By Paolo Sartori
In 2018, the Spiritual Board of Muslims of Dagestan published a collection of fatāwā (Islsamic legal opinions) crafted between the 1950s and 1980s by the cleric Muḥammad al-Badawī al-Khartikunī.[1] Born in 1917 in an Avar-majority village in the Gegrebil rural district (central Dagestan), Khartikunī pursued his studies at his native village until its closure by the Communists in 1928.[2] Thereafter his exposure to Islamic scholarship continued under the guidance of his father, Aḥmad-Ḥājjī, who, on account of his religious authority, attracted the ire of atheist zealots and was exiled to Siberia in the mid-1930s.[3] With his father lost in exile, it is unclear how Khartikunī was able to cultivate further his interests in Islamic sciences. What the available documentation tells us, however, is that until the end of his life, he offered religious services at his native village while working on a collective farm, mainly participating in the construction of roads, bridges, and water pipelines, thereby fitting the profile of many village mullahs in the USSR.[4] Khartikunī never officially held any religious position: during the Soviet period the rural communities of the area had no functioning mosques, and the situation did not change until the early 1990s after the fall of the USSR. In his fatāwā, he styled himself as a "judge by necessity" (al-qāḍī al-ḍarūrī), an expression suggesting that not only did he conduct Islamic rites (such as marriages, divorces, and funerals) without being an officially appointed imam, but also that he offered his services as an expert of sharīʿa.[5] Khartikunī died in 1992 and was buried in the cemetery of his native village.
The 2018 publication of his fatāwā is based on Khartikunī's autograph manuscript which collates the answers to questions which local Soviet citizens addressed to him on specific points of Islamic jurisprudence. Occasionally, this text includes correspondence with other Muslim jurists in Dagestan.[6] When compiling his work, he rearranged all this material (questions and answers) according to the traditional structure of fatāwā collections, i.e., by beginning with the section (kitāb) devoted to "purification" (ṭahārat) and ending it with the section on naḍhr ("vowing to God").[7]
The section devoted to the topic of divorce (ṭalāq), including triple divorce,[8] in particular, is important for several reasons. First, it shows how in late Socialist Dagestan, the Islamic rites of marriage and divorce were widely observed by Soviet Muslim citizens. Secondly, it points clearly to the fact that, even though the Soviet state had outlawed sharīʿa since the late 1920s, Dagestanis actively sought legal opinions as well as legal certificates according to Islamic law. Thirdly, it indicates that there existed a large network of Muslims jurists who, despite being forced to operate illegally, constituted a vibrant and varied Islamic scholarly environment which preserved and further developed Islamic legal tradition. Almost unexplored, this environment no doubt deserves the sustained attention of historians of Islam in the USSR.
Here below I offer in translation a letter that Muḥammad Khartikunī wrote in the mid-1980s to another Dagestani scholar, Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī, in the wake of a case of divorce.[9] The case was as follows: one Yūnus-Qadī appeared before Khartikunī and stated his desire to divorce his wife Fāṭima. Arguing for the good character of the woman, Khartikunī attempted to dissuade Yūnus-Qadī from undertaking this course of action. He did so most probably in deference to the ḥadīth "The most hateful of lawful matters is divorce" (abghaḍ al-ḥalāl ilā Allāh al-ṭalāq), which suggests that it is fundamentally better to conciliate a couple than to separate them.[10] Reconciliation was not achieved, however, and Khartikunī agreed to assist Yūnus-Qadī and instructed him to pronounce a triple divorce at one session.[11] Six months later, Yūnus-Qadī came back to Khartikunī and repented of his decision. However, Khartikunī was adamant about the irrevocable character of the divorce and thus informed Yūnus-Qadī that he could not annul it.[12]
Immediately after this meeting, and most probably at the instigation of her former husband, Fāṭima appeared before Khartikunī to request a certificate of divorce. Interestingly, Khartikunī tells us that while crafting the certificate he advised Fāṭima to entrust the document to his acolyte Muḥammad Rasūl al-Kudālī, and he admonished her not to show it to Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī. Why? As we shall see, Khartikunī had guessed that Yūnus-Qadī would use this certificate to pursue his own interests, i.e., the annulment of the divorce.
Khartikunī knew furthermore that his and Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī's opinions on the status of the marital relationship between Yūnus-Qadī and Fāṭima differed substantially. While Khartikunī held that a triple divorce at one session was to be considered irrevocable and final (bāʾin), Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī regarded it as revocable (rajʿī). In Shāfiʿī-majority Dagestan, Muḥammad Khartikunī's opinion was the most common, whereas Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī's view followed Ibn Taymiyya[13] and was thus regarded as aberrant. Most probably, all the parties involved in the dispute knew about this juristic controversy. That is to say that if one had to confer authority on and accept Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī's, then the divorce was to be considered revocable and Yūnus-Qadī could return Fāṭima to his house.
One may speculate that, once Khartikunī categorically rejected the possibility to annul the divorce, Yūnus-Qadī must have looked for other ways to make it revocable. Having heard that there were Muslim scholars in the region who, on the issue of triple divorce at one session, privileged the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya over the preponderant Shāfiʿī view and thus held such type of divorce as revocable, he persuaded Fāṭima to secure a certificate of divorce. Yūnus-Qadī's plan was to request an opinion in favor of the annulment of the divorce from Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī. Next, Yūnus-Qadī resolved to bring Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Saltī's opinion to Muḥammad Khartikunī and openly dispute the latter's legal authority.
What follows is Khartikunī's rejoinder to al-Saltī, which mainly revolves around the latter's modernist and fundamentalist pedigree. Indeed, Khartikunī questions the genealogy of al-Saltī's juristic method which was based on the teachings of two Dagestani scholars, ʿAlī al-Ghumuqī (Ali Kaiaev, 1878–1943) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Harakanī (Pakhruddin Magomedov, 1880–1978), who after the Second World War were commonly regarded as popularisers of the works of Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) and, more importantly, the reformist views of Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1935) on matters of jurisprudence.[14] In fact, between the 1950s and 1960s, Dagestani scholars usually referred to al-Ghumuqī and al-Harakanī as "Wahhabis," a term also employed by Khartikunī when addressing al-Salṭī in another correspondence.[15]
As we shall see, Khartikunī's abrasive disapproval revolved around the method of juristic hermeneutics employed by al-Salṭī, which was based on the rejection of taqlīd and allowed for the adoption of opinions originating from other schools of law. In fact, Khartikunī's broadside against al-Salṭī did not specifically review the latter's juristic method, but targeted instead his association with modernist scholars and their ostensible rejection of the authority of the schools of law. Interestingly, al-Ghumuqī – an authoritative reference for al-Salṭī – never explicitly advocated for the adoption of ijtihād. It is true of course that he criticized the blind adherence to the method of taqlīd. However, he encouraged jurists to employ the juristic technique of talfīq ("amalgamation").[16]
Finally, in the text here below, Khartikunī ― let us remind ourselves, a village mullah ― quotes directly from the English translation of Muhammad Abduh's Risālat al-tawḥid ("The Theology of Unity"), which was printed in London in 1966,[17] and from the journal al-Manār which was published in Cairo by Rashīd Riḍā between 1898 and 1935.[18] While it is common knowledge that Islamic reformist literature circulated widely in the early 20th century,[19] it is striking that the English translation of Abduh's work could cross the borders of the Soviet Union and reach a remote village in Socialist Dagestan.
[A Letter to Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī][20]
A Question of Divorce (Masʾalat al-ṭalāq)
From Muḥammad, son of the late scholar al-Ḥājjī Aḥmad al-Khartikunī to the one who is like a gracious father to me, Muḥammad Ḥajiaw al-Salṭī. Peace and blessings to you, dear brother.
After I was requested to issue an opinion (istiftāʾ) regarding this issue of a man who divorced his wife three times [in one session], I was extremely surprised [to hear] that this issue reached you, although I had sent my reply to Muḥammad Rasūl al-Kudālī seven months ago. Perhaps [the letter] reached you through someone who does not care about his religion or has gone astray in his actions, otherwise it is impossible that it ended up with you. I believe that whoever commits such a thing behaves like a hypocrite (munāfiq) and an executor of the orders of the devil, and the label 'shayṭān' suits him well. I say this without any fear of reproach. And as everyone knows, my father was never afraid of aggressive people, but his manner of dealing with people was like that of [the Caliph] ʿUmar and his companions. And so, when I read your reply to my [opinion] on the matter, I re-read it several times, looked at it with the eyes of my mind and heart, turned the pages one by one, and found that the whole answer was based on the principles of the anthropomorphists (qawāʿid madhhab al-ḥashwiyya),[21] which is represented by a group of ignorant people who claim to follow [Imam] Aḥmad [b. Ḥanbal], with whom they have nothing in common. I also found that the first answer to this question contains a frightening and disturbing word that makes pious people shudder. And the gist of it is [as follows]:
"It is amazing how our scholars, may Allah have mercy upon them, do not find the right path in the matter of divorce and do not adhere to the texts of sharīʿa. Instead, I found that they allow three divorces to be pronounced at the same time, which is a forbidden harmful innovation (ḥarām bidʿī). They consider the divorce to be final even on the first or second divorce, although according to the text of sharīʿa, it should be a revocable divorce. They pronounce three divorces instead of one, disregarding the Sunna and the prophetic guidance on this matter. They do not give importance to what Allah, in His guidance, has said regarding the divorce, that is the time and the number [of divorces]. They blindly follow a vicious imitation (taqlīd), clinging tightly to the rejected opinions of the scholars and weak, non-obvious arguments. By doing so, they stray from the true path and mislead others. May Allah forgive them. Amen!"
And I shall tell you, O noble brother, for your edification, though I am younger and less experienced, that these words of the venerable [Fakhr al-Dīn] al-Harakanī[22] have arisen from the limitations of his mind and the fallacies in his thinking.[23] How does this scholar not realize that both ʿulamāʾ and laymen laugh at him, considering him insignificant, humiliated and devoid of respect! If the Imams of the four madhhabs and their followers have strayed from the true path and misguided others, then what should we do, where should we go, where should we find salvation? Oh, if he had not uttered these horrible, disgusting and erroneous words, so far from the true path of sharīʿa which was transmitted more than eight hundred years ago! This al-Harakanī by his eloquent words denies [the opinions of] the majority of the Muslim Umma, about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Stick to the majority!" Understand this and do not be, O Honorable Muhammad Hajiyaw, like the common people, for children will laugh at you. Do not write such answers to questions! Be careful not to stray from the righteous path!
Then, oh brother, you have also quoted many times from Muḥammad 'Abduh's Tafsīr, even though his interpretation reflects the spirit of this era (muwāfiqu'l rūḥ hadhā al-ʿaṣr) and is in accordance with the customs of the European states (ʿawāʾid al-duwal al-uwrufiyya). However, this interpretation is only an opinion endorsed by the infidel Englishmen (bi al-kuffār al-Inglis), as evidenced by his translation of the book, where Muḥammad 'Abduh states, "This is the interpretation by which the Qurʾān has been explained in terms of the general guidance for mankind, including the foundations of civilization, the laws of society, and in accordance with the good of people."[24] And as his disciple [Rashīd Riḍā'] confirms this in [the journal] al-Manār, on page 99 of the eighth volume, in the following words: "The author of al-Manār asked Muḥammad 'Abduh to compose an interpretation to the Qurʾān that suits the needs of the time and is consistent with it, even if it diverges from what is contained in the books of the earlier respected commentators."[25] This shows that he interpreted the Qurʾān as he saw fit, and this is an admission of the truth about himself.
So, understand and know, O pious brother, may Allah guide you to good, that it is not possible that the entire Umma of the followers of the four schools of law should follow the path of error and you should follow [the path of] truth. This is evident to those who have even a little knowledge. Repent, oh brother, as the early Imams such as Ibn al-Jawzī, Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Quduqī[26] and others like them repented. Admit your mistakes and ask for forgiveness as the Imams did. Make supplication to Almighty Allah that He may forgive your previous sins. And do not write any more of what came out of your mouth borrowed from the books of the Wahhābīs, for I have nothing to do with them. Write for those who do not know the true position of these Imams on whom you rely [in your conclusions]. And Allah Most High knows best. This was written by al-Badawī's son, al-Khartikunī.
Notes:
[1] Muḥammad b. al-ḥājj Aḥmad al-Badawī al-Khartikunī, Fatāwā al-Khartikunī (Makhachkala: Dār al-risāla, 2018).
[2] Abdulaev G. M., "Zhizn' i nauchnoe nasledie Mukhammada iz Khwartikuni," Nauchnoe Obrazovanie 2/7 (2020): 42.
[3] Ibid.
[4] On mullahs integrated into the welfare system of Soviet collective farms, see Stéphane A. Dudoignon and Christian Noack, eds., Allah's Kolkhozes: Migration, De-Stalinisation, Privatisation, and the New Muslim Congregations in the Soviet Realm (1950s–2000s) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2014), especially the chapter authored by Arianne Zevaco.
[5] Khartikunī, Fatāwā al-Khartikunī, 5, 17.
[6] Ibid., 4, 16, 28, 29 (Muḥammad Khalīl); 95 ('Umar b. Dibir); 102 153 (Muḥammad Quraḥma); 175–76 (Muḥammad b. Mūsā); 204 ('Abdu Raḥilaw); 214–15 (Ḥadīth b. Quraḥma); 5 (Isrāfīl of Goor); 24 (Abakar); 59 (Muḥammad); 175 (Ṭalḥa); 210 (Abū Ayyūb ); 67 (Ṣūfī Muḥammad al-Maḥallī); 68 (Muḥammad b. Murād-bek); 98 ('Alī-ḥājj); and 158 (Muḥammad Ḥajiyaw).
[7] Ibid., 4 (beginning of ṭahāra) through 184 (end of nadhr).
[8] Ibid., 166–75.
[9] Ibid., 170–71.
[10] See https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2018, last accessed June 4, 2025.
[11] According to Shāfiʿī legal traditions, a statement of divorce pronounced three times and at one session made a divorce final and irrevocable. For details, see sources cited in footnote 13.
[12] Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maḥallī, Kanz al-rāghibīn sharḥ minhāj al-ṭālibīn, ed. Mujallad al-thānī (Jidda: Dār al-minhāj, 2013), 317–321.
[13] According to Ibn Taymiyya, an irrevocable divorce required the words of divorce to be pronounced three times at different intervals, and in different places. Ibn Taymiyya's opinion defining the triple ṭalāq at one session as a revocable divorce has been the subject of extensive academic commentary. See Khalid al-Azri, "One or Three? Exploring the Scholarly Conflict over the Question of Triple Ṭalāq (Divorce) in Islamic Law with Particular Emphasis on Oman," Arab Law Quarterly 25 (2011): 277–96; Muhammad Munir, "Triple Ṭalāq in One Session: An Analysis of the Opinions of Classical, Medieval, and Modern Muslim Jurists under Islamic Law," Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013): 29–49.
[14] M. Kemper, "Ijtihad into philosophy: Islam as cultural heritage in post-Stalinist Daghestan," Central Asian Survey 33 (2014): 390–404.
[15] Further on the employment of the label "Wahhabi" to address reformist intellectuals in Dagestan, see Shamil Shikhaliev, "Continuities and Complexities of the Islamic Discourse in Daghestan from the 1920s to the 1980s: What the Soviets did not Know about Their Own Islam" in Muslim Religious Authority in Central Eurasia, ed. Ron Sela, Paolo Sartori and Devin DeWeese (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 294–95.
[16] See Paolo Sartori and Shamil Shikhaliev, "Talfīq as Liberation: Encountering 'Ali al-Ghumūqī and Global Islam in 20th-Century Dagestan," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 35 (2025) (forthcoming).
[17] Muhammad Abduh, The Theology of Unity (London: Routledge, 1966).
[18] Umar Ryad, Islamic Reformism and Christianity: A Critical Reading of the Works of Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā and His Associates (1898–1935) (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
[19] Roy Bar Sadeh, "Between Cairo and the Volga-Urals: Al-Manar and Islamic Modernism, 1905–17," Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 21 (2020): 525–54.
[20] Khartikunī, Fatāwā al-Khartikunī, 171–72.
[21] Jon Hoover, "Ḥashwiyya," Encyclopaedia of Islam Three Online, https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EI3O/COM-30377.xml, last accessed June 4, 2025.
[22] Fakhr al-Dīn al-Harakanī (Pakhruddin Magomedov, 1880–1978) was a member of the Muslim Spiritual Board of the North Caucasus (DUMSK), and served as imam of the mosque of the village of Arakani from 1946 to 1978. In the 1920s, al-Harakanī studied with the modernist scholar 'Alī al-Ghumuqī. For more information on him, see Shikhaliev, "Continuities and Complexities of the Islamic Discourse in Daghestan from the 1920s to the 1980s," 293–95.
[23] Here, Khartikunī refers most probably to another correspondence with al-Salṭī where the latter quoted from a work of al-Harakanī who opined that if someone pronounces the triple divorce at one session, such a divorce is to be regarded as revocable.
[24] Khartikunī, Fatāwā al-Khartikunī, 172.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Quduqī (d. 1130/1717), a prominent Dagestani scholar from the village of Kudutl (now is in the Gergebil district). He was the author of several works on Arabic grammar, Islamic law, logic, and dogmatics. A staunch advocate of the recourse to ijtihād in Islamic jurisprudence, he was regarded by many Dagestani scholars in the 20th centuries as a "Wahhabi." Kemper, "Ijtihad into philosophy," 390–404; Rebecca Gould, "Ijtiāad against Madhhab: Legal Hybridity and the Meanings of Modernity in Early Modern Daghestan," Comparative Studies in Society and History 57 (2015): 35–66.
No comments:
Post a Comment