There is not single aspect in the life of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that is hidden from the Ummat and of which we have no guidance. Every little act and speech of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has been recorded and is available for scrutiny and guidance. With regard to a great Ibaadat like Adhaan, which is given five times a day, which was called out in Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) presence for at least ten years after Hijrat in Madinah Shareef, and regarding which the words and names of callers have all been meticulously mentioned in the Ahaadith. However, there is not a single authentic narration which advocates kissing the finger during the Adhaan. If the name of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is so beloved to one, (which it should be to every Muslim), then it would be more logical to kiss the face of the caller of the Adhaan from whose lips the name emits, rather than to kiss one’s own fingers which are attached to one’s body, and from which neither the name of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is written nor emits. When this act has not been proven from the Khairul Quroon in whose eras the Adhaan was given daily, then who in this age can claim it to be part of the Deen? How can it be called a Shi`aar of the Deen and why are those who do not do it, criticized?? As for the narrations which are cited in proof of this act, is the one of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) where when he heard the words of “Anna Muhammad ar Rasool Allah” “He kissed the inside of his Kalimah fingers and placed it on his eyes. Then Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘He who does as my beloved had done, my intercession will be Waajib for him.’” This narration has been cited from Masnad Firdous Daylami, page 36 and Maudoo-aat Kabeer, page 75. Ahmad Yaar Khaan also mentions the reference of Maqaasid-e-Hasana in Jaa-al Haqq, page 378.
Reply: Allamah Muhammad Taahir Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) writes regarding this narration, “It is not authentic.” [Tazkeeratul Maudoo-aat, page 36]
Mullah Ali Qaari and Allamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayhim) also say the same. [Maudoo-aat-e-Kabeer, page 75]
When a narration is not authentic, how can it be practiced upon?? Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb quotes this from Imaam Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) and states, “This Hadith has not reached the level of authenticity.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 378]
Molvi Muhammad Umar Saheb demonstrates his treachery by quoting this narration from both sources (mentioned above) but conveniently omits the part of ّ Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb, states, “If a narration is not authentic, then it does mean that it is weak, because after being unauthentic, a narration can still be Hasan. Therefore, if this narration is Hasan, then too it is sufficient.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 382]
Mufti Saheb should know that if a Muhaddith states unauthentic , then he means nothing except just that. If the narration was hasan then the Muhaddith would most certainly have mentioned that. He would not have only said unauthentic.
The research regarding practicing on weak Ahaadith Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb writes, “Even if we assume that this narration is weak, then too in sofar as Fadhail-e-A’maal (virtues of deeds) are concerned it will be taken into consideration.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 383]
Reply: This is another result of Mufti Saheb’s warped intellect. To aver that for Fadhail-e-A’maal ever type of Hadith, without exception, is acceptable, is totally incorrect. Imaam Qaadhi ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maaliki (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 543 A.H.] and others, say regarding weak Ahaadith, “It is not practiced upon, in general.” [Al-Qaulul Ba’dee’, page 195] As for those which are practiced upon, conditions are placed on it. Imaam Ibn Daqeequl Eid (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 702 A.H.] writes, “Practice on weak Ahaadith is dependent on some conditions” [Imaam, vol. 2, page 171]
What are those conditions?? Imaam Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away in 902 A.H.] writes quoting from his Sheikh Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh), “There are three conditions for practice on weak Ahaadith to be valid; firstly, that upon which all the Muhadditheen are unanimous that the Hadith is not extremely weak. Hence, if the narration has such a narrator who is a liar or is under suspicion of lying, or there is such a narrator who is prone to error, then such a narration will not be implemented. Secondly, that it is listed under general conditions, and whatever is without base is removed therefrom and it is not totally concocted. Thirdly, at the time of practice one should not have this belief that this is established from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), so that such a thing may not be attributed to Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which may not be from him.” [Al-Qaulul Badee’, page 195]
From this we gather that if any conditions are absent from a narration, then it should not be practiced upon. The last condition in particular should be taken note of, because if anything is not proven to be from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and this belief is adhered to that it is from him (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), it is a great crime and sin and this falls under the Hadith of, “He who falsely attributes to me…”
Hadhrat Abdul Hayy’ Lucknowi (rahmatullah alayh) writes, “There is unanimity that to invite towards practice on a weak Hadith for Fadhaail-e-A’maal is baatil. However, the Madhab of the Jamhoor on this is that the narration must not be excessively weak, otherwise practice upon it for Fadhaail-e-A’maal also is not acceptable.” [Al-Aathaarul Marfoo’a fil Akhbaaril Maudoo’a, page 310]
It is so sad that the Ahle Bid`ah doggedly insist on establishing these weak narrations, by hook or by crook. This much should also be taken into consideration that although a weak narration may be permissible or mustahab if the above-mentioned conditions are implemented, it must not be a maudoo’ narration. If a narration is maudoo’, then it is most certainly not acceptable. Haafidh Ibn Daqeequl Eid writes, “If a narration is weak, but not maudoo’, then it is permissible to practice upon it. However if any shi`aar of the Deen is created by its practice, then it should be abandoned.” [Ahkaamul Ahkaam, vol. 1, page 51]
Another salient point is extracted from this text, that a weak Hadith is only acceptable if it is not maudoo’ or concocted, and together with this, is should not become of such a level that it is considered a shi`aar of the Deen. If there is a fear of it gaining the level of being a shi`aar of the Deen, then it must be stopped. The Ahle Bid`ah practice on such things considering them to be Sunnat and they also chastise those who do not practice thereupon.
Allamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) writes, “It is permissible and Mustahab to practice on a weak Hadith for Fadhaail, Targheeb and Tarheeb (exhort and admonish), as long as it is not maudoo’.” [Al-Qaulul Badee’, page 195]
“However, as for maudoo’, practice on it is impermissible under all circumstances.” [page 196]
In essence, not every weak Hadith is acceptable for Fadhaail-e-A’maal, in fact, the Muhadditheen has stipulated conditions for its acceptance. As for those narrations which are maudoo’ and concocted, they are unacceptable under all circumstances, be it for Fadhaail, Targheeb or Tarheeb.
Take note that all the narrations regarding kissing the fingers during the Adhaan are not merely weak, they are maudoo’ or concocted.
Imaam Jalaaluddeen Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh) states, “Those Ahaadith which have been narrated regarding kissing the fingers and rubbing them on the eyes during the Adhaan when hearing the blessed name (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), are all maudoo’” [Tayseerul Maqaal Al-Suyuti, page 123—1973 edition]
This issue is sealed and finalised. The Ahle bid`ah should take note and regain their Deeni senses.
Another ‘weighty’ proof for kissing the fingers
Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan writes, “My teacher and senior, Moulana Al-Haaj Sayyid Muhammad Naeemuddeen Muraadabaad said that there is an old Injeel, which has recently been revived and is being printed widely, entitled Injeel of Barnabas. It is also being translated into many languages. It chiefly comprises Islaamic teachings. In it is mentioned that Hadhrat Aadam (alayhissalaam), upon seeing the blessed soul , had a desire and inclination towards it. The noor of this blessed soul then was made to shine from his nails. Out of love, he kissed his fingers and placed them on his eyes.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 379/80]
Molvi Muhammad Umar Saheb also mentions this, and he also cites the reference from the Scrolls of Barnabas [page 60]. He also quotes the text which appears to be from the Scrolls of Barnabas. It also has the following, “Then Aadam (alayhissalaam) said in the form of an oath, O my Creator! Bless my nails with this script (name of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’, then Allaah Ta`ala blessed the first of mankind with this on his nails.” It states further, “The first of mankind then, out of love, kissed his fingernails and placed them on his eyes.” [Miqyaas-e-Hanafiyat, page 604]
“Even now if a person does not kiss his fingernails, it is his loss”—This is the view of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan and ilk. They also aver further, “This practice has been proven from authentic Ahaadith, Sufiya-e-Kiraam and Fuqahaa, and that it appears in the Scrolls of Barnabas. Subhaanallah! There is no sin in substantiating with the view of non-Muslims…” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 384] Laa Houla wa Laa Quwwata Illa billa hil ‘aliyyil Azeem!
One can see the mentality and arguments of the Ahle Bid`ah. Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan should know that whatever Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) omitted for us and we imitate him by omitting it is also Sunnat. According to the Fuqahaa, if Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not do an act then it is a proof for its karaahat. This is not any recent finding, but a view of all the Fuqahaa throughout the centuries that practice on maudoo’ and concocted narrations is not permissible.