24 Ibn Hajar, Tuhfat al-muḥtāj , 7:198—99; Ramlī, Shams al-Dīn, Nihāyat al-muḥtāj , 6:192 (who cites the argument of the followers of Nawawī but ends by adopting the position of Rāfiʿī).
38 Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law , 175-79.
39 See Shaykhzade, Majmaʿ al-anhur , 1:595ff.; Ḥaṣkafī, al-Durr al-muntaqā, 1: 595ff.; Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-raʾiq, 5:17ff. ; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-muḥtār , 3 : 169ff.; Ḥaṣkafī, al - Durr al-mukhtār, 3:169ff.; al-Ṭahṭāwī, Aḥmad, Ḥāshiyah , 2:397ff.; Kawākibī, al-Fawāʾid al-samiyyah, 2 : 355. On the authoritativeness of the works cited for each school, see Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, 261—63 , and the articles devoted to each school in the Encyclopaedia of Islam.
40 Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, 102—3.
43 See the discussions of the relevant ḥadīth in Suyūṭī, al-Ḥāwī, 2:11off.; Ibn Hajar, al - Fatāwā, 4:242; al-Qāriʾ al-Harawī, Mirqāt al-mafātīḥ, 7:162-63.
44 The first is included in al-Sunan al-kubrā, by al-Bayhaqī (d. 1066), and the second in al - Muʿjam al-kabīr , by al-Ṭabarānī (d. 971).
59 Imber, “ Zina in Ottoman Law,” 63. The position was endorsed by some Ḥanafī jurists (e.g., Ibn Nujaym, al-Baḥr al-rāʾiq, 5:19-20; Shaykhzāde, Majmaʿ al-anhur, 1:595), but denied by others within the same school (e.g., Ḥaṣkafī , al-Durr al-mukhtār, 1:595; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Munḥat al-khāliq, 5:20).
62 This is clearly stated in, for example, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Tuḥfat al-muḥtāj, 9:103; Ramlī, Shams al-Dīn, Nihāyat al-muḥtāj, 7:424; Dardīr, al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr , 4: 447; Kharāshī, Sharḥ , 5:316; Buhūtī, Kashshāf al-qināʿ, 6:94; Najdī, Hidāyat al-rāghib, 2:764. The Ḥanafī assumption about the position of other schools may reflect an uncertainty among Shāfiʿī and Mālikī jurists of earlier centuries on whether to apply ḥadd in cases of anal intercourse with male slaves; see on this point Schmitt, “ Liwāṭ im Fiqh,” 80-86. Schmitt, focusing mainly on earlier juridical texts, suggests that only the Ḥanbalī school was unequivocal in applying ḥadd in this case. This is not true of the early Ottoman period.
63 Ḥaṣkafī, Durr al-muntaqā, 1:595; Dardīr, al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr, 4:448 (the glosses of Ṣāwī).
66 For discussions of the Qurʾanic passages dealing with the people of Lot, see Jamal, “The Story of Lot and the Qurʾan’s Perception of the Morality of Same-Sex Sexuality,” and Rowson, “Homosexuality.”
67 These are cited in Ibn Ḥajar, al-Zawājir, 2:139-40.
80 Abu al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿaql al-salīm , 2:178—79; Jamal, Ḥāshiyah ʿalā tafsīr al - Jalālayn , 3:320; Alūsī, Rūḥ al - ma ʿānī , 8:149; al-Shawkālī, Fatḥ al-qadīr, 2:212; al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr , 1:471. The commentators are quoting or paraphrasing a remark that appears in the influential thirteenth-century commentary of Baydawi, see Kāzarūnī, Ḥāshiyah, 3:17.
89 Ibn Ḥajar, al-Zawājir, 2:255—64; see also Gardet, “Djanna,” who also notes the increasing reticence of modern Muslim scholars concerning these matters.
90 Hamawī, Ghamz ʿuyūn al-baṣāʾir , 1:287. The passage is a quotation from a work entitled Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfah by Muḥammad al-Kardarī (d. 1424).
91 Ḥamawī, Ghamz ʿuyūn al-baṣāʾir , 1:287; Ibn ʿAbidīn, Radd al - muḥtār , 3:156.