Islamic Scholars

His name is mentioned in the dîbâces of his books as written above; This is how his name is recorded by a young contemporary, Najm al-Din an-Nasafî, Zahebî and the sources that followed him. For this reason, it is important to note that many authors of classical strata, including Qureshi, and of these (EI, IV, 159) Calder (EI² [Eng.], IX, 35-36), the genealogy of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abu Sahl is incorrect. Ibn Fazlullah al-Umari’s name of Sarahsi is Hasan b. It must also be a mistake to give it as Ahmed. Sarahsi was known by the title of second Shams-ul-eimma; the first person to bear this title was his teacher Halwani. In terms of the number of his works, he is undoubtedly one of the greatest Muslim jurists. In terms of arbitrariness, Ibn Kamal (Risalah, vr. 308^b) puts him in the third tier of mujtahids, along with Hassâf, Tahâwî, Karkhî and Khalwani, immediately after Abu Hanifa and Shaybani. As his name indicates, Serahsi was born in or around Serahs, a town on the Turkmenistan-Iran border. Although there is no clear evidence that he was of Turkish ancestry, considering that he was educated in Bukhara, then taught, wrote his works in Özkent (Uzcend) Prison, and spent the last years of his life in Margīnān (Ferghana), he must be among the scholars of the Karakhanid State. He used only Arabic in his writings; The fact that he occasionally used Persian equivalents of Arabic terms, like other Central Asian jurists of his contemporary, to explain some fiqh issues does not indicate that he was Iranian, because Persian was one of the two languages used by intellectuals in the cities at that time. He has mentioned Turks many times on the occasion of the age of puberty, etc., which shows that it would be more appropriate to accept him as a Turk rather than an Iranian. The earliest biographers do not mention the year of his birth. The relatively new authors, ‘Abd al-Hay al-Leknawi (Sharḥu’l-Hidāyah, Leknawi’s Muqaddima, I, 37) and Faqīr Muhammad Jahlāmī (Ḥadāʾiḳu’l-Ḥanafiyya, p. 205), say that Sarahsī was born in 400 (1009-10) and accompanied his father, who had gone to Baghdad for trade purposes at the age of ten. Although Leknawi gives detailed information about his life in his more famous biography encyclopedia, al-Fawāʾidu’l-bahiyya, he does not explicitly state his date of birth. However, for other data on the biography of Sarahsî, he refers the reader to his earlier writings, which indicates that he confirms the date of birth he has given; Otherwise, he could have corrected the wrong he had already done.

Biographical works usually mention the year 483 (1090-91) for the date of Serahsî’s death. Although some use more vague expressions such as “[4]90” and “towards the year 500”, they do not convey the exact date. Only ‘Abd al-Hay al-Leknawi (Şerḥu’l-Hidāyah, Leknawi’s Muqaddima, I, 37-38) uses the phrase “Jamāzi al-Awwal died in 494 (March-April 1101), but it is also said that he died in 483”, without specifying the source. This conflict is also reflected in the manuscripts in the libraries of Istanbul, some of which confirm one date and others the other. However, the fact that his biographers Ibn Kutluboğa and Kafawi say, “When he was released from prison, he went to Fergana towards the end of his life” supports the year 483. Šārāhsī says in his Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr that this happy event took place in 480 (1087) and that he immediately went to Margīnān and completed the rest of his work, which he had begun in prison.

His teacher, Khalwani, was teaching in Bukhara. According to sources, Serahsî, who later became a brilliant successor of this famous jurist, attended these classes for many years. Kafawī gives the sequence of fiqh narrated from Itkānī as follows: ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Halwānī – Abu ‘Ali an-Nasafī – Imam Muhammad b. Fazl al-Bukhari – Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Ya’kūb as-Sabāzmūnī – Abu ‘Abdallah b. Abu Hafs al-Kabīr – Abu Hafs al-Kabīr – Muhammad b. Hasan – Abu Hanīfī. In the preface to his Sharḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr, Šārāhsī mentions Shaykh al-Islam Abu’l-Hasan as-Sughdī and Abu Hafs ‘Umar b. He openly states that he took lessons from Mansūr al-Bazzāz. These two jurists were experts in the field of authority in the law of states and the work written by Shaybani on this subject. It is known that Sughdî had written a work called Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr long before Serahsî came to mind. It is not clear how many students there were in Serahsi’s lectures; The sources recorded a few of the most famous names: Burhān al-eimma Abd al-Azīz b. Umar b. Māze, the founder of Āl-i Burhān, a family that held important positions both religiously and politically in Bukhara for many years, Mahmūd b. Māze, the grandfather of Kādīhan. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Ozjandī, the maternal grandfather of al-Hidāyah writer Margīnānī, was Abu Hafs ‘Umar b. Habīb, Ruknāddin Mas’ūd b. Husayn al-Kushani, Uthman b. Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Hasīrī, who narrated ʿAli al-Bīkānī and Sharḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kābīr.

Prison Life. Ibn Fazlullah al-Umari, the earliest biographer of Sarahsī, states in his Masāliku’l-abṣār (VI, 65-66) that Sarahsī was a great scholar of theology, faqih, expert in fiqh procedure, and master of debate. Although his quarrels with his contemporaries have not left a trace and have not survived to the present day, it is fair to say that his long years of imprisonment were no other reason than his unshakable thoughts on legal-political issues that went against the government. Written while in prison, Muhammad b. In the memoir of Nuqat, which consists of notes he wrote on a work by Hasan ash-Shaybani, he himself implicitly records the reason for his imprisonment as follows: “These are the things that come to my mind when I think about the phrases of Muhammad’s Ziyâdâtü’z-Ziyâdât, and what I understand from his fiqh; When I had no hope of salvation while I was in prison because of a word I said as a piece of advice, I spelled it out…” (Suleymaniye Ktp., Hagia Sophia, nr. 1385, vr. 429^b; Cârullah Efendi, nr. 679, vr. 137^b). In Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr, Serahsî states that the sultan imprisoned him and that this was caused by some zindiks. A biographical account of his prison life (al-Mabsūṭ, XII, 108) says: “A man who was removed from his family, his children, and even his books dictated …” His biographers don’t mention it after his release from prison. Later, it is mentioned only that he was imprisoned in Özkent Castle without any details about his reasons. Serahsî wrote almost all of his works in this period. In the prefaces or memoirs of his various works, and even in some of them, it is clearly stated that he dictated it while he was imprisoned in the castle of Ozkent, and when he was finally expelled from it, he settled in Margīnān (Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr, introduction to the edition, lv. 3, 7, 9).

Heffening, citing a story about Serahsî, says (EI, IV, 159): “Then he went to the Karakhanid court in Ozkent. I think that he alone among the ulema made this act of the Amir, who had married his followers to others without observing the violence, illegitimate.” This story is accepted as a historical fact and repeated without reference to sources. In fact, the sources that Heffening knew and the sources that he did not have can obtain unanimously state that this event occurred after Serahsî’s release from prison, and that the emir (or governor) in question, far from being angry with Serahsî, admired his extensive knowledge. In addition, the amir did not want to marry someone else’s wife in person, so that he would have been offended by the contrary opinion of Sarahsi. On the contrary, the Emir wished to give his jariyahs to those who asked for them. Some new scholars attribute the reason for his imprisonment as Abu Nasr Ahmad b. They thought of Sulayman al-Kasani. This person was first the chief minister, then the vizier, and then he was executed by the ruler. Kasani was the vizier of the Western Karakhanids; New data have been found showing that in 467 (1074-75) or shortly before, Ozkent, the capital of the Eastern Karakhanids, where Serahsî had been imprisoned, was under the occupation of the western branches of these rulers (Federov, p. 165 [2000], p. 2). Shahāb al-Dīn al-Marjānī, in his Ġurfātu’l-ḥavāḳīn (pp. 27 ff.), states that in 461 (1069) the faqih Ismāʿīl b. He says that he killed Ahmad as-Saffar and that he was the one who imprisoned Sarahsi, which seems to be true. It was not until 480 (1087) that he was released from prison. By this time, two rulers, Khidr Khan (1079-1080) and Ahmed Khan (1081-1088), had taken the throne. There must be a more serious reason for a continued imprisonment under three rulers than remarrying a concubine. However, Mercânî does not mention the source of this news. Heffening records that it was Hasan who imprisoned Serahsi; Later in the same article, he says that when he was finally released, he completed his work in the court of Amīr Hasan in Margīnān. Is Hakan Hasan the same person? Since the haka has two capitals, it must be located in Kashgar or Ozkent, and not in a provincial city like Margīnān. However, all these hypothetical statements are invalidated by the statement of Šārāhsī himself, who states that when he was released from the Ozkent Prison, the faqih went to Margīnān to benefit from the hospitality of the imam Sayfeddin Ibrahim b. Ishaq (according to some manuscripts, Sayfeddin Abu Ibrāhim Ishaq b. Ismāʿil) and completed the rest of the spelling of Sharḥu’s-Siār al-kābīr in this person’s house. Although it has been claimed that Amīr Hasan was Tamgaç Ulugh Bugra Khan Hasan, the Eastern Karakhanid ruler between 1069 and 1103, it is possible that he was the name of the governor of Margīnān and that the famous incident of the jāriyehs was related to this.

‘Umari (Masâlik, VI, 65-66) says the following in this regard: “It is narrated about Sarahsi that when he was released from prison, the governor of the city married his child-bearing concubines (ummuwaled) to the free men in his service. The Amir asked the ‘ulama present for their opinion on this matter, and they all approved of it, but Sarahsi said: “You have committed a mistake, for each of them (the husbands of the jariyahs) had previously married a free woman, and this is to give a jariyah to the sand with a free wife” (in fact, Sarahsi should have said, “It is not permissible for an ummuwal to marry”). On the other hand, the amir renewed the marriages, saying, “Then I will divorce them,” and then asked the opinion of the scholars. They all said, “You have acted rightly”; but Sarahsi said, “No, you have committed a mistake, for when an ummuwalad is divorced, it is necessary to wait for iddah before marrying; In this case, the marriage of women whose iddah has not yet been completed is a matter of suspicion and such a marriage is not valid,” he objected. It is very unlikely that there is a haka in this case. The term “emir al-beled” here is mostly used for a governor.

In fact, there is a tension between the government and the ulema, who have executed some of the pious faqihs in the Western Karakhanid State; one of the reasons for this tension is the government’s unfair taxes, while the other is the accusations of going beyond the Sunni line (Barthold, pp. 332-338). His notes in various books suggest that this kind of accusation may have been the reason for his imprisonment (Schacht, 900. Death Anniversary, pp. 3-4). At a time when the tension between the ulema and the Karakhanid khan reached its peak, the ulema decided that the ruler Ahmad Khan b. He asked for help from the Seljuk Ruler Melikşah against Hızır (1081-1089), and he went on an expedition to the interior of Özkent in 482 (1089) (EI² [Fr.], III, 1144). Was Serahsi’s release from prison shortly before this incident a step taken to ease this tension? The sources seem to be silent on these issues; but every day new taxes were imposed, of which Serahsī complained (al-Mabsūṭ, X, 21), and Serāhsī approves of the actions of those who could oppose the payment of these unjust taxes, and states that this was a more virtuous act for them. Kafawi, who wrote his biography (Ketāʾib, v. 143^b) points to this point. As the pioneer of the popular movement against taxes, it is easy to understand that Serahsi was one of the main victims of the tyranny of the time. Cehlemî narrates that “when the ruler arrested him and brought him to Özkent”; this possibility indicates that he was arrested in a central place in Bukhara and sent to Ozkent.

Stating that various portions of al-Mabsûṭ bear the dates 466 (1073) and 477 (1084), Heffening infers from this that Sarahsī spent more than ten years in prison. But this is not true; for the record of the year 466 is in volume XXVII, and the date of 477 is in volume XXX; that is to say, it must be admitted that only three volumes took eleven years. Will the thirty volumes of al-Mabsūṭ take 110 years? With the exception of one other manuscript (Dar al-kutubi al-Misriyya, al-Fiqh al-Hanafi, nr. 490, probably the basis of the al-Mabsûṭ edition), all the other manuscripts (fifteen manuscripts in Turkey, as well as one Daru’l-kutubi’l-Misriyya, al-Fiqh al-Hanafi, nr. 493; Damascus, Dar al-kutubi’z-Zâhiriyya, nr. 8295) bear the date 479 (1086). If the three volumes of al-Mabsūṭ took thirteen years, then the whole would require 130 years. He was imprisoned for another year after the spelling of Sarahsī al-Mabsūṭ. Accordingly, the date 466 (1073) was placed at the beginning of Volume XXVII, for some reason, when it was to be found at the beginning of the original work. As clearly stated in the memoir of Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr, Sārāhsī was released from prison on 20 Rābī al-Awwal 480 (25 June 1087). Accordingly, his imprisonment, which was useful in terms of occupation with science, continued for fifteen years. This is confirmed by other events. In an account in al-Mabsūṭ (VIII, 80), Sarahsī says that he had been in prison for two years. In this statement, it must be said that a quarter of the work is at stake. In al-Mabsûṭ (XXVII, 124) he mentions the date 14 Rābī al-Awwal 466 (17 November 1073), and elsewhere (al-Mabsūṭ, XXX, 287) he mentions the date Jamāzi al-Āhir 477 (October 1084 or, as previously indicated, 479/1086 in other manuscripts). In the preface to his Uṣûlü’l-fıḳh, Šārāhī says that he began spelling at the end of Shawwali 479 (early February 1087). Here is a work that takes up 800 pages in the printed copy. The hadith of Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr is more detailed; According to some manuscripts, this work was begun on 1 Dhulqada 479 (7 February 1087) (but this is somewhat odd, since it was only one day after the start of Uṣûl; for a discussion of this, see Ayntâbî Mehmed Munîb, Taysîr al-masîr, Hüsrev Pasha Ktp., nr. 382). According to this, his release from prison was Friday, 20 Rebî al-Awwal 480 (25 June 1087), his departure from Özkent, where the prison was located, was the end of Rebî al-Awwal, his arrival in Margīnān was 10 Rebîülâhir (11 July), his resumption to complete the spelling was 24 Rebîülâhir (29 July), and the end of the spelling of Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr was Friday, 3 Cemâziyelevvel (6 August).

Serahsî’s biographers say that he was thrown into a well, that he gave his lessons through this well, and that his students took his notes at the mouth of the well. In an account of his own life (al-Mabsūṭ, at the end of the “Iqāla”, not in the printed copy, but present in most of the manuscripts) he says: “Leaving the prison, which is a very tiresome place, waiting for the completion of freedom and peace…” In some manuscripts of Sharḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr, the following is found: “In 1 Dhulqada 479 in Ozkent, the patient and intelligent sheikh nicknamed Amīr Gūn, i.e., Abu ‘Ali Husayn b. It began in the house of Abu’l-Kāsim. This spelling continued until the mention of ‘Emân’. Then we were ordered to write in Ozkent Castle; this is up to the bet on ‘Shurût’. The release from prison took place on 20 Rabi al-Awwal 480.” According to all this, it is possible that Serahsî was first thrown into a well of the castle, then given the opportunity to teach, then transferred to a lodge of the castle mentioned in the preface of his Uṣûl, then kept under surveillance in the house of Amîr Gûn, a high-ranking official, then transferred to the castle, and finally released. His biographers insist that he knew by heart what Shaybani had commented on his works. He was certainly deprived of his library; But listeners were not prohibited from bringing their own private copies. Since the distances were the same in both directions, the audience could hear what they were reading as they heard their teacher. Accordingly, it is possible for the students to read the text first and then the teacher to annotate it. In Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr, there is sometimes “another manuscript”, “an old manuscript”, and “some manuscripts”.

Characteristics of the Scholarly Activity of Sarahsi. Serahsi was imprisoned for political reasons. Therefore, it should not be surprising that he has made deep observations about the political motives behind historical events. For example, the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, which the Prophet (peace be upon him) made with the polytheists of Mecca in 6 (627), seemed to be against the Muslims. However, the Muslims did not suffer any calamities caused by their enemies. No historian or author of the Prophet has given a convincing explanation of such an action of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) despite the opposition of a prominent companion like Umar. Šārāhsī explains this in his Sharḥu’s-Siārī al-kābīr (I, 201): “The Prophet accepted this (against) state of affairs because these were the conditions that were in favor of the Muslims at that time. In fact, there was a conspiracy between the polytheists of Mecca and the Jews of Khaybar that if the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made an expedition against one of these two sides, the other side would immediately move and occupy Medina, which is located in the middle of the road between Mecca and Khaybar.” Works of law reflect the life of a people. His references to the economic, jurisprudential, etc., issues of his time are numerous, and they are worth neatly collecting and examining. Since he commented on the writings of Shaybani, who was a great authority, he was obliged to reveal the rules put forward by Shaybani and the foundations on which he based them, as well as the reasons for them. Serahsî tried to look for them at every step, and it can be said that he carried out this task with astonishing excellence.

Works. Much of his work was written while he was in prison or completed after his release.

1. Ṣifatu ashrāṭi’s-sāʿa wa maḳāmāti’l-ḳıyāma. This work, which was spelled by his teacher Halvânî, was organized and arranged by Serahsî. Of the two known copies (Süleymaniye Ktp., Esad Efendi, nr. 1446/3, vr. 43^a-73^b) at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (nr. Arabe 2800, Writing, vr. 442^b-465^b) (jun. Zeki Saritoprak, Cairo 1414/1993).

2. al-Mabsūṭ. When Serahsî did not see the possibility of getting out of prison in the near future after the first tremor in Özkent Prison passed, he felt the need to find a study topic. As he himself said (al-Mabsûṭ, I, 4), he had long wished to commentate on al-Muḫtaṣaru’l-kāfī of Hakim ash-Shahīd, a work summarizing Shaybānī’s masterpiece al-Aṣl and his other books. The permissibility of the circumstances and the suggestions of some friends who tried to “comfort him” led Serahsî to realize this wish, and his work was the first and most voluminous work in which the fiqh views and evidences in the Hanafi madhhab were discussed in the most extensive way and a systematic analysis was made. al-Mabsûṭ is the first of the great works that do not concern themselves with the establishment of the basic views of the sect and the proof of their correctness, but make an impartial systematic analysis of all other views. In other words, the treatment of these works is of a philosophical nature, and Serahsî is the first representative of those who examine the issues from this point of view in his sect (Schacht, 900. Death Anniversary, p. 2). al-Mabsûṭ It was printed in Cairo (1324-1331) in thirty volumes of large size, totaling 6335 pages. Khalil Muhyiddin al-Mais prepared an index of the work (Fahārisü’l-Mabsūṭ, Beirut 1400/1980).

3. Şerḥu (Nukatu) Ziyâdâti’z-ziyâdât (nşr. Abu’l-Wafā al-Afgānī, Haidarābād / Dekken 1378). The commentaries of al-Ziyâdât, Ziyâdâtü’z-Ziyâdât, al-Jamiʿu’ṣ-ṣaġīr and al-Jamiʿu’l-kebîr, all of which are works of Shaybānī, were also written during Serahsī’s imprisonment.

4. Sharḥu’l-Jamiʿi’ṣ-ṣaġīr. A copy is in the Süleymaniye Library (Baghdadlı Vehbi Efendi, nr. 565). In the commentary, as in the original, Serahsī based the unorganized version of the Jāmiʿu’ṣ-ṣaġīr. The work was prepared in two volumes at the Center for Islamic Studies with the analysis of Ertuğrul Boynukalın and published by the Turkiye Diyanet Foundation Publications (Ankara 2020).

5. Sharḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebīr. In the last months of his imprisonment and at a time when the country was shaken by civil wars, the author began to dictate the commentary of Shaybānī’s book on the common law of states, and completed the last 328 pages of the 1408 pages in the printed version of it in Margīnān and only ten days after his release from prison. The work was translated into Turkish by Mehmed Münîb Ayintabî and published in Istanbul (1241/1826). The publication of the Arabic original was possible about a century after this date (Haydarâbâd 1335-1336). Saladin al-Munajjid (I-III, Cairo 1957-1960) started the edited edition of the work and was republished in its entirety by Abdulaziz Ahmad with the IV and V volumes reviewed (Cairo 1971). Mehmed Tâhir of Bursa and Ismail Pasha of Baghdad wrongly portray the translation of Ayntâbî as the translation of as-Siyeru’l-kebîr. This false information was repeated by authors such as Fatîn, Mehmed Süreyyâ, Muallim Nâci and Şemseddin Sâmi (Okiç, pp. 31-32). In the muqaddimah he wrote, Ayntâbî gave information about the content and value of the work, as well as about Shaybânî and Serahsî. According to Mehmed Tâhir of Bursa, this translation was read and explained to the officers and soldiers by the regimental muftis and battalion imams by the order of Mahmud II (Ottoman Authors, II, 35). Ayntâbî explained the elusive places in Serahsî’s work in his Arabic book Taysîrü’l-mesîr fî Şerḥi’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr. There are various manuscript copies of this work, which is essentially the companion of es-Siyerü’l-kebîr (Süleymaniye Ktp., Hüsrev Pasha, nr. 382 [author’s line]; Hasan Husnu Pasha, nr. 535). The work was translated into French by Muhammad Hamîdullah at the request of UNESCO and published by the Turkish Religious Foundation (K. es-Siyerü’l-kebîr: Le grand livre de la conduite de l’état: commenté par as-Sarakhsî, I-IV, Ankara 1989-1991). There is also a translation into modern Turkish (Islamic States Law, trc. M. S. Şimşek – İ. Sarmış, Konya 2001).

6. Uṣûlü’l-fıḳh (Uṣûlü’s-Seraḫsî). The author wrote this important work, which he started spelling in prison and probably completed later, to explain the principles of the commentaries on Shaybani’s works. The work was published by Abu’l-Wafā al-Afgānī (I-II, Cairo 1372). There are also editions of Haidarâbâd (1372-1373) and Beirut (1393/1973). Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Salah b. Muhammad b. He published a new edition of the work under the title Uwayda al-Muḥarrer fî uṣûli’l-fıḳh (Beirut 1417/1996). This work of Serahsî, together with the al-Uṣûl of his contemporary and classmate Abu’l-Usr al-Pazdawi, has taken its place in history as two classics of the Hanafi fiqh method. Almost all the works written in this branch of science have always taken into account the general framework and theories of these two works.

Ibn Kutluboga, a biographer of Sarahsī, says that he saw a fragment of his Sharḥu Muḫtaṣari’ṭ-Ṭaḥāwī. Abu’l-Wafā al-Afgānī found mentions of Sadr al-Shahīd’s commentary on Hassāf’s works and the commentaries of Hassāf’s books Edebü’l-ḳāḍî and an-Nafaḳāt made by Serahsī. Kātib Chalabi mentions an al-Fawāʾid “which is the work of Serahsī and Khalwānī” (Kashāfī'ẓ-ẓunûn, II, 1295). This may be an orthography of Halwani that was arranged and edited by Serahsî. In his al-Mabsûṭ (XX, 7 ff.), Sarahsī vaguely mentions one of his works, citing “the most complex of legal matters of riyāziyah with regard to the joint liability of joint guarantors”, saying: “I have collected in one work all that these masters have mentioned on this subject, but none of my books are with me here…” Serahsî’s works such as Şerḥu Kitâbi’l-Kesb, Şerḥu Kitâbi’l-Ḥayż, Şerḥu Kitâbi’l-Ḥiyel are also mentioned; but these are nothing more than the various chapters of his al-Mabsūṭ. The commentary on al-Jamiʿu’l-kebīr has not yet been found.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sarahsī, al-Mabsūṭ, I, 4; VIII, 80; X, 21; XII, 108; XX, 7 ff.; XXVII, 124; XXX, 287.

a.mlf., al-Uṣûl (nr. Abu’l-Wafā al-Afgānī), Beirut 1393/1973, introduction to the edition, I, 3-8.

a.mlf., Nuketü Ziyâdâti’z-ziyâdât (nşr. Abu’l-Wafā al-Afgānī), Ḥidārābād 1378, introduction to the edition.

a.mlf., Şerḥu’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr (nşr. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid), Cairo 1958, I, 201; see also Introduction to the Edition, I, 13-23, lv. 3, 7, 9.

Najm al-Din an-Nasafī, al-Ḳand fī ẕikri ʿulemāʾi Samarḳand (nşr. Yûsuf al-Hâdî), Tehran, 1378 AH, p. 206.

Zahābī, Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, XVIII, 177.

Ibn Fazlullah al-Umari, Masālik, VI, 65-66.

Qureshi, al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya, II, 467; III, 8, 78-82.

Ibn Hajar al-Askalânî, Lisânu’l-Mîzân (nşr. Abd al-Fattah Abu Gudda), Beirut 1423/2002, V, 192.

Ibn Kutluboga, Tâcü’t-tarâcim fî men ṣannefe mine’l-Ḥanafiyya (nâr. Ibrahim Sâlih), Dimashq 1412/1992.

Ibn Kamal, Risāla fī Vaḳfi’l-awlād wa ṭabaḳāti’l-mujtahidīn, Mufti of Istanbul Ktp., nr. 276, vr. 308^b.

Tashkoprizādeh, Miftāḥu’s-saʿādeh, II, 55 ff.

Mahmoud b. Süleyman al-Kafawi, Ketâʾibü aʿlâmi’l-aḫyâr min fuḳahâʾi meẕhebi’n-Nuʿmâni’l-muḫtâr, Sulaymaniyah Ktp., Reîsülküttâb Mustafa Efendi, nr. 690, vr. 143-144.

Kashku'ẓ-ẓunûn, I, 112, 561, 568; II, 963, 1014, 1079, 1295, 1580.

Ayntâbî Mehmed Münîb, Teysîrü’l-mesîr fî Şerḥi’s-Siyeri’l-kebîr, Süleymaniye Ktp., Hüsrev Pasha, nr. 382.

Faqīr Muhammad Jahlāmī, Ḥadāʾiḳu’l-Ḥanafiyya, Leknev, ts., pp. 205-207.

G. Flügel, Die Classen der hanefitischen Rechtsgelehrten, Leipzig 1862, pp. 275, 301 ff., 303 ff., 305 ff., 320, 322.

Leknawi, al-Fawāʾidu’l-bahiyya, pp. 158 ff.

a.mlf., Sharḥu’l-Hidāyah (Burhānān al-Dīn al-Margīnānī, in al-Hidāyah, n.s.r. Naîm Ashraf Nûr Ahmad), Karachi 1417, Muqaddimah of Leknawi, I, 37-38.

Mercānī, Ġurfātu’l-ḥavāḳīn li-maʿrifati’l-ḫavāḳīn, Kazan 1281, pp. 27 ff.

Ottoman Authors, II, 35.

W. Heffening, Das Islamische Fremdenrecht, Hannover 1925, addendum.

ibid., “al-Sarak̲h̲sī”, EI, IV, 159.

M. Zāhid al-Kawsarī, Bulūġu’l-emānī, Cairo 1388/1969, pp. 81, 83.

M. Tayyib Okiç, “Turkish Translation of Şemsu’l-E’imme es-Sarahsî’s ‘Şarḥu’s-Siyari’l-Kabîr’ and Other Works of Translator Mehmed Münib Ayintabi”, 900. On the Occasion of the Anniversary of His Death, the Great Islamic Jurist Şemsu’l-E’imme es-Serahsi Armağanı, Ankara 1965, pp. 27-42.

Salih Tuğ, “The Prison Life of Imam Sarahsî According to His Expressions Found in His Works”, op. cit., pp. 43-60.

Muhammad Hamidullah, “The Share of Sarahsi in the Common Law of States” (trc. Salih Tuğ), op. cit., pp. 15-25.

a.mlf., “Contribution de l’Iran a la botanique et a la science juridique”, Pensée Chi’ite, p. 1, Paris 1960, pp. 13-18.

ibid., “Sarahsî”, IA, X, 502-507.

J. Schacht, “Notes on Sarakhsî’s Life and Works”, 900. On the Occasion of the Anniversary of His Death, the Gift of the Great Islamic Jurist Shamsu’l-A’imma as-Sarahsi, pp. 1-6.

a.mlf., “Sur la transmission de la doctrine dans les écoles juridiques de l’Islam”, Annales de l’Institut d’études orientales, X, Paris 1952, pp. 399-419.

V. V. Barthold, Turkestan until the Mongol Invasion (jun. Hakkı Dursun Yıldız), Ankara 1990, p. 332-338.

Murteza Badr, The Early Development of Ḥanafī Uṣul al-Fiqh (Legal Theory) (Ph.D. thesis, 1999), Manchester University Faculty of Arts, pp. 25-28.

Abdullah Yıldız, “Serahsî’s Understanding of Hadith and Deeds with Hadiths”, Journal of the Faculty of Theology of Harran University, p. 4, Şanlıurfa 1998, p. 139-159; Sy. 5 (1999), pp. 255-298.

M. Federov, “Notes on Qarakhanids and Their Coinage”, Orieantal Numismatic Society Newsletter, Supplement, p. 165, London 2000, pp. 1-52.

C. E. Bosworth, “Ilek-K̲h̲āns”, EI² (Fr.), III, 1144.

N. Calder, “al-Sarak̲h̲sī”, EI² (Eng.), IX, 35-36.