specifying what’s licensed, and for whom it was licensed[4].
442 – وَبَعْضُهُمْ حَكَى اتِّفَاقَهُمْ عَلَى … جَوَازِ ذَا، وَذَهَبَ (الْبَاجِيْ) إِلَى
And some cite [the scholars’] agreement about the permissibility of that[5], and Al-Bajiyy went [as far as] to …
443 – نَفْي الْخِلَافِ مُطْلَقَاً، وَهْوَ غَلَطْ[6] … قال: وَالاخْتِلَافُ فِي الْعَمَلِ قَطْ
Negate the difference absolutely[7], which is a mistake. He said: the difference is about practicing it only.
444 – وَرَدَّهُ الشَّيْخُ بأِنْ للشَّافِعِي … قَوْلَانِ فِيْهَا ثُمَّ بَعْضُ تَابِعي
And Shaykh [Ibnus-Salah] rejected that, because Ash-Shafi^iyy [himself] has two sayings about it. Furthermore, some who follow …
445 – مَذْهَبِهِ الْقَاضِي حُسَيْنٌ مَنَعَا … وَصَاحِبُ (الْحَاوي) بِهِ قَدْ قَطَعَا
His school; Judge Husayn, barred [it], and the author of Al-Hawi[8], about that was definitive.
446 – قَالَا كَشُعْبَةٍ وَلَو جَازَتْ إِذَنْ … لَبَطْلَتْ رِحْلَةُ طُلَاّبِ السُّنَنْ
They both said like Shu^bah: “Had license been licensed, then the trips of the students of the Sunan would be cancelled![9]”
447 – وَعَنْ (أبي الشَّيْخِ) مَعَ (الْحَرْبِيِّ) … إِبْطَالُهَا كَذَاكَ (لِلسِّجْزِيِّ)
Also, [said] about Abu-sh-Shaykh, as well as Al-Harbiyy is that it should be abolished. Likewise is logged about As-Sijziyy[10].
448 – لَكِنْ عَلى جَوَازِهَا اسْتَقَرَّا … عَمَلُهُمْ، وَالأَكْثَرُوْنَ طُرَّا
Despite that, their practice settled on permitting it[11], and the majorities of them collectively …
449 – قَالُوا بِهِ، كَذَا وُجُوْبُ الْعَمَلِ … بِهَا، وَقِيْلَ: لَا كَحُكْمِ الْمُرْسَلِ
Took that position, as well as the obligation of applying it. And it was said: no! like a mursal report[12].
450 – وَالثَّانِ: أَنْ يُعَيِّنَ الْمُجَازَ لَهْ … دُوْنَ الْمُجَازِ، وَهْوَ أَيْضَاً قَبِلَهْ
The second is to specify who gets licensed, without what is licensed[13], which was also accepted …
451 – جُمْهُوْرُهُمْ رِوَايَةً وَعَمَلَا … وَالْخُلْفُ أَقْوَى فِيْهِ مِمَّا قَدْ خَلَا
By the majorities of them, in reporting and applying, and the difference is stronger[14] in this case than in what passed[15].
452 – وَالثَّالِثُ: التَّعْمِيْمُ فِي الْمُجَازِ … لَهُ، وَقَدْ مَالَ إِلى الْجَوَازِ
The third is generalizing concerning the licensed person, and inclined towards this being permissible[16] …
453 – مُطْلَقَاً (الْخَطِيْبُ) (وَابْنُ مَنْدَهْ) … ثُمَّ (أبو الْعَلَاءِ) أَيْضَاً بَعْدَهْ
… Absolutely was Al-Khatib and Ibn Mandah, then Abul-^Ala’ also after him[17].
454 – وَجَازَ لِلْمَوْجُوْدِ عِنْدَ (الطَّبَرِيْ) … وَالشَّيْخُ لِلإِبْطَالِ مَالَ فَاحْذَرِ
It is valid for “someone present” according to At-Tabariyy, but Shaykh [Ibnus-Salah] towards abolishing it was inclined[18], so watch out[19]!
455 – وَمَا يَعُمُّ مَعَ وَصْفِ حَصْرِ … كَالْعُلَمَا يَوْمَئِذٍ بِالثَّغْرِ
And anything general, but with a qualified description, like “the scholars on the enemy borders today”[20]…
456 – فَإِنَّهُ إِلى الْجَوَازِ أَقْرَبُ … قُلْتُ (عِيَاضٌ) قالَ: لَسْتُ أَحْسِبُ
it is Then more likely to be permitted. I say: ^Iyad said: “I do not reckon …
457 – فِي ذَا اخْتِلَافَاً بَيْنَهُمْ مِمَّنْ يَرَى … إِجَازَةً لِكَوْنِهِ مُنْحَصِرَا
… That there is any difference concerning that amongst them, from anyone who validates license, due to being qualified.”[21]
458 – وَالرَّابعُ: الْجَهْلُ بِمَنْ أُجِيْزَ لَهْ … أو مَا أُجِيْزَ كَأَجَزْتُ أَزْفَلَهْ
The fourth[22] is ignorance about who is licensed, or what was licensed, like: “I permit a group …
459 – بَعْضَ سَمَاَعاِتي، كَذَا إِنْ سَمَّى … كِتَاباً او شَخْصَاً وَقَدْ تَسَمَّى
… some of what I heard!” It is the same if he names a book or a person whose name …
460 – بِهِ سِوَاهُ ثُمَّ لَمَّا يَتَّضِحْ … مُرَادُهُ مِنْ ذَاكَ فَهْوَ لَا يَصِحْ
… Was given to others, and his intent by that is not yet clear; this is not valid.
461 – أَمَّا الْمُسَمَّوْنَ مَعَ الْبَيَانِ … فَلَا يَضُرُّ الْجَهْلُ بِالأَعْيَانِ
As for those who were named with clarity, there is no harm in not knowing them individually.
462 – وَتَنْبَغِي الصِّحَّةُ إِنْ جَمَلَهُمْ … مِنْ غَيْرِ عَدٍّ وَتَصَفُّحٍ لَهُمْ
And it should be valid if he bundles them without counting them or scanning them.
463 – وَالْخَامِسُ: التَّعْلِيْقُ فِي الإِجَازَهْ … بِمَنْ يَشَاؤُهَا الذَّيِ أَجَازَهْ
The fifth[23] is for the license to be pending [something like:] whomever wants to be licensed [by the shaykh];
464 – أو غَيْرُهُ مُعَيَّنَاً، وَالأُولَى … أَكْثَرُ جَهْلاً، وَأَجَازَ الْكُلَاّ
… Or [whoever] someone else in particular [wants to license]. the first [obviously] has more ambiguity. And permitting both of them …
465 – مَعاً (أبو يَعْلَى) الإِمَامُ الْحَنْبَلِيْ … مَعَ (ابْنِ عُمْرُوْسٍ) وَقَالَا: يَنْجَلِي
Together was Abu Ya^la, the Hambaliyy imam, along with Ibn ^Umrus. They both said: “It becomes clear…
466 – الْجَهْلُ إِذْ يَشَاؤُهَا، وَالظَّاهِرُ … بُطْلَانُهَا أَفْتَى بِذَاك (طَاهِرُ)
… that ignorance, when the said person wants it!”[24] However, what appears is its invalidity. Tahir gave that verdict.[25]
467 – قُلْتُ: وَجَدْتُ (ابنَ أبي خَيْثَمَةِ) … أَجَازَ كَالَّثانِيَةِ الْمْبُهَمَةِ
I say: I found Ibn Abi Khaythamah permitted [it][26], like the second ambiguous one.
468 – وَإِنْ يَقُلْ: مَنْ شَاءَ يَرْوِي قَرُبَا … وَنَحْوَهُ (الأَزْدِي) مُجِيْزَاً كَتَبَا
And if he were to say: “Whoever wants may narrate!”[27] that is closer. Like that did Al-Azdiyy write as a licenser.
469 – أَمَّا: أَجَزْتُ لِفُلَانٍ إِنْ يُرِدْ … فَالأَظْهَرُ الأَقْوَى الْجَوَازُ فَاعْتَمِدْ
As for: “I permit Fulan if he wants!”[28] What is most apparent and strongest is validity, so it was used.
470 – وَالسَّادِسُ: الإِذْنُ لِمَعْدُوْمٍ تَبَعْ … كَقَوْلِهِ: أَجَزْتُ لِفُلَانِ مَعْ
The sixth[29] is permission for someone nonexistent[30], but by extension [of who is], like to say: “I permit Fulan, with …
471 – أَوْلَادِهِ وَنَسْلِهِ وَعَقِبِهْ … حَيْثُ أَتَوْا أَوْ خَصَّصَ الْمَعْدُوْمَ بِهْ
His children and his offspring and his descendants, whenever they come!” or [even] to specify the nonexistent with it [independently].
472 – وَهْوَ أَوْهَى، وَأَجَازَ الأَوَّلَا … (ابْنُ أبي دَاوُدَ) وَهْوَ مُثِّلَا
And that is weaker[31]. However, Ibn Abu Dawud permitted the first, and it was compared …
473 – بِالْوَقْفِ، لَكِنْ (أَبَا الطَّيِّبِ) رَدْ … كِلَيْهِمَا وَهْوَ الصَّحِيْحُ الْمُعْتَمَدْ
… to the dedication.[32] However, Abut-Tayyib rejected both – and that is what is correct and reliable –
474 – كَذَا أبو نَصْرٍ. وَجَازَ مُطْلَقَا … عِنْدَ الْخَطِيْبِ وَبِهِ قَدْ سُبِقَا
As well as Abu Nasr[33]. And it is absolutely permitted according to Al-Khatib, and in the same verdict, he was preceded …
475 – مِنِ ابْنِ عُمْرُوْسٍ مَعَ الْفَرَّاءِ … وَقَدْ رَأَى الْحُكْمَ عَلى اسْتِوَاءِ
By Ibn ^Umrus, as well as Al-Farra’. And deeming the verdict equal
476 – فِي الْوَقْفِ في صِحَّتِهِ مَنْ تَبِعَا … أَبَا حَنِيْفَةَ وَمَالِكَاً مَعَا
To the dedication in its validity does who followed Abu Hanifah, and Malik, also[34].
477 – وَالسَّاِبعُ: الإِذْنُ لِغَيْرِ أَهْلِ … لِلأَخْذِ عَنْهُ كَافِرٍ أو طِفْلِ
The seventh[35] is permission for someone unqualified[36] to be taken from; a blasphemer, or a child …
478 – غَيْرِ مُمَيِزٍ وَذَا الأَخِيْرُ … رَأَى (أبو الطَّيِّبِ) وَالْجُمْهُوْرُ
Without mental discerning[37]. And that last one, Abut-Tayyib[38] and the majority see [it valid][39].
479 – وَلَمْ أَجِدْ فِي كَافِرٍ نَقْلاً، بَلَى (1) … بِحَضْرَةِ (الْمِزِّيِّ) تَتْرَا فُعِلا
And I did not find concerning the blasphemer[40] any documentation, [but] indeed [it is valid]. In the presence of Al-Mizziyy multiple times was it done.
480 – وَلَمْ أَجِدْ فِي الْحَمْلِ أَيْضَاً نَقْلَا … وَهْوَ مِنَ الْمَعْدُوْمِ أولَى (2) فِعْلَا
And Also, I did not find, concerning a fetus[41], any documentation[42], and compared to the nonexistent, it is better[43] as an action[44].
481 – وَ (لِلْخَطِيْبِ) لَمْ أَجِدْ مَنْ فَعَلَهْ … قُلْتُ: رَأَيْتُ بَعْضَهُمْ قَدْ سَأَلَهْ
And [logged] about Al-Khatib [is that he said]: “I didn’t find anyone who did it!” I say: I saw some requesting it …
482 – مَعْ أبويْهِ فَأَجَازَ، وَلَعَلْ … مَا اصَّفَّحَ الأَسماءَ فِيْهَا إِذْ فَعَلْ
With the [fetus’] parents, and the shaykh granted the license[45], and perhaps he would not[46] inspect[47] the names[48] there when he does [it][49].
483 – وَيَنْبَغِي الْبِنَا عَلى مَا ذَكَرُوْا … هَلْ يُعْلَمُ الْحَمْلُ؟ وَهَذَا أَظْهَرُ
And it is appropriate to build upon what they mentioned: does the fetus have an identity? And [for] this [to be so] is more evident.
484 – وَالثَّامِنُ: الإِذْنُ بِمَا سَيَحْمِلُهْ … الشَّيْخُ، وَالصَّحِيْحُ أَنَّا نُبْطِلُهْ
The eighth[50] is permission[51] for what the shaykh shall acquire. But what is correct is that we invalidate it.
485 – وبعضُ عَصْرِيِّ عِيَاضٍ بَذَلَهْ … وَ (ابْنُ مُغِيْثٍ) لَمْ يُجِبْ مَنْ سَأَلَهْ
Though some contemporaries of ^Iyad granted it, but Ibn Mughith did not respond to who requested it.
486 – وَإِنْ يَقُلْ: أَجَزْتُهُ مَا صَحَّ لَهْ … أو سَيَصِحُّ، فَصَحِيْحٌ عَمِلَهْ
But if he says: “I permit for him whatever is authentic[52] according to him, or what he shall deem authentic,” this is valid. That was done by …
487 – (الدَّارَقُطْنِيْ) وَسِواهُ أو حَذَفْ … يَصِحُّ جَازَ الكُلُّ حَيْثُمَا عَرَفْ
Ad-Daraqutniyy and others. And if he were to omit “what is authentic”, it is all valid when he knows.
488 – وَالتَّاسِعُ: الإِذْنُ بِمَا أُجِيْزَا … لِشَيْخِهِ، فَقِيْلَ: لَنْ يَجُوْزَا
The ninth[53] is permission for what was licensed to his shaykh. It was said: This will not be valid.
489 – وَرُدَّ، وَالصَّحِيْحُ: الاعْتِمَادُ … عَلَيْهِ قَدْ جَوَّزَهُ النُّقَّاْدُ
But that was rejected, and what is correct is relying on it. The expert critics permitted it;
490 – أبو نُعَيْمٍ، وَكَذَا ابْنُ عُقْدَهْ … وَالدَّارَقُطْنِيُّ وَنَصْرٌ بَعْدَهْ
Abu Nu^aym, and likewise Ibn ^Uqdah and Ad-Daraqutniyy[54]. Even Nasr, after him,
491 – وَالَى ثَلَاثَاً بإِجَازَةٍ وَقَدْ … رَأَيْتُ مَنْ وَالَى بِخَمْسٍ يُعْتَمَدْ
granted a thirdhand license, and I have [even] seen who granted a fifth hand that was relied on.
492 – وَيَنْبَغِي تَأَمُّلُ الإِجازَهْ … فحيثُ شَيْخُ شَيْخِهِ أَجَاْزَهْ
And important is delicacy with the license. So, whenever one’s shaykh’s shaykh permitted [his shaykh] …
493 – بَلِفْظِ مَا صَحَّ لَدَيْهِ لَمْ يُخَطْ … مَا صَحَّ عِنْدَ شَيْخِهِ مِنْهُ فَقَطْ
With the wording: “Whatever is authentic according to him,” he should not cross what is authentic to his shaykh from that only!
لَفْظُ الإِجَازَةِ وَشَرْطُهَا
Wording the License and Its Condition
494 – أَجَزْتُهُ (ابْنُ فَارِسٍ) قَدْ نَقَلَهْ … وَإِنَّمَا الْمَعْرُوْفُ قَدْ أَجَزْتُ لَهْ
Ibn Faris documents: “I license/permit him[55]”, but what is common is merely: “I give license/permission to him”[56].
495 – وَإِنَّمَا تُسْتَحْسَنُ الإِجَازَهْ … مِنْ عَالِمٍ بِهِ ، وَمَنْ أَجَازَهْ
And a license is only deemed good[57] from someone who knows the material and whom he licenses[58];
496 – طَالِبَ عِلْمٍ (وَالْوَلِيْدُ) ذَا ذَكَرْ … عَنْ (مَالِكٍ) شَرْطاً وَعَنْ (أبي عُمَرْ)
That student of knowledge. Al-Walid mentioned that about Malik as a condition, and about Abu ^Umar[59] …
497 – أَنَّ الصَّحِيْحَ أَنَّهَا لَا تُقْبَلُ … إِلَاّ لِمَاهِرٍ وَمَا لَا يُشْكِلُ
That what is correct is that it is not accepted except for someone competent[60], and for what is not problematic.[61]
498 – وَالْلَفْظُ إِنْ تُجِزْ بِكَتْبٍ أَحْسَنُ … أو دُوْنَ لَفْظٍ فَانْوِ وَهْوَ أَدْوَنُ
And [also] verbalizing[62], if you give license in writing, is better[63], and without verbalizing, at least intend, and that is lower.
And Allah Knows Best
***
[1] ‘ijazah comes these root letters ‘ج و ز’, which carry the meaning of permission or possibility. ‘Ijazah itself is the source-noun of the verb ‘أجَازَ’, which means “to permit; allow, to make or deem possible”. Therefore, ‘ijazah is permission; licence. The ‘ijazah we are talking about, which is the licence, or permission to narrate especially what you haven’t heard. They also use the word ‘ijazah because the scholar is allowing you to use his knowledge.
[2] The ‘ijazah comes after hearing, that is, it is lower, weaker, than hearing. And hearing could mean you heard from the Shaykh, or you read to the Shaykh, that is, you presented something to the Shaykh. That means the Shaykh heard you, and then verified what you said, or read. All of that is hearing, and that is superior to an ‘ijazah.
[3] The highest level of ‘ijazah without being accompanied with the actual subject of the ‘ijazah, the book that is being permitted, the highest level of permission without coming along with the book, that is the permitted book, that is without physically handing over, is to specify the one who is getting the permission, or being permitted, to specify the licenced person and to specify the licenced book.
[4] What we are saying here, he didn’t just give him a copy, he is specifying which book, without giving him a copy. Like to say ‘I permit, I licence such and such book to you,’ or ‘to all of you’, or ‘to you in particular’, or ‘to all of you’, or, ‘to so and so, to fulan that I am talking about, not talking to.’ So, he might say: ‘I permit book such and such to you, the one I am talking to’, or ‘to those whom I am talking to’, or ‘to fulan the one I am talking about’. So, the person is specified, and the licenced book is specified. So, that is the highest level of ‘ijazah without actually getting a physical copy, handed over to you.
[5] And some scholars have cited an agreement about this type of ‘ijazah that we are talking about now. That is they said: There is an agreement that you can actually narrate this way. But there is a disagreement about something else. They say there is a disagreement somewhere, but it is not in actually, actively, reporting by the ‘ijazah. You might wonder what is left then? Practicing it. Narrating it is one thing, and applying it is another thing. And in particular, we are talking about the hadiths here. In general, we are talking about books. It could be books in all kinds of fields, it could be dictionaries, it could be ^Aqidah books, or Fiqh for example, or Nahw – Arabic grammar books, but most relevant is the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ. That is the source.
[6] So, are we going to practice the hadiths that are narrated this way? Or are we just going to narrate them this way without practicing them? So, some said there is an agreement about the permissibility of narrating this, even if there is some disagreement beyond the actual issue of narration. And al-Bajiyy he denied that there is any difference in opinion absolutely, about all types of ‘ijazah. We are still talking about the first type without regarding handing a physical copy over. Al-Bajiyy denied that there is any difference in opinion about all types of ‘ijazah absolutely, and that is a mistake. The difference about narrating by ‘ijazah is confirmed and known. It is a mistake to say its an absolute agreement that ‘ijazah is permissible and valid. So, like we said in other lessons, so, knowing that it is the case of ‘ijazah, and # 1. that ‘ijazah is weaker than hearing, and # 2. some elite scholars from the old days, they absolutely debunked ‘ijazah altogether, then make sure you put ‘ijazah in its proper place. Don’t let anyone give people the wrong impression, like he is a scholar, or that someone else is some mighty force, because he works with an ‘ijazah.
[7] In all ijazah types.
[8] And also, the author of Al-Hawiyy that is Al-Mawardiyy both of those, Judge Husayn and Al-Mawardiyy are Mujtahids in the Madhhab. He was definitive that ‘ijazah is invalid.
[9] They both said like Imam Shu^bah said, and he is a Follower, who also was against ‘ijazah. They said: Had narrating by licence valid, or permissible, then all of the trips for the students of hadith would be cancelled. Because what is the way that those scholars became scholars? They first, according to what is here, in Alfiyat Al-^Iraqiyy, they would start in their own towns, and they would exhaust the scholars of their own towns (at least that is the best thing you do), and then you would move to the next town, and then to the next town, and then to the next country, and then to the next country, and maybe some of them of course skipped town, or skipped some of the Shaykhs of their town, and went to another country for example, but the point is they travelled for sure.
[10] Al^Iraqiyy also cites Abu Ash-Shaykh Al-Asbahaniyy, and Ibrahim Al-Harbiyy, and likewise As-Sijziyy.
[11] However, permitting licence, is what their practice has settled upon, that is the custom of the scholars of hadith. It became that actually no one debunks ‘ijazah, but it cannot be denied that there is a difference in opinion about it, it is just that that position went instinct, it is not denied though. Most of them validate it, that is it became that everyone did. And also, the obligation of applying what is narrated this way, the majorities they said that ‘ijazah is valid, and applying those types of transmissions is obligatory.
[12] Then there is another saying that no, it is not obligatory to apply them, just like if there were a Mursal hadith, and Mursal is when the Follower says: The Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, says, without mentioning his intermediary, who is between him and the Prophet ﷺ, from whom he heard. Some said, it is not obligatory to apply what is narrated by ‘ijazah, just like it is not obligatory to apply a Mursal hadith, but that was refuted. They said there is a difference. The Mursal has a reason that is why we are not going to apply it, according to those who don’t apply it which is the majority. Which is what? Which is there is a disconnection in the chain, and an ‘ijazah is not a disconnection in the chain.
[13] The second type of ‘ijazah is to specify who is getting the licence without specifying what is being licenced. Like to say: ‘I give licence to you whom I am speaking to,’ or, ‘I give licence to fulan whom I am speaking about to narrate all of what I heard.’ So, it is not specified, so what is that? Is At-Tabariyy included in there? Is Qurtubiyy in there? Is Sahih Al-Bukhariyy in there? What is there? Is ‘دقعُ شٌبه التَشبِيه’ in there? Is ‘أسَاس التَقدِيس’ in there?
[14] But the difference in opinion about this type is stronger than the previous type, which I think is clear for you. We were first talking about a person who is being licenced, being specified, and also the licenced book being specified, but without physically handing over a copy, the majority of them accept this narration wise, and application wise.
[15] And now we are talking about another case which is specifying who gets the licence, without specifying what is being licenced. Also, this one the majority of them accepted, and the difference in opinion here is still standing, though the majority have accepted both of these, and the argument against this second type is stronger, because of the obscurity of what exists in there, in what was licenced.
[16] Then there is a third type of ‘ijazah which is non-specification of who is being permitted, that is, who is the one getting the licence, he is not specified, but what is being licenced is being specified, or both of them are not being specified. Like to say: ‘I permit, I give licence to anyone who is my contemporary, who lived at my time,’ so, that is obscure there. Or like to say: ‘I permit all Muslims to narrate Sahih Al-Bukhariyy,’ so, saying ‘all Muslims’ does not specify anyone in particular. Or to say; ‘I permit all Muslims to narrate all of what I narrate’. Now that is a case that both of them are not specified. When you say: ‘All of what I narrate,’ that is obscure. If you say: ‘Everyone who is a contemporary of mine,’ that is obscure too.
[17] And so, what is the judgement of this type of ‘ijazah? Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadiyy he was inclined to deem this also permissible narration, as well as Ibn Mandah, and Abu ^Ala’ Al-Hamadaniyy who came after them, he also deemed it permissible.
[18] And one of the scholars he was a little bit more detailed, he said: ‘If the one who is included in this vague description, is actually present, he says: ‘Whoever is a contemporary of mine,’ so, it is vague, but someone who is a contemporary of his is really there. He says: ‘If he is there when ‘ijazah is given, then this is valid, so, says Judge Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabariyy. But Shaykh Ibn As-Salah he leans towards abolishing that. So, be warned. Be on alert. That is what is in Al-^Iraqiyy’s poem. Be on alert.
[19] And Ibn As-Salah’s argument here is that ‘ijazah is already weak, so, if you do it this way, it is going to be weaker and weaker, and it is not appropriate to commit to this amount of weakness. However, An-Nawawiyy he validates this, he says this is permissible.
[20] And even if there are some general words, so, there is some obscurity in who is being licenced, but it still is qualified to a degree, like: ‘I give permission to the scholars who are on the borders, the open borders, who defend the borders.’ So, it is open, but is still qualified to a degree. Or if he says: ‘I give permission to anyone who read on me previously.’ So, it is open, but it is qualified to a degree, then that is more likely to be permissible, because of the qualification that is in there.
[21] And Al-^Iraqiyy says: Judge ^Iyad said in Al-Ilma^: I don’t reckon that there is a difference amongst them about this type of ‘ijazah for anyone who deems ‘ijazah permissible. Judge ^Iyad the Malikiyy, he says: I don’t reckon that anyone who deems ‘ijazah permissible, deems this type of ‘ijazah not permissible. Because it does have some amount of qualification. Or it would be like saying: ‘I give licence to the children of fulan,’ or, ‘I give licence to the brothers of fulan.’ And if the description is not limited, is not qualified, like to say: ‘I give permission to all the people of the town,’ then it becomes like an absolutely general permission. That is the talk of Judge ^Iyad.
[22] The fourth is the ignorance of who gets the ‘ijazah, or what is the ‘ijazah, what is the thing, what is the subject of the licence, what is being licenced. Like to say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to a group of people to narrate some of what I heard.’ So, look how open that is there. Or like to say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to some people, to a group of people, to narrate from me the book of As-Sunnan.’ There are many books called As-Sunnan though -Sunnan At-Tirmidhiyy, Sunnan An-Nasa’iyy, Sunnan Al-Bayhaqiyy, and other sunnans. So, this scholar he says that while he narrates a number of books that are called Sunnan, so, it is not clear what is the subject of this licence. Or he names a person who has many namesakes, namesake means a person who has the same name. Like he says: ‘I give ‘ijazah to Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ad-Dimashqiyy,’ and there are many people called Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ad-Dimashqiyy. And when he says that, his intent is not clear, maybe he did mean someone in particular, but when he said it, his intent was not clear. And so, this is not valid says Al-^Iraqiyy. But if some people were named, and it was clarified who they were, then there is no harm in this ‘ijazah being validated, even if their persons are not known, that is, like who they are, and what is their lineage, it is not known, but their names are known to be for particular people. Let us say, he never met them for example, so, he does not know who they are. And even if he named them altogether, in one group, a group of people he gave them an ‘ijazah without counting them, without distinguishing them, and without like saying their names one by one, without pointing out their persons one by one, that is valid, just like it is valid for them to hear from him like that. Isn’t it valid for there to be a Shaykh, and he is giving a lesson, and there is a group of people, and he has no idea who they are, he does not know their names, and he does not know their persons, and that is valid? Yes, that is valid. So, like that is valid, he could give an ‘ijazah to a group like that.
[23] And the fifth type of ‘ijazah is making the ‘ijazah dependent on someone’s will, that is, if someone wants to or not. Like for the scholar to say: ‘I give an ‘ijazah to whoever wants,’ or he says: ‘Whoever wants me to give him an ‘ijazah, I give him an ‘ijazah.’ Or to make it dependent on someone else’s will, like to say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to whoever fulan wants,’ or: ‘Whoever fulan wants to have an ‘ijazah, then I give him an ‘ijazah.’ And so, this is also said to be valid, and one way is more ambiguous than another way. Like if you say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to whoever wants.’ Then that is more ambiguous. That is more ambiguous than saying: ‘I give an ‘ijazah to whoever fulan wants.’ Both of them are ambiguous, but one is more ambiguous.
[24] And Abu Ya^la Ibn Al-Farra’ he is a Hambaliyy, and Ibn ^Amrus or you can say Ibn ^Umrus, he is a Malikiyy, they validate this ‘ijazah we are talking about now. And they say in support of it, and in respond to debunking it, they said: ‘The ignorance that is being used to debunk this ‘ijazah, it goes away by someone choosing. Once you make the choice, you say: ‘I choose, I want him to get an ‘ijazah,’ or: ‘I want so and so to have an ‘ijazah,’ once you make the choice, then there is no ignorance anymore, so, it is valid.
[25] But according to Ibn As-Salah what is most apparent is that this is not valid. And some other scholars said that like Ibn As-Salah, like Judge Abu At-Tayyib, and Tahir At-Tabariyy when Al-Khatib (Al-Baghdadiyy) asked him about that, he told him: ‘Not valid.’
[26] And Al-^Iraqiyy says: ‘I found though that Abu Bakr Ibn Khaythamah he gave such an ‘ijazah.’ Al^Iraqiyy gave some details here that Siyutiyy didn’t give, because Siyutiyy summarized.
Al-^Iraqiyy said: ‘I say, I found from a group of Imams of hadith, early ones, and later ones, that they used this. Amongst the early ones was Hafidh Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Khaythamah, Zuhayr Ibn Harb, the Companion of Yahya Ibn Ma^in massive, massive, major, master in hadith. And the author of the history book Imam Abul Hasan Muhammad Ibn Al-Husayn Ibnul-Al -Wazzan said: ‘I found in Abu Khaythamh’s handwriting, that he said, ‘I give permission to Abu Zakariyy Yahya Ibn Maslamah’ to narrate from me whatever he wants from the history book’ that Abu Muhammad Al-Qasim Ibnul-Asbagh heard from me, and Muhammad Ibn ^Abd Al-A^la, that history book that he heard from me, I give ‘ijazah to that one, Abu Zakariyyah to narrate from whatever he wants from the history book that those two heard from me, as they heard it from me. To narrate from me, I give ‘ijazah to that third person, to narrate from me what those two heard from me, the way they heard it. And I permit him to do that. And I permit any of his companions who want to. And if anyone after that wants an ‘ijazah in this, then I give him an ‘ijazah too, in this book of mine.’
[27] And he says: ‘Ahmad Ibn Abi Khaythamah wrote with his own hand in Shawwal, in the year 276, he wrote that with his hand.
[28] And also, the grandson Ya^qub Ibn Shaybah, he gave such an ‘ijazah he said: (according to Al-Khatib) ‘I give ‘ijazah to ^Umar Ibn Ahmad Al-Khal-lad, and to his son ^Abdur-Rahman Ibn ^Umar, and to his son-in-law ^Aliyy Ibn Al-Husayn, I give them an ‘ijazah to narrate all of what they missed of my hadiths, all of what they didn’t hear, they missed it, in the Musnad, and other books. And I give such an ‘ijazah to anyone ^Umar likes, so, that he can narrate from me if he wants. And I wrote that to them in my own handwriting, in the month of Safar, in the year 332. And Al-Khatib said after he cited this: ‘I saw the likes of this ‘ijazah from one of the early scholars, but his name escapes my memory.’
[29] So, the sixth type of ‘ijazah is giving permission to the non-existent. And permission is also another word ‘إذن’, so, ‘ijazah, and ‘idhn’ permission. So, a person might have ‘ijazah, or he might have ‘idhn. Can you give an ‘ijazah to someone who does not even exist? There is some talk of the scholars here. It could be that this one who does not exist, his ‘ijazah is linked to the ‘ijazah of someone who does exist. Like for the Shaykh to say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to fulan and all of his children.’ So, it means then according to that whoever is born from him later will have an ‘ijazah. So, then there was an ‘ijazah for someone who does not exist. And also, one of the things that we covered is that the scholars differed about the validity of ‘ijazah altogether, meaning the old scholars. But in our time, no one differs about ‘ijazah, we don’t find anyone who debunks ‘ijazah, but we don’t deny there is a difference in opinion. And some of the old high ranking master scholars didn’t accept ‘ijazah.
[30] So, like here we are on the case of giving ‘ijazah to someone who does not even exist. Someone might say that cannot be valid, but some scholars said it is valid. They were saying: ‘I give ‘ijazah to fulan, and to anyone who shall be born from him.’ That means when they come into existence, and they become capable of narrating, then let them narrate from me. So, some scholars said that is valid, and some said it is not valid. Now this case that SR. just told us, is a case where the non-existent was given a licence, but his licence is linked to the licence of someone who does exist. What about giving a licence to someone who does not exist, without linking that to someone who does exist? Like to just say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to anyone who shall be born from you.’
[31] This second one though, the ‘ijazah for someone who does not exist without linking that to someone who does exist, is even weaker. It is more likely to be invalid (if it were to be said that there is something invalid here, this one is more likely to be invalid than the first one), than the first one.
[32] So, this first case it is valid, and it is like Waqf. Someone might say how can you give an ‘ijazah to someone who does not exist even if it is linked to someone who does exist, if he does not exist how can this be valid? Did you ever hear anything like that at all? So, the answer is yes, there is something like that in our Religion, that does have precedent in our Religion, the case of the Waqf. Because you can say: ‘I dedicate this orchard to fulan and to whoever shall be born from Fulan,’ who does not exist yet. That is valid. So, some scholars said this ‘ijazah is like that.
[33] And Al-^Iraqiyy says that is what is correct, and that is what is reliable. Also, Abu Nasr Ibn As-Sabagh so, then do they have some argument? Their point here is that ‘ijazah is like informing, it is like telling, in general ‘ijazah is informing or telling. They said can you tell someone who does not exist something? You cannot tell someone who does not exist something, they said if you cannot tell someone who does not exist something, then how can you give him an ‘ijazah? Then likewise, if you cannot tell him something because he does not exist, you cannot give him an ‘ijazah. And Al-Khatib he said both of those are valid. Both of those are valid so, don’t be confused here, because we are going back and forth – if it is valid or not valid, and fulan said, and fulan said, and fulan said. As for fulan said, and fulan, and fulan, all these names if you are not accustomed to these names, then put the placeholder in your spot for now ‘Fulan’, and don’t worry about the name so much, so, it does not confuse you, or put ‘some scholars said’, so, that it does not confuse you those names, you don’t know them. And going back and forth some said one is valid, the other is not valid, and some said both are not valid, some said both are valid. Don’t let any of this confuse you, rather, you should benefit from this. One of the benefits of this chapter here, is that we get to see how the scholars make some comparisons. They would say: ‘This is valid, it is like this’, so, then you see the point he is making, the comparison he is making. And others they would say this is not valid because it is like this. And you would say: ‘Ohh okay he has a point too’, and that is why there is a difference in opinion, because they both had a point. Like this issue of comparing it to Waqf, it is valid Religiously, to say: ‘I dedicate this orchard to fulan and his children who shall be born later.’ So, then some scholars said: ‘Well that is like this’, while others they said: ‘But ‘ijazah is like telling, and you cannot tell someone something if he does not exit, so would that be a valid ‘ijazah?’ So, then you would say that is a point too, he has a point there. So, which way are you going to go? You might say I am still confused, I don’t know which way I should go. Then you are going to have your own standard as a teacher, when you teach someone, you might say: ‘Ahh I am not comfortable with this type of ‘ijazah, I’m not going to use it. Some scholars said it is not valid, I’m not even going to go there.’ Or you might say: ‘I’m fine with that, I can handle this, some scholars said it is valid, I’ll do it,’ for example.
[34] And there were some followers of Abu Hanifah, and some followers of Malik, who said that it is valid either way, whether this non-existent one’s ‘ijazah is linked to that of someone who exists, or not.
[35] And now we have out of 9 types, a seventh type, a 7th case of ‘ijazah which is giving ‘ijazah/permission to someone who is not qualified. He is not qualified at the time of the ‘ijazah, he might become qualified later but at the time of the ‘ijazah he is not qualified to teach, or to convey like a kafir/blasphemer, or a major sinner, or a crazy person, or a baby. You might say: ‘A baby cannot get an ‘ijazah, but someone who does not exist can?’ The 7th type of ‘ijazah is for someone who is not qualified, unqualified, for someone to take to from him at the time of getting the ‘ijazah, not at the time he is narrating necessarily, but at the time he gets the ‘ijazah, when he is getting the ‘ijazah, at that time he cannot use it, he is not qualified, so is it valid? And that would be like a blasphemer, because we do not take our Religion from a blasphemer, could a blasphemer get an ‘ijazah? Or a major sinner? Or a crazy person? Or a baby that is, a child who has not reached mental discerning? All of those if we assume they could be given an ‘ijazah, we didn’t say now if it is valid or not yet today, we are just opening up the conversation. So, the blasphemer, the crazy person, the major sinner, and the child who has not reached mental discerning, could it be that that they can get an ‘ijazah? Now, as for a child that does not have mental discerning an ‘ijazah for this one would be valid. This one would be like an adult when it comes to getting an ‘ijazah, definitely. We are going to the saying that ‘ijazah is valid. You already know they differed about that, but that difference in opinion, those who support the opposition, and they debunk/disregard ‘ijazah there is no one who takes that position anymore. So, we are just now going according to the saying ‘ijazah is valid. So, based on ‘ijazah being valid, according to this saying then the ‘ijazah of a mumayyiz child is definitely valid, the ‘ijazah of a mumayyiz child is like the ‘ijazah of an adult.
[36] What about the ‘ijazah about the major sinner, and even a heretic altogether, but he is not a blasphemer, then yes, if the blasphemer’s ‘ijazah is valid, then the major sinner’s ‘ijazah is going to be valid. And even a heretic’s ‘ijazah will be valid. So, when that major sinner or heretic repents from his major sin, then he can use the ‘ijazah that he got and narrate.
[37] A child here when SR. said baby or a child who is below mental discrimination, who is not mumayyiz child. As for a mumayyiz child below puberty, but has mental discrimination, like 7, 8, 9 years old, then this one for sure can get an ‘ijazah. Such a child would be like an adult. His ‘ijazah would be valid. The majority of them said that this is valid for the child, Judge Abu At-Tayyib and the majority of them.
[38] And the opinion of Judge Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabariyy, and the majority, is that this little child who does not have mental discerning can get an ‘ijazah, is valid. So according to this, if you had a baby, then the scholars for example, can say if your baby’s name is Muhammad: ‘I give little Muhammad an ‘ijazah,’ so at the time of this ‘ijazah he is not qualified to narrate anything, but the ‘ijazah is valid. So, that means that once he becomes qualified, he can just use his ‘ijazah, because the ‘ijazah is a permission. The ‘ijazah is permission for a narrator to narrate if he wants to, if he wants to use it to narrate for whatever he has a licence to narrate, then he may. And this is valid for the one who has a mind, and for someone who does not have a mind, just if at the time of the ‘ijazah he does not have a mind, he is not qualified to narrate.
[39] Ibn As-Salah said those who said this is valid, it is as if that they see the child is qualified to get an ‘ijazah, but not at the moment to narrate, so, that he could use it once he becomes qualified, because by getting the ‘ijazah he will have a confirmed now chain of narration, the ‘ijazah solidifies his place in the chain if he were to narrate. So, even if he is not qualified to narrate at the time of ‘ijazah, it is valid, so, the chain remains, the ‘isnad remains for him, so, when he becomes qualified, he can still narrate.
[41] And Al-^Iraqiyy also says: ‘I didn’t find anyone who gave ‘ijazah to a fetus’. So, what is the judgement of that? He said: ‘If you can give ‘ijazah to someone who does not even exist, then you can give an ‘ijazah to a fetus moreso. If the non-existent is qualified to receive an ‘ijazah, then the fetus is moreso qualified to receive an ‘ijazah. Whoever did validate the non-existent getting an ‘ijazah, validated a fetus getting one, and whoever rejected it for the non-existent, was hesitant when it came to the fetus.
[42] And Al-^Iraqiyy says: I also didn’t find any documentation for a fetus. And the fetus what is right is that he can get an ‘ijazah, because we already said that someone who does not even exist yet can get an ‘ijazah, according to those who permitted that, meaning if someone were to say: ‘I give ‘ijazah to Bilal and all the children Bilal shall have in the future. So, those children do not exist yet, and some deemed that valid ‘ijazah. So, if it is valid to give ‘ijazah to someone who does not even exist, then it should be valid to give an ‘ijazah to a fetus. So, whoever permitted an ‘ijazah for the non-existent permitted an ‘ijazah for the fetus. And whoever denied the ‘ijazah for the non-existent, denied the ‘ijazah for the fetus.
[43] Al-^Iraqiyy says: There is no doubt that he is more deserving of being able to get an ‘ijazah than someone who does not exist at all. Al-Khatib the one who said we have seen that they gave ‘ijazah to someone who was not born, this same Khatib he validates an ‘ijazah for someone who does not exist at all. So, it should be then, that he validates giving an ‘ijazah to a fetus.
[44] Al-Khatib said this is because the ‘ijazah is a permission, and permission can be given to someone who has a mind, and permission can be given to someone who does not have a mind. You can give permission to someone who does not have a mind. Like let us say you had someone under your care who is insane, so, he does not have a mind, you might tell him: ‘You can do it go ahead,’ so, you permitted him to do something, you gave him a permission, even though he is crazy, you can it is possible. Or you might say to that crazy person: ‘No, you don’t do it!’ Because even if the person is crazy, there is something he can understand, like an animal, even. You can say to the animal: ‘Go’, and he will go. You say to the animal, ‘No, stop!’ And the animal will stop without having a mind. It comes to the mind 2 things a crazy person can do and is valid. 1. Is a crazy person can slaughter an animal if he is a Muslim, Christian, or Jew. If a crazy person made ‘istinja’ it would be valid. If a crazy person slaughtered an animal, that would be valid if he did it right, a Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. So, having a mind is not a condition for the slaughtering. The condition in the slaughterer is to be a Muslim, Christian, or a Jew. And the condition in the tool is whatever condition it has, so, we don’t digress there now. There are conditions for the slaughterer, conditions for the tool, and conditions for the animal. And the slaughterer it is not a condition he would have a mind for the slaughter to be valid. If a crazy woman breastfed a baby (with the conditions) then that baby becomes her nursing baby, even though she is crazy. And we are saying here too, you can even give ‘ijazah to a crazy person, even though he would not be able to teach anyone. It would still be a valid ‘ijazah. He might become sane, and if he becomes sane, he would still have ‘ijazah, he does not have to renew it, and then he could convey.
[45] Ibn As-Salah said it is as if they see that a child is qualified for this type, and he will be able to use his ‘ijazah when he becomes qualified, meaning when he become pubescent, because his chain will still be present. And we learned, in some of our lessons, that some scholars they were children when they were learning, and the scholars took care of them, because they were prodigies in their childhood. So, the scholars took them when they were 5 years old, 6 years old, when they were prodigies, and they taught them, so, they are not going to send them out to be giving lessons, and things, as long as they are little like that. They are just going to be filling them up, and then when they reach puberty, then they can go out, and all of what they learned, all the chains of narration they acquired, and all the knowledge they acquired while they were little is still valid, then they will go out and teach the people.
[46] Al-^Iraqiyy says: I have seen some of our Shaykhs requested it was requested of him an ‘ijazah for a fetus, after his parents were mentioned, that is the ‘ijazah was requested for the parents, and then after that the fetus was also requested to get the ‘ijazah. And also, some others who were in the group, there was a group there. And so, the Shaykh that was asked he gave an ‘ijazah for all of them, and that was Hafidh Abu Sa^id Al-^Ala’iyy.
[47] Al-^Iraqiyy says: This one we just mentioned, he avoided giving ‘ijazah to anyone who was not named, but those who were general about the validity the fetus getting an ‘ijazah and others getting an ‘ijazah they were higher scholars than that one who was avoiding some things. They were more knowledgeable, and they have more memorization, and more mastery, scholars who are higher, and more knowledgeable, and have more mastery, they permitted what this scholar was avoiding. But it could be that what he did is he just didn’t look into the names of the people who were wanting an ‘ijazah, and he didn’t look into their faces, so, that he could know was someone born or he wasn’t born, and all he did was give an ‘ijazah to the people who were named. But it has already been established that ‘ijazah is valid, even without the Shaykh who is giving the ‘ijazah looking into the people who are getting it, he does not have to know their names, he does not have to look into faces, and see who they are, but the norm of the people of the hadith is that they would not give an ‘ijazah without looking at the person who is asking for it.
[48] And Al-^Iraqiyy says also: I have also seen some of the people of hadith avoiding this, and I have seen some of the people of hadith avoiding giving an ‘ijazah to anyone who was not named to him, even if he were present. Some of the people of hadith they would not give an ‘ijazah to someone who was not named even if he was present. What he is really saying: I saw one of the people of hadith avoiding giving an ‘ijazah like that, and he avoided giving an ‘ijazah to anyone who was not actually named, even if they were present. And that Shaykh he wrote: I give an ‘ijazah to all of those who were named. So, that is how he avoided giving an ‘ijazah, as opposed to when he said he avoided that, it does not mean he said: No, you cannot have the ‘ijazah, it is like he just avoided it, he dodged it. And he wrote: I give ‘ijazah to all those who were named. And Al-^Iraqiyy said that is the Muhaddith Abu Ath-Thana’ Mahmoud Ibn Khalaf Al-Mambajiyy.
[49] And whoever said that such a child cannot have a valid ‘ijazah they said also the child’s hearing is not valid, because some scholars said the child’s hearing is not valid, when he sits in the lessons, and he hears the hadiths, some said it is not valid. But the correct saying is that it is valid, that is the saying we go by, the strong saying in practice of many, many, scholars, is that it is valid. If you have a child who is a prodigy, you need to make sure you take care of that one, like Ash-Shafi^iyy’s mom, should be an inspiration for you to take care of the child when he is a prodigy, because Ash-Shafi^iyy was an orphan, so, he didn’t have his dad there. But his mom took care of him, and made sure he got the knowledge, and he even got hooked up with Imam Malik, he was a little child learning from Imam Malik, May Allaah have mercy upon them.
[50] And the 8th type of ‘ijazah is getting permission to narrate what the licencing Shaykh has not even acquired. The Shaykh who is giving the ‘ijazah has not even acquired the subject of the ‘ijazah, that is, to get an ‘ijazah for what the Shaykh will acquire later. So, if someone says: Shaykh give me an ‘ijazah from what you shall learn, he didn’t hear it yet, he didn’t take it yet, so that he can narrate it, Al-Qadi ^Iyad said: I haven’t seen any of the Shaykhs talk about this, but I heard some of the latter day ones, and some of the contemporaries do that, but I read in the index of Abu Marwan ^Abd Al-Malik Ibn Ziyadati Illaah At-Tubuniyy that he said: I was with the Judge in Qurtubah Abu Walid Yunus Ibn Mughiyth so, Judge Yunus, when a man came to him man asked him for an ‘ijazah, his request was to get an ‘ijazah for everything that Judge Yunus narrates up until today, and what he shall narrate later. Judge Yunus did not respond to him. So, the one who was asking got angry. Then Judge Yunus looked at me, and I said to that one: Hey you! He would give you something that he never took? That is impossible! And then Judge Yunus said: That is my answer. And Judge ^Iyad said: This is what is correct, because this person his request amounts to asking to be told something that the one he is asking to tell him never heard. How can you tell someone something, that you never heard? You can’t. So, Judge ^Iyad said this is correct about this case, that it is not valid to get an ‘ijazah for someone that the Shaykh didn’t even take yet.
[51] But Ibn As-Salah he said it depends on how you look at it. He said if you look at the ‘ijazah as a sort of telling, narrating, then yes, it is not going to be valid, there is no way you can tell someone something that you never even heard or you have no transmission for. I can’t tell you something that never reached me. So, if you look at it that way, then yes, it would not be valid, but if you look at the ‘ijazah as a permission, not a telling, but as a permission, then it could be valid, just like if you authorized someone. You know about authorizing you say to a person: I authorize you to do such and such for me’, ‘I authorize you to sell my house for me,’ or, ‘I authorize you to do such and such for me’, that is a permission. He is saying: Isn’t it permissible to authorize someone to do something for you, but you don’t own it yet, but when you do own it, he will be authorized? When you get the money for example, he will be already authorized to use that money that you didn’t get yet. He said so if you look at it that way, then it could be said to be valid. So, according to this, if you want to say it is not valid, then one needs to be keen, the one using an ‘ijazah then has to be keen that what he is narrating is what his Shaykh narrates.
[52] Now if the Shaykh were to say: I give him an ‘ijazah for whatever is authentic, or, from all of what I narrate, I give him an ‘ijazah in whatever is authentic, or I give him an ‘ijazah in whatever he deems as authentic from what I narrate. Then this is a valid ‘ijazah. And Ad-Daraqutniyy and others did that. Then such a person who has such a permission can narrate whatever is authentic according to him, after the ‘ijazah.
[53] The 9th type of ‘ijazah is for someone who has an ‘ijazah to give an ‘ijazah. He in the first place when he is giving an ‘ijazah, the subject of the ‘ijazah that he is giving, is an ‘ijazah for him in the first place, the Shaykh who is giving such and such book, giving an ‘ijazah in such and such book, he has an ‘ijazah in that book himself. So, is valid to give a licence for something that is licenced? That is the 9th type of ‘ijazah. ‘إجَزة المُجَاز’ ‘المُجَاز’ is the thing that is licenced, like for the Shaykh to say: I give you an ‘ijazah in everything I have an ‘ijazah, and the like.
[54] Al-^Iraqiyy said there was a scholar of hadith, one of the Shaykhs of Ibn Al-Jawziyy, who said this is not valid, and he wrote a whole book about it. And the point of who deems this not valid is to say: An ‘ijazah is already weak, so its going to be even weaker when the ‘ijazah is compiled, it is an ‘ijazah on top of an ‘ijazah. Ibn As-Salah said: What is correct, and that which is practiced, is that even this type of ‘ijazah is valid. And this is not like an authorized person authorizing without permission. It is not the same. Meaning when you authorize someone to do something for you, can he turn around and authorize someone to do that? He cannot! It has to stop at him, the authorization you gave him, has to stop at him. That is the Shafi^iyy school. Ibn As-Salah is saying this is not the same. And Al-Khatib said: Ad-Daraqutniyy deems it valid and others. Ibn As-Salah said and even Al-Hakim did it. So, those are big names in hadith if you know some hadith scholar names. Al-Hakim, and Ad-Daraqutniyy a massive hadith scholar and criticizer of Al-Bukhariyy (not in a bad way like one of the scholars who said there are some weak hadiths in Al-Bukhariyy that is how powerful he was). And some scholars even said an ‘ijazah for an ‘ijazah is strong, and it is permissible.
[55] So, when we say it is a way of informing, it goes back to hadith science, and hadith science is a transmission of news, it is a science of transmission of news. The Muslims developed this science, they didn’t take this science from non-Muslims in any way whatsoever. None of its terms, none of its principles are taken from non-Muslims in any way whatsoever. This is exclusively an Islamic science, the science of ‘isnad, the hadith science. This hadith science is not only for verifying news, and tracking news, but also for transmitting news. So, usually you learn by hearing, you hear the words of the teacher so, you take the news like that, the knowledge, or you have something you present it to the teacher, so, they hear you presenting something to him/her, and then like that, then you take it, so, now you have a chain, a link, for your news. So, that is an informing there. So, ‘ijazah according to one way of looking at it, it is a way of informing, so, it is like hearing, or presenting to the Shaykh, and there are some other ways of transmission, and one of those ways is this way ‘ijazah. So, you can look it as a way telling/informing, or another way to look at it is it is a licence, it is a permission. So, in Arabic what is the difference if you want to use a preposition or not? It depends on the meaning you want to use, like what is the angle you are coming from, so, that it is a nicer way of speaking, because prepositions make a difference. That is, different verbs work differently with different prepositions. So, it depends on what you are meaning, so, if you mean by ‘ijazah a permission, or a licence, then you are going to want to use in Arabic a sentence that has a preposition in it. It is like saying: ‘I permit for him,’ and you can still say: ‘I permit him.’
[56] So, he is saying: ‘I permit him’, that is, there is a verb, and there is a direct object, and there is no preposition in there. ‘I permit him’, or ‘I licence him’, Ibn Fariss documented this, that you can say it this way without a preposition in it, and there is no preposition in it. However, what is famous/known/common is to say ‘أجزتُ له’ it means something like; ‘I give licence/permission to him’; with the preposition in there.
[57] And the ‘ijazah is good, is deemed good when it is been given by someone who is knowledgeable, about what he is licencing. And the licenced one is also knowledgeable, is qualified, is competent, the student of knowledge. Why is it that it should be this way? And you might see it done for less than that, like when the Shaykh gives a book in a big session, in a dawrah, or something like that, and then in the end he says: ‘I give all of you ‘ijazah,’, so, is everyone there competent, can competently sit down and convey the book by talaqi? No. It is still a valid ‘ijazah though, except for those who don’t accept that, except according to them.
[58] And merely an ‘ijazah; is deemed good; when someone is a scholar or knowledgeable about what he is licencing, the subject of the licence he is knowledgeable about it. And also, the one who is getting the licence is knowledgeable about the subject of this licence; that student of knowledge that he licences. And someone that Al-^Iraqiyy merely calls Al-Walid; mentioned that about Malik that this is a condition what we just said. And also, Abu ^Umar he said that too. Abu ^Umar; that is Ibn ^Abd Al-Barr; that is a famous name to know for hadith terminology. The scholars mention Ibn ^Abd Al-Barr frequently, but this one Ibn ^Abd Al-Barr he is accused of being a Mushabih/likener, still though, despite being accused of being a mushabih/likener, he has regard in the books of hadith terminology. Sometimes, a deviant person would be an expert in a field. As it reached SR. (and SR. didn’t double check) Ibn ^Abd Al-Barr was a Malikiyy, and it said he is the only one from the Malikiyys who is accused of being a likener. Where do the likeners mostly congregate from the four schools? The Hambaliyy school. They claim to be Hambaliyys. The Malikiyys and Shafi^iyy are Ash^ariyy in Creed. The Hanafiyys are Maturidiyy in Creed, and the real Hambaliyys they are Ash^ariyys.
[59] And Al-Walid Ibn Bakr Al-Malikiyy he said this is a condition, this competence is a condition, according to Malik. And this is a strictness taking this position that this competence is a condition for ‘ijazah, that is a strictness. So, like we just already said, or alluded to. We are basically going by the saying that, that competence is not a condition, still a valid ‘ijazah. And according to Abu ^Umar and that is Ibn ^Abd Al-Barr, what is correct is an ‘ijazah is not accepted but from someone who is skilled and proficient in the field, in the craft, and pertaining only to what is not problematic.
[60] What is correct is that the ‘ijazah it is not accepted except from someone who is proficient/skilled, and in what is not problematic. Once SR. asked Shaykh Jamil for an ‘ijazah, and he was invited to his home, there was a book he did about the hadith of the slave girl, so SR. went there, and he asked him for an ‘ijazah in that book, and he gave SR. an ‘ijazah with the condition that he not mention anything that is unclear. And he gave SR. two gifts: one was he gave SR. an ‘ijazah in another book of his that he didn’t expect to get, but he gave him that, Al-Hamdu-lillaah, and he gave SR. an ‘izar. May Allaah have mercy upon him aameen.
[61] It is better of course if the one who is giving the ‘ijazah he knows about what he is giving, as well as the one who is receiving/getting the ‘ijazah. Because the ‘ijazah it is a stretch, and it is a facility, it is a convenience, so, someone who is competent is the one who should be dealing with this stretch, and this convenience. And the reason for permitting this stretch, and this convenience, is the need of the knowledgeable one. The knowledgeable one needs that, that is it is important, it is very helpful. Like SR. if he didn’t have ‘ijazah in some things, he would have much less access, his access would be much less restricted to only what he heard. So, this enabled SR. to use ‘ijazah to enhance what he took by talaqi by hearing. SR. asked for an ‘ijazah for a dictionary he didn’t get it, the Shaykh he asked told him I don’t give ‘ijazah to anyone. So, that is what it means, or else he can find someone else to give him ‘ijazah, or find someone he can read the dictionary on him, which even if SR. got ‘ijazah he will still do that.
[62] And as for the wording of the ‘ijazah, if you gave an ‘ijazah in writing, you are the Shaykh, you are giving the ‘ijazah in writing, then it is better to also say/state this permission that you are giving, and not to just settle with the writing, but if you do settle with this writing this licence, and not pronouncing anything, then at least make an intention that you are giving an ‘ijazah when you write, and then this licence has a lower rank than one that is pronounced. Now what if you wrote an ‘ijazah, and you didn’t intend that this is an ‘ijazah? Then it seems that this is not valid. What it seems to be the case that this is not a valid ‘ijazah. But Ibn As-Salah is inclined to that it is valid, as a stretch. And SR. got an ‘ijazah like that also, a written ‘ijazah without words, when he asked Shaykh Samir once for an ‘ijazah in something. SR asked him in writing, so SR. wrote his request and gave it to him, and later he came back with his paper that he wrote his request on, and he gave him ‘ijazah in what he requested in writing, and he didn’t say it to him verbally. And also SR. got ‘ijazah sometimes verbally, without writing. One time SR. asked for ‘ijazah in ‘Tadrib Ar-Rawiyy’ from Shaykh Kamal Al-Hout and he told him ask me at a later date, and Shaykh Raa’id came back to him before he left Lebanon, and asked him again, and he gave him ‘ijazah by saying: ‘أجَزتُكَ قِي ذالك’ which means ‘I permit you in that.’
[63] And Wording/expression/saying something, if you give an ‘ijazah by writing if you write an ‘ijazah for someone, then for you to also pronounce it with your tongue is better. But if you just write the ‘ijazah, and you don’t say, then make an intention. If you don’t make an intention, and you only write the ‘ijazah, is it valid, or not valid? And this is lower. To have an ‘ijazah by writing only, without words, is lower than an ‘ijazah that is by writing, and words. So, the Shaykh who is giving the ‘ijazah, how does he say it?
Authentic Sunni Knowledge 
Leave a comment