“A collection of Fatwás relating to leases was published at Constantinople by M. D’Adelbourg, in the year 1838. Prefixed to this collection are the principles of the law of lease, according to the Multaka; and it is followed by an analytical table, facilitating reference to the various decisions.
“Of the Fatwás which treat both of the Fikah and Faráïz, two are most generally used in India. These are the Fatáwá Sirájiyyah and Fatáwá Alamgírí. The Fatáwá Sirájiyyah, with some principles, contains a collection of decisions on cases which do not generally occur in other books. The Fatáwá Alamgírí, with opinions and precepts of law, contains an immense number of law cases. This work, from its comprehensive nature, is applicable to almost every case that arises involving points of the Hanífí doctrines. Although opinions of modern compilers are not esteemed as of equal authority with those of the older writers on jurisprudence, yet being composed by a great number of the most learned lawyers of the age, and by order of the then greatest person of the realm, the Emperor Aurungzeb Alamgír (by whose name the book is designated), the Fatáwá Alamgírí is esteemed as a very high authority in India; and containing, as it does, decisions on cases of any shape based upon unquestionable authorities, this book is here referred to more frequently than any other work of a similar nature, and has not up to this day been surpassed by any work, except perhaps, by the Radd-ul-Muhtár, already spoken of. During the long rule of the Muhammadans in India, the Fatáwá Alamgírí alone appears to have been translated into Persian, by order of Zéb-un-nisá, daughter of the Emperor Aurungzeb Alamgír. Since the establishment of the British Government in India, the books of Jináyah and Hudúd from the Fatáwá Alamgírí were translated into Persian, under the direction of the Council of the College of Fort William in Calcutta, by the then Kází-ul-Kuzzát, Muhammad Najm ud-Dín Khán, and were published in the year 1813, together with a Persian treatise on Tázírát, by the same author.
“In the same year the book on Tázírát from the Durr-ul-Mukhtár was translated, printed, and published, by Moulavi Muhammad Khalíl-ud-Dín, under the orders of Mr. Harrington, the then Chief Judge of the late Sudder Dewany Adawlut.
“The Hidáyah was translated into Persian by four of the most learned Moulavis of that time and of this country (India). Unfortunately, however, the learned translators have, in the body of the book, inserted many things by way of explanatory remarks and illustrative expositions, instead of subjoining them in the form of notes. Furthermore, they have, in a considerable degree, deviated from the original. For all these reasons, we are warranted to say, that the Persian version of the Hidáyah does not represent a true picture of the original.
“Macnaghten’s Principles of Muhammadan Law were translated into Urdu and lithographed, many years ago, in Delhi. Another translation of the same work was made and published in Calcutta a few years ago.
“The work entitled the Bighyat-i-Báhis, by Al-Mutakannah, which is a tract treating of Zaid’s system of Faráïz, was translated into English by Sir William Jones. A translation of the Sirájiyyah also was made by Sir William Jones, who at the same time made an abstract translation of its celebrated commentary (the Sharífiyyah), with the addition of illustrations and exemplifications from his own brain and pen. A translation of the selected portions from the two books of the Fatáwá-i-Alamgírí, which comprise the subject of sale, was published by Mr. Neil Baillie.
“The Persian version of the Hidáyah, already noticed, was, by order of Warren Hastings, commenced to be translated into English by Mr. James Anderson, but shortly after, he being engaged in an important foreign employment, the translation was finished, and revised by his colleague, Mr. Charles Hamilton. It is a matter of regret that the translation in question was not executed from the original Hidáyah itself, instead of from its Persian translation, which contains frequent explanatory remarks and illustrative expositions interpolated in the book itself, instead of being subjoined by way of notes. Added to this, the Persian translators have, in a considerable degree, deviated from the original.
“Of the digests of Muhammadan law in English, the first appears to be the chapter on criminal law of the Muhammadans as modified by regulations. This is incorporated in Harrington’s Analysis of Bengal Regulations. An abstract of Muhammadan law, which is from the pen of Lieutenant-Colonel Vans Kennedy, will be found in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. ‘This work,’ says Mr. Morley, ‘is well worthy the attention of the student.’ The work entitled the Principles and Precedents of Muhammadan Law, written by Mr. (afterwards Sir) William Hay Macnaghten, is the clearest or easiest, if not the amplest or sufficient, work on that law hitherto written in English. Mr. Neil Baillie’s Muhammadan Law of Inheritance, according to Abú Hanífah and his followers, with appendix containing authorities from the original Arabic, is an excellent work of the kind. The treatise on inheritance, gift, will, sale, and mortgage, compiled by Mr. F. E. Elberling, a Danish judge at Serampore, in the year 1844, contains principles of Muhammadan law, with those of the other laws, as used in India.
“In the year 1865, Mr. Neil Baillie, the author of the work already mentioned, completed and published a digest of Muhammadan law on all the subjects to which the Muhammadan law is usually applied by the British Courts of Justice in India. It gives translations of almost all the principles and some of the cases contained in the Fatáwá Alamgírí, the great digest of Muhammadan law in India, and quotes occasionally other available authorities. Being generally close to the original, and fully dealing with the subjects it treats of, this work must be said to be authentic, as well as the amplest of the digests of Muhammadan law hitherto written in English according to the doctrines of the Hanífí sect.” (See the Tagore Law Lectures, 1873, by Shama Churun Sircar; Thacker, Spink & Co., Calcutta.)
II.—The Shīʿahs, although they are divided amongst themselves into numerous sects which differ from each other in various points of religious belief, are unanimous in rejecting the collections of Traditions of the Sunnīs. The Sunnīs arrogate to themselves the title of Traditionists, but this does not imply that the Shīʿahs do not receive the Ḥadīs̤, but merely that they reject the “six correct books” of their opponents.