Genealogy and kinship are conventionally established through the paternal line, whereby a man declares his ancestry accordingly. Nevertheless, there are numerous prominent Muslim figures who were attributed to their mothers. Their attitudes toward this matrilineal attribution were not uniform; some accepted being ascribed to their mothers and took pride in it, such as Ibn adh-Dhiʾbah, who composed poetry regarding this matter, stating:

“I am, to he who denies me, the son of adh-Dhiʾbah…
[She is] noble, chaste, and of high lineage.”

Similarly, Ibn Māwiyah took pride in his attribution to his mother, saying:
“I am the son of Māwiyah when the struggle intensifies…
And the horses arrive in swarms.”

Conversely, there were those whose attribution to their mother was intended as defamation and satire; they detested being addressed by such names. An example is Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam, who was addressed as “Ibn az-Zarqāʾ.” This referred to his grandmother and was intended as an insult, as she was among those who possessed the flags indicating brothels in the Pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah).

Similarly, Ziyād ibn Abīh was referred to as “Ibn Sumayyah” [as a form of denigration], just as ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Ziyād was known as “Ibn Marjānah,” a title used to shame him because she was a Magian.

In his Dictionary of Those Attributed to Their Mothers, Fuʾād as-Sayyid compiles biographies of Muslim notables and Arabs falling into this category. Perhaps the most prominent figures and influential personalities in history among them are the following:

Ibn Umm Maktūm

The practice of designating several Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) by their mothers’ names indicates that matrilineal attribution was not meant for shaming regarding the woman; rather, it served as a mark of honor and glorification. Among the most famous of these is the Companion ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm. His mother was ʿĀtikah bint ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAnkathah ibn ʿĀmir ibn Makhzūm bin Yaqaẓah al-Makhzūmiyyah. Being among the earliest emigrants (Muhājirūn), he was attributed to her, and called Ibn Umm Maktūm or Ibn ʿĀtikah. He served as the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) muezzin alongside Bilāl (may Allah be pleased with them both), and he was blind. He is the individual concerning whom Sūrah ʿAbasa was revealed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was meeting with men from the Quraysh, among them ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah, when Ibn Umm Maktūm approached to ask him about something. The Prophet turned away from him, and thus [the verses] “He frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man” were revealed.

Ibn Ḥabtah

He is an esteemed Companion named Saʿd ibn Buḥayr. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) observed him fighting fiercely on the Day of the Trench (al-Khandaq). Being young in age, the Prophet asked him, “Who are you, O young man?” He replied, “Saʿd ibn Ḥabtah.” The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Your grandfather is fortunate (Saʿd); come close to me.” He approached, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) wiped his head. He became known and famous by his mother’s name, that is, Ibn Ḥabtah. He was attributed to her, Ḥabtah the daughter of Mālik ibn ʿAmr al-Anṣāriyyah.

Ibn Taymiyyah

He is Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdul-Ḥalīm ibn ʿAbdus-Salām ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī al-Qāsim al-Khiḍr ibn Muḥammad an-Namayrī al-Ḥarrānī ad-Dimashqī. He was born (T.N: Not in Damascus, but Harran) and died in Damascus, adhered to the Ḥanbalī school of jurisprudence, and was known as Taqī ad-Dīn, Abū al-ʿAbbās, and Ibn Taymiyyah; his grandfather and father were also known by this title. He is considered one of the most prominent advocates of religious reform from his era to the present day. He lived in Egypt for a period and authored numerous works, including as-Siyāsah al-Ilāhiyyah wa al-Āyāt an-Nabawiyyah (Divine Politics and Prophetic Signs), al-Fatāwā (The Fatwas) in five volumes, Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa-an-Naql (The Conflict between Reason and Revelation), al-Masāʾil al-Iskandariyyah (The Alexandrian Issues) in refutation of the Ittiḥādiyyah (Monists) and Ḥulūliyyah (Incarnationists), and al-Jawāb as-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man Baddala Dīn al-Masīḥ (The Correct Answer to Those Who Altered the Religion of Christ).

Regarding the reason for his being known as Ibn Taymiyyah, she was one of his distant grandmothers. As for the origin of this appellation, accounts differ.

It is said that his father or grandfather performed the Hajj while his wife was pregnant; while in Taymāʾ, he saw a young girl emerging from a tent. Upon returning to Ḥarrān, he found that his wife had given birth to a daughter; when he saw her, he named her Taymiyyah because she resembled the young girl he had seen in Taymāʾ.

Another view holds that his eldest grandmother was named Taymiyyah and was a preacher (wāʿiẓah), so he was attributed to her and became known by her name; thus, his progeny continued to be identified by it.

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah

He is Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (may Allah be pleased with him). He played a significant role in Islamic history alongside his brothers al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with them). However, his mother was Khawlah bint Jaʿfar al-Ḥanafiyyah, and thus he was attributed to her. Ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah was one of the heroes of early Islam and possessed vast knowledge. He is among those whose title prevailed over their name to the extent that they were not known except by it.

(Originally in Arabic by Aamaal Saami, posted on 10th Sept 2021, on masrawy.com. Translated into English by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.)

Source

Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh stated:

“The majority of the Salaf, as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim attributed it to them, and they explicitly described them as “the majority”, along with al-Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Imām Aḥmad, and groups from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Athar after them, held the view that the deceased benefits from what the living person draws near to his Lord with and then gifts its reward to the deceased; meaning that the living person gifts the reward to the deceased. A group of scholars say in this regard, whatever act of devotion a Muslim performs and gifts its reward to a Muslim, whether living or dead, it benefits him.”

Source: 📖 Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah | 2/296-297.

Shaykh Abdul Bari Fathullah Madani (May Allah preserve him) said:

“Wa ‘alaykum al-salām wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

Such expressions of [excessive] zeal and severity are inadvisable. How can a denier of God (Munkir-e-Khudā) and a denier of attributes (Munkir-e-Ṣifāt) be equated? The one who denies [specific] attributes falls within the seventy-three sects [of the Ummah], whereas the denier of God is an absolute disbeliever (Kāfir-e-Muṭlaq). How can there be equivalence between the two? It is unclear why people articulate such views.

They assert that ta’wīl (allegorical interpretation) constitutes inkār (denial). However, it is established in the texts of Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence) that: ‘al-ta’wīl far‘ al-qubūl’ (Interpretation is a derivative of acceptance). For if an individual did not accept [the text], why would they engage in interpretation? One interprets precisely because one accepts the validity of the text; otherwise, one would simply reject it. For instance, if you were to state to a non-Muslim that God is upon the Throne, they would retort, ‘Why?’—implying, ‘We do not acknowledge your Qur’ān.’

Conversely, the others [Muslims of different schools] interpret it. Therefore, engaging in such vociferous and harsh rhetoric is inappropriate. It is evident that in India, the Hanafis deny many attributes… or rather, they are mu’awwilīn (interpreters); they are not deniers, but interpreters. Thus, you cannot equate them with, or place them in the same category as, Hindu disbelievers.
Furthermore, regarding Hindus who believe in a God—whether they refer to Him as Ishwar or by any other designation—you cannot classify them within the fold of Islam unless they formally embrace the faith.

Consequently, there is no utility in such harsh posts. One should desist from this, as it does not lead to the reformation (iṣlāḥ) of the Ummah.

The citation of ‘so-and-so said this’ holds little weight; the ultimate authority lies in what Allah and His Messenger have stated.

The Prophet ﷺ declared that his Ummah would divide into seventy-three sects. It follows logically that if you represent the seventy-third group, the remaining seventy-two are still [technically] Muslims.
It is a separate matter that they are threatened with the Fire (nārī). However, being designated for the Fire does not necessitate eternal damnation. No; unless Allah wills otherwise, they will undergo their [decreed] punishment and eventually exit Hell, proceeding towards Paradise.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.”

(Translated by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna from the Shaykh’s Urdu audio, that was posted on Facebook (Fawz Amoodi’s account).)

شیخ عبدالباری فتح اللہ مدنی حفظہ اللہ:
”وعلیکم السلام ورحمۃ اللہ وبرکاتہ۔
اس طرح کی حماس اور شدت کی باتیں اچھی نہیں ہیں۔ منکرِ خدا ہو یا منکرِ صفات ہو، دونوں ایک کیسے ہو سکتے ہیں؟
منکرِ صفات جو ہے وہ تہتر (73) فرقوں میں ہے، اور اللہ کا منکر تو کافرِ مطلق ہے۔ دونوں میں کیسے یکسانیت ہوگی؟ یہ لوگ پتہ نہیں کیوں یہ سب باتیں بولتے ہیں۔
کہتے ہیں تاویل بھی انکار ہے۔ جبکہ اصولِ فقہ کی کتابوں میں لکھا ہے: «التأويل فرع القبول» (تاویل قبول کی فرع ہے)، «التأويل فرع القبول»۔ کیونکہ اگر کوئی آدمی قبول نہ کرے تو تاویل کیوں کرے گا؟ تاویل اس لیے کرتا ہے کہ اس کو مان رہا ہے وہ، ورنہ ہٹا دے۔ جیسے ایک غیر مسلم سے آپ کوئی بات کہیں کہ اللہ میاں عرش پر ہیں، کہے گا کیوں؟ تمہارے قرآن کو ہم نہیں مانتے۔
لیکن دوسرے لوگ اس کی تاویل کرتے ہیں۔ اس لیے اس قدر جو ہے جبڑا پھاڑ کر کے سخت باتیں کرنا اچھی نہیں ہے۔ کیونکہ ظاہر بات ہے ہندوستان میں حنفیہ بہت سے صفات کے منکر ہیں… یعنی مؤول ہیں، منکر نہیں مؤول ہیں۔ تو آپ ان کو تو لے جا کر کفار ہندوؤں کے ساتھ تو نہیں کھڑا کر سکتے۔
اور ہندو جو اللہ میاں کے قائل ہیں، چاہے وہ ایشور کہیں، چاہے جو کہیں، تو ان کو آپ اسلام میں نہیں داخل کر سکتے جب تک وہ مسلمان نہ ہو جائیں۔
اس لیے اس قسم کی سخت پوسٹس (posts) کا کوئی فائدہ نہیں۔ نہیں کرنا چاہیے، نہ اس سے امت کی اصلاح ہو سکتی ہے۔
اور فلاں نے کہا، فلاں نے کہا کی کوئی حیثیت اتنی نہیں ہوتی، اصل یہ ہے اللہ رسول نے کیا کہا ہے۔ حضور ﷺ نے کہا میری امت تہتر فرقے میں بٹے گی۔ ظاہر بات ہے کہ اگر آپ تہترواں ہیں، تو بہتر (72) بھی تو مسلمان ہی ہیں۔
یہ اور بات ہے کہ وہ جہنمی ناری ہیں۔ اور ناری کا معنی یہ بھی نہیں ہے کہ وہ ابدی ناری ہیں۔ نہیں، وہ اللہ نے اگر نہیں چاہا، تو اپنا وہ عذاب لے کر کے نکلیں گے جہنم سے جنت کی طرف۔
السلام علیکم ورحمۃ اللہ وبرکاتہ۔“

(This audio was posted by brother Fawz Amoodi on Facebook, copied and preserved here because of its benefits.)

Sheikh Abdul Bari Fathullah Madani (Hafizahullah):
”Wa Alaikum

Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh.
Is tarah ki hamaas (zeal/intensity) aur shiddat (harshness/extremism) ki baatein achi nahi hain. Munkir-e-Khuda (denier of God/atheist) ho ya Munkir-e-Sifat (denier of divine attributes) ho, dono ek kaise ho sakte hain?

Munkir-e-Sifat jo hai woh 73 firqon (sects) mein hai, aur Allah ka munkir toh Kafir-e-Mutlaq (absolute disbeliever) hai. Dono mein kaise yaksaniyat (equality/sameness) hogi? Yeh log pata nahi kyun yeh sab baatein bolte hain.

Kehte hain Ta’weel (interpretation/allegorical explanation) bhi inkaar (denial) hai. Jabke Usool-e-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) ki kitabon mein likha hai: “At-Ta’weelu Far’ul Qabool” (Ta’weel [interpretation] qabool [acceptance] ki far’ [branch] hai)… Kyunki agar koi aadmi qabool na kare toh ta’weel kyun karega? Ta’weel is liye karta hai ke usko maan raha hai woh, warna hata de. Jaise ek ghair-Muslim se aap koi baat kahein ke Allah Miyan Arsh (Divine Throne) par hain, kahega kyun? Tumhare Quran ko hum nahi maante.

Lekin doosre log iski ta’weel karte hain. Is liye is qadar jo hai jabda phaad kar ke (speaking recklessly/harshly) sakht baatein karna achi nahi hai. Kyunki zahir (obvious) baat hai Hindustan mein Hanafiyyah (the Hanafi school) bohat se sifat ke munkir hain… yani Mu’awwil (interpreters) hain, munkir nahi mu’awwil hain. Toh aap unko toh le ja kar Kuffar (disbelievers) Hinduon ke saath toh nahi khada kar sakte.

Aur Hindu jo Allah Miyan ke qail (believers/convinced of His existence) hain, chahe woh Ishwar kahein, chahe jo kahein, toh unko aap Islam mein nahi daakhil kar sakte jab tak woh Musalman na ho jayein.
Is liye is qism ki sakht posts ka koi faida nahi. Nahi karna chahiye, na is se Ummah ki islah (rectification/reform) ho sakti hai.
Aur falan ne kaha, falan ne kaha ki koi haifiyat (status/weight) itni nahi hoti, asal (reality/basis) yeh hai Allah Rasool ne kya kaha hai.

Huzoor (SAW) ne kaha meri Ummah 73 firqon mein bategi. Zahir baat hai ke agar aap 73rd hain, toh 72 bhi toh Musalman hi hain.

Yeh aur baat hai ke woh Jahannami (hell-bound) Naari (people of the fire) hain. Aur Naari ka maana yeh bhi nahi hai ke woh abadi (eternal) Naari hain. Nahi, woh Allah ne agar nahi chaha, toh apna woh azab (punishment) le kar ke niklenge Jahannam se Jannat ki taraf.

Assalam o Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh.“