This article explains how the relied-upon (mu’tamad) position of the Hanbali madhhab is determined when al-Muntaha and al-Iqnaʿ differ. It outlines the views of the later Hanbali scholars, and the principles used to identify the official position of the madhhab. The article is extracted and summarized from Madarij Tafaqquh al-Hanbali by Shaykh Ahmad ibn Nasir al-Quʿaymi, may Allah preserve him.

Determining the Muʿtamad

The relied-upon (muʿtamad) position of the Hanbali madhhab is derived from al-Iqnaʿ li-Talib al-Intifaʿ by Imam Musa ibn Ahmad al-Hajjawi and Muntaha al-Iradat fi Jamʿ al-Muqniʿ maʿa al-Tanqih wa al-Ziyadat by Shaykh Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Futuhi, better known as Ibn al-Najjar. When these two works differ, the scholars established principles for determining which opinion represents the muʿtamad of the madhhab.

The most well-known opinions are:

1. The relied-upon position is whatever al-Tanqih, al-Muntaha, and al-Iqnaʿ all agree upon. If al-Muntaha and al-Iqnaʿ agree against al-Tanqih, then their agreement is the madhhab. If al-Muntaha and al-Iqnaʿ differ, then al-Muntaha is followed because it is considered more precise in fiqh.^[1]
2. The relied-upon madhhab is whatever the author of al-Muntaha chose.
3. The relied-upon madhhab is whatever Shaykh Marʿi al-Karmi preferred in Ghayat al-Muntaha.

It is also said that Shaykh Muhammad al-Saffarini advised one of his students:

“Adhere to what is in al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha. If they differ, then look to what the author of Ghayat al-Muntaha gives preference to.”^[2]

Why the Third Opinion Is Limited

The glosses of Shaykh al-Khalwati and Shaykh al-Najdi do not give significant attention to the preferences found in Ghayat al-Muntaha. In addition:

• The author of Ghayat al-Muntaha sometimes prefers a view contrary to what both al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha agree upon.
• He occasionally expresses a preference where there is no real disagreement.
• He does not address every issue in which the two books differ.
• At times, he prefers views in issues that al-Muntaha does not discuss at all.

Why al-Muntaha Is Given Precedence

The stronger view, and Allah knows best, is that al-Muntaha takes precedence over al-Iqnaʿ while also considering al-Tanqih^[3], the preferences of Shaykh Marʿi al-Karmi, and the works of Shaykh Mansur al-Buhuti, Shaykh Muhammad al-Khalwati, and Shaykh ʿUthman al-Najdi. These scholars examined al-Muntaha and al-Iqnaʿ more thoroughly than anyone else, consistently referring back to the major books of verification, especially al-Insaf, Tashih al-Furuʿ, and al-Tanqih. They rarely departed from al-Muntaha, and only when there was a compelling reason to prefer al-Iqnaʿ.

Giving precedence to al-Muntaha does not imply weakness in al-Iqnaʿ. The issues in which the two books differ are relatively few compared to the thousands of issues upon which they agree.

Many Hanbali scholars explicitly affirmed this principle. Shaykh Ahmad ibn ʿIsa wrote:

“According to the later companions, whenever al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha differ, al-Muntaha is given precedence.”^[4]

Likewise, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-ʿUthaymin said:

“The madhhab is what is found in al-Muntaha, because the later scholars held that whenever al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha differ, the madhhab is al-Muntaha.”^[5]

The Judicial Council of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also instructed the courts to rely upon the commentaries of al-Muntaha and al-Iqnaʿ. Accordingly, whatever the two books agree upon, or whatever is found exclusively in one of them, is followed. When they differ, practice is according to al-Muntaha.^[6]

Another reason is that al-Muntaha adopted the verified positions of Shaykh al-Mardawi found in al-Tanqih. Al-Tanqih was authored after al-Insaf and Tashih al-Furuʿ, and Shaykh al-Mardawi revised it four times, writing:

“If you find in this book any wording or ruling that differs from its original source or from another work, then rely upon it, for it was written after careful verification. Likewise, rely upon its explicit statements and the qualifications it places upon its issues, for these are intended to restrict what might otherwise be inferred from their implied meanings.”^[7]

Shaykh al-Mardawi refined and verified the madhhab for the later scholars, making his determinations especially significant. Al-Muntaha also gained widespread acceptance during its author’s lifetime and received relatively few corrections despite the many glosses written upon it. The same is true of al-Iqnaʿ.

Regarding how to reconcile differences between the two works, Shaykh ʿUthman al-Najdi stated:

“The explicit wording (sarih) of al-Muntaha takes precedence over the explicit wording of al-Iqnaʿ. The explicit wording of al-Iqnaʿ takes precedence over the implied meaning (mafhum) of al-Muntaha. The implied meaning of al-Muntaha takes precedence over the implied meaning of al-Iqnaʿ.”^[8]

Similarly, Shaykh ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAqil said:

“They have said: If al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha agree, then that is the madhhab. If they differ, then the madhhab is what is found in al-Muntaha. If the implied meaning of al-Muntaha conflicts with the explicit wording of al-Iqnaʿ, then the explicit wording of al-Iqnaʿ is given preference.”^[9]

Thus, the explicit wording (mantuq) takes precedence over the implied meaning (mafhum), as stated by the scholars of usul.

Summary

The madhhab is determined according to the following order:

1. If al-Iqnaʿ and al-Muntaha agree, then that is unquestionably the madhhab.
2. If only one of the two books discusses an issue, then the ruling found in that book is followed.
3. If they differ, then al-Muntaha is followed in the overwhelming majority of cases while also reviewing:
   • al-Tanqih al-Mushbiʿ by Shaykh al-Mardawi.
   • The preferences of Shaykh Marʿi al-Karmi in Ghayat al-Muntaha.
   • The writings of Shaykh Mansur al-Buhuti, Shaykh Muhammad al-Khalwati, and Shaykh ʿUthman al-Najdi.

---

1. This is the view preferred by Shaykh ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Hindī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1419 AH) in Muqaddimat al-Bayān fī Bayān al-Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Fiqhiyyah, p. 338. ↩︎

2. See: al-Imām al-Faqīh Mūsā al-Ḥajjāwī wa Kitābuhu Zād al-Mustaqniʿ, 1/298. ↩︎

3. That is, by reviewing both al-Tanqīḥ and the works mentioned thereafter. ↩︎

4. See: al-Asʾilah al-Kuwaytiyyah wa Ajwibatuhā al-Musammāh Rawḍat al-Arwāḥ, p. 21. ↩︎

5. See: al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ, 1/160. ↩︎

6. See: Kashshāf al-Qināʿ, 1/38. ↩︎

7. See: al-Tanqīḥ, p. 30. ↩︎

8. Mentioned by Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Bassām in ʿUlamāʾ Najd, 5/135. ↩︎

9. See: Idrāk al-Maṭālib, p. 30. ↩︎