A voice for the Ahlul Hadith of IndoPak

The Importance of understanding the Terminologies of Imams of Jarah and Ta’deel January 9, 2008

Filed under: Hadith Sciences — jawziya @ 6:46 am
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Importance of understanding the Terminologies of Imams of Jarah and Ta’deel

It is extremely important to know what a muhaddith imam of jarah and ta’deel means by different terminologies, especially when the same terminology is used by other imams to mean differently. We will try to give examples:

1. Imam Abu Haatim Al-Raazi saying هو علي يدي عدل (Huwa ‘Ala Yadai ‘Adal)

    This has been erroneously understood by some, including Ibn Hajr and Al-‘Ainee Al-Hanafi’s teacher Al-Iraaqi, to mean that these are words of ta’deel(commendation) by Imam Abu Haatim. However, these are words used by Imam Abu Hatim to mean the narrator is weak. Infact Ibn Hajar himself said:
    و ظن بعضهم انها من الفاظ التوثيق و لم يصب
    “Some people think that these are words for commendation, but that is not correct” (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb p 142 v 9)

    قوله علي يدي عدل معناه قرب من الهلاك
    i.e. “these words mean that the narrator is on the verge of destruction” (ibid p 144 v 9)

    Perhaps this was due to presence of the word عدل ‘adl, which is synonymous with thiqa (trustworthy). But Ibn Hajr’s student Al-Shakhawi explains:
    “our sheikh ibn hajr said: Imam Al-Iraqi took them as words for commendation (ta’deel), which is is incorrect, as these are words of disparage (jarah) in the termnology of Abu Hatim. Actually, the King of تبع Tubba’, had a soldier called ‘Adl. Whenever the king wanted someone killed, he would hand him over to ‘Adl and he would execute the damned person. And hence it became a proverb for anyone of whom hope was lost to say “هو علي يدي عدل he is at the hands of ‘Adl” to mean he is gone.” (Fath Al-Mugheeth v1 pp377-8)
    Infact even if we look closely to what Abu Hatim himself says, it can be seen that it only means jarah (disparage):
    ضعيف الحديث ليس بقوي هو علي يدي عدل
    “Weak in Hadith, not strong, he is at the hands of ‘Adl” (Al-Jarah Wa Al-Ta’deel by his son Ibn Abi Haitm v3 p 103)

    (See Sharh Alfaadh Al-Tajreeh Al-Naadirah Aw Qaleelah Al-Isti’maal by Dr Sa’di Al-Hashimi v1 p37-43)

    2. Al-Haithami saying رجاله رجال الصحيح (the narrators of this chain are
    the narrators of Al-Saheeh [Al-Bukhari])and رجاله كلهم موثوقون (all
    the narrators of this chain have been commended ).

    It is taken by some contemporaries to mean that the narration itself has been authenticated by Al-Haithami rahimahullah. But this is incorrect. Infact Imam Al-Zaila’ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah said:
    لا يلزم من كون الراوي محتجا به في الصحيح انه اذا وجد في اي حديث كان ذالك الحديث علي شرطه
    “If a narrator has been used by (Imam Al-Bukhari) in Al-Sahih, it does not mean that if that narrator is found in any other (outside the Sahihs of Imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim) hadith, that that hadith itself becomes authentic fulfilling the strict conditions of Shahi Al-Bukhari” (Nasb Al-Raiyah v1 p 342)
    The same has been said by ibn hajr in Al-Nukat and Ibn Abdil Hadi in Al-Saarim Al-Manki p 256,259. [Of course, the narrator maybe thiqa but there maybe gaps in the chain i.e. narraotrs not having met each other. In another case the narrator may be thiqa but mudallis and hence may narrate with clarity in Al-Saheeh but without it elsewhere. Or he maybe thiqa but oppose others even more thiqa or those who are greater in number than himself etc.–Abu Maryam]

    [Adapted for Shaikh IrshadulHaq Al-Atharee’s ‘Maulana Sarfaraz Safdar Apni Tasaneef Kai Ainay Main (Urdu)’ p 35-44, Idarah Al-‘Uloom Al-Athariyyah, Faisalabad, Pakistan]

    3. Difference between Salih صالح and Salih Al-Hadith صالح الحديث

    For example Imam Abu Hatim Al-Razi said about Ja’far bin Maimoon that he is Salih (good and pious). However some contemporaries took it to mean that Imam Abu Hatim is crediting his hadith, which is incorrect. Imam Ibn Hajr said:

    وقول الخليلي : إنه شيخ صالح أراد به في دينه لا في حديثه لأن من عادتهم إذا أرادوا وصف الراوي بالصلاحية في الحديث قيدوا ذلك ، فقالوا : صالح الحديث . فإذا أطلقوا الصلاح ، فإنما يريدون به في الديانة . والله أعلم .

    “Khalili’s saying that he is a good sheikh (شيخ صالح) is intended to mean he is Saalih (good) in his religion and peity, not in his narration of reports. Because the muhadditheen’s (traditionalists) practice is that when they wanted to describe a narrator with respect to his goodness in (narrating the) hadith, they would be more specific and say: Saalih Al-Hadith (good in hadith). But when they would not be specific and speak about goodness in general terms, they would only intend his goodness n piety and religion” (Al Nukat ‘ala muqaddimah ibn salah v 2 p 280)

    [Adapted from Tanqih Al-Kalam fi Ta’yeed Taudheeh Al-Kalam [fi Wujoob Fatihah Khalf Al-Imam] (Urdu) p 179-180 by Sheikh IrshadulHaq Al-Atharee]

    4. The difference between حديث صحيح (‘Authentic hadith’) and صحيح الاسناد (‘authentic chain’)

    There is a difference as most later writers on the science of hadith terminology pointed out in their works. And the example in part (2) of Al-Haithami is a particular point in case. Ibn Qayyim, the famed student of Ibn Taymiyyah (another great scholar of hadith in later times) said in his book Al-Sawaiq Al-Mursalah 2/395 [publisher Maktabah Al-Riyadh]:

    أنَّ أهل العلم بالحديث لم يزالوا يقولون: صح عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- وذلك جزم منهم بأنه قاله ولم يكن مرادهم ما قاله بعض المتأخرين إنَّ المراد صحة السند لا صحة المتن ، بل هذا مراد من زعم أنَّ أحاديث رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- لا تفيد العلم، وإنما كان مرادهم صحة الإضافة إليه وأنه قاله، كما يجزمون بقولهم قال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وأمر ونهى وفعل رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وحيث كان يقع لهم الوهم في ذلك يقولون يذكر عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- ويروى عنه ونحو ذلك، ومن له خبرة بالحديث يفرق بين قول أحدهم ” هذا حديث صحيح” وبين قولهم “هذا إسناد صحيح”، فالأول جزم بصحة نسبته إلى رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- والثاني شهادة بصحة سنده وقد يكون فيه علة أو شذوذ فيكون سنده صحيحا في نفسه

    “The scholars of the science of hadith have always said ‘It has been authentically reported from the Propher sallallaho’alaihiwasallam’ (Sahha ‘Anhu); and this is doubtless affirmation from them that the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam said that, contrary to what some latecomers thought that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text. Instead such a saying [that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text] can only come from one who claims that the ahadith of Rasool ‘alaihisalam donot result in [the listener having attained] knowledge [but just unsure thoughts that these may have been his words]. Instead they (the scholars of hadith) say ‘It has been authentically reported from him’ to mean that the saying is his, sallallaho’alaihiwasallam and that he said that. And this why they insist that ‘He said’, or ‘He ordered’ or He forbade’ or ‘He did’ etc. But, when they have uncertainity that the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam said that, they would just say [using passive instead of active voice] ‘It is reported from him or he is reported to have said’ etc.
    Whoever has experience in this science, then he differentiates between حديث صحيح (‘Authentic hadith’) and صحيح الاسناد (‘authentic chain’). The first is a doubtless affirmation to the authenticity of these words having been said by the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam and the second is only an affirmation that the chain itself is correct and authentic, while it is possible that the text may have defects like oddness (shuzooz: i.e. trustworthy narrators reporting differently from those who are even more trustworthy or against what is narrated by those who are greater in number than him and are as trustworthy as himself) or other defects [‘illah: for example the memory of the trustworthy narrator became weak later and it is not possible to say whether he heard the hadith and narrated after or before memory loss etc.: Abu Maryam]”

    Hence a chain maybe correct, but still if it has some defect or a muhaddith is unsure of its authenticity, he would only affirms its chain, which does not necessitate authentication of the hadith itself.

    [adapted from: Mauqif Abil Hasan min Akhbaar Al-Ahaad by Sh Rabi bin Hadi Al-Madkhali]

    This shows that the student must pay close attention to what a Muhaddith is saying and be well versed in the usage of terminology before arriving at a conclusion. Similarly ليس بشيء by ibn Ma’een, منكر الحديث by Ahmed, etc have different meanings than when the same are used by others.

    5) Difference between Ghareeb غريب when used by Al-Zaila’ee and others:

    Hafidh Al-Zaila’ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah, the student of ‘Ala Al-Din Ibn Al-Turkamani did the famous search (Takhrij) for the sources of narraions found in the Hanafi fiqh handbook ‘Al-Hidaya’. Imam Ibn Hajar summarize his famous ‘Al-Diraya fi takhrij ahadith al-hidaya’ from Al-Zaila’ee’s book called ‘Nasb Al-Raya’. However, Al-Zaila’ee has a special usage for the term Ghareeb:

    قال الشيخ الألباني في الضعيفة (2/44) عن حديث (من صلى خلف عالم تقي فكأنما صلى خلف نبي):
    ((لا أصل له، وقد أشار لذلك الحافظ الزيلعي بقوله في نصب الراية (2/26): (غريب)
    وهذه عادته في الأحاديث التي تقع في (الهداية) ولا أصل لها،فيما كان من هذا النوع: (غريب).
    فاحفظ هذا فإنه اصطلاح خاص به))
    Shaikh Albani rahimahullah said in Al-Da’eefah:
    Whenever Al-Zaila’ee finds a narration in Al-Hidaya which has no basis (fabricated), then he says ‘Ghareeb’, which is a terminology used by him exclusively.
    (Al-Da’eefah v 2 p 44)
    It is well known that ghareeb when used by other scholars is applied to mean the fard (singular) type of ahad reports, i.e. only a single reporter in the chain of narration with none of his contemporaries sharing that narration from a common teacher. This is what Al-Tirmidhi means when he says:
    غريب لا نعرفه الا من هذا الوجه
    ‘Ghareeb, we do not know except by this route.’ This agrees with the standard dfinition of ghareeb.PS: A fard hadith may still be authentic. Tawatur and ahad are innovated definitions, in the context they are used today and have nothing to do with authenticity of a narration.

    Refuting NHM Keller on Madhabism—updated January 8, 2008

    Filed under: Responses to the Heretics — jawziya @ 8:45 am
    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Keller wites:

    The word madhhab…refers to a mujtahid’s choice in regard to a number of interpretive possibilities in deriving the rule of Allah from the primary texts of the Qur’an and hadith on a particular question.
    We reply:

    First of all, we will start our reply by quoting a saying most people don’t know:

    Muaaz bin Jabal raziallahu anhu is reported to have said :

    “Even if an Aalim is on the right path, don’t do his taqleed”

    امّا العالم ان اهتدى فلا تقلّدوه دينكم

    Jami’ bayanul ilm vol2,pp 111 and Imam DaraQutni said it is Sahih. Abdullah b. Mas’ood  radhiAllah ‘anhu also explicitly stopped from taqleed, as narrated in a sahih narration by baihaqi in al sunan al kubra vol2 , page10. Another narration from him was narrated by Tibrani in his ” Al Kabeer ” and its narrators are the narrators of Al-Sahih, according to Al-Haithami in Majma’ Zawaid, page 180, vol 1. Here also he stops every body from taqleed. Let me assure you there is no single explicit saying of any sahabi which praises “taqlid”. Taqlid means blidly following a scholar without knowing what his verdict is based upon from the sources of Quraan and Sunnah. Asking a random scholar for a verdict and following him in that if he assures that his verdict is based upon the Quraan and Hadith, or if he mentions his evidences is not part of Taqleed.

    The correct methodology in following the mazahib is to follow the evidence, not the particular Imam in everything he said. Of course people vary in their ability to do so, but following the evidence is the original principle and no one is burdended more than his capacity. As Ibn Taymiyyah said “Taqleed is haraam like meat of a dead animal. It only becomes halaal in case of necessity” (Sharah Nazm Al-Waraqaat by Al-‘Uthaymeen). That was my argument that making it obligatory on the layman in all circumstances is wrong. Whenever a layman is able to see the evidence it is obligatory for him to follow it. When he is not able to, he can follow the most pious scholar he can get (which is ijtihaad from him), and follow his knowledge based opinion, which is not taqleed at all if that scholar mentions his evidence (Sharah Nazm Al-Waraqaat by Al-‘Uthaymeen).

    Secondly, the madhab is based not only on the “primary texts of the Qur’an and hadith”, but also on the “qiyaas” (anology, apparent or otherwise, between two cases). This is generally used when the particular cholar was unable to find direct evidence from Quraan and Sunnah and used an analogy which may and may not be correct. For example one madhab says that the buyer or the seller don’t have to leave the place where the agreed on the sale to confirm the deal (as was the practice of Sahabah, see Tirmizi). They base it on the qiyaas, that physical separation is not possible always, for example if they were in a boat. Hence they leave the correct evidence, when it is possible to follow it in favor of a remote possibility.

    We give another example. The Hanafis, for example when doing Sujdah as-sahv say salam on the right side only and then repeat sujood and tashahhud and say salaam on both sides.And there is no evidence for first saying salaam only on the right side and then on both sides.


    In a larger sense, a madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, such as Abu Hanifa , Malik, Shafi’i , or Ahmad –together with many first-rank scholars that came after each of these in their respective schools, who checked their evidences and refined and upgraded their work.
    We reply:

    It is well known that scholars who were students of these imams rejected many of their views because they found many hadiths which their teacher did not find. e.g.

    1. Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad (students of Imam Abu Hanifa ) opposed their own teacher in at least a third of his opinions (A’laam Al-Muwaqqa’in)
    2. Similar is the opposition of Imam Muzani to Imam Sahfie .

    If this is indeed a refinement of the works of the Imams, what stops us from opposing the Imams and following the evidence? Now compare this to the following excerpt from taqreer Al-Tirimzi by Shaiekh Mahmudul hasan deobandi. He did a long commentary all the way from ppp 48 to 49 on a single hadeth of sunan tirimzi. Imam Abu Haneefah and Imam Shafei disagreed about the issue of khyar ul mujlis based on this issue. After listing the evidences of the two sides he says:

    “So the conclusion is that that the issue of khayar is from important issues and the majority opposed Abu Hanifa on this issue and many new and old scholars wrote treatises to reject his mazhab in this issue and Maulana Shah Wali ullah Dahlavi qudsirrahu preferred Sahfei’s mazhab in his ‘rasaail’ due to the evidences from Quraan and Sunnah and likewise our sheikh mudda zillahu (mahmoodul hasan deobandi) said that haq and insaaf (truth and justice) is that preference should be given to Shafei in this issue, and we are muqallids the taqleed of our Imam Abu Hanifa rahimahullah is wajib (mandatory) on us, and Allah knows best .”

    (Taqreer e Tirimzi by sheikh mahmoodul hasan, pp 49, pub. Maktaba rahmania, Lahore .)

    Did he not read: “It is not fit for a believer, man or woman, when Allaah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. Whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain manner.”
    Al-Ahzaab 33:36.

    NHM writes:

    The mujtahid Imams were thus explainers, who operationalized the Qur’an and sunna …

    We respond:

    This is blasphemy! Quran and Sunnah was operational a century before the first of these 4 honorable Imams started seeking knowledge ( Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 80H and he did not start seeking knowledge before he was in his twenties). Allah says: “This Day have I perfected your Religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as your Religion.” Sooratul-Maa’idah 5:3

    Keller writes:
    …. so Muslims are of two types, those who can do this by themselves, and they are the mujtahid Imams; and those who must do so by means of another, that is, by following a mujtahid Imam, in accordance with Allah’s word in Surat al-Nahl,

    ” Ask those who recall, if you know not ” (Qur’an 16:43)

    We respond:

    On page 74, volume 2 of A’laam ul Moq’ieen , Imam Ibn Qayyim says:

    CHAPTER: The Munaazara (discussion) that took place between the Muqallid and the person with proofs from Quraan and Sunnah (Sahib ul Hujjah):

    The Muqallid said “we the nation of Muqallids is acting upon the Ayah “Ask the Ahl ul Dhikr if you know not!” (Nahl 43). Thus Allah has commanded those who have mo knowledge to ask those who are more knowledgeable than him, and this is the shar’i proof that we have for our saying (taqleed).

    Then on page 89 of the same volume the Sahib ul Hujjah replies;

    The 34th evidence is that what you have mentioned is itself an evidence and proof against you, because Allah has commanded to ask the Ahl-ul-Dhikr and Dhikr is only Quraan and Hadith, which is what Allah ordered the women of His Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam to remember with his saying: “And remember (wadhkurna : i.e. do dhikr), that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allâh and AlHikmah (i.e Sunnah) (Al-Ahzab 33:34)”. So this is the Dhikr that Allah has asked us to follow and ordered the one who does not have knowledge to ask its ( i.e. Dhikr’s) people (Ahl). And this is the wajib which is compulsory upon all men to ask the Ulema about the Dhikr that he revealed to His Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam so that they inform him of the Dhikr, and when they inform him of it he does not do any effort to disobey it.

    And this was the condition of the Imams among the Ulema, they did not have any particularly appointed Imam which they followed in all that he said. And Abdullah bin Abbas radhiallahuanhu used to ask the Sahaba about what he sallallahualaihiwasallam said or did or his ways, he did not ask them about anything else (Ibn abbas radhiallahuanhu was young at the time of the Prophet’s sallallahualaihiwasallam death, hence our sheikh Moulana Muhammad Saleem said that he himself narrated very few hadiths himself and the rest he narrates from other sahabah radhiallahuanhum.) And likewise the Sahabah used to ask the Mothers of the believers, especially Aisha radhiallahuanha about his sallallahualaihiwasallam actions in his house, and likewise the tabi’een used to ask the Sahaba radhiallahuanhum about their Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam only (faqat). And likewise the Imams of Fiqh, like Shafei said to Ahmed (rahimahumullah) “O Abu Abdullah! You are more knowledgeable of the Hadith than me. So when a hadith becomes Sahih (in your opinion) then inform me, so that I make it my mazhab, whether the narrators are of Syria or Kufa or Basra “. And there is none of the Ulema who used to ask only about the opinion (rai) of a man as it is or his mazhab and stuck to that and for his/its (depending upon how u look at the pronoun) sake left all that is against it.”

    Keller writes:

    While the call for a return to the Qur’an and sunna is an attractive slogan, in reality it is a great leap backward, a call to abandon centuries of detailed, case-by-case Islamic scholarship…
    We reply:
    This is blasphemous again. Al-Kamaal ibn Al-Hummaam was one of the foremost Hanafee scholars. He was author of various large works of Hanafee Fiqh mentions in at-Tahreer, a book about the basics of the fiqh of the Hanafees that, “Sticking to a particular madhhab is not obligatory in the correct view, since it has not been imposed as a duty, as nothing is obligatory except that which Allaah and His Messenger have obligated; neither Allaah nor His Messenger have made it obligatory for anyone to follow the madhhab of any man of the scholars, so that he follows him in his Deen in everything and leaves what comes from other than him. The best generations passed by without saying that it is binding to follow a
    particular madhhab, whereas most of the blind-followers say, ‘I am a Hanafee’, ‘I am a Shaafi’ee’, whereas he knows nothing about the way of his Imaam, he does not become his follower just by saying that, in the same way as if he said, ‘I am a scholar ‘ or ‘I am a writer’, he does not become that just by saying it, while he is far away from the way of his Imaam. So how is it correct for him to claim allegiance (to a madhhab) due only to his abstract claims and meaningless saying?!”

    Keller concludes:

    The rhetoric of following the shari’a without following a particular madhhab is like a person going down to a car dealer to buy a car, but insisting it not be any known make–neither a Volkswagen nor Rolls-Royce nor Chevrolet–but rather “a car, pure and simple”.
    We reply:

    NHM ends his article by mentioning a sick example of comparing go-cart and Mercedes to “pure and simple” Quraan and Sunnah and Madhabs. We ask him, does Islam come in these brands, then why did the Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam not tell us about them. The Mother of the Believers, ‘Aaishah – radiallaahu ‘anhaa – said : “Whoever says to you that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) kept secret anything sent down to him, has lied.” Reported by al-Bukhaaree, Muslim, al-Tirmizi and others.


    Refuting the Polytheistic belief of omnipresence of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihiwasallam January 7, 2008

    Filed under: Creed of Ahlul Hadith,Responses to the Heretics — jawziya @ 11:52 am

    By Abu Alqamah

    1) Taken and adapted from Silsilah Da’eefah vol 2 p 404, n 975 of Shaykh Albanee.

    Hafiz Abu Bakr Al Bazzar narrated in his Musnad from Yussuf ibn Mussa, from Abdel Majeed ibn Abdil Azeez ibn Abi Ruwad from Sufyan from Abdallah ibn Saib from Zathan from Abdullah and he is Ibn Mas’ood from Prophet saw :

    “ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah”, and the Prophet saw said : “ My life is good for you, you narrate me and I narrate to you, and my death is good for you, your actions will be presented to me, what I will see from good deeds I will praise Allah, what I will see from bad deeds, I will ask forgiveness to Allah for you”

    And Al Bazzarr said : “ We do not know anyone who narrated the last part from Abdallah ( ibn Mas’ood) except from this way ( this sanad)”

    The first part : “ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah” has been transmitted by Nassai ( 1/189) from many asaneed from Sufyan Thawree from Abdallah ibn Saib, and from Al A’mash in Mu’jam Kabeer of Tabaranee ( 3/81/2) , Akhbar Asbahan of Abu Nu’aym ( 2/205) and Ibn Asakir ( 9/189/2)

    Shaykh Albanee said : “ The agreement of a Jama’at of thiqah on this narration from Sufyan without mention of end of hadeeth “ My life…”, and A’mash following him in that shows for me the Shuzooz of this addition ( meaning the addition is shaadh), because Abdel Majeed ibn Abdel Azeez is alone in reporting it, and how not when he his mutakalam fihi ( talked about) because of his memory, despite his being from narrators of Muslim, a Jama’at has declared him thiqqah, and other have declared him weak, and some mention reason ( of weakening).

    Khalili said : “ He is Thiqqah, but he makes mistakes in Ahadeeth”

    Nassai said : “ He is not Qawee, his hadeeth are written”

    Ibn Abdil Barr said : “He narrated from Malik Ahadeeth in which he made mistakes”

    Ibn Hibban said in “ Al Majroohin” ( 2/152) : “ Munkarul Hadeeth Jidan, he mixes akhbar, he narrates manakeer from famous ( people), and he deserves to be abandoned”

    I say : this is why Hafiz said in Taqreeb : “ Sadooq he makes mistakes”

    So when you know this, then the saying of Hafiz Haythamee in Majma’ ( 6/24) : “ Narrated by Bazzar and men are men of Saheeh”, then it gives mistake that nobody has been criticized among them.

    Maybe Suyutee has been misled by this when he said : “ Its Sanad is Saheeh”

    And this is why, I say, that Hafiz al ‘Iraqee, shaykh of Haythamee, was more precise in telling the reality of this isnad in his Takhreej Al Ihya ( 4/128) where he said : “ Men are men of Saheeh, except that Abdel Majeed ibn Abi Ruwad although Muslim narrated from him, and Ibn ma’een and Nassai declared him thiqqah, other declared him weak”

    As for his saying or from his son in “ Tarh At Tathreeb fi Sharh Taqreeb” ( 3/297) “ Its isnad is Jayd”, then it is not Jayd for me, and he was saying this if there was no opposition of Abdel Majeed to Thiqah ( jama’ah) as it has preceded. So this is a defect in the hadeeth…

    Yes, the isnad has been declared saheeh in mursal way from Bakr ibn Abdullah Al Muzanee, and it has three ways

    First from Ghalib Al Qattan from him ( Muzanee), it has been quoted by Ismail Al Qadhee in “ Fadl Salah Ala Nabi” p 25 with my tahqeeq, and ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/2/2), and all his men are thiqah, men of two saheeh.

    Second from Katheer ibn Fadl from him ( Muzanee), also quoted by Ismail p 26, and men are men of Muslim except Katheer, and the name of his father is Yasar, and he is known as Hafiz has shown in Lisan in refutation of the saying of Ibn Al Qattan that his condition is not known.

    Third : from Jisr ibn Farqad from him, it has been quoted by Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad ( 230 in Bughyatul Bahith in Zawaid Musnad Al Harith) and Jisr is weak.”

    As for the hadeeth of Anas, it has two ways :

    From Abi Said Al Hassan ibn Ali ibn Zakaryah ibn Salih Al ‘Adawee Al Basree, from Kharash from Anas marfu’an and in mukhtasar way similar to this and in it there is :

    “ Your actions will be presented to me in night of Monday and Thursday”

    It has been quoted by Ibn ‘Adi ( 2/124) and Abu Mansoor Al Jarbazqanee in “ Thanee min Uroos Al Ajzai” ( 2/139) and Abdel Qadir ibn Muhammad Al Qurshee al Hanafee in “ Juzz lahu” ( 2/2) and Hafiz Al Iraqee (4/128) attributed it to Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad with a weak isnad, and this is this isnad, and shown by Manawee in Fayd Al Qadeer, after mentioning its weakness

    “ Because there is in it Kharash ibn Abdallah Saqitun ‘Admun, and he does not come except with Abi Sa’id Al ‘Adawee Al Kazab ( liar), and ibn Hibban said it is not permissible to write his ahadeeth except to know him…”

    I say : the isnad is fabricated, so there is no need to be happy from it.

    Second from Yahya ibn Khidam from Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree from Malik ibn Deenar from Anas similar to this and there is in it :

    “ Your actions will be presented to me every Thursday”

    This has been quoted by Abu Tahir Al Mukhlis in “ Thanee minal ‘Aashir min hadithihi” ( 2/212) from Yahya ( ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id) from Yahya ibn Khidam.

    I say : It is also fabricated because of this Al Ansaree (Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree)

    ‘Uqaylee said : Munakrul hadeeth.

    Ibn Hibban said : Munkarul Hadeeth Jiddan, he reports from thiqqah what is not from
    their hadeeth, Ihitijaj is not permissible with him”

    Ibn Tahir said : Liar…

    Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdillah said : “ He narrates fabricated ahadeeth”

    In conclusion, this hadeeth is weak from all its ways, the best among them being from hadeeth Bakr ibn Abdillah Al Muzanee and it is mursal, which is from weak types for muhadith, then hadeeth of ibn Mas’ood, and it is a mistake, and the worst is hadeeth from Anas with both ways”

    end of shaykh Albani’s words

    So one can see that this hadeeth is never to the standards of Bukharee and Muslim, and Muslim brought some criticised men but only in mutab’iat not for Ihtijaj.

    And the narration of Al Hawd that is from Bukharee and Muslim, which denies Prophet saw knoledge of whatr some people did after him is a nass Qat’i, as theses ahadeeth are accpeted by the Ummah.

    And the hadeeth ever thursday oppose bralwi creed, and even actions of Ummah as bralwi say even actions of kufar, animals, Prophet saw is hadhir and nadhir.

    So their making taweel of agreed upon hadeeth of Hawd with mockery, and taking these criticised ahadeeth, then it shows the febility of bralwi invented creed

    May Allah protect us from shirk


    Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted the explanations of scholars about Prophet saw calling people his companions to the Hawd, and then angels informing him that they turned on their heels and changed and invented new matters.

    Ibn Hajar said in fathul Bari kitab Riqaq bab Kayfa Al Hashr:

    “ Firabri said that it is mentioned from Abi Abdillah Al Bukhari from Qabeesah that these ( people) are those who became apostate at time of Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr fought them, meaning until they were killed and died on kufr. Ismaili brought full isnad of that trough another way from Qabeesah. Khattabee said that none of the Sahabah did became apostate, only some hard Bedouins bringing no help to religion did became apostate, and this does not bring any blame on famous Sahabah, and the name “ ushayhabi” in reduced form ( tasgheer) shows that they were few.

    And others said : the kufr is on its apparent meaning, and the meaning of “ my Ummah” is ummah of da’wah ( meaning all mankind including kafir) and not Ummatul Ijabah ( answering Ummah who believed in the Prophet saw), and this is justified by his saying in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah : Then I would say to them go away and Suhqan” and this is also strengthened by the fact that their situation remained hidden for him, and if they were from Ummah of Ijabah, then he would know their situation as their actions are presented to him, and this is rejected in the hadith of Anas : “ until I recognized them ( ‘araftuhum) and the same in hadith of Abu Hurayrah.

    ( So Prophet saw did recognize them, and he did not know what they did after him, and the hadith actions being presented is weak as preceded in previous post)

    And Ibn Teen said that it is possible that they were hypocrites or doers of kabair ( big sins). And it has been said that they are people from hard Bedouins who entered Islam out of fear.

    Dawoodi said : there is nothing preventing people of kabair and innovations to be from these people.

    And Nawawi said : “ And it is said they are hypocrites and apostate, and it is possible that they are also resurrected with light because of there being from Ummah generally, and he saw will call them because of their signs on them ( of light) and it will be said : they changed after you, meaning they did not die on the apparent on which you left them. ‘Iyad and others said : and after this, their signs will disappear and their light will end.

    And it has been said that there is no necessity for them to have signs, rather he saw will call them from what he knew from them from Islam.

    And it has been said that they are people of kabair and innovations who died on Islam, so we cannot be certain of their entry into fire, as it is permissible that they are first prevented from hawd as a punishment for them, then they are being forgiven, and there is nothing preventing them to have signs of light, so he recognized them with their signs whether they were from his time of after him.

    And ‘Iyad, Baji and others gave preference to the saying of Qabeesah, the narrator of the khabar, that they became apostate after him, and the fact he recognized them does not necessitate them having signs, because it is a favor that shows the actions of a muslim, and the apostate, his actions are cancelled, so he recognized them individually and not their characteristics, ( he recognized them) on what they were before their apostasy,

    And it is not far that hypocrites from his time might enter these people, and it will come in the hadith of Shafa’ah that this Ummah will remain with hypocrites inside it, and this shows that they will be gathered with believers and their individuals will be recognized, although they will not have these signs, and the one that is recognized will be called according to the situation he was left in the Duniya.

    As for the entering of people of innovations in that, then it is far because he called them : “ My companions” and people of innovations innovated after him. And it has been answered by taking the meaning of companion to general meaning, and this is also far because we do not say “ Suhqan” to a muslim although he is an innovator. This has been answered that it is not forbidden to say that to someone he knew that he will be judged with punishment for his sins, then saved with Shafa’ah, then his saying “Suhqan” is acknowledging the decision of Allah with remain of hope, and the same way for people of kabair.

    Baydhawi said that his saying “ murtadeen” ( apostate) is not a prove for their being apostate from Islam, but it is only possible, and it is also possible that that he meant they were sinners from believers turning away from istiqamah and they changed good actions by bad. End of his words.

    Abu Ya’la narrated with a Hassan isnad from Abu Said : I heard the Prophet saw mentioning a hadith and he said : “ O people, I will be waiting you on Hawd, when you will come, a man will say : O Prophet of Allah, I am fulan ibn fulan” and another will say : “ I am fulan son of fulan” and I will say : as for the nasab I knew it ( by Wahi or knowing them in his lifetime), but maybe you changed after me and became apostate”

    And Ahmad and Bazzar narrated a similar version from the hadith of Jabir…” end of Ibn Hajar’s words

    So we see Ibn Hajar clearly saying that hypocrites might not be recognized and be from these people, and Nawawi mentioned from Iyad and others that they might have signs by which the Prophet saw will recognize them, then these signs will vanish. And all other explanations, are all clear that prophet saw did not know what they did after him.

    Whether they are apostate, sinners of innovators, no scholars said that Prophet saw knew them, as he was hadhir nadhir and knowing all things to happen, they all agreed that Prophet saw did not what they did after him.

    While bralwi do reject all scholar’s explanation and explain these ahadith in such matters that Prophet saw knew they were apostate, but he called them companions on purpose, hoping Allah will forgive them, total nonsense, because he would not say “ Suhqan” if he had pity of them, and Prophet saw was forbidden to ask for mercy for kafir…

    Also Barelwi’s saying that Prophet saw knew what they did, but he was not concentrated, that is why he did not recognize them properly is another rubbish, said by no scholars before them.

    So Barelwi had to reject all these scholars’ saying and reading these clear hadith against their meaning, justifying their fabricated religion.


    n Umdatul Qari, al Ayni, imam of Ahnaf of his time, quoting same scholars, ibn Teen, Dawoodi, Nawawi, Iyad and others, clearly quoting that Prophet saw will recognise them with their signs, and then their signs will disapear, also other saying that Prophet saw recognised them on what he left them

    So Ayni also quoted these sayings all saying wether they were apostate or sinners, then Prophet saw was not aware of what they did after him.

    Imam Qurtubi says in his “Tazkirah fi Ahwalil Mowta wal Akhirah” after quoting ahadith of Hawd and people being pushed away from it, and Prophet (saw) would first say theur are my Companions, and then Angels will inform him that he does not know what innovations they did after him and turned on their heels…

    Chapter : Our scholar, may Allah’s mercy be on them all, have stated : whoever apostasies from the religion of Allah or innovates in it what displeases Allah and what Allah did not legislate, they will be pushed away and distanced from it, and the most pushed away are those who oppose the Jama’ah of Muslims and separate from their way, as the Khawarij with their difference in sects, the Rawafid with their difference in misguidance, and the Mu’tazilah with their categories of passion, all of them are people who have changed.

    And this is also the case for the darkness of people involved in tyranny and oppression and discredit of the truth and killing those who support the truth and their humiliation.

    The same for those who do Kabair openly and exceed the bounds in sins and the Jama’at of people of deviation and desire and innovation.

    Then the distance can be in a state then they can get approach it after forgiveness if it is change in actions and it was not in beliefs.

    And on this supposition, they will be recognized (by the Prophet) with the light of their Wudhu, and then they will be said : May you perish.

    And if they are among hypocrites that were present at time of Prophet (saw) and they were showing faith and hiding Kufr, then he will consider them on Zahir (evident actions) and then their covers (real states) will be uncovered (to him) and he will say to them : May you perish.END OF QURTUBI’s WORDS

    So Imam Qurtubi gave two interprations from scholars :

    1) These people are innovators or Tyrants or severe sinners, and these people will be recognised by the Prophet (saw) because of the lighteness of their Wudhu and he will call them companions because of that, and then will be informed of their innovations

    2) These people are hypocrites and Prophet (saw) will recognise them because of their apparent actions as they were hiding their Kufr, then their hidden Kufe will be told to him.

    And there is no saying similar to Bralwiyah’s fallacy and distortion of truth that Prophet (saw) knew their states but lacked of concentration or that he said that hoping for their mercy and knowing who they were…

    The truth is so clear but for people who prefer darkness over faith and Tawheed, only Allah can guide them


    As for Hafiz ibnul Qayim’s words, then they do not mean the Prophet (saw) or relatives see all of our actions as they happen, but they are presented like the Salah and Salam of the Muslims. And the mubah actions are not comcerned, so the Prophet (saw) do not see our actions, only those good and bad are presented, according to these sayings of ibn Ul Qayim.

    Yet the Prophet (saw0 knowing the actions in detail od each individuals of his Ummah, this opposes the Mutawatir narrations of Hawd, so this concept is batil…

    And no scholar is free from mistakes, but Ahlus Sunnah take from shar’i daleel not from any scholar despite his high rank.

    As for the book Ar-Rooh, Shaykh Albani put some doubts on it in his introduction of “Ayatul Bayinat” and said that might be before his meeting with Ibn Taymiyah.

    And Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd refuted this as quoted in “Kutub Lazi hazzara minha Al Ulema” of Mashhoor Aal-Salman, and said that ibnul Qayim quotes in it words of ibn Taymiyah and also from his other works.

    Allah knows best.


    Refutation of GF Haddad’s accusation against Shaikh Ehsan Elahi Zaheer

    Filed under: Creed of Ahlul Hadith,In Defense of Ahlul Hadith — jawziya @ 11:19 am

    By Abu Alqamah

    GF Haddad tried to answer to the book “Al-Bralwiya” of Allamah Ihsan Ilahi Zahir.

    Let’s have a glimpse at the case of GF Haddad and his false accusations.

    Shaykh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir wrote :

    Shaykh Hasan ibn Mansoor al-Ma`roof Biqaadeekhaan (d.592H) writes, “A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.” [Fatawaa Qaadee Khaan (p. 883)]

    GF Hadd tried to answer : Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Fatawa Qadi Khan, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [1:305-306]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa.

    Note the following:

    (1) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief” but rather restricts the opinion of takfir to “some of them”;

    (2) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death”! This is the soul of the tampering of the truth by non-Muslims. { Some of those who are Jews change words from their context} (4:46).

    Answer to the false accusations of GF Haddad and his treacheries

    I checked Fatawa Alamgiriah with in notes Qadhee Khan published by Darul ma’rifah Beyroot

    And I discovered that Qadhee Khan speaks about taking Allah and His Prophets as witness in two separates places of his Fatawa, once in chapter of Nikah and witnesses where he quotes what GF Haddad translated as

    A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa

    See the picture

    And Qadhee Khan also speaks about that in chapter what makes a Muslim Kafir, which is in third vol, so at the end of the book.
    And here Qadhee khan said

    A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” They (The fuqahaa) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.”

    See the scann

    So Allamah Ihsan is not a follower of jews but GF Haddad is, as he lies and distorts.

    And it was clear that what Allamah Ihsan quoted was totally different from what Haddad had as there where other words that Haddad had : “ this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah” and shaykh Ihsan did not quote them.

    So one could see that there were three different sentences, so they were not same quotes, but instead GF Haddad tried to hide this fact and put blame on Ahle Hadeeth.

    Also what Qadhee Khan quoted in two separate places is both against GF Haddad’s creed, and called GF Haddad’s creed as kufr.

    In the first extract, there are words : “whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah”, so Qadhee Khan said this is invalid as every Nikah is with Witness of Allah, and he did not say every Nikah is with witness of Prophet saw.

    While GF Haddad and bralwi say Prophet saw is given power to be Hadhir Nadhir, and he sees all actions of creations as they happen, actions of hearts of all Humans, animals, and trees…

    So if the Prophet saw was given these powers, why would Qadhee Khan deny Prophet saw being witness, did he not know Prophet saw was given this power of being witness to all nikah ?

    And Qadhee Khan gave in both fatwa reason of takfeer, and it is because the man doing this believes Prophet saw knows ghayb, and Prophet saw was not knowing ghaybh while he was alive, so how after his death ?

    GF Haddad then tries more deception

    He said :

    Imam al-Haskafi in al-Durr al-Mukhtar [3:27] only said: “It is impermissible to take Allah and His Prophet as one’s witnesses to nikah, and *it was said* that this constitutes kufr.”

    Note that the passive phrase denotes the weak or secondary rank of the fatwa. This should immediately ring the bell of every student of fiqh that the position in question is a weak one and not relied upon in the madhhab. end of GF Haddad’s words

    Answer to GF Haddad : The passive rank does not always mean weak opinion. Yet it can mean when a scholar first mentions an opinion in affirmative form then others in passive. But here there is only one opinion, so this is the Rajih for Al-Haskafi, else he would mention another one.

    So the bell of GF Haddad is fulled with shirk, so it is difficult to ring.

    Al-Haskafi only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, and GF Haddad said this only one opinion is the weak and rejected.

    GF Haddad Al Quburi went on his fallacies saying :

    The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:

    “The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’

    I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”

    Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.

    This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence.

    end of Gf Haddad’s words

    irst GF Haddad’s saying :

    The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:

    Then this shows that Qadi Khan, fatawa Bazzaziyah, ‘Ayni, Mulla Ali Qari and others all said words opposing the Bralwi creed.

    This is why GF Haddad tried to say that these opinions are seconderay and the true Hanafi Madhab is Durul Mukhtar anbd Rad Al-Muhtar.

    So he admitted that many Ahnaf say Bralwi creed is Kufr.

    Secondly, The author of Dur Al-Mukhtar only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, so it shows for him there is no other. Else he would say this opinion is weak and another is the right one.

    Gf Haddad said :

    “The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’

    Answer : The Prophet (saw) knowing part of the Ghayb is not the Bralwi creed, the bralwi creed is the Prophet (saw) is given All ghayb, knowledge of everything that was (ma Kana) and of everything that is to happen (Ma Yakunu).

    And Salafi Ahlul Hadith Ahlus Sunnah also say that if Allah informs the Prophet (saw) of a particular event or makes him see some hidden matters happening faraway, then this belief is not kufr, as it is a miracle, which is the action of Allah.

    But this is not the general rule, and the Prophet (saw) is not aware of the actions of his Ummah as the Ahadith of Hawd show.

    So these words from Al-Multaqat oppose the Bralwi creed.

    Secondly, things being shown to the Prophet (saw) is not also the bralwi creed, as for them the Prophet (saw) sees them as they happen, knew them before.

    Gf Haddad said

    I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”

    Answer : being aware of some matters, as a miracle or a Karamat is not the Bralwi creed.


    So this saying of ibn Abidin opposes the Bralwi creed. It is about knowing some matters as a miracle.

    So for ibn Abidin this saying of the man is not Kufr, because it does not necessarly mean the Prophet (saw) knows the Ghayb, but it implies the Prophet (saw) as a miracle can know some matters of ghayb.

    And the difference is clear.

    Ibn Abidin did not reject the saying of Ahnaf that saying the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb is kufr, he only objected that this man’s saying does not imply this belief, rather as a miracle the Prophet (saw) can know some matters of Ghayb.

    So ibn Abidin does not differ on knowing all Ghayb. He only differs saying this saying only apllies the man belives the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb as a miracle, and this belief is not Kufr.

    Ibn Abidin did not say the Bralwi creed that the Prophet (saw) knows all Ghayb, everything is not Kufr.

    But GF Haddad like bralwis like to confuse people.

    They present scholars’ saying the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb, and this is true in the meaning of knowing informations of ghayb by Wahee.

    Gf Haddad then goes on :

    Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.

    In TatarKhaniyah, his author does not say that the first fatwa is not valid. Rather it seems to be his own opinion.

    He only mentions another saying from Al-Multaqat, without saying the saying of Al-Multaqat is right and the first not valid.

    But GF Haddad is used to deception and lies

    Gf Haddad finishes :

    This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence

    Answer : Ibn Abidin never said that those who hold to the Fatwa in Qadhi Khan and other are not on the Hanafi Madhab, rather this is the saying of the majority of Hanafi books.

    And there is no mention of knowing Ghayb indenpendantly or not.

    Ibn Abidin did not say Kufr is only to say the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb independantly, and the Prophet knows all ghayb from Allah directly from Allah is OK.

    Ibn Abidin talked about knowing some ghayb and miracles.

    So GF Haddad lies on ibn Abidin.

    Gf Haddad said before quoting from ibn Abidin :

    Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Bazzaziyya, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [4:135]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah Most High – Mighty and Exalted – and His Messenger : It [nikah] is invalid, and kufr is feared for the man because he is suggesting that he knows the unseen (ghayb): { And with Him are the keys of the invisible. None but He knoweth them} (6:59).

    As for what Allah Most High teaches to the elite of His servants through revelation or true inspiration, after this takes place then it no longer called ghayb, so it is not part of the [verse’s] two exclusive statements, namely, the affirmation in first place and then the exclusive clause { none but} .”

    This shows that, according to the Bazzaziyya, only the man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in the sense that he possesses the keys of the invisible or that he shares their knowledge with Allah, commits kufr. Meaning, a man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in a dependent, inexclusive sense does not commit kufr. end of GF Haddad’s lies

    What a lie !!!

    Where did Al Bazazi said this ?

    Compare the saying in Al Bazaziyah and the understanding of GF Haddad, there are totally different.

    Al-Bazazi says that what Allah reveals to the Prophet (saw) by inspiration is no more Ghayb, meaning the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.

    And everybody agrees the Prophet (saw) knows hidden matters Allah reveals him.

    But Al-Bazazi restricted this to Wahee for the Prophet (saw)

    So it is the same as ibn Abidin, in Bazaziyah it is about some part of ghayb that are revealed by Wahee.

    It is not about knowing all Ghayb.

    Al-Bazazi did not say that The Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb is only kufr when someone believes it is independantly from Allah,

    Nor did he say the Prophet (saw0 knows everything and knows the Ghayb.

    He only said that the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.

    So GF Haddad does not acknoledge that all these scholars agreed that the Prophet (saw) was not given knowledge of everything, and this is the knowledge of ghayb.

    So this is the bralwi strategy, when scholar deny ghayb for the Prophet, say to the people that it means Ghayb known independantly.

    Which Muslin will believe that anything that happens in the creations happens indepandantly from Allah ?

    So scholar deny the Prophet (saw) knwiung Ghayb, and they say the Prophetr (saw) knew some parts by Wahee…

    lso one of the saying of Qadhi Khan, that some scholars sais this is Kufr, then it does not mean Ahnaf differ on knowing Ghayb, some scholars said it is Kufr to believe Prophet (saw) knows ghayb and others said no.

    The difference is that some say this saying is not kufr, because the Prophet (saw) knows parts of the ghayb, by Wahee.

    And the man who says this saying does not necesseraly belive the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb.

    So the ikhtilaf is about the saying of this man, whether it constitutes kufr or not, not about the Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb.

    And they explained what GF Haddad missed to explain :


    and he tries to render it as independantly Ghayb, which no one believes

    May Allah protect us from shirk


    Fabricated Hadith: He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life

    Filed under: Creed of Ahlul Hadith — jawziya @ 11:10 am
    بسم الله الحمن الحيم

    By Abu Alqamah 
    Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi said in “Sarim Al-Munki fi Radd ‘ala Subki” about the Hadith collected by Ad-Daraqutni and quoted by Subki in his “Shifa As-Siqam”: Abu Rabi’ Az-Zahrani from Hafs ibn Abi Dawud from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet (saw): “He who performs Hajj and visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”:

    “Know that it is a Hadith on which it is not permissible to base, nor is it suitable to rely on it, because it is a Munkar Hadith, with a dropped Isnad, and none of the Hufaz authenticated it and none of the Imams based themselves on it, rather they weakened it and criticised it and some of them mentioned it among fabricated Ahadith and reports that are lies.”

    And Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi mentioned that its narrator Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he is Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Asadi Al-Kufi Al-Bazar Al-Qari Al-Ghadiri though he was an Imam in Qira’ah, but in the field of Hadith he has been weakened by the Ahlul Hadith and some of them accused him of lying.

    Here are some quotes from Ibn Abdil Hadi from Imams of Jarh and Ta’deel on Hafs, p 63 and after of the edition published by “Muasasah Ar-Rayan” with the footnotes of ‘Aqil ibn Muhammad Al-Muqtari, student of Shaykh Muqbil:

    Abu ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id Ad-Darimi and others said from Yahya ibn Ma’in: “He is not trustworthy (thiqah)”

    Al-‘Uqayli mentioned from Yahya (ibn Ma’in) that he was asked about him and he said: “He is nothing” (Laysa bi Shayin)

    And Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmad said: I heard my father saying: Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith).

    And Al-Bukhari said: “They left him”

    Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: ‘They have left him from a long time.”

    Muslim ibn Hajjaj said: “Matruk”

    ‘Ali ibn Madini said: “Weak in Hadith and I have left in purposely”

    An-Nassa’i said: “he is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written” and he said once: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith)”

    Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi said: “His Ahadith are not written and all of his Ahadith are Manakir” (A Munkar Hadith is that of a weak narrator and it also opposes an authentic Hadith)

    Zakariya As-Saji said: “He narrates from Samak, ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad, Qays ibn Muslim and ‘Asim some Bawatil (false Ahadith).”

    Abu Zur’ah said: “Weak in Hadith”

    Ibn Abi Hatim said: “I asked my father about him and he said: His hadith is not written and he is weak in Hadith, he is not trusted and is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith)”

    AburRahman ibn Yusuf Kharash said: “He is a liar, abandoned (Matruk), he used to fabricate Hadith.”

    Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: “Zahib Al-Hadith” (He forgets Hadith).

    Ad-Daraqutni said: “Weak”

    Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said: “He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some mursal reports, and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them).”

    Ibn ‘Adi said: “As-Saji informed me that Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi informed me, he said: “I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying: “Hafs ibn Sulayman and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayash where the most knowledgeable people of the Qira’ah of ‘Asim, and Hafs was better in Qira’ah than Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr was Saduq, and Hafs was a liar”

    And ibn ‘Adi mentioned some of his rejected Hadith and among them this Hadith about the visit of the Prophet’s grave.

    Ibn Abdil Hadi said that Al-Bayhaqi narrates in his Sunnan Kabir and in His Shu’b Al-Iman this narration of Hafs about the visit and he declared him to be weak in both of his works.

    And ibn Abdil Hadi concluded that if this is the status of Hafs for the Imams of Hadith, then how can someone rely on his report, especially when the narrator from him, Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al Hadith (he contradicts in narrating)?

    Then ibn Abdil Hadi mentioned that As-Subki tried to strengthen this Hadith with ignorance and deception, as he refused to admit for sure that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari, and he said that it is possible they are two different narrators. And As-Subki claimed that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his “Kitab Ath-Thiqat”.

    And Ibn Abdil Hadi replied that these words of As-Subki are full of mistake, mixing and deception (Talbis), as the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari et he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud without any doubt, and the one who claims that this Hadith is narrated by two narrators one of them being Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and the other Hafs ibn Sulayman, and one of them is Thiqah (trustworthy) and the other is weak, then he is ignorant mistaken by consensus or an opponent (to the truth) a person of passion following his desire and his aim is to deceive and mix the truth with falsehood : “And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light” (An-Nur 24 : 40)

    Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi further added that he did not find in the nuskhah of the book “Ath-Thiqat” of ibn Hibban that was available for him what As-Subki quoted, that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud was mentioned in it. And ‘Aqil Al-Muqtari also checked a nuskhah of it and did not find these words of Ibn Hibban.

    And what is strange is that Ibn Hibban himself said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud as indicated by ibn Abdil Hadi and Ibn Hibban weakened him in “Kitab Al-Majruhin”: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Qari Abu ‘Umar Al-Bazar, and he is the one called Hafs ibn Abi Dawud… He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some mursal reports, and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them)”

    And ibn Abdil Hadi said that if the quote of As-Subki that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab Thiqat is true, then it will be a clear contradiction of Ibn Hibban. Yet As-Subki took from ibn Hibban what suited him and left his words in “Al-Majruhin” that was against him. Hafiz Ibn Abdil Hadi described the pathetic condition of As-Subki: “It is not a novelty for this person who is an objector to Shaykh Al-Islam and a follower of his desire that he takes the saying of a person (ibn Hibban) in which he erred and none agreed with him in it and he leaves his saying (of Ibn Hibban) that is correct and in which he is followed. And Allah gives Tawfiq.”

    And if ever this quote of As-Subki exists, yet As-Subki took this saying of ibn Hibban and opposed Hufaz like Al-Bukhari, ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, Al-Hakim and others who said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and here are some quotes taken from ibn Abdil Hadi:

    “Al-Bukhari said in his “Kitab Du’afa”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari narrating from ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad and ‘Asim, they left him and he is ibn Abi Dawud Al-Kufi. Then ibn Abi Al-Qadhi said: Sa’id ibn Mansur said to us: Hafs ibn Sulayman said to us from Layth from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar: he said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life” So Al-Bukhari mentioned like this showing some rejected narrations of Hafs.

    And he said in his Kitab At-Tarikh: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari, they abandoned him and he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud.”

    Ibn Abi Hatim said in his book “Jarh wa Ta’dil”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Muqri, and he is Al-Bazzar and he is Ibn Abi Dawud the companion of ‘Asim in Qira’at, I heard my father saying this. And Abu Zur’ah was asked about Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he said: he is hafs ibn Sulayman and he is weak in Hadith. And Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said in his book “Al-Kuna”: Abu ‘Umar Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulyman (his father) is Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulayman has the kuniyah Abu Dawud, he is Zahib Al-Hadith (he forgets hadith)”

    So one can clearly see the sayings of the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and how As-Subki opposed them, making ibn Abdil Hadi saying: “I am surprised to see how this objector (to Ibn Taymiyah) came with this mixing in words and deception in saying…”

    And specially when someone lacks of respects towards Ibn Taymiyah, attacks him violently with lies, and is unjust and oppressor as mentioned by ibn Abdul Hadi, and this man (As-Subki) comes with deception and opposes the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil. Allah ul-Musta’an.

    And what is shocking is that the commander of the believer in Hadith, Imam Al-Bukhari mentioned this Hadith of Hafs to show some of his rejected Hadith, and Ibn ‘Adi also did the same. So earlier Hufaz have clearly weakened this narration, yet As-Subki tried with ignorance or deception to authenticate this Hadith. And if Al-Bukhari and ibn ‘Adi knew some reliable strengthening reports, he would have mentioned them.

    But As-Subki said that this Hadith of Hafs has a following narration that strengthens it, and Ibn Abdil Hadi showed the status of this following narration.

    In the “Mu’jam “of At-Tabarani, he said: Ahmad ibn Rushdin narrated to us, ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn ibn Harun Al-Ansari narrated to us, Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym said: My grant mother ‘Aishah bint Yunus the wive of Al-Layth narrated me from Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar; he said the Messenger of Allah said: “He who visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”:

    Ibn Abdil Hadi said: “This isnad is nothing on which one can rely, and it is not something one can turn to, rather it is an unjust and extremely weak sanad, because it is composed of weak narrators on which it is not permissible to base upon and of unknown narrators whose condition is not known so to accept their information, and ibn Rushdin is the teacher of At-Tabarani and he has been criticised, and ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn Al-Ansari is not someone whose narrations are reliable, and Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym and his grant mother are both unknown (Majhul), their condition is not known to the people of knowledge so to accept their narration, and they do not have any mention in other than this hadith, and Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al Hadith (he contradicts in narrating), this has been said by Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal.

    Abu Mu’mar Al-Qati’i said: Ibn ‘Uyaynah used to weaken Layth ibn Abi Sulaym. And Yahya ibn Al-Ma’in and An-Nassa’i said: weak. As-Sa’di said: His Hadith is weakened. Ibrahim ibn Sa’id Al-Johiri said that Yahya ibn Ma’in narrated to us from Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan that he would not narrate from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym.

    And Ahmad ibn Sulayman Ar-Rahawi said from Muamil ibn Al-Fadl, ‘Issa ibn Yunus narrated to us: don’t you listen (Hadith) from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym. He replied: I have seen him, and he mixes (ikhtalata) (Hadith)…”

    Ibn Abi Hatim said: I heard my father and Abu Zur’ah saying: Layth should not be dealt with, he is Mudhtarib Al-Hadith (contradicts himself)…”

    So Ibn Abdil Hadi pointed that even if the sanad was authentic up to Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, then the narration would be weak, and how can it be authentic when the chain contains darkness over darkness? And how can such a narration of many unknown and mudhtarib and mukhtalit people be a witness to the narration of Hafs?

    Ibn Abdil Hadi said that someone from the later Hufaz reported a narration other than the way of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, he said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn Bukar ibn Karmun narrated us at Intakiyah, Abu ‘Umar and ‘Uthman ibn Abdillah ibn Kharzad Al-Baghdadi narrated to us, that An-Nu’man ibn Ash-Shibl narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl narrated to us from Jabir from Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib that he said: the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life, and he who does not visit my grave has harmed me”:

    Hafiz Ibn Abdil Hadi replied that it is a fabricated hadith and this for four reasons

    First: An-Nu’man ibn Shibl as been accused (of lying) by Musa ibn Harun al-Hamal and Abu Hatim ibn Hibban Al-Busti said: he narrates from trustworthy narrators with some falsehood and from established people with inversed Hadith (Maqlub).

    Secondly: Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl ibn ‘Atiyah is a liar as said by Yahya ibn Ma’in. And Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal said: he is nothing, his Hadith is that of people of lies. Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: he is a liar…Al-Falas said: Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk) a liar. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said: Zahib Al Hadith (forgets Hadith) and his Hadith was abandoned. And Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj, ibn Kharash and An-Nassa’i said: Abandonned in Hadith (Matruk) and An-Nassa’i said in another place: a liar, and ibn ‘Adi said: majority of his Hadith are not followed by trustworthy narrators (Thiqat), and Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Hafiz said: he used to fabricate Hadith, and ibn Hibban said: he was among those who would narrate fabrications from established narrators… And Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah attacked him severly.

    Third reason: Jabir in the chain is Jabir Al-Ju’fi and he was not trustworthy. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said from Ahmad ibn Hambal: Yahya and AbdurRahman left him, and Abu Hanifah said: I did not see someone more liar than Jabir Al-Ju’fi. Yahya ibn Ma’in said: Jabir Al-Ju’fi was a liar, his Hadith is not written without any doubt, he is nothing. As-Sa’di said: he is a liar, I asked Ahmad ibn Hambal and he said: Ibn Mahdi abandoned him…An-Nassa’i said: abandoned in Hadith (Matruk) and he said in another place: he is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written, and Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: Zahib Al-Hadith (He forgets hadith). And ibn Hibban said: he was a Sabai, from the companions of Abdullah ibn Saba, and he used to say that ‘Ali would return in this world, then he narrated from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah that he said: Jabir Al-Ju’fi believes in the return (of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib), Zaidah said: As for Jabir Al-Ju’fi, he was by Allah a liar and a believer in the return (of ‘Ali).

    Fourth reason: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from who Jabir narrates Abu Ja’far Al-Baqir and he did not meet the grant father of his father ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.

    So one can be shocked to see people mentioning such liars to support the narration of Hafs ibn Sulayman that is fabricated. May Allah protect us from the disease of grave worship and innovations on graves.

    As-Subki mentioned another narration of Ad-Daraqutni with close words, but it contains Harun ibn Abi Quz’ah who is unknown and also a narrator is not named in the chain : “a man from Ale Hatib” and this narration is Mudhtarib as some narrators said “a man from Ale ‘Umar” and some said: “a man from Ale Khattab” and the Matn is different for each hadith, this Hadith has so much Idhtirab and two unknown narrators, how on earth can this Hadith be authentic?

    As-Subki came with so many liars and unknown people contradicting each others, and he wants to refute Shaykh Al-Islam with lies and forgeries. What if these unknown narrators are liars like others? May Allah protect us from taking our religion from unknown narrators and liars.

    May Allah protect us from the Quburiyah


    Ahl Al-Hadith and Ahl Al-Rai January 2, 2008

    Filed under: In Defense of Ahlul Hadith — jawziya @ 8:06 am
    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    By: Abu Alqamah

    Some Ghali Muta’asib Ahnaf of Indo-Pak claim that the Ahlul Hadith of their country are a new sect, having no precedent, are created by British, and many other lies.

    Now either these people are extremely ignorant or great liars who want to deceive laymen. The term Ahlul Hadith is not only used for scholars of Hadith and Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and about a school of creed, but also for a group of scholars who had different rules from the Ahlur-Ray Ahnaf on the role of Khabar Ahad compared to the Holy Quran, Qias, and others.

    Now the term Ahlul Hadith has been used many times by Imam Tirmidhi in his Sunnan. It has used a lot about narrators and knowledge of Jarh and Ta’dil. Like on the tenth Hadith, Imam Tirmidhi said: “Ibn La’ihah is weak according to Ahlul Hadith. Yahya ibn Qattan and others weakened him because of his memory.” And this expression is used in great quatity: This narrator is Thiqah for Ahlul Hadith, this one is weak, this Hadith is weak for Ahlul Hadith.

    Secondly, Imam Tirmidhi also used the term “Ahlul Hadith” to show the creed of the Salaf. Imam Tirmidhi narrated in the chapter: “What is narrated about the Khulud (staying forever) of people of Paradise and Hell” a Hadith mentioning the vision of Allah and Allah putting His foot in the hell, and them Imam Tirmidhi wrote: “This Hadith is Hassan Sahih, and it has been reported from the Prophet (saw) a lot of narrations similar to this mentioning the topic of the vision of Allah, that people will see Allah, and the mention of the foot and matters similar, and the Madhab of people of knowledge from Imams like Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Malik ibn Anas, ibn Al-Mubarak, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Waki’ and others is that they mention these matters and they say: “These Ahadith are narrated, and we believe in them and it is not said “How?” and this is what is chosen by Ahlul Hadith, that these matters should be narrated as they came, and there should be believe in them, and there should not be any Tafsir (other than literal meaning) and there should not be cast any doubt, and it should not be asked: “How?”

    So here Ahlul Hadith means the creed of the Salaf. Likewise Imam Sabuni entitled one of his work on creed: “’Aqidatu Salaf wa Ashabil Hadith”

    And Imam Tirmidhi also used the term Ahlul Hadith for a group of people that hve opinions in Fiqh. In the chapter: “What is narrated about Tamattu’”, Imam Tirmidhi writes: “

    وأهل الحديث يختارون التمتع بالعمرة في الحج وهو قول الشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق

    And Ahlul Hadith preferred the Tamatu’ of ‘Umrh in Hajj and this is the saying of Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq.

    And in many chapters, when mentioning the opinions of scholars, Imam Tirmidhi mentioned the term “Our companions” and he also mentioned a group by “Ahlul Kufah”.

    Like the chapter of the person who forgets the prayer. He mentioned the view of Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq that they chose the opinion of ‘Ali that the man forgetting the prayer should pray it whenever he reminds, and Imam Tirmidhi mentioned that the people of Kufah chose the saying of Abu Bakrah that he who slept and woke up at time of ghurub Shams did not pray but after the Ghurub of he sun, then Imam Tirmidh wrote: “As for our companions, they preferred the saying of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib”

    Imam Tirmidhi mentioned the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) that the one who reached one rak’ah of Fajr before Tulu’ of the Sun, then he has caught the Fajr prayer and the one who reached one rak’ah of ‘Asr before Ghurub of the sun has reached the prayer of ‘Asr. He then wrote: “This Hadith is Hassan Sahih, and by this say our companions, and Ash-Shafi’i, and Ahmad and Ishaq”

    About the two Saktah (silences) in the prayer, Imam Tirmidhi wrote: “And this is the saying or more than one person of knowledge, they consider recommended for the Imam to make Saktah after the beginning of the prayer and after finishing the Qira’ah, this is the view of Ahmad, and Ishaq and our companions”

    In the chapter about the man who married ten women then became Muslim, Imam Tirmidhi wrote: “And the action is upon the Hadith of Ghaylan for our companions, among them Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq”

    After mentioning a Hadith about the invocation at the beginning of the prayer, Imam Tirmidhi wrote: “And the action is upon this (hadith) for Ash-Shafi’i and our companions” then Imam Timridhi mentioned a different view of Ahmad.

    So one can clearly see that in these quotes about preferences of Fiqh, Imam Tirmidhi mentions the views of his companions, and Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq are included in his companions, and that people of Kufah are mentioned separately. And in chapter of Tammatu’, At-Tirmidhi clearly mention the preference of Ahlul Hadith as a school of though.

    So it shows the weakness of the claim of people that Ahlul Hadith only refers to Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil and knowledge of Hadith or to a school of creed.

    Rather Ahlul Hadith is a school of Fiqh with had different rules from Ahlur-Ray.

    Then Shah Waliullah mentionned in his book “Insaf fi Bayan Sabab Al-Ikhtilaf” a chapter entitled “The reasons for difference between Ashabul Hadith and Ashabul Ray”

    And there is a similar chapter in his book “Hujjatullah Al-Balighah”

    As for Insaf, it has been translated in english by Taha in London.

    It is written p 77: “The position of the Madhab of (Imam) Ahmad in relation to the madhab of (Imam) Shafi’i is like the madhab of (Imam) Abu Yusuf and (Imam) Muhammad (to the madhab of Abu Hanifa). Despite that his madhab was not recorded with the madhab of Shafi’i during the (time of) recording like the madhab of those two was recorded together with the madhb of Abu Hanifa. ”

    So according to Shah Waliullah the Madhab of Ahmad is close to that of Shafi’i and they could have been recorded together and nowadays there could have been a madhab called Shafi’i including Hambalis. So it shows that the division of Ahlul Hadith between Shafi’i and Hambalis is artificial, and there difference in Usul and Furu are like Abu Yusuf and Muhammad’s differences with Abu Hanifa.

    Then Shah Waliullah says further on the same page: “As for the madhab of Shafi’i, of all madhahib it has had more frequently mujtahid mutlaq and mujtahid fil Madhab. Among all the madhahib it is the most principled, scholastic and abounding in interpretation of the Quran and explanation of Ahadith. It is the most sound in chains of authorities and narration…As for Bukhari, although he was affiliated to Shafi’i and agreed with him in most of (the principles of) fiqh, he disagreed with him in many things. (But) what he did on his own is not considered as part of Shafi’i madhab. As for Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, both of them were mujtahids affiliated to Ahmad (ibn Hambal) and Ishaq, and similarly we think of Ibn Majah and Al-Darimi, and Allah knows best.

    It should also be known to him (the one involved in fiqh) that the subject matter of Shafi’i’s madhab consists of Ahadith and athar (and which) are recorded, well-known and used (as original sources). This kind (of distinction) is not found in any other madhab. Among the constituents of his madhab his Kitab Al-Muwatta (of Imam Malik). Although it was earlier than Shafi’i, he based his madhab on it. (Likewise are) Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and the books of Abu dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, ibn Majah and al-Darimi, then the musnad of Shafi’i, Sunan Nasa’im Sunan Daraqutni, Sunan of Baihaqi and Sharh al-Sunnah of Baghawi.

    As for Muslim and Abul ‘Abbas Al’Asamm (d 246/860Ad) the compiler of musnad al-Shafi’i and (kitab) al-Umm, and those mentionned by us after him, are devoted to the madhab of Shafi’i, and they all adhere to the same principles. And if you take note of what we have mentionned it will become clear to you that whoever opposes the madhab of Shafi’i will be deprived from the office of Al-Ijtihad Al-Mutlaq. (It is also worth noting) that the science of Hadith has declined to benefit the one who does not try to study under Shafi’i and his companions”

    End of Shah Waliyullah’s words

    Here are some comments

    1) Imam Bukhari is not a Shafi’i and As-Subki and others falsely attributed him to Ash-Shafi’i’s madhab, as said by Anwar Shah Kashmiri, and he is a Mujtahid Mutlaq. Zakariyah Kandhalwi in his introduction of Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s sharh of Bukhari also mentionned that Imam Bukhari is a mujtahid mutlaq. People falsely think he is Shafi’i because of agrement in famous opinions for which Imam Bukhari wrote special books like “Juzz Qira’ah Khalf Al-Imam” and “Juzz Raful yadayn”.

    Yet Shah Waliyullah is right that Imam Bukhari and other Muhadith agree with the principles of Fiqh of Imam Shafi’i. They are Muhaqiq scholars and after checking they saw the rules of Imam Ash-Shafi’i as stronger. Just like Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan saw Imam Abu Hanifa’s rules as stronger. So they did not make taqlid of him, but their Usul were similar and they had little difference in Usul of Fiqh, hence little difference in Fiqh.

    And it is not that Muhadith were Muqalid of Ash-Shafi’i and they quoted and authenticated Ahadith with Ta’asub, rather Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi followed Hadith. And At-Tirmidhi mentionned Ash-Shafi’i among his companions as well as Ahmad and Ishaq.

    2) Instead of saying Ash-Shafi’i based his madhab on Malik, Ahmad has little difference with Shafi’i, Muhadith are affiliated to Shafi’i’s madhab and principles of fiqh and affiliated to Ahmad and Ishaq, it is more exact to say that Muhadith adhere to the Madhab of Ahlul Hadith whose Imam are Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq, and there principles of fiqh are that of Ahlul Hadith.

    Witness of Ahnaf’s Kibar that Ahlul Hadith is a school of thought

    Mulla Katib Chalpi quoted in his ‘Kashf Az-Zunun” p 89 (ed Egypt) Imam ‘Ala Ud-Din Hanafi from his book “Mizan Al-Usul”:

    “And the majority of works in the field of Usul Al-Fiqh belong to Ahlul I’tizal (Mutazilah) who oppose us in Usul (creed) and (belong) to the Ahlul Hadith who oppose us in Furu’ (Fiqh), and there is no reliance on their works.”

    So ‘Alaudin Hanafi named a group called Ahlul Hadith opposing Ahnaf in Furu’, meaning in usul Al-Fiqh and Fiqh, and its shows that rules or Ahnaf in Usul Al-Fiqh are different from Ahlul Hadith. And this group is not a new invented one by British, but a well-known group to scholars.

    ‘Allamah Bazdawi Hanafi wrote in his Usul about Khabar Ahad: “Some Ahlul Hadith say that (Khabar Ahad) leads to knowledge of Yaqin (certitude).”

    Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari Hanafi commentator of Usul Al-Bazdawi wrote in his Kashf Al-Asrar: “The majority of Ashabul Hadith opted for the view that the Akhbar that are judged to be authentic by their experts leads to knowledge of Yaqin”

    So it shows that Ahnaf differ with Ahlul Hadith about Khabar Ahad leading to Yaqin.

    Also on Khabar Mursal, Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari criticized Ahlul Hadith for their rejection of Mursal Hadith saying: “They called themselves Ashabul Hadith, attached themselves to the defense of Hadith and action upon it, then they rejected what is from its stronger category (meaning Mursal)”

    Also about the permissibility of Ijtihad for Prophets, it is written in another place in Kashf Al-Asrar: “And this is reported from Abu Yusuf from our companions, and this is the madhab of Malik, Ash-Shafi’i, and the majority of Ahlul Hadith”

    So one can see that in Usul Fiqh there is a school called Ahlul Hadith. What ignorance and lies brought by Ghali Muta’asib Ahnaf that Ahlul Hadith is a new sect invented by British, having no precedent, while Kibar of AHnaf say that Ahul Hadith oppose them in usul Al-Fiqh, on Khabar Ahad, Mursal and other issues.

    Ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqadimmah p 389 ed Egypt: “And Fiqh is divided in two ways: the way of Ahlur-Ray and Qiyas and they are Ahlul ‘Iraq and the way of Ahlul Hadith and they are Ahlul Hijaz, and Hadith was little in Ahlul ‘Iraq as we have explained before, so they performed a lot of Qias and became experts in it, this is why they are called Ahlur-Ray, and the leader of their group upon which and around whose companions a Madhab was built is Abu Hanifah.

    Shahrastani wrote in his “Milal wa Nihal”: “Then the Mujtahid among the Imams of the community are restrained into two categories and there is no third: Ashabul Hadith and Ashabur-Ray. Ashabul Hadith are the people of Hijaz, the companions of Malik ibn Anas, the companions of Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi’i, the companions of Sufyan Ath-Thawri, the companions of Ahmad ibn Hambal, the companions of Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani, and they were only named Ashabul Hadith because of their care to obtain Ahadith and transmit the narrations and build the Ahkam on the clear texts and they do not turn to Qias Al-Jali or Khafi when they find a narration…As for the Ashabur-Ray, they are the people of ‘Iraq, and they are the companions of Abu Hanifah An-Nu’man ibn Thabit and among his companions are Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan, Abu Yussuf Ya’qub ibn Muhammad Al-Qadhi, Zufar ibn Huzayl, Al-Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului, ibn Sama’ah, ‘Afiyah Al-Qadhi, Abu Muti’ Al-Balkhi and Bishr Al-Marisi. And they were only named Ashabur-Ray because of their care to obtain a form of Qias and the meaning extracted from rulings and basing their formulations on them, and sometimes they will favour the Qias Al-Jali over the Ahad narrations”

    Witness of Shafi’i scholars about the existence of Ahlul Hadith school and Madhab.

    All quotes below are from “Tahrik Azadi Fikr” of Isma’il Salafi

    Imam Nawawi wrote in Sharh Sahih Muslim about Tayamum: “The obligatory actions (of Tayamum) are wiping the face and the two hands, and this is the Madhab of ‘Ata, Makhul, Al’Awza’I, Ahmad, Ishaq, ibn Munzir and the majority of Ashabul Hadith”

    Imam Nawawi wrote in the chapter of Musaqat: “And this is the saying of Malik, Ath-Thawri, Al-Layth, Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad and all Fuqahah Al-Muhadithin”

    On Muzara’ah, Imam Nawawi wrote: “And this is the saying of Ibn Abi Laylah, Abu Yussuf, Muhammad and all people of Kufah, and the Fuqahah Al-Muhadithin and Ahmad and ibn Khuzaymah.”

    About Shuf’ah, Nawawi wrote: “Al-Hakam, Ath-Thawri, Abu ‘Ubaydah and a group of Ahlul Hadith said he cannot take it…And the second (opinion) is that it is obligatory and this is the saying of Ahmad, Abu Thawr and Ashabul Hadith”

    Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about wiping face and two hands in Tayamum: “And this is the view of Ahmad, Ishaq, ibn Jarir, ibn Munzir, ibn Khuzaymah and Abu Jahm and others reported it from Malik, and Al-Khatabbi reported it from Ashabul hadith.”

    So One can see that Nawawi and ibn Hajar both attribute a saying in Fiqh to Ahlul Hadith. So this group exists.

    Imam Az-Zahabi wrote in his Tazkiratul Hufaz about Baqi ibn Makhlad: “They opposed Baqi with Ta’asub because of his manifesting the madhab of Ahlul Athar, and the Emir of Andalus Muhammad ibn AbdirRahman Al-Mardani defended him, transferred his books (in another place) and told Baqi to propagate his knowledge.”

    So Hafiz Az-Zahabi talked about a Madhab named as that of Ahlul Athar. What a shame for people calling this madhab a creation of British, what ignorance or Talbis!…This is the state of Muta’asib people! And nowadays Muta’asub Muqalid oppose scholars like Baqi ibn Makhlad. Ta’asub Madhabi, what a filthy disease!

    Hafiz Zahabi wrote about Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr Al-Humaydi: “He was pious, thiqah, Imam in Hadith and its defects, a muhaqiq in knowledge of verification and his Usul were on the madhab of Ashabul Hadith agreeing with the Book and the Sunnah.”

    So for Imam Zahabi, there is a madhab of Ashabul hadith that has Usul Al-Fiqh.

    Hafiz Suyuti quoted in his Sawn Al-Mantiq p 47 from As-Sam’ani (d489H) in his “Al Intisar li Ahlil Hadith”: “Two groups use to criticise Ashabul Hadith: Ahlul Kalam and Ahlur-Ray”

    Ibn Taymiyah and Ibnul Qayim mentioning Ahlul Hadith

    Shaykh Al-Islam writes about Ahlul Hadith in Qawaid An-Nuraniyah: “Ahlul Hadith took about the matter of drinks from the saying of the people of Madinah and all the people of the cities agreeing with the Sunnah Al-Mustafidah from the Prophet (saw) and his companions on the forbiddance.,, And on the topic of foods they took from the saying of people of Kufah because of the authenticity of the Sunnan from the Prophet (saw) about the forbiddance of every wild beats with fangs and every bird with talons and the forbiddance of the flesh of donkeys”

    And likewise in many places of this book, Ibn Taymiyah mentioned the preferences in Fiqh of Ahlul Hadith.

    Ibn Taymiyah writes in Naqd Al-Mantiq” : “The Fuqahah of Hadith are more knowledgeable than other Fuqahah, their Sufiyah are more following the Messenger that Sufiyah of other groups, and their rulers are more knowledgeable about the Prophetic politics (Syasiyah) than rulers of others, and their laymen have more right to allegiance (Wilayah) to the Messenger than others”

    Shaykh Isma’il Salafi quoted in “Hujjiyat Hadith” Hafiz Ibnul Qayim saying in his Sawa’iq Al-Mursalah: “Everybody knows that the Ahlul Hadith are the most truthful of all groups as said by Ibn Al-Mubarak: “I found the religion to the Ahlul Hadith, the Kalam to the Mutazilah, the lies to the Rawafid and the tricks (Hyal) with Ahlur-Ray””

    So Both Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Qayim Al-Jawziyah mentioned the Ahlul Hadith and their qualities.

    Shaykh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyah mentioned in his Risalah “Sihatu Madhab Ahlil Madinah” that he been translated in English under the name: “The Madinan Way” that the school of the people of Madinah is stronger that of the people of Kufah. And he mentioned many examples to show this. But he also puts Imam Shafi’i under the school of Madinah, and tells that Layth ibn Sa’d and Al-Awza’i were close to this school. So it shows that this school is that of Ahlul Hadith.

    He said p 33 of English translation: “Ash-Shafi’i was known for his efforts to follow the Book and the Sunna and his earnest striving to refute those who opposed that. He followed the school of the people of Hijaz…Then Ash-Shafi’i went to Egypt and wrote his new book and in his speech and writing he was ascribed to the school of the people of Madina such as Malik. He used to say: “Some of our companions” meaning the people of Madina or some of the men of knowledge of Malik or Malik himself…Ash-Shafi’i was one of the companions of Malik and he was known as one of his companions. He chose to live in Egypt at that time because they followed the school of the people of Madina and those Egyptians who had a similar position, such as Al-Layth ibn Sa’d and his like. Some of the people of the west followed the school of those men and some of them followed the school of al-Awza’i and the people of Syria. The school of the people of Syria and Egypt are close, but the people of Madina are considered better by all.

    Since Ash-Shafi’i was a man who sought knowledge and saw proofs in sound hadiths and other things, he had to follow them, even if it was in opposition to the position of his Madinan companions. Therefore he undertook what his opinion demanded of him and he composed a dictation on the questions of ibn Al-Qasim and displayed some divergence from Malik in certain things. Ash-Shafi’i was good in what he did and undertook what he had to…Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani were the followers of Abu Hanifa and they were particularly connected to him, as Ash-Shafi’i was particularly connected to Malik, but their disagreement with Abu Hanifa is close to Ash-Shafi’i’s disagreement with Malik.” End of ibn Taymiyah’s words

    So one can see according to Ibn Taymiyah Ash-Shafi’i’s madhab, and Shah Waliullah said that Ahmad’s madhab is close to that of Shafi’i like difference between Abu Hanifa and his students. So the matter of having Maliki, Shafi’i and Hambali madhab is a matter of students recording madhab together or separately. Yet Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, Layth, Al-Awza’i had same rules and were upon the same school: Ahlul Hadith.

    Then in the same risalah, Ibn Taymiyah mentions in some places the view of Ahlul Hadith agreeing with that of the people of Madinah.

    He said p 43 on a matter of transaction: “The people of Madina and the people of Hadith differ from them (people of Kufa) in respect of all that”

    Also on p44: “That is what the people of Madina and the people of Hadith believe.”

    On p 36 Shaykh Al-Islam mentions the Fuqahah of Hadith, and they are Ahlul Hadith:

    “It is known that the school of the people of Madina, in respect of drinks, is more rigorous than the school of the Kufans. The people of Madinah and all other cities and the fuqaha of Hadith make every intoxicant unlawful. So every intoxicant is considered to be wine and is therefore unlawful. If a lot of it makes one intoxicated, then a little of it is unlawful. The people of Madina do not argue about that, neither their earlier nor their later people, no matter whether the drink is from dates, grains, honey, horses’ milk or anything else.

    The Kufans, however, only consider wine to be that which becomes fermented from pressed grapes. If it is cooked before it becomes strong so that two-third evaporates, then they consider it to be lawful. The nabidh of dates and raisins is unlawful for them when it intoxicate if it is fresh, but if is cooked, the least amount of cooking makes it lawful, even if it still intoxicates!”

    So one can clearly see that the school of Ahlul Hadith exists, the Fuqahah Al-Mahaditheen’s madhab has rules different from Ahnaf.

    Note : the quotes from Hanafi, Shafi’i scholars, and Qawaidf Nuraniyah and Naqd Al-Mantiq of Ibn Taymiyah come from the great work of shaykh Isma’il Salafi entitled “Tahrik Azadfi Fikr” and the quote of ibnul Qayim comes from his book “Hujjiyat Hadith”

    May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophget (saw)


    The Sunnah of Raising Hands (Raf’ul Yadein)

    Filed under: In Defense of the Hadith — jawziya @ 5:36 am

    Reported by Ibn ‘Umar (radi-Allaahu anhu),

    “I saw the Prophet’s (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhi was-Salam) opening takbeer in prayer; he raised his hands when he said “Allaahu akbar” until he held them parallel to his shoulders…” and in one report ” “When Allaah’s Messenger (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhi was-Salam) stood from the second rak‘ah, he said,‘Allaahu akbar’ and raised his hands.”

    Report of Maalik bin al-Huwayrith,

    “I saw the Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhi was-Salam) raise his hands when he said, “Allaahu akbar”, when he bowed, and when he raised his head from bowing, until they extended to the level of his ears.”

    Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim and others with various versions. None of the Muhadditheen said it is weak.


    Ibn Hajr writes in Saheeh Al Bukhari (Kitaabul Aathaan)
    “Imam Bukhari wrote a seperate book (Juzz Raf’ Yadein) in this regard and narrated from Imam Hasan (Al Basri) and Humaid bin Hilal that the Sahabah (companions) used to do it (raise their hands in first takbeer, for rukoo and after rukoo)”. Bukhari said : Hasan did not exclude anyone (companions). Ibn Abdil Birr said “from whoever from the sahabah, leaving raf’ul yadein is narrated, it doing is also narrated except Ibn Masood” .Al Mirwazi said all the ulema of different cites have agree on the leality of this except the Kufa people. Ibn Abdilbirr said “No one narrates from Maalik leaving raf’ul yadein except Ibn Qaasim. And the one we follow is raising hands based upon the hadith of Ibn Umar and this is what Ibn Wahb and others have narrated from Maalik and Tirmizi narratewd from Maalik nothing except this.” And Khattabi said and Qurtubi followed him in Almufhim that this (doing raful yadein) is the last and more correct of Maalik’s opinion. As for the Hanafis, they interpretted it based on the narration of Mujahid form Ibn Umar that he did not do it. And they (muhadditheen) replied with criticizind the chain of narrators saying its narrator Abubakr bin Ayyash’s memory became bad inhis later years. Even if its chain is correct then Saalim, Naafi and others affirm Raful Yadein from Ibn Umar and Nafi’s narration is coming after two chapters. And more is preferred over less (number of narrators), especially if the majority is affirming and the single person (mujahid) is negating. Also the combining of the two narrations is possible that Ibn Umar did not think it is Waajib, doing it sometimes and leaving it at other times. And what tells you about the weakness of it is what is narrated by Bukhari in Juzz Raful Yadein from Maalik that Ibn Umar whenever he used to see a person not raising hands when going for rukoo and when getting up from it, he would through pebbles at him. And they (Ahnaaf) also made use of the hadith of Ibn Masood “that he saw the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasallam raising his hands when starting the prayers and then he did not repeat” as narrated by Abu Dawood. And Imam Shafei rejected it because this narration is not proven and said “Even if it is proven, then positive(doing) is preferred over negative (not doing)”. One of the Ahlul Hadith said it is saheeh, but he used it to prove that raf’ul yadein is not obligatory (not that it should be left always). And Tahawi differed only with Alawzaie and those of the Ahlul Dhaahir who see raf’ul yadein as obligatory. And Bukhari narrated from his teacher Ali Alnmadini right after the hadith of Ibn Umar in this chapter: It is Haq (right) upon the Muslims to raise their hands when doing rukoo and when getting up fro it beacause of this hadith of Ibn Umar, as in the narration of Ibn Asaakir. Bukhari narrated this in Juzz Raf’ul Yadein and added: Ali Almadeeni was the most knowledgeable of his contemporaries. And opposing it is the saying of some hanafis that raf’ul yadein nullifies the prayers. And some people of the West who came later said the doer of Raf’ul yadein is an innovator, and so some of their (probably the muhadditheen) researchers were inclined to stop doing raf’ul yadein as a means of stopping this evil (of being labelled innovators), as narrated by Ibn Daqeeq Aleed. And Bukhari said in Juzz Raf’ul Yadein “Whovever claimed thisis an innovation has criticized the Sahabah, because none of them have been narrated of not doing raf’ul yadein” and he said “and neither are the narrations of not doing more authentic than the narrations of doing Raf’ul Yadein”. And Allah knows best. And Bukhari also mentions that 17 sahabah narrated this. Alhaakim and Abulqaasim bin mandah mentioned that among them are the Asharah Mubasharrah bil jannah (10 Companions promised paradise). And our Sheikh Abu Faadhil, the Haafizmentioned that he counted the sahabah who narrated it and counted them as 50 companions.”


    From Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah:
    Chapter: The evidence that the Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam ordered to do rafa’ yadein when intending to go for rukoo and when getting up from it
    Narrated Malik bin Huwairth: he said the Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam used to raise his hands for the start of prayers and for rukoo and when he raised his head from rukoo.
    Narrated Malik bin Huwairth: We came to the Prophet and we were (a few) young men of approximately equal age and stayed with him for twenty nights. Then he thought that we were anxious for our families, and he asked us whom we had left behind to look after our families, and we told him. He was kindhearted and merciful, so he said, “Return to your families and teach them (religious knowledge) and order them (to do good deeds) and offer your prayers in the way you saw me offering my prayers, and when the stated time for the prayer becomes due, then one of you should pronounce its call (i.e. the Adhan), and the eldest of you should lead you in prayer. Imam Ibn Khuzaimah said: “So the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasalam ordered Malik and his companions to pray as they saw the Prophet sallallahoalaihiwasalam pray and Malik narrated the raf’ yadein in start of prayer and rukoo and raising from rukoo.. So in it is proof that the Prophet sallallahualaihiwasallam ordered it.”>
    Among those who claimed it obligatory were Imams Humaidi, Awzaie, Shafie (see kittabul Umm of Shafei), Bukhari, Ibn Khuzaimah, Dawood….(See Fathul Bari). All of them used the Hadith of Ibn Umar in Bukhari.

    Translated by: Abu Maryam Al-Salafi