Abstract

Abū Bakr Shams al-Aʾimma Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl Aḥmad al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090 [?]) is recognized among Ḥanafī jurists as a mujtahid fī al-masāʾil (independent jurist in legal issues), in accordance with Kemalpaşazade’s seven-tier classification. Al-Sarakhsī authored two major works: Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī, also known as Tamhīd al-Fuṣūl fī al-Uṣūl, a foundational treatise in legal theory, and al-Mabsūṭ, his most comprehensive work on substantive law (furūʿ al-fiqh). While there are occasional references to qirāʾāt (variant Qurʾānic readings) in his other writings, all instances where al-Sarakhsī engages in legal inference (istinbāṭ) based on qirāʾāt are found in al-Mabsūṭ. These include derivations not only from canonical readings (ṣaḥīḥ qirāʾāt), but also from ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt—readings attributed to the Companions of the Prophet. Since the methodology of inferring rulings from canonical readings constitutes an independent field of inquiry, this study focuses specifically on al-Sarakhsī’s approach to legal inference based on ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt within the Ḥanafī tradition. Understanding the method of a prominent Ḥanafī jurist, influential in both uṣūl and furūʿ, is crucial for grasping the broader Ḥanafī perspective on this issue. Accordingly, the scope of this research has been limited to ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt to examine their status as sources of legal evidence (dalīl sharʿī) within the Ḥanafī school. The analysis is based on examples of legal inference from both Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī and al-Mabsūṭ. In order to clarify al-Sarakhsī’s methodology, these examples are compared with earlier and contemporary scholars such as al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981), al-Dabūsī (d. 430/1039), and al-Pazdawī (d. 482/1089), whose uṣūl works have reached us. In nine legal issues where al-Sarakhsī employed ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt, the Companions cited include ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd, Ubayy b. Kaʿb, and Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ. It has been established that al-Sarakhsī, following the general view of the Ḥanafīs, regarded widely transmitted ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt as equivalent in status to mashhūr sunna (widely accepted prophetic practice) within the sources of law. Al-Sarakhsī stipulates that for a report to be considered mashhūr sunna, it must be traceable to Abū Ḥanīfa. Based on this principle, the readings of ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd and Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ are considered mashhūr sunna, whereas the readings of Ubayy b. Kaʿb are not, despite Ubayy’s fulfillment of the necessary criteria for transmission—namely, being a jurist (faqīh), possessing precision (itqān), and being upright (ʿadāla). The use of Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ’s reading in legal inference appears to result from the absence of other textual evidence on the issue. One of the principles al-Sarakhsī establishes regarding legal inference from ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt is that these readings may represent nāss al-mansūkh al-tilāwa—verses whose recitation has been abrogated. The rationale is that while God has erased these verses from the memories of most, He allowed them to remain with the Companions who transmitted them. Though such readings, being classified as shādhdh (irregular), cannot be incorporated into the Qurʾān textually, they may still be treated as mashhūr āḥād reports and thus valid in deriving legal rulings. Furthermore, these mansūkh al-tilāwa readings may function as muqayyad (restrictive) expressions in contrast to muṭlaq (unrestricted) terms found in canonical readings. Since the Ḥanafīs allow the reconciliation of muṭlaq with muqayyad when the reason and ruling are identical, the ṣaḥābī qirāʾa may be interpreted in light of the canonical reading. Consequently, in the matter of whether the fasts for expiation of an oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) must be consecutive, al-Sarakhsī considers the reading of Ibn Masʿūd—treated as mashhūr sunna—to be binding evidence. This reading, as a muqayyad expression, leads to two legal conclusions: it supplements the canonical text (nass) and interprets an unrestricted command as requiring consecutiveness. In contrast, Ubayy b. Kaʿb’s reading—despite being of comparable value—is not treated as mashhūr sunna, and therefore, the Ḥanafīs ruled that the make-up (qaḍāʾ) of Ramaḍān fasting need not be consecutive.Given that ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt typically involve additional elements compared to canonical readings, they may also serve to specify general terms (ʿāmm) through restriction. Al-Sarakhsī’s use of ṣaḥābī qirāʾāt includes resolving ambiguity (ishkāl) in polysemous expressions and corroborating legal rulings derived from canonical readings.