www.peoplefsunnah.

com

Tahqj,q Ahl ul Hadi,th
Investigating the Credentials of the
n

Ahl ul Hadith

n

Maulana Habib ur' Rahman Azamj

by

II

This learning, is your religion

Take care from whom you
learn it
It

ZAM ZAM PUBLISHERS
2, Shah Zeb Cen~re, Near !MuCiiadas Masjid., Urdu Bazar, Karachi. Pakistan. Post Code: 742.00 Phone (02'~) 7713037'4, Tel/Fax: (0.21) 7725673, Email: zamzam@sat.l1Iet.pk

www.peoplef
Tahqiq Ahl ul Hadith
Bv lVlauMna Habib ur Rahrnau Azami Tr~nslated by: Abd ur Rahman 0 'Beirne

-----I--------------~--------------------------~-------------------------------

he

Tahqiq Ahl~e HadUh

The Author
Mauldna Habib lIT Rahman •Azarni was a very well known and reputable scholar of the Indian subcontinent, whose reputation extended well beyond its boundaries into the Arab world. He was born in 13] 9 A.H. and passed away in 1413 A.H. (1992). He was an acknowledged authority on Tafslr, Fiqh. and Hadnh. Maul.ana Habib ur Rahman was born in the tow n of Mau Nath Bhanjan in the district of Azamgarh (U.P.) india. His whole life was spent in study and teaching. Like the great scholars of the past, he led a very simple and unpretentious life. spending most of his life in his horne town, and teaching Hadith literature to students from all over the world. There he founded a number of institutions, among them Madrasah Mirqat ul "Ulfim, Jam! "a11Miftab ul 'Ulilm, and
the Islamic Institute for Higher Studies ...

Sole Dlstrfbntorse Al Farooq International

1a Atkinson S rreet Leicester LE53QA United Kingdom Tiel: OO~44-0116 253 7640 fax: 00-44-0116 262 8655 E-Mail: alfarooq@onetel.net.uk AU Rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic. mechanical! photocopying. recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publishers, except for passages for preview purposes.

ZAM ZAM PUBLISHER
KARA CHI- P AK.]ST AN

oon - 21

- 7725673

Ulamaa of the last century, including Allamah Anwar Slbah Kashrrriri, Mufti •Aziz ur Rahman Deobandi, and Maulana 'Abd ul Ghaffar, the disciple of Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohl. Many students have benefited from his Iearrring, one of whom was Maulana Manzilr Nu'manl'. Several prominent scholars of the Arab world have also been given 'ijazah by him ...They include Shaikh Abdul F<ltt::'ibAbu Ghuddah, Shaikh Ism!' H al Ansdri (Dar ul Ul<i Riyad) Shaikh Hammad al Ansari (Islamic University Madinah) Shaikh Subhi Samarra"! (Baghdad), lOr 'Abd us Sattar Abf Ghuddah (Kuwait), and Dr Bashshar •Awad Matrfrf (Baghdad).

He studied under a number

of prominent

www.peo Ie
Tahqjq Ahl e Hadith

Tuh q iq AhJ e Hadith Ill' has \'\'1"1 lten several works 011 Hadith. One of them is ,8 -ri tique of the works of Shaikh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir. u well-known recent scho lar or H8IdHh. He has also edited and brouuht ut several manuscripts of 1 adith from private coll;ctions. Among them are A I /V!u8annq! of Imam Abd til' Razzaq (11 vols): .'v!usnod a! Humaidi (2 vcls); 11 e Sunan of Sa "id ibn Mansur; ln1/qa' 01 Tarhib by ibn Hajar: AI }\![ctl6lib a! 'Aliyah hi Zenl'a 'i d at Mas d n i d at h Thamdniyah by Ibn, Hajar (4 vo ls): the Kashfal Astdr 'on Zawuci 'ld Musnad al Bazzdr of Haitharni; AllvfH$:annc~f'by ibn Abi Shaibah; Kltab ath Thiqdt by ibn Shahin, and Fat '/1 al Nfughflh by Imam Sakhawt. His own writings include: • Al Hdwi Ii Rij61 at Tahdwi which traces the rija.I (personalitie ) mentioned in Imam Tahawis Ma'iin; of 'A thor and Mushki! al Arhtil: A I lthatoh as Saiy ah hi Dhikri Muhaddit hf at

h

This Book
This book explains the meaning of the term "AhJ ul Hadith .','

This erm is used in many books dating from different periods. At present there are certain parties who claim that it .efers to people who do not follow any of the four schools 0. fiqh, and derive legal judgements directly from Hadith. Basically the purpose behind this claim is to establish that this view was to be found among scholars of Islam since the earliest times. The author, who has spent his whole life teaching Hadith, and is very familiar with the literature referring to it, shows that this is a complete misrepresentationof the facts. This term has only belen used in this sense within the last two centuries, since the start of the movement which at present uses this name ..Prior to that, the term was used in several different senses, but never in this se~se.
This is an important issue. The Muslim. world is not going to easily accept the views of any group unless they have at

Hanafiyah hese two works have sti 11to be pu hlished , Published works include:
• theindispensibi lity of the Hadith, and refuting the arguments of those who try to reject the Hadith A 'ydn a! HU)}Glj listing the famous Ularnaa who have performed Hajj and Ziyarah Rak 'at (1/ Tardwih Shari' Haqiqi
011

least some claim 10 be able to trace their origins to the 'early days of Islam, If it is not able to do so, then this means that- their teachings are an innovation, and "every innovation is error and every error .... " (al Hadith). In these times, when people are greatly inclined to take their religion from rurnour among their fel lows, rather than lessons by teachers, and whenfellowship has taken the place of study, it is very easy to circulate confused ideas and misrepresentations. This translation of ,3 booklet by a very reputable teacher should be useful for dispelling one misrepresentation that has now become quite widespread.

Nusrat

al Hadith

• • •

Dastkdr Ahl e ShctrfestablishJng that ~he real criteria for nobil ity .is lawful earning in accordance with the Shariab, and not the standards of nobility prescribed by the colonial powers or the traditional Muslim aristocracy.

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith
,~ \.GI, ~I ~..ull C~~
~

www.people
1

Tahqiq

AhJ e Hadith

2

r~

J~

J .lr~1

'''And the correct one is tile first" (Mask

2'1)

ut

Khitem p.

Tahqiq Ahl ul Hadith
bismillah 1 ir rebraen if raaim

A very well-known qheir muqallid writer of that time, Maulana Thana'ultah Arnritsrarl. after distinguishing between Hadlth and Our'an, has also written: "In accordance with accepted principles, Hadtth understand HadTthto be secondary and, to resolve any question, after looking Our'an, look first in the Hadtth." (Ah'J uJ
Madhhab

A Novel Definition of Hadith

At the, beglinning of his leoture, the speaker stated that the word "Hadith" means "the word of AIHlh and the word of his RasCH." Comment on this: Mawlana Hablb ur Rahman points out that this. is an entirely nove_II efinition of Hadith ..Up to this time, the d accepted dennition among the scholars of Islam, both muoettid and ghair muqetttd, has always been: "The word, action, or teqrtr, of the Messenger of Allah setettehu a/aihi wa sal/am .'" (Here the' word teqrlr means selecrlon, confirmation, or approval! of some action.") He quotes a well-known ghairmuqaJlidwriter Nawab Hasan Khan: "Heatth dar istiten m,ash'hOr qawl est - ala/his sa/at 0 salam. "
00

the Ahl ul to Qur"an, in the Holy
Hedttb k»

p, 79)
Hadith as, EVlidtence,

2

Ciit,ing a Counterfeit

The speaker then put forward a claim that the name Ahl ut HadUh derives from the time of the Messenger of Allah sala'lft!Jhu aJaihi wa settsm himself, and that this name was accepted by the Sahabah kirem. 1r1 support of the first statement he quotes this hadlth: On the Day of Qiiyamah the A.hl u! Hadlth will come with their inkwells. Allah Almighty will say to them, "Youare the Ahl ul Hadith. Now enter Paradise." Comment: In point of fact this l1adith is counterfeit. Certainly the speaker would not be knowingly quoting a countertelt hadith, 500 clearly he is not aware of its status. At the same time, this raises a question. If those ularnaa of today who. do not accept the principle of tsottd are not in fact able to distinguish between genuine and

ti'l

0

tearir e rasal

"The accepted meaning of hadlth lis the word action or taqrrr of the Messenger - eleihte sa/at 0 setem," Then" after referring to a Iless common definition which includes the word of a sahabf or tabi'1; he says, "0
sawab awwaJ est.'

Tahqiq AId e Hadltb

h
3 4

counterfeit hadfth, then how much right can they have to derive masa'u directly from hadlth? It is not only muqallld Ulamaa (Dhahlabf, Khatib, and Suyutl) who claasify this hadith as counterfeit. Gheir

~\jAIJ

~~I

,--:-,~,,~,~

"1\11h Almighty will gather together the people I, idtth and 'ilrn. '" ( La'all ,MasnO'ah p.13)

of

tnuqettid ularnaa have also included iit under this heading. (See AI Fewe'k: ul Majmu'ah by Allarnah
Shawkanl, p.30) is to be

When the "es'heb u! hedtib" are here referred to together wilth the ahl ul'Hm, then clearly "es'beb ul /1adfth refers to, the scholars of hadith and to those
who record them and teach them.

The verdict of muqaf/id ularnaa on this hadith found in MawzO'ah on p. 112
.~I~I ~

~.bJ!

IJA

rfP J ~~~I

J Ju (JI) t~

-

y~\

J,l!

The third proof is in the remaining' words of this hadlth whiich for some reason the speaker leaves out in his

quotation.
(~j.ul ~ ~

Khatib has said that this hadlth is counterfeit. ..... , ......jn

AI M:i'za,n(Raqql) has said that this hadith was. falsely attributed to Tlbranl."
3. The Actua.l Meani'ng of "'Ahl ul Hadith"

,Js- uj..a.i ~

W

I.k)

That is to say, Allah A.lmighty will send the es'tieb ul nedtth to Paradise saying to them, "you read an great

amount of durud on my Messenger."
This again points clearly to those who write and mad hadtth because every time they read the name of the Messenger of Allah they will write or say "salJallahu eteit)! wa sal/am." From this it is clear tha-t the reas-on for their being given a place in Paradise is not abandoning teqita, but reciting a great amount of durud. The speaker would also be aware of whether reciting durud in grs'at amounts was a practice of

hadlth was, not counterfeit, stilll it. would not support the speaker's claim. The term es'tiet: ul hadith that is used here does not refer to people who abandon teqtid and claim to be practising direct on Hadith. W'hat it refers to. is

Even if for the sake IOf arqurnerrt.this

those scholars who specialise in the writing down and teachfng of Hadith. This is dearly proved by the words ~..l.:!4) "bi aydrhim uJmehebtr. 'J Coming forward with inkwells in their hands can only refer to pe ople whose occupation is writing. This is also proved by the fact that this counterfeit hadlrn is also found with these words:
(.f.~"

muqeitkitn or ghair muqellidin.
The sense in which M .. Habib ur Rahman takes the term ss'neb ut hadlthis also evident from what lrnam

Dhahhabl says, because he has classified this hadith
under the headlnq

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith
(J"!~l!
>-~I~.

www. eopl
r.J ~J..-)

5

Taht)iq

Ahl e Hadith said to him; I lik.9 you very much.'; HE! replied.

h

6 "I

"Summoning

of the Ulam.aa with their Inkwells." (See Ohetmebi: At MTzan.) The, _ Me·a.ning of the Hadith S.ahflbah lI3e1ing A.hll ul'

am the first sahib ul hecittn in the world." If the definition of Sahib ul Hedttr: that the speaker puts forward is vatid, then we would have to accept that there was no SahabJ before Abu Hurairah who practised on HadHh. Clearly the speaker would not be so bold as [0 say this, so it must mean something other than what: he has taken it to mean. Here it clearly mea ns a person who is engaged in reporting and rnemorising nadlth ..There can be no doubt that among the Sahabah, AbO Huralrab raziya1Uihu 'enhu W8.S foremost both in his dedlcation to memorising hadlth, and in the number of hadtth that he transmitted. Tnls point is 3.'150 clearly confirmed by the fact that this dream is reported at a rime when the person who saw it was engaged in writing down hadlth, and not in relation to some person turning rejecting teqttd, or trying to practise directly on a Hadlth. 5 Citin£l First a Qount'erfeit Hadlt:h and then a Dream

4

To support hi:scontention that the Sahabah raziyalh3hu 'enbum regarded themselves as "ebl u! nedttn", the speaker presents several quotations. However, in all these quotations the term as'hab u! hadrth in fact rneans those people who reported hadith, or memorised them Olr taught them, or wrote them down. In none of them can it be understood to mean those people who do not follow any imam, or claim to act d ir,ectly on the basis of hadtth .. raziyaJlanu 'enhu as saying N18.t he was "eht ul hadrth. f' Unfortunately, he does not quote the full background to this, otherwise it would be quite clear that Abu Hurairah raziyalliihu 'enbu meant by this .. The reference! that the speaker quotes is f-rom Tarlkh Kh etlb and !adhkirah. Here a dream seen by Abu Bak-r bin Abl DawOd is described:
h11

one place he quotes AbO Huralrah

During the time when AbO Bak-r bin AbT DawOd was engaged in writing down the hadtth of Aba Hurairah raziyallahu 'enhu, he saw Aba Hurairah

raziy:a!1.ahu 'ennu in a dream. He had a thick beard, a wheaten complexion, and was wearing coarse cloth. Abu Bak-r says. "When I'saw him, I

Then the point remains that this quotation from Abu Hurairah raziyallahu 'enbu was not something that tie said during his lifetime. It was something that was said in a dream seen by someone several hundred years after he died. Now if a scholar has. to resort to a counterfeit hadlth, andl then to words said in a dream, to make his case, then clearly the evidence at his disposal cannot be very strong, 6 Further Citations

Ta hq iq Ahl e H.adith

www. eopl
of Tabi'In

7

h
Tah qlq AIM e Hadith
B

The speaker then refers to a number quotes the phrase:

and

people who will come after me a nd will report my hadTth and my sunneh, and teach it to the
people."(p.31 )

~.W'~~I~~ applied to them.
Comment:

Here it is perfectly dear that es'ruib utneattt: refers to the people who report and teach hadith. Another

section is called "Huser Here again he is clalmlnq that they were "Ahl ul Heditrr" in the sense that he uses. Again this is not valid. The
phrase ~...\..'loJly~\J~ refers to their hav,ing an honoured and leading position

sallal/aha

a/aihJ wa settem

leaving instructions that the as'hab ul bedttr: are to be received with honour." Under this heading,. this hadUh is quoted:

as mutieaaithtn and as transrnittters of hadlth, and the term "es'heb ul hedttt:" or "ahJ ul hedttn" means simply muhadfJithln or transmitters of hadtth. The speaker of the book from which he is quoting himself
writes:
(~J~.~ ... ~lwIJ~..wI~.yIM~.us"

Some young people will come from different parts of the world to learn hadlth. Treat them well. (p. 211)
From this it is dear that students of hadlth are "es'neb ul heattt»." Here also Abu Sa'ld Khudr1 raziyalJahu 'enbu is quoted, and The spe aker uees that quotation

Jli.:f~,Jj)

on p.3 of his lecture the full quotation.

However, he has not presented

"ln this book we have spoken of the tez! of the hadith, and of the ent ut hedttt», who have specialised in

rnernortstnc and recordtng

them." (p 134)

In this book there are also hundreds of other instances that prove this point. Among them is a section on "the as'hab ul bedttt: as the khalffahs of the Messenger of AlLah setiettehu oteih! w.a seliem." Under this heading the speaker q uotes this hadlth:

;'When he saw them he said. "Welcome!" and said, "Huzur aallallahu alaihi wa aallam told us to make a place for you in our gatherings, and to teach and explain his hadtth to you. You are

his success ors and the ahl uJ bedttn (i.e. muhaddithTn) after us"
Another section isentiUed, "Dreams of the Sa.lihin about the as'hab uJ h'adith. Under this he,adilng one

HuzOr s.aflallii'hu slaihi wa settem was asked, j'Who are your successors?" He said,"Those

dream is as follows:
A certain person was studying hadlth, and died

Tal:1qiq Ahl,c

HadHh

www.people
9
---- -------1

'r'ah,qJq AM e Hadith

he

10

while still studying. Abu 8"'k-rah bin 8*k-rawl saw him in a dream. He asked him, "What happened?'; He" said, "I was, forgiven." He

asked, "What was the reason?" He said, "Because I was studying hadtth. (p. 111)
II

as "There are no people better than the Ahl-ehedttn. "However, on p.33 he translates IJ".!_.j1 .j..$' IJ_.r.iU ~ ~J .. >~hjA I ..>.}\..o I 1 as "see how these students of hacttn have become corrupted."

Here again the person studying hadtth is cateportsed under the heading "'as'hab ul bedtth." Other simil,ar
dreams are recounted. handful out of a sack. These examples are only
,9

In the same way, in Sharfu As'habj'j HadTth, whenever the iman of the "ashab ul hadtth, ortheir ibe.ing abdals is mentioned, he translates it as "the AhJ'ee~had7th" or "the .Jarna'ah of the Ah1-e-Hadith." (see p 18,32,34,
etc) However, the statement

On top of this, M ... Muhammad Sahib ,JOn8l!gHad'ht, who is ghak muq« ttki, in translati,lf1Ig this book himse,ff

C~.J.?JI y~~

~~

translatea

or as "people withe knowledge he translates

"es'neb ut hadrth" as "students of haotth" of hadith", In one place
~~

r _JJ ~J.l1...}v.

of Imam A'mash

J})

(~, •. .h ~

~~!

J)
jJ

is translated as, "there ana no people in the world worse than these people," Aocordiing to his rule he should translate it as " " there are no people in the world worse than the Ahl-e-HadUh." Similarly, another statement of Imam A'rnash:

as "a student: of hadith", and in another place "asJhab ul hadllh" is translated as "scholars of Ihadith (p.33) oras "munedaitntn", On p.38 "ent ut tiedttti" is translated as "muneaaithtn", a nd on p 24 es'net: ui hadith is also translated as "muneddithtn." This is part of a general tend-ency in Ahl-e-/iadlth writers. When the phrase "as':htlb ut beattt:" ~s used as, a term of honour, they translate it as "the Ahl ul Hadlth," but, whenever some evil is referred to, they trallsl'at,€ tt as "students of hadTth", or else use some
roundabout expression like "such people."

(~WI y~1 ~'~j,1 ".;..,.;S' ~I ~IS' ) JJJ) is translated as !l1'f I had dogs, I would set them on these people .. (p. 104) By his rule it should read, "'If I " had dogs I would set them on the Ahl ut Hadith."

J

Sim,illarly,
~II'I-"~l

JlAh ~'bo-

jJ ~~I

~~I ~,-!IJ

JI

P

I,)!

j,1 ~

):.1)

(~~ ~ is translated

J .~1~J.6p:JIII ~ ~ as, .. Ubaidullah

'LS )~I

Y cJ_p' ~~'J

bin Umar. on seeing the

Thus M. Muhammad JOnagad'hJ translates,
(~,..L%!I y~ I r:..ro

.r.?" r)

to)

have torn learniing to pieces By his rule it should read, "Ubaidullah

pusnling and jostling of people like these, said, "You "" (p..94) .
bin 'Urnar; on

www.people
Tahqiq AhI e Hadit.h
11

Tahqtq

AhJ e Hadith "
~.~)

h

12

seeing the pushing and jostling of the Ahl-e-Heditt), said, "You have tor n .Iearning to pieces(1) and destroyed the light of knowledge. If Sayyldina 'Urnar was here he would have punished us severely (2)."" (Note: Here only the translation of As'hab ul Hedttt: has been corrected. Apart from this, to translate "shenittum" (1)a8 "you have torn to pieces," and '(awja'na zerben" (2) as "he would have punished us severely" is a somewhat original translation. A correct translation would be "you have disfig,lllred," and "he would have hit us hard." SimBarlly

Nadrth are the 'Worst of people, I n the same way
(~..wl ~~'I

,-:?~_.~~.y

is translated! as "his dog used to used to attack us", (p.107) but should have been translated, "Trnam A'masb's dog used to used to attack the Ahl-e-HadUh", 011p. SS M. Muhammad translates wa enlutiu as "the Ah/~e~HadJth," but then translates
('<\..;.,Q~~\..Q..J J -"'-_.;;i<
OJ ~

IA.II.~~WII~I~.;I,.,·o.l) .J -,'" .-~-...

..

r.J,Jrl

,~I) ~..I.>JI
(~I.:JA ~

y~'i

Js- J~!I.,Aj J J~ ~ ~ ~!,~)
y~':JI-:r
~JI ~ll.u

as "Shu' bah is referring to those people who hear a hadlth but do not practise on it." (p. 84) This is a completely wrong translation. He should have written. "What Shu' bah means is that the ahlHlhadft:h do put into practice what they hear. " where the "en! ui tiedttti" ar;e sever~y critic/sed presumebty refer to the people of that time who used to come regularly to attend public tessons on bedttn without actually bringing religion info their lives. This needs to be checked.)
(In these passages

JI~~yl

u,.JLai ~~

is translated as "IIheard Laith bin Sa'd, on seeingl the behaviour of people like this, say "You are mol-sin need of a little bit of manners and actual practice than of a great amount of knowledge. "" (p. 9 4), whereas he should have translated it as, 11.11 heard laith bin Said" em seeing the behaviour of the Ah.l~e·-had1th; say "You are more in need of a little bit of manners and actual practice than of a great amoent 'Of knowl·edge,""
1

Abu Bak-r bin Uthman says
(iJ~1 ~

,J1~.hr:. ~ _

~.l:!oJlio.:-'~l)

M. Muhammad Sb. translates this as, "The As'hab ul
Hadtth are very bad people, indeed they are insane." (p.110) whereas he should have said,' "The Ah/ ... e..

In trying to establish that the Sahabah were A.hl~ehedttt», the speaker also refers to Ttl.rrkh Baghd'ad and writes that here Abdullah bin Abbas ra.ziyallahu'anhu was described as being Ant-e-neattti .. (p. 5) Unfortunately, he has not quoted the actual passage, otherwise it would be quite clear in what sense Abdullah bin Abbas is described as be·ing eh! ul bedttt: This is the passage in question:
(~i.o)..) .5)_,.;;l"J ' ,ijl.oj") ~'J oi.i~)

J...,..\.,P.rJ!

..f,1~

~

~.J.:o.J1 ~~I,

Tahqi1q Able Hadith

www.people
--~---

13:

I'" htl,ill AilE e Hadit.h

h

14

"There are three es'bet: ul heattn : Abdullah bin Abbas in his time, Sha'bi in his time and Thawri in his time." If we were to take' the term ent u! nedttr: to mean what the speaker says It means, then this means that from the time 'of AbduUah bin Abbas right up to the time of Sufyan Thawrl, there were only three Ahj-e~Hadrth. In this case his statement on page 5 that all the Sahabah and Tabi'In were Ahl-e-Hadith has to be wrong. In this connection he also says that "Imam Sha'bt says that all the Sahabah were Ahl-e-Had1.th. (p.S) Here he giives Tadhkirat ul Huffadh v.1 p. 72as a reference. However, there is no such pasaaqe either on this page, or in the next 20' paqes. He also says that all the 11andsthat the Sahabah raziyaHahu 'entium conquered, the people there, after coming into Islam, followed the madhhab of the Ahle-Hedttti. (p. 5) One question that immediately arises, is how does this prove that the Sahabah were AhJ-eHadith? Why then has this, been put under the heading of !ISahabah Kiram"'? Are the new Muslims of the places conquered by the Sahabah' also to be regarded as SahtJbah? Secondly" this statement is nowhere to be found in the book that has been quoted in support of this contention. A passaqe has been quoted, but it has been distorted, and he has also not had the courage to translate it. If he did, it would become clear that, even after careful tailoring, the' most that can be derived from this passage is. that, at the time the book

was written, all the Muslims of Rum, Jazlrah Syria! and the borders of Azerbaijan were Ahl ul Hadith. Nowhere- is there any mention of whattime is referred to, whether it was from the time of accepting Islam and the conquests of the Sah'aba,h, or whether it was at some later period. (1;) (1) There .18 no mention whatever in In UsOI ud Din of elther the word Sahabah or of their conquering any country. However regardles,s of this, quoting the name
of this book, he repeatedly states that f;f)m the time

the sahabah conquered these countries, their people have been Ahl-e-Hadtth ..Thus on page 10 he says, "On the authoritv of Usul ud Din you 'lave already been informed that right frrom the time the Khilafat of Uthman, when Ifriqlyaih was conquered by Sah§bah and Tabi'tn, the peoplle of that re~gjon have been foll'owing the madhab of the Ahl-e-Hadtth." 111 fact in Usul ud Din there is no mention of the Khilafat of Uthman, nor of 'tine conquest of lfriqlyah, nor of the people there being Ahl €!- Hadlthfrorn that time.

J~'"

I*L!JI )..,';';j 3 ,;:t~iJ

~J)I;y"

;.~ , ~Ij ~

L.lA ~t..f)
yl.u

(l·_hJ.otI

~

~....w,\ JA! ~.1.e,J.$,#

~I.J!~I,

u~

JjT

"Bring your proofs if what you say is true." Secondly, the pass,s.ge in Usall ud Din is not 8S he quote's. He has made amendments to it. The original passage is as fonows:
(~~L..,.?~.
~1~ltb!.,;eI-,A1LA)

the text as quoted is:

www.people
Tahqiq Ahl e Hndltl~
(Y~!~I~..k~)

15

'I'~lhqiq Ahl e I:!adith

h

16

In quotinq these words the speaker has added the word "kern)" after "kulluhum" and the phrase "min ehlis

theAhl ul Hadith." (p. 6;), and in support of this quotes TarTkh Baghdadi v.9 p 79. Unfortunately, on this page

sunneb" after "ala medtmebt ahl ut hadft:h" has disappeared.
adjustments

this passage is not to be found. However, on his page there is a story of the "ahl ul hadlth" stea.ling shoes. The passage is a's fotlows:
""-!""'~~ ~~I>I ..;~

If these

...l:'.1..t.1 ~ r..s") )~~IJ
.~JpJI

~,..J..:loJ1 ...-.:/1..,,=-,..,::1\ 4..rJlj
~~I' o:.l~1

J_,......)

had not been made to the text, then it would simply establish that the people of these places at the time of writing were "aM ut beattb", but not that they had been "eht ul hadTth"prior to that. The 'Original passage was written in the 5th century Hijri. So what is established from this is that in the 5th centu ry, the people of these frontier areas were "ahl ut heattti", Secondly, it becomes clear that by "ah) ul had1th" what is meant is that they were ahl us sunnah, not that they were ghair muqetlki. Also, if before quoting this passaqe the speaker had looked more carefully to see under what heading thls paSS2tgl€ occurs, he would have seRn that the point at issue was to establish that the people of Thawr were Sunnt, not Rtdizi, Khari./f, Mu''!azilah, and so on, The

1A.1ii.il;1 J ,,-:!.~ ~

("'-!~..J.t-! ~

J~

s:-~I~lj

The eb! ut had1th stale the shoes of Abu Zaid, so after that, whenever the es'neb us shu'ere« or the' as 'hab

ut erebtyen 01" theas'hab ut akhbar came, he would throw his clothes down without checlking on them, and when the as'hab ul hadTth came, he would gather them and keep them in front of him. «Tarlkh Baghdad v.9 .
p.79) What is actually referred to here are the students of different classes -Arab poets, arabic language,

akhbar, and

heant:

chapter headi'ngis :

(J_;A\!'
"Establishing

,JA"'1 L-JI, ~l

~~)
H

that the people of Thawr are from the

Ahl us Sunnah 7

The point then tis that else Is,referred to as was a person who had in that field, as I have

Z

when Ibn 'Ayrninah, or anyone ani ul hadtth, it means that he studied HadTth and was worklnq explained earlier.

The Four Imams

The, Tibi'in and Ati:bbi"ut TabPin

In maintaining that the Tabi'in and Atibba"lUt Tabl'tn were Ahll ul Hadtth, he has written: "Sufyan bin AymTnah has legally been counted among

After this the speaker tries to maintain that the four Imams were "ahl-e-hadlth" like hims,e.lf. Fiirst of all he refers to Imam AbO Hantfah (ahimafwllah', and quotes the following passage from usal LId DIn:

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith
(~ .. .h y~1 ~

www.peo I
17

Tahqiq Ahl e Haditb

h

1a,

Jy ~f")ISJ1 ~

~

.$.1 J..'I)

The passage quoted is correct, but the translation he has made is shows a considerable lack of integrity. The translation he presents is "The principles of AbO. Hanlfah in respect of Aq{i'id and the prohibition of teqtto (fotlowino another scholar) are the same as those of the

accept taqlid. In several places he quotes the followers (muqaflidin) of lmam Shafii' as examples of as'hab u! hadfth or ahl ut hadfth. For example on paqe 204 he refers to Abdullah bin Sa'ld and KarabTsl as mutekettimin of the ahl ut neditn, and they are both muaettiatn of lmarn Sh§fi'l. (see Teoeqsr ueb Shafj'fyah.)I In Usen ut Mfz.fW Hafiz [Ibn Hajr has referred to both as beinq "Shafi'I tuqeneo. "
j

Ahl ul HadTth."'(UsQI ud Dln p.B)
Scholars may take note how in translating "keltun" he has simply added "and the prohibition of ieqno' He does not seem to have understood that the subject of the book "Usul ud 0111" is Aqa'id .Kalam'iyah . At the beg.inninQ ot the book the author has counted and listed 15 principles of Aqa'id' Kafamlyah., and in this Jist there is 110. mention whatsoever of "prohibiting teqttd. >, Therefore in adding "and the prohibition of teqtta." what is the speaker doing other than ascribing his own views to the author he is quoting? At the beginning of the book he author has set out the principles of the as'hab u! hadith on Aqa'id in outline, and then in detail in the rest of the book. If the speaker here was asked to search the book and find something to say that prohibition of taqlid was one of these principles, he would not be able to do so. Indeed why should there be any mention of this here? The thing that he is talking about is teqttd in questions relatinp to particulars of religiion, and the subject of the book is basic tenets. As well as this it should be understood that when the author of UsOI ud DJn refers to as'hab ul hadlth or aM ul hedttn. he is not referring to people who do not In this context the speaker has also quoted this statement of Ibn AymYnah, "In the first place it was Abu HanTfah himself who made me Ahl u:1Hadith." This again means "The first person who made me a rnuhaddith was AbOI Hanifah himself.." The quotation is taken from Tarlkh Khalqan (v. 1 p. 211) The actual Arabic text uses the word "muhaddith"', and the speaker has translated it into UrdQ as "Ahl-eHadlth." So, instead of rewriting this statement and giving it his own meaning, he should have explained that it mean that Aba Hanifah was a muihaddith, and used to train other people (even people like Sufy.s:lIn bin Ayrninah) to become mubaddithln .. After this, in a similar manner, passages are presented relating to the rernaininq Imams. There is, then no need to 'go into discussing each one separately. However, there is one question that needs to be asked. When aU thetour tmarns were rnuhaddlthln, and based all their judgements and decisions on Hadith, - in other words were doing what the speaker says should be done - then what is the need for establi.shing another group to come along and do the same thinq? Are those

www.peo I
19 people who came after them, and accepted and followed their system, not Aht-e-Hadlth alreadv? So, if they are, and most certainly they are, then what does establishing another group achieve other than tetrio beyne't mustimtn (creatlnq division between the Mulims) ? Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith Tahqiq
(~'I

Ahl ,e Hadith

he
J...bl,

20

which this hadlth is placed is

'r J'

L,.l?J1

.? jt ... ~I ~1.b

..:_. liak JI..9~) ....

"One section of my Ummah will always stand up IOn the b uth, and those are the eht uJ 'Urn" (See Bukharl v.2 p. 108)
7 Muhammad bin Abd ul W'ahhalb

Another question that needs to be asked lis this. When the term ahl ul hadTth is used about the four imams, the speaker quotes it and puts 'great stress on it However when the same term is used about the fuqahaa, ahl-e-fiqh, or imams of fiq'h, no mention is made of il For example in UslOllud Din on p.312., a few lines before the passage he has quoted is this statement:
1oS)..P!) ~\.4

J ,,1')J')1\ ~
~~Ijj_;

~I...j

~':JI WI ~~

V" J)

(~~. ~

o.tlJ ~I..!JIJ

"and after them the imams of the Urnmah, such as

Aw.za'y and Malik and Thawri and ShafiF' and ibn Thawr and Ahmad bin Hanbal .."
He also refers to the hadlth:
(J!.J~

After this the speaker quotes the words of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd ul Wahhab Najdl "The sign of the Ahl ul Bid'ah its that they speak illl of tbe Ahl ul Heditt:" The point that needs to be noted here is that at the same time as. saying this, he was himself a Hanbali. As noted by the ghair muqettio writer and leader, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Sahib, in "Misk ul Makhum. "(p, 14) "mssb'ntir or muqarar est keh Ishan henbelt medh'heb and 0 dhik-r der hanabilah waqj',asl. "It is well known and clearly established that he followed the Hanball rnadh'hab, and he is also referred to as such by the Hanbalta."

an

II

~i

cr aA:\;t:, JIj3"l)

by Aill ul Hadith he means all the Ahl us Sunnah. Thus Maularna Yusuf Jalpurt "(in Haqiqaf ut Fiqh p, 11) quotes a passage from the same book that is quoted here (i.e. Ghunyat ut Tallbln)
Furthermore,

"One section from my folllawers will always have the help of Allah with them." When Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal being asked who this group was, he said, The Ah!-ul~Had1th."'(p. 7) Here the speaker has failed to take note of what is written in the most sahlh Kltab after the Kitabulla!1., (that is to say Bukhari Sharif) otherwise he would have seen that the heading under

(WI

JAI) (~..wl

~lx..pl

~J J.:o.1J""""I;H ~I 'ij WI jAl) I ~

" .... the ahl us sunnah, and they have only one name,.

H

that is ahl ul hadith." From this it is clear that the speakers own mentor uses the term eh! ul hedttt: 110 mean ahl us sunneh. The

he has

speaker has. even quoted this statement However, left out the words "ehl us sunneti" from the

Tnhqiq Ahl e Hadjth beginning of the sentence.

www.pe
21

n

h

Tahqiq Ahl,e I-Iadith 22 the famous Ahl ul Hadlth scholar. Gaffa,1 Ma'Oni, had abandoned the Hanafi madhhab,"(p.8} There are a number of points to be noted here. Qaffal IMaOnl has been described as Ahf u! In point of fact he was a very strict Shafi'I, (see tabaqat Shafi'iyah v.. p.1'9a.) 3
2

7

A.fghanistan

The speaker then takes great pleasure In quotinq a passage from "Feriehteh" to the effect that one of the scholars in the circle of Imam Ghazzaf Abu Tayylb Suhall (this should actually be Satu) bin Muhammad Sulaiman Sa'tukl, was Ahl ul Hadith. However if we look at: Sa mants "insab' or Sabki's "Tabaqat" (v, 3 p. 169) we will see that Abu Tayyib was a muqallid of

1

Heattn.

the Shafj'j school. He is referred to here as Ahl ul Hadlth in the sense that the Malik!s and Shafts are referred to as Ahil ul Hadith. (See the Muqaddamah of Ibn KhaldOn p. 374,375) In the region of Khurasan, when people use' the term AM ul Hedltn, they mean speciftcally the ShaJi'i school, and nothing else, as ibn lslah and Sabki have pointed out:
(~L!J\.J.f-A!.

This relates to' a story about Gaffal MarOni! which is known to be ·fictitioLis. He repeats it even though both in terms of reason and d,ocumentaryevidence, lit is clearly false. For detail IOn this is to be found in booklets by Mull,a
,Ali Qari and Mulla Abd un Nabl Gangohi.

~J.?J\

I..:"'~II

.. ! ~

11.~' ~\....II_;? ~I

c.~'

Mawlana Habib ur Rahman also refers to his own booklet on the' subject, "Makhs'i! at ifti'af 'ala sa/awa'i .iJ qaffal". 3
He says that Sultan Mahmoud Ghaz.naw1 became disaffected! with Hanafi flqh, This is contradicted by the fact that 'Mas'Od bin

,.!.lJ;~)

of the people of Khurasan. When they refer to the Ahl u! Hadith they mean the Shafl'Is." (Tabaqat of Sabki V .. 3 p. 258)

"This is in the terminology

v.

~, Jll='1 '~I) "When they refer to the Ahl ul Hadlth they do not mean ,anything other than Shafl'ls." (Tabaqat of Sabkl
(l_;.jl..'J~ ~

!l1..r.'.~ ~WI

Shaibah included

and Abd ul Qadi:r Quraishi have' Sul,tan MahmOd among the HanafY Fuqahaa, and also for a long time a book by
"Tafrld" was well known and

the Sultan entitled

3 p. 259)

After this, the following assertion

is put forward :

widely circulated. As well as this, riQlht to tile end of the Sulltan's 'rule, his Qazi ul Qaz,a (C'hief Jusuce) AbO Muhammad Nasihi was Hanafl This is reported in "Jewenir Mazlyah." 4 If appoint.ing an 'LAhl ul HadlHh" as a.mbassador is all indication of dissatisfaction with Hanafi

"The appointment of an Ahi ul Hadlth '~Him as ambassador may date from the time when Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznawl, as a result of the company of

Tahqiq

Abl c H:ndith

www.peopl
23

Tahqiq Ahl e l-Jadith

he

:24

fiqh, then what about the fact that 23 years after this, in 412 A.H. he appointed .AbC~ uhammad M

NasihT, who was his Oazl ul.Oaza. as Arnir af
Hla~j, and that it was through the agency of this Hanafi elder, that he re-established the Hajj? (Because of the violence and depredations of the Oararnatah - a sect of the Sht'ah - the Hajj had been stopped for many years.) Is this then not a public announcement of the superiority of the Hanafi madhhab? The surpris.ing thing is that this is reported in the very same history (Perishtetr; v.1, p.46) from which the speaker has quoted,

A point to note here 'is that Qaffal, Kablr Shashl, 'A1bdan ManJnl, and Abu 'Awanah Isfra'lnl are people hie quotes as leading figures of the Ahl ul Hadlth. So how can we explain the e'fforts that they made to establish teqtid of the Shafi"l medhbeb? 7 Government Force

7

Hindustan

The same thing also applies to the speaker's contention that at the time of Bashart, the majority of the population of Mansurahtn Sindh was Ahl ul Hadith. What Ibn Khaldun says makes it clear that the Shafi', were referred to as Ahl ul Hadith. So he still has to produce evidence to show that they were ghatr muoettid, and not SIhMi'l.

The speaker follows certain of his predecessors. in alJ.egi.ngthat teottd was established at sword-polnt. However, simply repeating what a person's teachers have said is not proof of anything. Neither the speaker nor his predecessors have yet put forward any evidence that any gove·rnment anywhere forced anyone or even told anyone that they had to. become Hanan or MaHki.
The. only madhhab

that bas been spread:. at swordpoint is the speaker's own medntieb of the Ahl ul

Hadtth. He himself'states. "Yusuf bin 'Abdl ul M:u'min, then after him, his son Ya'qub , full.y supported the Ah,1 ul Hladtt.h madhhab The Khalifah (Ya'qub) gave orders to abandon fiqh and not follow any imam." (p. 11)

I

The Dt.s,tri butiol1 ·of the School~s

The natural spread of different parts of contemptuously by the (sharing out countries). to quote the ayat

the four schools of Flq h into the world is dismissed speaker as "mulkl ba.(warah One answer to that would be
iJ

According to the speaker, were "Ahl ul Hadlth."

'(tQsuf and hils son Ya'qOb

"Go die of your own raqe."

So these North African kings used their royal power to ban ta'qJld. Indeed, on p.age 11 he also states th~~ YOsuf placed his sword in front of people and said

Tahqtq Ahl e Hadtrh

www. e
2S

I

that everything other than the Holly Qura'n and the Sunan of AbO Oilwud was invalid. In other words, he threatened people with a sword to :gel them to accept this. On this same pag,e he also refers to' gi'ving presents;_ in other word's using financial inducements" to spread the Ahl ul Hadltn madhhab. He then states that this is the reason for the, Ulamaa of that region being strict A III ul HadTth, and as an example quotes the name of Imam Ibn Jazm. In this, matter M. .HabIb ur Rahman fully aqrees with
the, speaker. Similarly, every person in Iindia who has seen the way in which peap,le chang'~d their madhab as a result of the inducements and intimidation of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, and then seen the repetition of those events in Meo and Sana,ras, also have to agree.

Tllhqiq

Ahl, e Hadith

h

26

on this matter. At the same time" one of his own party, Mawlana Muhammad JOnagad'h~ in "Aqlcier: M~ihammadt', quoting the Sharh of Durr-e-Mukhtar which lis generally known as Sham" says that the Hanan ru!lilng lis as follows: "If a person today makes his s al at in accordance with one madhhab (say HanafT that is without sayin,g amin audibly. or raisinq his hands before, ruki:', or reciting SDrah Fafihah behind the imam) and then" the following day, makes it in accordance with another rnadhhab (say Shafi'i - saying amin audlbly, raising his hands before rukts', and reciting Sarah Fatiha.h behind the imam), it is not prohibited for 'him to do so."
Bo, the Question then arises which one o-f the two is

~m

7

"Madhhabi

'Asa.biyat,·'

correct, rnmself or Mawlana Muhammad.
In point of fact, here the speaker is misquoting and In the first place, the

Under this heading the speaker says,
"If a fojlower of one
II

misrepresenting
leaves his passage on

his source.
(,~wJl~~JI,~})

madhhab

madhhab and jojns another, then he became' liable to punishlment. Then, under the heading of "Persecution of the Ahl ul Hadith"', he says that one person left the Hanan madhhab and started to do rafa' yad,ain and .qlra~at khalfa'J imam. He was then lashed publicly. . Here' the speaker claims that this is the Hanan ru.lling

which he quotes i~from the commentary on the sherh of Sha,mi. What Allama Sharnl hlrnself wrote,: he has siimply ignored. For the bene'filt of the reader! what Sharnl himself says is that a person who leaves, say; th!€ Hanan madhh-ab and takes up the ShaWi mednneb, willi not: be punished for doing so 'if he is not doing it for some reason that is prohibited or not acceptable in Shari'ah, such as, carnal appetite or

Tahqil'qAhle

Hadith

www peo e
27

'I'ahqtq

Ahl e Haditb and to quote Jawahir Mazfyah

h

2,8

some worldly motive. but is doing it because he has the capacity for ijNhad; and as. a result of his ijtihad he has come to the conclusion that a certain view is correct; and has therefore adopted it Such a person is in no way punishable. The conclusion of this is that the Hanafi fuqahaa have not defined leaving one rnadhhab for another as a punishable offence out of 'asablyat. This applies only to a person who is doing this out of carnal desire or far sorne corrupt motive, and is therefore making' a mockery of the madhhabs . .A1Ihis is made quite olear t in the place. from which he is quoting. The same will applly to a person who changes from ShafT'Y to Hanaf for these motives, and this is also made clear in the same place. 11 would be Interestinq to know from which ayat of the Holy Oura'n or which hadith the speaker derives permission for misrepresentation like this.

l

(

in support of this is blatant false attribution. Alii it says in this book is. that Abu Hafs said to Imam Bukharl that he should not give fatwa because that was not his field. (This was said by way of advice, and he had the rig,ht to say this because in terms of age lrnarn Buknari was like his son, and in terms of leamlnq, they were companions in the same class.) Further on what is stated in Jewsnir Maziyah is that Imam Bukhari did not acccept this advice; and' continued giving fatwas, until someone asked a fa.twa and the answer he gave· was wrong. The error was extremely clear. As a result the people there forced him to leave. It had nothing to
ccusation, do with AbO Hafs .. Further (p.15) on the same accusation is repeated. Together with this he says that thefatw8 that Imam BlJkhari gave was notwronq, and that Abu Hafs Kablr has falsely ascribed it to him. In support of this he quotes Fawa'jd Buhaiyah" However, this book does not say what he says. On the contrary it says exactly what is said iln Jewehir Maz.iya.h. This is what each of these books say, together with translation:
~I ~ ~I.:r ~

Under this heading the speaker says: "AbO Hafs Hanan prohibited the com pliler of the Hadtth of the Messenger, Imam Bukharl from g,iving fatwa in Bukh81"8,and then had him expelled him from the city." (p.12) In the ~ncident in question, accusing Abu Hafs of having him expelled from the city is blatant false

j,_}

-

I.S}A.~II ~\,.g_.;1 Yo,1

~~

~Jj)

~

pJA,-4l; ~\.!...:-J I~\i is ~'
~

JIjJ ~

oLt:A ~

~

J

~ _pJ1 ~ jA

)1 i\...1) ~

4.JIi ~_,..:., ~'
,-""WI ~Ij

cf ~ ?

(LSJ~'

oF- /'J' ~

Muha.mmad

bin Isma'il Bukharl

came

to

Tahqiq AM e fladith

www. eo e
29

Tahqiq Ah. e Hadith

30

Bukhara during the time of AbO Hafs Kablr, and began to give tatawa. Abu Hafs then told him not to do so, saying to him that he was not his field. He did not stop doing so, until he was asked about two children who had drunk the milk. of the same sheep or cow, and he gave a fatwa of harmet beteween them. (l.e. he said that they cannot marry each other.) The result of this was that the people united against him and expelled him from Bukhara .. (Jawal1ir v.1 p.?, quoted in Fawa 'id p.. 8) 1 There is also more to this issue. In NishapOr there was an alirn named Muhammad bin Yahya Dhahll, who was what the speaker would term a great and famous scholar of the .Ahl ul Hadttn. A dispute arose between him and Imam Bukhari over some question. As a result h-e became extremely hostile to Imam Bukharl, and even started calling him a bld'atl, and announced that whoever went to him should not come into his company', and that as long as he was there, Imam Bukharl could not stay in Nish,a.pur. Imam Bukharl became afraid of what might happen! so he left there and went Ito Bukbara. (The full details of this are to be found in the Preface to Fet'ti uJ Barf - the very famous commentary on Sahfh BukhiJri by ibn Hajr, who is regarded by the ghair muqa/Jidtn as completely reliable' - see Muqaddamah to Fat'h ut Bari p.579) However, even there Muhammad bin Yahya did not leave him In peace. Tine details of this are! recorded by historians like Shams ud Din Dhahabl, who was also a hafiz of haditlh. In Siyar A'/am un Nu,ba/aa he writes that Dhahll wrote complaints

against Imam Bukharl to the governor and to the' scholars of Bukhara. Theqovemor became enraged andl made up his mind to take very harsh action aqairrst Imam Bukhari. However, the son of Abu Hafs Kablr Hanan, Muhammad bin Hats was told about this, and he secretly took Imam Bukh.ari to a hospice .ln Bukhara. (See .Fawa'id Yahiyah p.19.) The person who asked Imam Bukharl the fatw8 and then stirred up the people against him was himself one of the Ahl ul Hadlth of Nishapur (Muqaddamah p.5te'). On the other hand, it was the son of AbO Hafs Kablr (whom the speaker accuses of forclng lrnarn Bukharl to leave Bukhara) who risked his own life to, save Imam Bukharl and bring him to the safety of a hospice in Bukhara. It would seem fairly clear that the motive behind misrepresenting this whole incident is to shift the blame for it from someone who is taken by the Ahl ul Hadith as one of their predecessors and onto a Hanaf1.

I

A Contradiction

On page 9 the speaker says: "It was in the 4th century that taq/fd was, born." However, on page 1.2he refers to a person who attacked Imam Shafi'I as being a foUower of the Ma,liki school, and he also refers. to the person he accuses of expelling Imam Bukharl from the city as a Hahafi. Then 'Onp.13 he says, "This is a smalll example of the treatment of the As'hab ul Hadlth by the' propagators of Taqlid." Since Imam Shafi'I died in 204 A. H. this would mean

www.peo I
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadlth
31

Tahqiq

Ahl e Hadith

32

that teqttd was already present In the second century. Clearly one or Ditherof his statements lis not quite riqht.

madh.. ab,s, ~s is the universal practice of the people h of Islam, IS right and proper." Neither is it right to quote Mirza Madhhar Jan e .Janan as beilng Ahl ul HadHh. He was a strict Hanaft, Witn regard to the one or two points, where his practice was contrary to that of Hanafi Fiqh, his Khallfah Shah Ghulam IAII said, "az fnfiqal dar tnes'eteh iuz't khilaf madhhab iezim nerni ayad - dis8!glreement iin a. particular rnas'alah does not amount to opposttlon to the madhhab." Mirza Sahib has himself written the sarne thing (see Maktub 12 p. 102), Miirza Sahib was of _~heview that it was good' (but not in any way obligatory) for the muqtad1i in silent salat (dhunr, asr) to read SOrah Fatihah behind the Imam. However, he was so concerned about the necessity for following the Hanafi madhhab that he would himself act as imam, thus avoiding, where possible any occasion for acting contrary to the Hanafi madhhab." (M.aqamat p. 119) 1 "'Sectarian Conflict"

Z

Jlbn Taymiyah

Under the heading' of "Persecution of the Ahl ul Hadlth", Ibn Taymllyah Is described as "Imam of the .Ahl ul HadTth," whereas Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan has referred to him. as ,a follower (m.uqalJid) of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, (See Misk ul MakhtOm p..4.) Simill,arly he has described Imam M (1) as a leader of the Ah.l ul Hadtth, whereas he was in fact Sh,afi'T. This is made clear by Imam Dhahabi in Tadhkirat ul Huff,adlh on p. 280 of vo1.1. Hie refers to Hafidh Abd ul Ghani MuqaddasT as "openlly Ahl ul Hadlth" when ln fact Imam Dhaha'bl has clearly stated on p.160 of v. 4 of Tedbkireb that he was Hanbali. Similarly he counts Sultan ul Awliyaa, Shaykh Nizam LJdDin DehlawT as belonging to the Ash'hab ill I Hadlth (in his sense), whereas in the W!3ry place in Tarlkh Farlshtah that he has quoted as a reference, it is. stated that an opponent of the Shaykh said to him that he was a "muqalllid", and the Shaykh did not deny this. Also in Tarlkh Farishtah on p.597 of v. 2 It says that he "had full recall and full expertise in the Fiqh of Abu Hanifah, Tedstr, Hedttir, UsOf, and Kalam," Similarly it is not right for him to quote the name of Mawhlna lsma'tl Shahid, because he dld not approve of leavinlg taqlld, In Sirat ut Mustaqim he writes, "emme ittiba'madhfthib 'erbe'eh kih' ri!J'y aertemem eh! e islam est blhtar 0' kh(1b ast - anyway, following the four

Then, under the heading of "sectarian conflict," the
speaker talks about fights between the followers of the four different madhhabs. In this matter the speaker is not paying the same attention to the state of affairs in his own house. It should 110t be forgotten how many sects and sectarian disputes have arisen out of the Ahl-e-Hadith movement in century and a half during which it has been in existence.

Tah qiq AId e Hadith

www.peo

34

During the time this speech was made, the Ahl-eHadTth in India were divided into two parties, one under the leadership of M'aulwi Abd ul Wahab Sadry Dehlawl, and the other under Maulwi Thana ullah, to which the speaker belonged, The first party announced publicly that anyone followiing the other party would die the death of iahilfyah. Referring to this first party the speaker, on p.2.Bsays: "After making a claim to khilldat, and thus making himself a stateless monarch, he has given a tatwa that whoever does nat declare his allegiance to him and send his zakat to him in full will die the death of iahil1yah .. " The first party also regards the second party as meran (under a curse). The spe-aker himself say that: iif anyone claims irnamat, but is not in a position to establish the Shart'an or to maintain lit, then he is cursed ..(p ..28)

the writer has rnlsrepresented the view of Imam AbCi Hanifah, he has not written that in this place Ibn Abi Shaybah has falsely accused Imam Abu Hanttah. For example, Ibn AbT Shaybah says that according to Imam AbCi Hanlfah the time for lsha' extends only up to midnight (Kitab ur Radd p.30 and in his translatlon. p. 29.) lin the speaker's terminology, this is a "patently fal!se accusation." The actual view of the Imam is that the time for Isha' extends up to subh us sadiq (see Sharah ut M'a' ani ul Athar v.1 p.'94,95.) Similarly, he says that according to IAH it is permiasible for the rnawall of the BanO Hashim to eat from sadaqah (Kitab ur Radd p.38 and in his translation, p. 35.) This is in fact n.ot SQ. (see Tahawl v. 1, p. 301.) There are many other examples, but for the sake of keeping things short, they can be passed over. The speaker has also presented many valid statements as false accusations. For example the writer of Hldayah says that according to lrnarn Shalfi'i, playing chess is not prohibited. This is quite true. However, the speaker does not seem to know the Shafi'j view, and presents this as a false accusation. Allam.§, Ibn Hajr Makki Shafi'j in zawajir writes: (~'plS" ~.I"1I~J~~L.....;oJI)~IJs~I~1.f ~) "So, as Iiong as the objective is to develop the ability to think and calculate, then there is no reason for not permitting them, as for example chess," (v.Z, p.168) I n the same w.ay, he makes a great d isp lay of indlqnation at a footnote to Sunan Nisa', when there

Z

False Accusations

In this matter the speaker has also resorted to taking this mistakes of writers and presenting them as accusations. For example the writer of Hidayah mistakenly says that Imam Mallilk regarded muta" as perrniasib!e. He has presented this as the writer makilllg a false accusatlon against Imam Ma~ik.. AI iyadhu biNah. If this klnd of error is inexcusable then why is .it that in his translation of Ibn Shaybah's book Kifljb ur Radd a'ia Abi Hentiet», in those places where
1

www.peo Ie
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadh h
35

Tah qiq Ahl e Hadith

he

36

is no cause for this. According ito his translation. the footnote in question describes those Wahhabis "who consider it permissible to killl our men and take our women prisoner" as Khilfijis. Now, if the party he himself follows are not like this, then why should he take offence at this comment? Alsop if there are no ghair muqalJids today who take this attitude, this does not lin itself prove that at the time this footnote, was written there were no Wa.hhabis who did take this attitude. So, until it is proved that there were no such people, this footnote' cannot be called a false accusation" Is the speaker not aware of Muh.ammad bin Abd ul Wahhilb Najdf going to war a'g'ainst Muslims, and creating widespread bloodshed and misery? Is it then not possible that at that time there may also have, been some Wahhabis like this in Hindustan?

only his sunnah can be followed, and that the sunnah of the Khulata-e-Rasnidrn is not sunnen, and that this hadith does not contain an instruction to follow their sunneh, Alii it contains is an instruction to act 0.111 hadith, as was the practice of the Khulata-e-Rasbldtn. This gives. rlse to a question. Are we to. understand that of the thousands and thousands of Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah seiettehu aJaihi we sellem, only four used act on the basis of Hadtth, and that none of the rest used to do s07 Are we also to understand" ,al iyadh'u biUah, that the Messenger of Allah S'sJalJahu eteihi wa s8'llam, saw them in this light, and for this reason selected these four as people to be followed? If this is not what he means, then wlhat does he consider to be the reason for selectinq particularly these four Sahab is?
Then another question arises. On what basis does

Z

The Ahll-e-Hadith

Maslak

After all these anecdotes, the speaker starts to expllain the rnaslak of the Ahl ul Hadlth. He starts from the hadith
(1.ft~')1 ~L.Q.L.:J' ~
j ~~)

Which he translates as" Follow my practice and that of the Khulafaa-e-Rashjdln." (p.16) Further on he explains that the meaning of "the practice of the Khulafaa.-e-Rashidin is that when they dis.aglreed on Some point, they acted according to th,e Hadlth of the Messenger seteusnu alaihi wa sal/am. What he means to say is that the term Sunnnah applies only to. the Messenger of Allah salallahu a/aihi we sal/am" and
H

the speaker select "acting on hadith" as being the meaning of "the practice of the Khulafa-e-Rashldlrr"? If he says that this is established from their lives, then the point still remains that there were a great many more things to be found in their lives. For example S,ayyidina Albu Bak-r Siddfq raziyallahu 'ennu said in relation to keletet:

(JJ _,J '.J ,.J.h) I~

~)

"In my opinion it means the person who has neither father or son living." This he said simply on the basis of his opinion, not any h adith. Sayyidina 'Umar raziyaHahu 'enhu instructed Sharih: "where you do not find an ayat of the Our'an or a hadith about a question,

www.peo Ie
Tahqiq Ah1 e H adjth
37

h.c
Tahqiq AM e Hadith 38 accepted and followed even where it was not the same as the practice of the Messenger sallallahu a/aihi w.a sal/am. Thus Sayyidina 'Urnar razialJa.hu enbu said,
~-

then see what decrsion the pious make, and give your dectston on that basis." He said that to resolve a question, analogy (qiyas) with some other similar question Gould be used. (see Hafiz Ibn ul Qayyim A 'lam ul MOqi'in - v.t, p. 29,30.) Again, Hazrrat lJmar F'ai'ulq did not take it on himself to contradict anything that Sayyidina AbO Bak-r Siddiq decided. Thus in the question of kalalah he simplly followed Sayyidina AbO Bak-r SjddIq, (A'Jam ul MDqj'fn - v. 1', p. 73.) Indeed ~t was his practice that if he did not find a mas'alah lin the Kitab and Sunnah, and Sayyidina AbO Bakr had made a decision about it, then he considered that decision as binding' on Ihimself. (A'Jam ul MOqi'in - vt , p. 22.). Similarly Sayyidina Uthrnan Gl1anTruled simply on the basis of his own opinion tbat a woman wino is divorced by her husband when he lis on his deathbed remains his heir. (A 'Jam ul Muqi'invt , p. 76.) Sayyidina All ruled, simply on the basis of his own opinion that a woman slave who was umm ut walad could nat be sold. (AI/am u! MQqi'ln - v.f , p. 73.) that it was the practice of the Khulataa ur RashidTn in rnasa'H for which they did not find any ayat or hadith, to give fatwas and [udgernents on the basis of their own opinion. It was also their practice to decide on one issue on the basis of analogy with another issue. For further detail on this" see A'lBm ul Muqi'in - v.1, pp. 21-80. These examples demonstrate Then it was also the practice of the iKhulafaa ur Rashidin that together with followin'9 the practice of the Mes.senger of Allah, they also rega.rded the practice of their predecessors as scrnethtnp to be

"CC:J'~ ~IJ J (~J'

J

.s::.,u,\.. - ~u. f' u_;.!u.

_:.,o

.. ,,+'...7 ~ "
oJ'

r,.J

..... ~I

a

~I

,)1

0

j;1~)

_.i,r J~,)..,r'.r? yr...;r ~.;..w

someone as my successor, r am doing what someone better than myself did, that is to say Abu Bak-r, and if I leave you to decide for yourselves. then I am doing what someone better than myself did, that is to say the Messenger of Allah sal/al/ahu ala/hi wa sal/am." Imam Nlawwawl say the outcome of this is that to appoint a khaflfah (in the manner of Abu Bak-r ) and to not appoint a kha/7,fah (in the manner of the Messenger of AIHlh sallallahu ala/hi wa settem.; are both legitimate. (Nawwawi - Sharh Muslim v.1, p.129) Now" according to' the speaker the practice IQf the Ahl uri Hadith is: "Compared to the haditb 'Of the Messen:ger, we do not regard the word of even the grea.test of the great a.s having the weig'ht of even the wing of a :9nat" (Khutbah~e-sadarat p. 20) However Sayyidina Umar who despite beilng one of the Khulafaa ur Rashidin and following in the footsteps of tile Messenger of Allah, still regarded the decisions of Sayyidlna AbO Bak-r SiddTq as something that was to be followed Therefore, by leaving this practice of Sayyldina Umar, the Ahl e Hadlth are leaving the

"'If I appoint

hadlth:

www. e
(.ft,~I)f ~J.i1,;J, l.:.....t J ~

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith

h

40

~~)

",My sunnah and the sunnah of the khui.afaa urrBshidin
are binding on you."

Furthermore according to the speaker's own statements, the Khulafa'8 ur Rashldin regarded the practice of thei r predecesso rs as S unnah, Ttl us in one place he writes that Sayyidina An raziyaflatw enhu described the penalty for drinking wine that was set by Sayyidina Umar raz;yallahu enhu (i.e. 80 strokes) as sunnah, even though this. was. different to the practice during the time of the Messenger of Allah .. Similarly" by remaining silent: on the matter, the third Khallfah, Sayyidina Uthman ra'ziyallahu enhu indicated his own approval ofthis. (s,ee Khutbah e Sadarat p.118) However It appears that the Ahl e Hadith, far from regarding this as sunnah, do. not consider it to be worth as much as the wing of a gnat. AI iyadhu bllls'h. After this, a point we need to consider is that when the practice ofthe Khulafaa e Rasidin was that in every matter theygi8ve precedence' to the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaini wa sallam then it necessarily follows that there was no contradlctron between their practice and the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. In this case, on the issue of istikhlaf (appointing a successor), what reason is there to regard the sunnah of the M.essenger and the ~unnah ~f the Khulataa e IRashiidln as being mcompatlbl,e or contradictory? (See Khutb eh e S ads'ral p. 18)

Also, in the question of three teteqs, and the question of temetiu' in l'laJ). the Ahl e Hadith do not say that in the fatwB that Sayyidina 'Urnar r8'ziyallahu entiu gave, he gave prlority to the word and action of the Messenger of Ailiah sallalMhu a/aih'i wa seiiem. If they are to say that this was not always their practice, then this amounts to saying that in some matters they gave preference to their own statements and actions over the statements and acti o ns of the Me s se nqe r sal.lallahu .alaihi wa sal/am. Now to say such a thingl about the Khul.afaa e Reettkitn is a very serious attack on them. Furthermore, by saying this, it necessarily follows that the Messenger of Allah has given two contradictory orders. Together making with his own s unnah oblligatory, he has made the sunnah of the Khulaf'aa e Rashidin obligatory and, accordinq to them, the Ilatter in certain places contradicts the- former. Whatever anyone may wish to say, we regard the person of the Messenger of Atlah as being above any such thing. Then another point arises. In the statement
~I.AJ..,:J, J...:....., j
~ ~)

(~~I)I

"My sunnah and the sunnah of the Khulataa ur Rashidin are bind,ilng on you", there are no provisos. W,e then do not have the rigtJtto place our own provisos and Ilimitations on it do. this would amount to g~ving priority to one's own word over the word of

To

the Messenger However,

of Allah. e Sadarat the

on page 19 of his Khutbah

Tabqiq Ahl e Hadith

www. eo

41

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith

h
.

42
'\ ~ c:.W·U ..,;D\ j'
T" . • j'
"I I.,

speaker says: "Wherever the Khulafaa ur Rashidln did something for political reasons, or because of some temporary need, it is not bir.lding on us to follow that." So. on the one hand the Messenger of Allah has givewn an unquatified instruction that we' should follow his. sunnah and the sunnah of the Khulafaa ur RashJdTn. Then on me other hand, the speaker is adding a proviso that if what they did was for some political reason or some temporary necessity, then we do not have to foltow it At the same time he is ma.intaining that we should act only on the basis of what is dearly stated in the Qur',an and the Hadith. Another question arises. lit the Knulafaa ur Rashidln did something for some "pchtlcal reason or temporary necessity", then why should that mean that we not have to follow it? Was it then contrary to the word or action of the Messenger sallallanu alaihi wa sallam? If it was; then this would mean that it was not their practice to act on the basis of Hadlth,and that to .9'rve pri;olrity tIC) the' word and action of the Messenger was not their way. Alternatively, if itas not contrary to this, then it necessarily follows that we are bound to follow them .. The' person most frequently cited by the .Jarna'at A.hl e HadYth as an authority, and as representing their viewpoint" is Hafiz Ibn Qayyim. It Js instructive to see what he has said about this hadttn. ln A~tfjmul MClq'i'in
on p ..2:261 he wril~.es.:

t:!'''!j ~
Il..!~..p\ ~
~ • ...:.;.l~

t I.::i'-!r ~

.~.

I''''''

il.:..:..-J ~~

~

0~
.

JJ~
• II'

\AA) ..,",:-I.J~'4 ~~.

.

._

Ie..

'·.jw

'

J

..01,\

U!

..:::.!I"~f~l../
.

iJ~

'.,..., \ '_..;J. ". "', J J~

o!...!......a,.....l oJ \ ~\ .. \~ ,,~. '._A~..I.i:.e ("""~ IJL"j,J ~~ J

.f All-h has referred to the s.unna. h "The MessengBf a . a_ I ' • • . .. .h of the' iKhulafaa ur Rashid~n along With h_l~!~::~ui~n:h~ and has instruct,ed that It should be. f .... . .. n '15 own sunnah and In tillS has eve same way as h . ." . t .... f as to use the expression of holding on 0 gone so .ar . _. _- . h of the Khulafa.a it 'ith the back teeth. Thls sunna.. ._ ~n~udes the,j.ffatwas and mcse practlce~ ~hICh.tllneyo ..- .... _ U . h even where there liS established for the mma, -, ' f Alili3h l' . - f om the Messenger 0 prior instrucllon r , ., I -_ . g them' otherw,se whatever th,ey did SI~P Y Goncermn the- 'sunnah of the Messenger sallallahu d er comes un _ alsihi wa satlam himself."
A

I

7.

~..

'.

I

L

Qivas and ljima'

'... . k .. "We do not reJect Under this he:adlng the spea er say,s, . _. h _ h dtth of .~ d .... a 'What we say 1,5 th.at the a n . '. . _. q{y.as an tjrn - ... .... be the baSIS of analogy .. .....this should , the M~ss~e.ngerth"n·g·. h~tpeople t have completely rule 1.5 some II.. abandoned." (p.21)
A

. ·f bo'ldly· presented Th's is another pU3ce 01 . . I td ,I .,. h. h . s any hanafi or muqaf r misinform;a'tlon. Since wl.en. a . - id that abandoned tnls principle? Wh,ere has anyone sa. the . dtth 0f t.....Messenger shoutd not be made o. the hadt 110;;.. ... ... k· f Usf.ll. . ... I ?In the Hanafi boo. sO, baSIS of ana logy. _ ... . . . as that (principles) it is clearly stated that the only qlY· 1
h ~ •

Tahqiq Abl e Hadtth
is acceptable and Sunnah.

www.peo
is based on the Oura'n

h

44

is that which

~IJ~'~!lo~LJ"" (Nlir ul Anwar pA)

h..'d - ~Il w""'~IJA

are quoted that the speaker had not in fact taken the trouble to understand what Shah WaliYl.Jllah was actually saying. Shortly before quoting the examples of haml un n.adhJj· 'alan nadhrrthat the speaker quotes, Shah WaliyuUah explains that Hanafi Fiqh is not based on the academic proofs thatare presented in Hidayah and other similar books. These arqurnents are given simply for the purpose of intellectual stimulation. (Hujiatullah iJ BaJigha,h p. 128) Thus, without taking any account of the context, the speaker has treated these arguments as being their basis in Fiqh of the masa'iJ in question, and then set about raising objections to them. Even then, carried away by the heat of his arguments he does not even take care to stick to the truth. On the contrary, he constructs. a mas'alah of his own and then attributes it to the Hanafiyah. A) On page 12 he says: hires

After this there remains the issue of hem! un nadhfr 'alan nedhlr. ( ) This does not contradict the principle of making the hadith the basis 'Of analogy, nor is it something whose validity can be denied. Imam (Mzny), the pupil of Imam Shafi'T, has stated: ~ J 1.;.0~ ~~

J I (~

J~

_j,,. ~)

...ill J1'"'"J _rI2S,~II~IJ

~.

,,·lfiAll
ift

_;-AI~

~tS:,.."S1 ~,.}

4.Uli ~ ~\.i..J11:J.1

~"'~

~I.! J!'IJI ~J

Jo'" ,~,i~

(Jli)

"From the time of the Messeng,er of Allah right up to today thefuqahaa have made use of qiyas in all the ahkam of religion and they agree unanimously that the nadhtr (equivalent) of haqq is haqq and the nadhlr of btWI is befit."· (A'I.am ul MOqinin v.t p. 74) Consider this point. In the light of the hadlth, in an exchange of barley for barley, no difference in amount is permitted. Now if someone applles the same thing to millet. will this not be haml un nedbtr 'alan nadhit? If it is, and it most certainly is, then where is the contradiction between nemt un nedntr 'alan nedntr and rnakinq the hadith the basis of analogy? On this topic the speaker has quoted Shah Waliyull!ah Den lawl.. However it is clear from the way that they

a woman for the purpose of fornication. After this the woman takes the sum aglr,sed. In effect; this is all invalid hire a.greement, and the basis of the hire agreement is a prohibited action. However a rule has been made: "A fair wage lis fair," .... therefore it is legitimate for that woman to take the wage."

"A person

Tahqiq

Ahl e Hadilth

www.peo

45

-

46

Re aders should know that this is blatant false accusation and false attribution ...AII of our fuqahaa have written that if a wom-an is hired for fornication, then the wage she takes for this is herem. Allarnah AinT Hanafl writes in Sharh Bukharl:
~ I~'j

hadlth. In both of the books referred to above, under the heading ot this hadlth, the wagre of a harlot has been declared hararn, Then. in Bada'l we find
(.ujJI)lF~~I~

~.}-':"1~"i'lij1l~\.o~1 a)G:--ljr'1j
(~J ~

r.r JjJ~~Y- ~~"'J~:l ..r--L-JI ~ J~ '1 ~~,js
W)I

ill

~J ~I

*..:r ~.ul

jr~)

iJl

J_,..... J Y' ~j)

U)I# 4Ijl.r.'
"The hirin9 of slave girls for fornication is not permissible, because ilt is payment for sin ilt is reported that the Messenger of Allah has prohibited the rnahr of a harlot, and the mahr of a harlot is a term for the wages of forntcation." This should be enough to make clear that what the speaker has said is less than honest. Even Maulwl Abd ur Rahman MubarakpOri (of the Ahl e Hadith) has also had to admit that

"Any wages for fornication is not leqitimate, because i~ is given in return for an action that is prohibited. Allah Alrniqhty has prohibited fornication. There is ijma' on this, and no one at all among Muslims has disputed thls." ("1.5p.611) Similarly Allarnah Anwar Shah Kashrntrt writes in his commentary on Tirmidhl concerning the wage of a harlot that it is

~I~~~r
"hararn accordinq to' all."(p.402)
1111

~.r-u~~J~

short" for the speaker to say:

"on this question there is ijm,a: of the whole ummeh. There has not been any dis aqreernerrt." (Sharh Tlrmidhl) On this issue the speaker has also given Allamah ShamT as a reference. Aqain, this is patent false attribution. In ShamT there is no mention whatsoever of "Paying a woman a wage for fornication". lookil1g to Their Own House It is however interesting to note that Hlafiz Abdullah S,a.hib GhazT, ent e hadith, has written:

"The Hanafis, on the basis of "ejr ul mithJ ieyyib" have said that the wages of a harlot are halal, even though lit is clear from the hadith 'the rnanr of a harlot is hararn' that it is hararn."

~~,*
:. .• • '1'1

iis a plain lie. The Hanafis have also said that it is hararn. and have said so on the basis of that same

www.peo
Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith
47 "A prostitute' has earned money through fornication, and then repented of it. I n this case her money becomes legitimate and -pure. both for hersel-f and for alii Muslims." (Fatawa Hafiz Abdullah Sahiib GazipCtrl, 23 RabT' ul Akh,ir 1329. quoted in Oata'ul WaHn) 18) The speaker quotes this mas'alah:

I ulu1iq Aill 'e RadlUi
Ih

_

4B

full incident is as follows. Malfz raziyallayu anhu 11'1' d to join in 'Isha salat behind the Messenger of I\II~h saflallahu alalhl wa satlarn, and then go to his f wn quarter and lead the 'Isha salat there. He use_d 10 read very longi rak'ats. When complaints about this were made in the court of the Messenger satlallahu 'ihi wa sallam. he said to him

I"

~

;.,J ....;s-

~

~1 l.olJ ~

"lit an imam who is musetir (on journey) does not make qasr, but performs the whole sa/at, then the sa/at of Muqtadfs who are muqim (IIJIO,t on journey) is not valid, because for the last two rek'ets the safilt of the imam was nafal." Up to this point what he wntes is correct. Howev,er the reasoning on which he claims thiis is based ~ "the strong cannot be based on the weak", seems to be something he has made up for himself. He has not quoted any boolk of HanafT Fiqhas a reference. Even if he did quote some reference, it woulld not make any difference, because, as Shah Waliyullah has stated. Hanan Fiqh is not founded on academic proofs of the kind quoted in Hidayah and so on. In actual fact the basis the reason for the mutaqadts salat ln the above instance being invalid is that the salat of a person performing his taraz salat is not valid behind an ilm,am who is makinq natal satat, This i;s established from precisely the hadtth that the speaker quotes. However, he has also quoted part of this

"You should either make your me, or, if you make it with your people, then shorten your rak'ats." Il~fi'z Ibn TaymTyah, who the speaker has celled the "lrnarn of the Ahl e HadTth", writes that this hadith pl"QV 9S that it is not valid for a person to make his farz alat behind an imam who is making naft,
l

salat with
~

ioJl L.o~,

ol..:Al..>1 ~I

i\N ~

lSI <uI,.,js-

J0.4.v ~

"because it (the hadlth) shows that: if he (Ma'az raziyallu anhu) made his s.alat behind him (the Messenger of Allalh aallallahu alaihi wa sallarn), then he would not be able to act as imam." (See Sharnl v. 1 p. 407) So it established from this that a person performlnq farz salat cannot follow an imam who is making nafl. fhen, in the previous rnas'alah, for a rnusafir the last two rak'ats are nafl, and for the person followinq him they are f'arz. Therefore, in the light of this hadlt~ of M8I.'az, the salat of the muqtadf (the person followmg) will not be valid. In quoting this hadith the speaker has not quoted it in full, and then then also made some additions to it. He

hadith.

www.peo I
Tahqiql Ahl e Hadith 49 then presents it, saying that the HanaH scholars, contrary to this nadith, have derived their ruling from a principle of their own making. 111 point of fact, the situation is exactly the' opposite. In precisely the way that the accepted imam of the Ahl e Hadith has expl'ained, the Hanafi scholars have based their ruling on this very hadith. In quoting this hadith, tile speaker has said that Ma'az raziyallahu anhu "used to make his farz 'Isha with the Messenger of Allah sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallarn." The word farz he has himself added. Hafidh ilbn Taymiyah has explained at thts point, wlS" ~ . ..u\ wI "Know that the satat that he was making with the Messenger of Allah satlallahu alaihi wa sallam was
J~
.;tl~ ~I

h
T~,bq~q AM e Hadith 50 11) The third example the speaker plves is this: "A person reads his fajr salat so late that after the first rak'at the SUI1 rises, and he then reads the second rak'at. His salat becomes invalid."(p. 22) This mas'alah iis also in itself correct. However, the reasoning he gives is wrong. The Hanafi jurists hav.9 most certainly not arrived at this verdict on the basis of a principle that "the deficient cannot be..added to the complete." They have said that somethm_glwhose comptetlon is obligatory cannot be fullfilled by something that is deficient. Furthermore, this, point, as Shah Waiiyullla,h has made clear., is simply inteillectualisatioll. U is not the actual basis of the rnasatah. On the contrary, this rnasalah is aliso based
on a hadith.

,}iJ,~

r:' ~

r-W

nafl"

Imam Qutrubl', whom the speaker also counts as being of the "Ah! ul Hadith," has also said the same thing. (see Sharnl v.1 p. 407) (A person can join a Jamat and pray with the niyah of nafl, either after he has already made his faraz, or before making his faraz elsewhere. The latter is what Harat Maerz raztyaltahu anhu was in fact doing. The M6'ssenger of Allith told him to either make his f'arz with him i.e. not act as imam in his local masjid, or, if he did act as imam, to shorten his rak'ats, In short, in accordance with his own priciple of referring directly to hadith, the speaker quoted this hadtth, but at the same time completely rnisunderstood its meaning.)

From the hadith that the speaker has quoted it would appear that salat performed like this at the time of the rising of the sun is still valiid. However there are a Ilargenumber of 'Other hadltn in whi:ch making the salat at the time of sunrise has been prohlblted.Now only two alternatives remain - either to give priority to the first nadlth 01" to give priority to the others. So, imam Shafi'I, on the basis of his own understanding! and ijtihad, has gilven priority to the Hr~t. Ima~ .A?U Hanttah. on the basis of his understandlnq and (Jtlhad, has gliven priority to the second. He has therefore concurded that salat madie in this way is not valid. Anyway, both lmam Shafi'i and Imam Abu Haifah have based their decisions only on hadtth. For further detail see Sharh Ma 'Emf ul Athar v.1, p.232-234).

www.peopl
!ahqhl 7 Aid e -Hadidl S:1 "No lima' OtherThan

h
52 his reference to Usul ud Din_

the I.jma"of the Sahilbah"

After the subject of Qiyas, what the speaker has said

about ljma' is as follows:
"Essentially the ijrne' that is authoritative is the ijma'

As far as this reference is concerned, the earlier dlscussion of these passages will have made it quite clear that they in no way support his interpretation. Then come the passages referring to lrnarn Sh,afi'i and Imam Ahmad. On this point a question ariaas. If
both thes,elmams were Ahl ul Hadith, then the people who follow their madhab and accept their mednheb are also Ahl ul HadTth. In this case why does the speaker exclude them from the Ahl ul Hadtth ? Furthermore, iftheir madhhab is already Ahl ul Hadlth, then what need is there to ,establish another mecintieb': Establishing a meontteb distinct from the rnadhhab of these two personages can only mean one of two things. Either they were not Ahl ul Had1th, or

of the senebet: kirem." (p.2.4) Readers should note this point. What he has said is that the ijm,al of the tab/'Tn, the tebe' tabi'inl or other mvjtahidln has no authority. Only the ijma' of the sebetxet: kirem is authoritative. In short, he does not
accept any

ijma'

other than that of the

seneber:

7

An Answe'lr to Objections

Finalily it has occurred to the speaker that the passages which he has quoted to eetablish the existence' of "Ahl ul Hadlth," for the most part refer to com pue rs of hadlth. To strengthen his own interpretation of the term, he makes the following
statement "I'n the same way, in the passaqes in the text of UsOI ud

€ilse the modnhab

of the speaker is not Ahl ul Hadtth.

After this he quotes a passage from Qszl Ayyaz. However, rather tha n strength en in 9 h is case it damages, iit He states that what Imam Ahmad has said referring to the firqah najiyah means that the

Din, and those referring to .Imam Shafi'land Imam Ahmad, the term 'rnadhhab of the Ahl ul HadTth' is clearly used." What: he means to say is that the term Ahl ul HadTth
does not only mean a complier of Hadlth, but also refers to a. madhhab called Ahl til, Hadith. So clearly he does not deny that the term Ahl ul Hadith is used to. refer to those who compile hactth. What then remains is tine question of whether there was any rnadhhab called Ahl ull HadTth, and then the validity of

firqah na)1yah' is the ahl us sunnah wet jama'ah ~ that is to say, by the phrase "ahl ul hadtth't ImamAhrnad means the a.hl us sunneh wel jsme'ett. Therefore what the speaker represents on p.7&8 - that the passages. he quotes here refer specificallytc what he regards, as the "Ahl ul Hadlth" - is simply not correct. They refer to the whole ahl us sunnah weljeme'en.
Someone may object that after the phrase "the ahl us sunnah wal jarna'ah", Qazi Ayyaz has written

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadlth

www.peo I
JA,I~..i..A

h
Tahqiq Ahl
e.

J "and those follow the way of the aht ul hadfth". Now the answer to this lis that if the word "and" here is to be re~dl as 'att mugha'ir 'elet mug.h§'ar, (i.e. joining two thinqs that are different to each other) then the speaker should announce publicly that the eht ul .h8~i,th and those who follow them are not part of the eb! us sunn~h wel jeme'en. However" if he is not willing to make this announcement, then he will have to accsp,t that h~re the "and" is 'att tetstri, (l.e. addinq more mf_?rmatlon about the previous thing) and that the ma'tufand the rna 'tut tletb! (the thing that is added and the thing to which it is. added) both refer to the same group of people. and that is the group of the ahl us sunnah wa 'Ijama 'en. After this he says that "Hafiz Nawwawi Shafii' ...... in his Sharh Muslim ln sev~ral' places refers to five different rnedhhab s, saying that 'in our Shafi;! madhhab this is like this' 'in the MalikI' madhhab like this', 'in the Hanafi madhhab like this', 'in the Hanbali madhhab like this,' and then separately states the madhhab of the Ahl ul Had1th. _ see v.1, p73, and v..2 p.32.'" Then, right next to what he has saiid here, he says: "Those people wh.o practice qira'at behind the imam and rete' yadain before ru.kO' have always been c.a.lled ebt ut hadfth." (p.24,25) It is clear that Imam Shafi'i and his followers, and (in

~..wl

~:r

53

Hadith

54

the opinion of those who refer to themselves Ahl e Hadlth"), Imam Ahmad and his followers, alii practiced IOn qire'e! knette! imam and rete' yedein 'inde! ruk'a. Therefore they were all Ahl ul Hadlth .. Ali Sa,h;,b Mi'awi's booklet AI QawJu Muhallan bi KuJJi Zein and Mawl;an.aAbd ur Rahman Mubarakpuri's booklet Tehotc; ul Ka/am part1] The speaker then needs toexplain why it ts that Haflidh INawwawi has spoken of "the ahl ul hadtth" as something distinct from both of them. Indeed in the pages of Sharah Muslim referred to above Hafidh Nlawwawi has himself referred to the "ahl ul hadtth" as distinct from Imam Ahmad, Imam Shafi'1, Imam Thawri, and Imam Malik ..From this it is clear that these personages were not ahl ul had1th. lit therefore follows inescapably that when the speaker refers to them on p.6 and 7 as being ahl ul hadith, he is mistaken.
1

[lSee Molwi Muhammad

7

An Answer Confirmation

to Objections of .objections.

turns

into

a

If the speaker thinqs carefully he will see that instead of answering objections. he has in fact confirmed them because firstly, he cannot deny that the' term Ahl ul Hadith is used to refer to those who. transmit Hadlth. secondly, in quoting the passage from Qadi Ayyaz he

Tahqiq Ahl e Hadith

www.peopl
55

T1thqi.q Abl e Hadith

has established that the term Ahl ul Hadtth is also used in the sense of Ahl us Sunnah wa~ .Jarna'ah. thirdly, havingl said that "the term eh! ut heotth has always been used to refer to all those who practice on qire'et khetts! imem and tete' yetiein 'indaJ ruk'o", he has established, at the very least, that every Shafi'! can be called an} ut neattn. Therefore, to establish the existence of what he calls the Allilu[ Hadtth, he still has to produce vahd evidence to show that in each of the passag.es he has quoted, the term ahl ul hadlth does not have one, of these til ree mea n ings. 7 Who is Meant By !lAhl e Ha"dwth"?

__ 56, used in these three senses. This we have estabUshe,d above, Indeed it ts also established from the sp~aker,s own explanations, Thus his efforts to establish his point have, so far produced no result It still remains for him to produce from the mutaqaddimfn (the scholars of,th,e any passage in which an 'ammf ghaJf unqualified person who does not follow referred to as aM ul tieditn. JJ,J-" J the books of early ~erlod) muq~OJ~ . (a.n any Imam) IS

he

>

~")L.J~) =1}--.dIJ

~

WI ~

J

,..iI J...d IJ ~;AS:.I!

r 1" \J.Jo J

~J.lI.~y-,JI~~I'J~J~T)~·:H~1

Basically these days the term Ahl ul Hadtth is used to refer to those people who, in spite of simply being ordinary individuals (i.e. do not have the qualifications to be a mujtahid), do not accept the need to follow

.And that concludes what we had to say,~nd all praise is for Allah, lord of All the Worlds, and his mercy and peace remain always 011 His M,essel1ger; the Truste'~I' the Teller of Truth. and on his Hous,ehold and his Comp,anilons, and his followers until the Day of Reckoning.
j

one of the Imams. 'Wha.t:Maulana Hablb ur Rahman is saying is that this use of the term is entirely novel,
and that such Ahl ul Hadith very recent times. The persons have never existed until

( Original book~,etwritten Ohi'l Hijjah 1362 A.H, - Dec 1943 G.C.)

of earlier times whom that the speaker

has presented as being Ahl ul Hadith were either ahl ut had1th in the sense of tra nsmiUinghadilth or specialislnq in the study and teaching of hadlth, or 8M vi heottt: in the sense of foil_owing the Shafi'T or lMaliki macihhab.cr eh! ul hedtth in the sense of being ahl us sunneh wetjeme'en. The term ahil ul hadlth is

Tabqiq

Ahl e Hadith

www.peop e
57 58

Appendix Summary of a lecture given by Muhammad Abd us Shukur
UI'"

MauHln.a

The day before Maulana Habib

Rahman's

talk, Mauldna
2)

at the same time very illuminating. What h~ said was afterwards misrepresented by his opponents, so M. Habib '~Ir.Rahman iLldu~eda brief s?mmary of what he actually said as a conclusion to the written text of his own talk.
j)

Muhammad Abd US Shukur had given a talk on the same issue. Because of his ill-health this tal] was very short, but

importance of the Salat. even though the purpose of the gathering was to answer the objections raised by ghair muqallidin agui nst Line leading scholars of th Hanafi School. Unfortunate! ,as [he organisers of this Hauafl Conference had not given him any information about them. he did not know what these objections w reo Indeed, he had 110t recei ved even the text of the: Khutbah Sadarat of th hl e Hadith Conference. Therefore he was not ill a position to give any kind of detailed talk all that subject.

The .~peaker started by quoting Qur 'fln:

this ayat of the Holy {~}

ijS' JillylJ

a.... ~1

,J~t!I,~

J~" ~,~

,~~ "J.!.Jj"

In this ayaL the Iistener can hear for himself how well and how fittingly the merits of the sahabah kiram, and particularly of the muhajirtn have been described. In particular he shed light on a rather fine paint: Why is it that the merits and the achievements of the sahabah, and particularly of the muhajlrin and ansar have been spoken of with such attention that, from Iocklng at the pages of the Holy Quran it almost seems as if one major objective of the revelation of the Ho ly Qur'an was to establish 111 the hearts of muslirns a firmly grounded conviction of the saintliness purity, and elevated standing of the muhajirin and ansar? He then explained this point so well ill the Iight of several ayat of the H ely Que'an, that people's hearts spontaneously began to exclaim

j~~14,-,,_1,)~I~\",,~JJJ~41JFlj

those who, if.\Ve esta~lish their position and order what 'is good,
and prohibit will establish what is wrong"

in the land,

the Salat, and give tile Zakat,

{~ .r.-' ~
Jillilhi darrakum
lila

j ~J~

_.i,}

and AIh\h Almighty knows the outcome of all affairs,

.. AIJah is the one who enabled YQU to do this, and he is the one who win reward you for it.' After that, the way in which he explained the benefits and the importance of the Salat was again an unexpected delight for all muslims. and the
his Explaining the {Gdlla! (merits) of the muhdjirin

'alalhi ajrakum.

or alternatively the outcome of all affairs rests with A Ilah ..
2) After reciting this ay.at he said that the subjecrof

talk would be the status

of the Sahabah

Tah qiq Ahll c Hadith

www. eo I
59

hem
Tahqiq AlII e Ha.dith
60

rh/H"cinIl1l6hi alwhirn from this ayaH, he said that had 'Amen (slIllessness) 110t been a exclusive characterisric of nahU1.ITI'U/ (propllethood), then this Uy3t would certainlv hav pro"'i;ied g_o.d grounds for asserting tbat the IN.IIh6jiri;1' were nta sum (sinless) - especially with regard to those who su~c:~ded to [he·.otJice of khik7filt. during the time of thar klllhr/af. Alter this. byway of confirmation, he read a few pas_sages nhe peerles ~book of Shah \VallyuJlah Inuh.addilh J?ehlawi, "Izdlat III Khqfa ". among them. being the followil1g passage: Ba or nu.dh1.Jm "'aqcfml"t, alfi, H~a amant 1-IIQnahaw " linus/ k~h har ch,:h az };1l~makkin;n dar ayyam-i-lamkln-e-iyshtin «uyn abl1lab tfh.allll"shawad hamah mu tadd bihi khwdhad MId shar 'an. in the meaning of "aqtinul, c1tu, Wlf amarii H'{{ na~a1l"" is (hat, during the period of their tamkin, whatever acuon the mUJ11akkinJn wil! do that come under these headings, will all be dependable in terms of shari 'ah, Included As well as this. he read out the passage in which Shaikh WaHyull§]1 muhaddtth Dehlawi describes the {taft/at of the /11.1(h4/ir t~al is b~ing defined by this Qurani« ayot about the muhaprm as being "the shade of 'ismat.." (i.e. the shade of the ismat of the Messenger sallalUihll alaHli wa sallarn rather than ismat itself) ,

thine "NOS a bid'ah and was undesirable. then it is not possible that Umar radtyaltutn, 'anhu. who. in the time of his tamkin. was the b stof this cr -iamd 'ah of muhajirin. should not stop this undesirable practice. and instead. let it continue. _hen, in the course of this .. he spoke of taqlid as being a sunnah mutawtitirah, pointing out its immens ben~fits. and shed some light on the damage that comes from abandoning 'a'lifd He also said that nearly twenty years previously, in Darbha~lgah, he ~ave a tal}< ~n this same ayat,

and in the course of It, the tOPIC of tarawih also carne up although here. from beginning to end, the actual talk was in reply to the ra-w4fltl(rcrw6jiameans Sill ah). However,

some ghair muqallidin were present at the talk. They then attri buted some completely false' and unfounded statements to me, which they printed in the ahl e hadith nev spapers and I had to answer in "an Najm ". It is quite possible that on this occasion also they 'will resort to the same kind of misrepresentation.

0.'.

What he said about tarawih was in itself a magnificent lecture. That the twenty rak 'ats of tarawth was sunnah,
and that the people who say that twenty rak 'ass is a bid'ah do not actually understand what is sW7.I1'ah, was all m~de clear as daylight. In reference to this, he also gave a quotation from "Minhdj us Sunnah' by Shaykh ul islam Allamah ibn Tayrniyyah, where he sets out accurately resear-ched answers to the objection of the leading Imarn by the Shl ah Shaikh I -I-y that tardwih. is a bid'ah and that 'Umar radiyalldhu 'anhu was the originator of this bid'ah, That is a summary of Maul ana's talk Thr-oughout the wh?le talk not a sinzle harsh word was used, There was nothing

2)

I.u ~he conl1~ct~onith. of this he referr~d to the twenty ~ rak ats_oft~awlh'l!e ~wd that the clear logical consequence of abandomng taqlld lEi tbat those who do so will have to d~ny the fad~lat of the muhqjirfn which is established from this quranic .81yat. TIle ghair muqallidin say that the twenty rak.'61 of 'a_ra'wfh is a bid'ah (inno ation), even though dunng the time of the khilq{at of'Umar rac1ialltihu 'anhu the .twenty rak'ats of larliH'ih was organised au a regular basis, and this was d.one was by his order, or at the very least, ~o~k place with, his full knowledge. The ghair muqallidin a1$0 accept that he knowing about it. So, if this

particular characteristic ofboth his speaking and his Wl:Jltmg is something that is acknov ledged today all over India,

that' any pers~!) could take as grounds f~r comp]~·int. ~r~ns

www. eo I
THE LEGAL STAT'US OF FOLLOWING A MADHAB

nnah. om

By: Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani Pakistan Translated by: Mohammad Amin Kholwadia
Edite,d by: Muhammad Dhakir Shaikh

ZAM Z'A,M PUBLISHERS
2, Shah Zeb Centre, Near Muqadas Masjid, Urdu Bazar, Karachi. Pakistan, Post Code; 74200 Phone (021) 7760374, TellFax: (021)0 7725673, Email ;zam.zam@sat.net.pk

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful