Consumption of Camel Urine and Clarification from the Islamic Tradition

Originally taken from:

By Mawlana Abu Asim Badrul Islam


In some countries of the Muslim world, camel urine is believed to contain extraordinary medicinal value. It is drunk and used in various ways. Companies have come into existence, which produce camel urine drinks and other products from camel urine. Although, this practice is found amongst a tiny minority of – almost insignificant – Muslim populations confined to a few cultures, it is nevertheless causing some confusion and raising questions (not to speak of the derision by some non-Muslims, who have their own multiple other questionable practices). Some are drawing a parallel between this practice by some Muslims and the consumption of, and supposed blessings derived from, cow urine by some Hindus.

Scientific Research

As far as we are aware, there is no conclusive scientific research available yet on the benefits or harms of camel urine. Some laboratory research seems to indicate that camel urine may contain anti-cancer properties[1]. Following the outbreak of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV), the World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently (2017) issued warnings about the consumption of raw camel milk or camel urine by those who are at high risk of contracting the virus[2].

Why Are Muslims Drinking Camel Urine?

The question arises as to why Muslims, who have always been known for their extraordinary diligence in cleanliness and purity, which is at the very core of the teachings of their faith, are drinking camel urine. As surprising as it may sound, those minority of Muslims who are drinking camel urine, are doing so out of religious conviction. That conviction stems from their understanding of an incident during the blessed lifetime of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. This incident has been reported in several places by Imām al-Bukhāri in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 233)[3] and Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 1671)[4]. It has also been reported by various other imams of ḥadῑth in their respective collections.

The Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine

The ḥadῑth is narrated by Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). He describes how a group of people from the tribe of ῾Ukl or ῾Uraynah[5] arrived in Madῑnah. In the commentary of the ḥadῑth, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, in his monumental Fatḥ al-Bāri, states that they embraced Islām[6], but fell very ill due to the climate, food and flu of Madῑnah. Ibn Ḥajar mentions that there is indication that when they arrived in Madῑnah, they were already ill. Their illness was extreme malnutrition and weakness. Their colour had turned pale. They came to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and complained about their critical condition. He told them to go to a herd of milch camels that were kept in the plains outside Madῑnah and drink their urine and milk. In his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni mentions various narrations that state that the camels belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, or that amongst the camels were some that belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Some narrations of the ḥadῑth state that the camels were of ṣadaqah[7]. When these individuals went, and drank the urine and milk of the camels, they regained good health. They then killed the shepherd of the Messenger of Allāh [8] and stole the camels. According to some narrations, they put on weight and regained strength.

Verdicts of the Legal Schools

Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni, in his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, states that, based on this ḥadῑth, Imām Mālik maintains purity (ṭahārah) of the urine of all animals whose flesh is ḥalāl. This view is also shared by Imāms Aḥmad, al-Sha῾bi, ῾Aṭā̕, al-Nakha῾i, al-Zuhri, Ibn Sῑrῑn, al-Ḥakam, al-Thawri[9]. From amongst the imams of the ḥanafi school of sacred law, Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni also holds this view[10]. When asked about it, he argues with this ḥadῑth in his pivotal work, Kitāb al-Aṣl. Imām Abu Yūsuf, the other main student of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, maintains the permissibility of drinking the urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl (like camels), but states that the same will render water impure, even if a small quantity mixes with water[11]. However, the established view in the ḥanafi school, upon which fatwa is given, is that all urine is filth (najis)[12], although a small amount, which has been deemed negligible,[13] is excused in prayer.

Imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others maintain the impurity or filth of all urine[14](irrespective of whether it is the urine of a human – baby or adult, ḥalāl animal or ḥarām animal).

Explanations for the Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine

As for the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah, from which this disagreement stems, imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others argue that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ permitted them to drink the urine of camels due to necessity (at the time, and for those particular individuals). Therefore, this incident cannot be taken as evidence where such a necessity does not exist. There are many other instances in the Sharῑ῾ah when, due to necessity, an impermissible thing is allowed. For example, the wearing of silk is unlawful for men. It is permitted in the battlefield, due to certain skin conditions and extreme cold, when an alternative cannot be found.

The most satisfactory explanation for the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah is that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ knew through revelation that their cure lay in the drinking of camel urine. Using ḥarām substance as medical remedy is permissible when there is certainty of cure[15], in the absence of a ḥalāl alternative[16]. For example, eating of a carcass when one fears death due to extreme hunger; drinking of wine due to extreme thirst or in order to clear food that is stuck in the throat, in the absence of anything else. Allāh Most High says,

وَمَا لَكُمۡ أَلَّا تَأۡكُلُواْ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡهِ وَقَدۡ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ إِلَّا مَا ٱضۡطُرِرۡتُمۡ إِلَيۡهِۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرٗا لَّيُضِلُّونَ بِأَهۡوَآئِهِم بِغَيۡرِ عِلۡمٍۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ ١١٩

Why should you not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name has been pronounced, when He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of extreme necessity? (Al-An῾ām: 119)

Shams al-A̕immah al-Sarakhsi states:

“The ḥadῑth of Anas (may Allāh be pleased with him) has been narrated from him by Qatādah, in which he reports that they were permitted to drink the milk of camels. He did not mention urine. Only in the narration of Ḥumayd al-Ṭawῑl is there mention of urine[17]. When the evidence of a ḥadῑth in any matter is questionable, it no longer remains an evidence. Moreover, we say, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ granted them exclusive permission to drink camel urine, as he knew through revelation that their cure lay in its drinking. The same cannot be found in our age. This is similar to his granting Al-Zubayr exclusive permission to wear silk due to the rash on his skin or presence of parasitic insects. [We further say,] they were granted permission to drink camel urine, as they were disbelievers in the knowledge of Allāh and His Messengerﷺ [18]. He knew through revelation that they would all die apostates. It is not unimaginable that the cure of a disbeliever be found in filth.”[19]

Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni further presents the generality of the ḥadῑth reported by imams al-Ḥākim, Aḥmad, Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni and al-Ṭabarāni:

استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.

“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”

A similar ḥadῑth, warning that punishment of the grave is often due to carelessness in properly cleansing oneself from urine, has also been reported by imāms al-Bukhāri and Muslim in the Ṣaḥῑḥ.

Imām Shams al-A̕immah Al-Sarakhsi also presents this ḥadῑth and another narration in his Al-Mabsūṭ[20] to prove the impurity of urine in general. He points out that when the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ warned against negligence in regard to keeping oneself clean from urine, he did not limit it to just human urine, as he did not specify the type of urine.

῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni argues that the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah was abrogated by later ḥadῑths, which established the filthiness of urine. He states:

“Even though, in the absence of certainty of dates, abrogation cannot be proven by mere possibility, it can[21] be sufficient to prevent the ḥadῑth from being used as an evidence (for the alleged purity of camel urine) in direct contradiction to general [established] principles and popular reports of ḥadῑth, when such a possibility is corroborated by various other strong indicative evidences. In this matter, there exist some strong indicative evidences, which corroborate the possibility of abrogation. These evidences include the fact that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred during the 6thyear of the hijrah and the ḥadῑth of the filthiness of urine was narrated by Abu Hurayrah, who embraced Islām during the 7th year of the hijrah. When the Islām of a narrator occurs at a later date, even though it does not always definitively imply the lateness of what he has narrated, it is[22], nevertheless, indicative evidence of lateness. This is especially so, if we consider the fact that had the filthiness of urine been abrogated in the 7th year of the hijrah, none of the Companions would have related the ḥadῑth of its filthiness to Abu Hurayrah without pointing out that it had been abrogated. It is obvious that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred in clear view of the Companions and it was popularly known to people. Had the incident been abrogative of the filthiness of urine, it would not have remained hidden from the Companions. The issue is one that is faced by the general populace – especially, in the case of the Companions, many of whom herded camels and milked them.

It is well-known in the science of ḥadῑth that commandments in the matter of filth were gradually escalated from leniency to strictness. There are examples of many things, which, during the early days of Islām, were considered clean (or pure) and not affecting the validity of ṣalāh. Later, commandments relating to these very things were escalated to that of filth[23]. An instance of this is the ḥadῑth of Ibn Mas῾ūd, reported by al-Bukhāri, regarding the dumping by Abu Jahl of entrails and intestines of a camel on the back of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ while he was in prostration, praying. He did not interrupt his ṣalāh due to this. Rather, he continued praying, as al-Ḥāfiẓ[24] has mentioned in Fatḥ al-Bāri. Ibn Ḥazm has claimed that this ḥadῑth has been abrogated by the ḥadῑth of faeces and blood.

Thus, the above indicative evidences corroborate the possibility of abrogation. In the existence of such a strong possibility, it is not correct to infer from the ḥadῑth under discussion the purity of urine – regarding the filthiness of which there are many ḥadῑths.  

A third explanation for the ḥadῑth under discussion is that the command was to drink camel milk and snuff[25] camel urine, while urine has been put in conjunction with milk by way of inclusion in expression [only]. […] This has been elaborated by Ibn Hishām[26] in Mughni ‘l-Labῑb (2:193, 2:169, 1:32) in the beginning of the fifth chapter of the second volume.[27]

[What I have stated above] is proven by other variant transmissions of this ḥadῑth. For instance, in the Sunan of al-Nasā̕ i, there is no mention of urine. The precise wording is:

فبعث بهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى لقاح ليشربوا من ألبانها ، فكانوا فيها … إلخ

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent them to some milch camels so that they may drink their milk. They did this […]”

Similarly, the word ‘urine’ has not been mentioned in the narration of Anas [ibn Mālik] that has been reported by al-Ṭaḥāwi through the transmission of ῾Abd Allāh ibn Bakr, from Ḥumayd, from Anas. This has been mentioned by our shaykh, al-Binnori[28], in his Ma῾ārif al-Sunan (1:275). He then says:

“Based on this, it is very likely that the mention of urine with milk in the context of the command of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ was the handiwork of one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ may have commanded them to drink camel milk and to wash their nostrils with camel urine, but they may have also drank the urine. Thus, they were both mentioned together [by a transmitter] in the context of drinking of milk, in view of what actually happened – and not because the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had commanded them to drink camel urine.

In summary, it is not correct to use the ḥadῑth under discussion to prove the purity of camel urine, in the presence of these strong possibilities.

As for the proofs for the filth of all urine, they are very many. [We shall mention a few here.]

Al-Tirmidhi has reported the ḥadῑth of Ibn ῾Umar:

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”

The reason for the prohibition is its eating of animal faeces. Thus, we know that the flesh of such an animal is impure, as the filth [from the consumed faeces] would have spread to its flesh.

The ḥadῑth of Abu Hurayrah that has been mentioned by Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni, al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak – and he said: [it is] authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhāri and Muslim). Al-Dhahabi has concurred with this:

استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.

“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”


Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429), questions how, when the context of the ḥadῑth and the precise words used by the transmitters is so clear in that the permission to drink camel urine was for medical purposes, it can be used to prove general or absolute purity of urine. There is absolutely no indication in the wording of the ḥadῑth that it is referring to purity of urine.

Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri then questions the assumption that the medicinal application of camel urine was through oral administration. Rather, he argues that it was actually through nasal administration, without drinking it. This is inferred from variant narrations of the ḥadῑth reported by imāms al-Ṭaḥāwi and al-Nasā̕ i. The transcriber-editor of Fayḍ al-Bāri, ῾Allāmah Muḥammad Badr ῾Ālam Miruthi[30], in a footnote, adds another ḥadῑth from the Sunan of Imām Abu Dawūd, which has been reported in a most unlikely chapter, in which the narrator, the Companion Abu Dharr, states that he is unsure as to whether the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ also instructed him to drink camel urine when he instructed him to drink its milk due to illness. He says that Imām Abu Dawūd declares it unauthentic.[31] In the report of Imām al-Nasā̕ i, in the narration that has been transmitted through Sa῾ῑd ibn al-Musayyib[32], there is mention of drinking camel milk, but no mention of urine. There is also another narration that has been reported by Imām al-Nasā̕ i, wherein drinking of milk and urine is mentioned, but there is no mention of whether they drank the urine upon instruction from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ or of their own accord.[33] The matter is further blurred by the fact that the narration found in the Muṣannaf ῾Abd al-Razzāq mentions nasal administration, instead of drinking.[34]

As for the proof of the filthiness of urine, Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri argues that it can be inferred from the Noble Qur̕ān. Allāh Most High states:

وَإِنَّ لَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ لَعِبۡرَةٗۖ نُّسۡقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِۦ مِنۢ بَيۡنِ فَرۡثٖ وَدَمٖ لَّبَنًا خَالِصٗا سَآئِغٗا لِّلشَّٰرِبِينَ ٦٦

Indeed, there is a lesson for you in the cattle. We provide you, out of what lies in their bellies, between faeces and blood, the (drink of) milk, pure and pleasant for those who drink. (Al-Naḥl: 66)

He has mentioned, in this verse, faeces with blood. A ḥadῑth states:

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”

The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ commanded in a ḥadῑth:

من دخل المسجد ، فليمط الأذى عن نعليه.

“He who enters the masjid, should remove from his shoes that which causes discomfort (i.e. faeces and urine).” 

To limit the definition of faeces, mentioned in the above ḥadῑth, to human faeces is far-fetched. Also, another ḥadῑth states:

وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن الصلاة في المزبلة.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited praying at landfill sites (i.e. where refuse is dumped).“

وأنه ألقى الروث وقال: إنها ركس.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ threw dung and said, ‘Indeed, this is filth’.”[35]


Had camel urine been permissible to consume or indeed a cure, it would have been widely used by the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and his Companions and all the generations thereafter to our time. It would have been a very popular method of medication, regarding which every Muslim community in the world, in every age, would have known – almost like the way all Muslims know about Zam-zam water and its virtues. In fact, Muslims throughout history would not have let a single drop of urine from their camels go to waste. However, the reality is quite contrary. To most Muslims, the drinking of camel urine is unheard of and, when told, they find even the thought of it abhorrent and distasteful.

Abu Asim Badrul Islam
Northampton, ENGLAND
19th Ramaḍān 1438/14th June 2017



῾Abd Allāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Mawṣili, Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār (Beirut: Al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1430/2009).῾Abd al-Ghani al-Ghunaymi al-Maydāni al-Dimashqi, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).Abu Bakr Muḥammad ibn Abī Sahl ‘Shams al-Aʾimmah’ al-Sarakhsī, Al-Mabsūṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, no date).Abu Ja῾far Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Salāmah al-Ṭaḥāwi, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār) (Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420/1999).Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Qudūri,Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūri (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Muslim al-Qushayri al-Nῑsāpūri, Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Imām Muslim (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj (1433/2013).Badr al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, no date).Fakhr al-Dῑn Khān Abu ‘l-Maḥāsin al-Ḥasan ibn Manṣūr al-Auzjandi al-Farghāni, Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān (Al-Fatāwā al-Khāniyyah) (Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 1434/2013).Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Aṣl (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012/1433).Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Jāmi῾ Al-Ṣaghῑr(Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2011/1432).Muḥammad Taqi al-῾Uthmāni, Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim (Damascus/Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, 1427/2006).Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Beirut: al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1432/2011).Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1429).Sayyid Anwar Shāh ibn Muʿaẓẓam Shāh al-Kashmīrī,Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2005).Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, Fatḥ al-Bāri bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Riyadh: Dār Ṭaybah, 1426/2005).Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni,Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1433/2012).


فهرس المصادر والمراجع :

الإختيار لتعليل المختار ، لعبد الله بن محمود الموصلي ، تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط وآخرين ، الرسالة العالمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1430. 
الأصل ، لمحمد بن الحسن الشيباني ، تحقيق د. محمد بوينوكالن ، دار ابن حزم ، بيروت ، ط1\1433.
تقريب التهذيب ، لشهاب الدين أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني ، تحقيق محمد عوامة ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط9\1433.
تكملة فتح الملهم بشرح صحيح الإمام مسلم ، لمحمد تقي العثماني ، دار القلم ، دمشق/بيروت ، ط1/1427.
الجامع الصحيح ، لمحمد بن إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن المغيرة البخاري ، تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط وآخرين ، الرسالة العالمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1432.
الجامع الصحيح ، لمحمد بن إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن المغيرة البخاري ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط2\1429.
الجامع الصغير ، لمحمد بن الحسن الشيباني ، تحقيق د. محمد بوينوكالن ، دار ابن حزم ، بيروت ، ط1\1432.
عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري ، لبدر الدين أبي محمد محمود بن أحمد العيني ، دار الكتب العلمية ، بيروت.
شرح مشكل الآثار (تحفة لأخيار بترتيب شرح مشكل الآثار) ، لأبي جعفر أحمد بن محمد بن سلامة الطحاوي ، تحقيق وترتيب أبي الحسين خالد محمود الرباط ، دار بلنسية ، الرياض ، ط1/1420.
صحيح الإمام مسلم ، لأبي الحسين مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم القشيري النيسابوري ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط1\1433.
فتاوى قاضي خان (الفتاوى الخانية) ، لفخر الدين خان أبي المحاسن الحسن بن منصور الأوزجندي الفرغاني ، المعروف بقاضي خان ، مطبوع بحاشية الفتاوى الهندية ، دار النوادر ، دمشق ، ط1\1434.
فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري ، لشهاب الدين أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني ، دار طيبة ، الرياض ، ط1\1426. 
فيض الباري على صحيح البخاري ، لمحمد أنور الكشميري الديوبندي ، دار الكتب العلمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1426.
اللباب في شرح الكتاب ، لعبد الغني الغنيمي الميداني الدمشقي ، تحقيق د. سائد بكداش ، دار البشائر الإسلامية ، بيروت ، ط1\1431.
المبسوط ، لأبي بكر محمد بن أبي سهل السرخسي ، المعروف بشمس الأئمة ، دار المعرفة ، بيروت.
مختصر القدوري ، لأبي الحسين أحمد بن محمد القدوري ، تحقيق د. سائد بكداش ، دار البشائر الإسلامية ، بيروت ، ط1\1431.




[1] For instance, the National Center for Biotechnology Information in the United States of America has published the findings of one such research ( – accessed 06 June 2017). See also: 06 June 2017).

[2] 06 June 2017).

[3] باب أبوال الإبل والدواب والغنم ومرابضها

[4] باب حكم المحاربين والمرتدين

[5] Ḥammād – one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth – is unsure which of the two mentioned tribes it was. Some narrations state that there were four individuals from ῾Uraynah and three from ῾Ukl, while others give other numbers (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:574).

[6] وفي رواية أبي رجاء قبل هذا : بايعوه على الإسلام

[7] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177.

[8] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, quoting from Ibn Isḥāq in hisMaghāzῑ and Al-Ṭabarāni, names this shepherd as Yasār. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had received him as booty after the battle of the Banu Tha῾labah, which took place in the year 6AH. He set him free after seeing how well he prayed and sent him to herd his camels outside Madῑnah, in Ḥarrah. (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:578)

[9] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:225.

[10] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:57, 1:24; Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaghῑr, p. 64.

[11] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:24.

[12] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. Also, see:Al-Mukhtār li ‘l-Fatwā with its commentary by the author,Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār, 1:117; Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūriwith its commentary, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb, 2:105;Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19.    

[13] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177. The verdicts of the three imams of the ḥanafi school regarding urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl are as follows: Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah and Imām Abu Yūsuf – light filth (najāsah mukhaffafah); Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni – pure (ṭāhir) (Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19).

[14] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. For the opinion of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, see Al-Mabsūṭ, 1:54.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:180.

[17] It ought to be pointed out here that the mention of urine can actually be found in the narrations of several narrators from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). Imām Abu Ja῾far Ṭaḥāwi, in his amazing Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, transmits ḥadῑths with the mention of urine from the following narrators from Anas ibn Mālik: Yaḥya ibn Sa῾ῑd (3223), Abu Qilābah al-Jarmi (2340), Qatādah (3243), Thābit (3243) and ῾Abd al-῾Azῑz ibn Ṣuhayb (3245) (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 5:135-). The same ḥadῑths have also been reported by the authors of the most popular six books of ḥadῑth and others.

[18] That is, although, they feigned faith, Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ knew that they were actually disbelievers.

[19] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:231.

[20] 1:54.

[21] My italics.

[22] My italics.

[23] That is, what was previously deemed clean was now unclean and filth.

[24] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni.

[25] This is based on a variant of the ḥadῑth, in which they were commanded to drink camel milk and rinse or wash their nostrils with camel urine. This is also explored by Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his superb Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429).

[26] The grammarian.

[27] I have omitted much of this point made by ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni, due to its grammatical technicality of Arabic. Scholars may refer to the original Arabic work. This and some other points may have been taken from Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri’s Fayḍ al-Bāri ῾alā Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri (1:429), wherein the points are elucidated in more detail. It is worth pointing out here that ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori was the student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri, and ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni is a student of ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori.  

[28] That is, ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. It is worth mentioning here that it is equally correct to call the shaykh ‘al-Binnori’ or ‘al-Banūri’. The book being referred to is his famous 6-volume Arabic commentary on the ῾ibādāt portion of the Sunan of Imām al-Tirmidhi.

[29] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:178. In view of brevity, I have omitted the remainder of the discussion on ḥadῑth evidences by ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori.

[30] Student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri.

[31] قال العلامة بدر عالم الميرتهي: قلت: ورأيت عند أبي داود رواية في باب الجنب يتيمم ، وفيها: فقال أبو ذر: إني اجتويت المدينة ، فأمر لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بذود وبغنم ، فقال لي: اشرب من ألبانها – وأشك في أبوالها – … إلخ: وحكم عليه أبو داود بعدم الصحة ، وقال: ذكر البول فيه ليس بصحيح ، وليست زيادة في (أبوالها) في حديث أنس رضي الله عنه ، تفرد به أهل البصرة ، فهذه أيضا مهمة ، وإنما نبهت عليها لأنها في غير بابها ، ربما تضلها عند الحاجة. (فيض الباري على صحيح البخاري – 1\429) –-

يقول كاتب هذه المقالة: قال الإمام العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنفوري في كتابه النافع العظيم (بذل المجهود في حل سنن أبي داود – 2\521) عند شرح قوله (وأشك في أبوالها): والشاك حماد بن سلمة أو موسى بن إسماعيل ، فإنه شك هل قال شيخه لفظ ابوالها أو لا؟

[32] ‘Musayyib’ or ‘Musayyab’ – both are correct (see theḍabṭ in Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb, 2396, p.275).

[33] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:429.

[34] Ibid, 1:430.

[35] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:433.

Hadith Matn Criticism – A Closed, Haraam and Kufr Enterprise

[Majlisul Ulama]


“Verily, those  who dispute  in  Our Aayaat  without  any  proof having come  to them, in  their hearts there  is nothing but a pride  (whose  objective)  they  will  not  attain. Therefore  seek refuge  with  Allah. Verily,  He  is The  Hearer, The  See-er ”   (Aayat  56 Surah  Al Mu’min)

Some  jaahil  groveling  in  his  quagmire  of  jahl-e-murakkab (compound  ignorance), cunningly  in  an  article  peddles  the  haraam  view  that “criticism  of  Hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise.”  In  this  statement  he  subtly  implies  that  every  modernist  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  moron  has  the  right  to  submit  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  to  the  vagaries  of  his  wildly  fluctuating  nafs  in  whose  grip  labours  his  brains.

The  moron  seeks  to  acquit  himself  as  an  authority  of  the  Shariah  by  disgorging  some facts  which  he  has  gleaned  from  some  academic  kutub.    His  jahaalat  constrains  him  to drive  a  wedge  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith  of  Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  Whilst  the  buffoon  concedes  that  there  does  exist  a  concept  such  as  ‘Sunnah’,  he  perpetrates  the  kufr  of  denying  that  Allah  Ta’ala  has  defined  the  Sunnah.  This  is  indeed  a  subtle  rejection  of  the  Qur’aan  itself,  for  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  states  in  His  Kalaam:

“Verily, for  you  (O  Muslimeen!)  there  is  in  Rasulullah  a  Beautiful  Uswah  (lifestyle), for    him  who  has  hope  in  Allah  and  the  Last  Day.”

Then  Allah  Ta’ala  states  a  dozen  times  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”  The  theme  of  strict  obedience  to  the   Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  a  solid, conspicuous  thread  permeating  the  entire  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah  Ta’ala  warns  of  severe  punishment –  the  punishment  of  the  Fire  –  deprivation  from  Jannah  for  those  who  do  not    obey  His  Commands  and  Prohibitions, viz.,  His  Shariah.  The  absolute  severity  of  the  Divine  Warnings  mentioning  of  the  roasting  bodies  in  Hell  fire;  being  cast  upside  in  Jahannam;  being  force-fed  boiling  water  and  the  thorns  of  Zaqqoom  in  Jahannam,  etc.,  etc.,  totally  preclude  the  slightest  ambiguity  in  the  Sunnah,  that  Sunnah  which  the  Ummah  has  to  follow  meticulously  to  secure  Najaat  (Salvation)  in  the  Aakhirah.

Most  assuredly,  Allah  Ta’ala  after  having  imposed  the  Sunnah  lifestyle  on  us  and  after  issuing  dire  warnings  and  threats  of  the  severest  consequences  for  disobedience,  did  not  leave  us  to  dwell  and  grope  in  the  darkness  of nafsaani  vacillation  in  the  endeavour  to  discover  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a  concept  which  is  the  consequence  of  our  discovery,  its  not  a  discovery  developing  from  the  application  of  man’s  opinion  bogged  down  and  contaminated  by  a  variety  of    inimical  forces.  The  Sunnah  is  the  lifestyle  created  by  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  for  His  Makhlooq,  and  defined  meticulously  by  the  practical  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  noble  Sahaabah,  hence  he  declared:

“Honour  my  Sahaabah,  for  verily,  they  are  the  best  of  you;  then  those  who  followed  them (the  Taabieen),  then  those  who  followed  them  (Tab-e-Taabieen).  Then  after  them  kithb (falsehood  and  lies,  especially  modernist  lies  disgorged  by  morons)  will  prevail.”

The  Qur ‘aan-e-Hakeem  does  not  deal  with  modernist  fiction.  It  expounds  incumbent facts  for  us  to  compulsorily  adopt  in  practical  life  in  the  precise  way  exemplified  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  illustrious  Sahaabah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a stupid  conundrum  which  has  been  left  for  extrapolating  concepts  of  life  in  kufr evolutionary  style  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have  mutilated  and  transmogrified the  Shariahs  of  Nabi  Musa  (alayhis  salaam)  and  Nabi  Isa  (alayhis  salaam).  There  is  no ambivalence  in  the  Sunnah.  The  attempt  to  convey  the    devilish  idea  that  the  Sunnah  is  a  riddle  to  be  solved  by  the  brains  of  the  modernist  juhala  by  way  of  submitting  the Ahaadith  to  their  personal  opinion  is  kufr.  Such  ‘believers’  are  zindeeqs.  They  seek  to scuttle  Islam  in  subtle  and  cunning  ways  by  retaining  the  name  ‘Islam’  for  the  hotch  potch  of  which  is  the  quotient  of  their  wild  conjecturing. 

There  is  no  ambiguity  and  no  conundrum  in  the  Sunnah.  Allah  Ta’ala  did  not  command us  to  submit  to  a  conundrum    or  to  a  concept  stricken  with  ambiguity  and  darkness,  then threaten  us  with  the  severest  punishment  for  acts  which  are  in  conflict  of  the  Sunnah despite  our  unawareness  of  what  that  Sunnah  actually  is.

THE QUR’AAN AND THE SUNNAH The  modernist  jaahil  concedes  that  the  Qur’aan  unequivocally  proclaims  that  whatever Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  spoke  was  divine  inspiration – Wahi  from  Allah Ta’ala.  How  then  can  his  Sunnah  be  an  ambiguity  consigned  to  posterity  for  unraveling?  What  then  was  the  purpose  of  the  Rasool?  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  indulge  in  mental  gymnastics,  riddles  and  crossward  puzzles.  The  Sunnah  is  a  serious  way  of  life  ordained  for  the  Ummah  by  Allah  Ta’ala.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  definition  of  the  Sunnah  was  left  for  the  pastime  hobby  of  modernist  morons  who  mushroom  in  this age  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.  What  does  the  jaahil  seek  to  achieve  by  engaging  on  a  topic  which  has  already  been  solved  and  settled  many  centuries  ago? What  sinister  plot  does  the  moron  conceal  with  his  satanic  attempt  to  fault  Bukhaari  Shareef,  etc.  in  this  age  in  which  the  Ummah  should  be  concerned  with  only  the    practical  Sunnah  lifestyle  as  it has  been  reliably  transmitted  to  us  down  the  long  corridor  of  Islam’s  history  by  means  of authentic  narration  and      practice  of  the  Sahaabah?

There  is  absolutely  no  scope  for  adjusting  and  reinterpreting  the  Shariah  which  has  come down  to  us  most  reliably  from  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen.  The  focus  of  these  modernist morons  is  on  the  production  of  a  new  ‘shariah’ – Yahood  and  Nasara  style,  hence  the  devious  and  pernicious  idea  of  the  validity  of  criticizing  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire edifice  of  the  Shariah  is  structured.  In  fact,  without  Ahaadith  there  is  no  Qur’aan.  The  very  authenticity  and  immutability  of  the  Qur’aan  are  firmly  based  on  Ahaadith.  There  is  absolutely  no  other  avenue  for  corroborating  the  Qur’aan’s  authenticity  other  than  Ahaadith.

The  attempt  to  impugn  the  lofty  status  of  the  Ahaadith  by  citing  differences  of  Ulama  is contemptible  and  satanic.  The  authorities  – the  true  Ulama  of  bygone  times  were  not  like these  modernist  juhhaal.  They  were  qualified  in  all  sciences  of  the  Shariah.  It  is  ludicrous and  laughable  that  modernist  morons  of  this  age  are  seeking  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  authority  of  the  Ulama,  Fuqaha,  Muhadditheen  and  Mufassireen  who  were  the  Heirs  of the  Ambiya  occupying  the  highest  station  in  the  concept  of Waraathat-e-Ambiya.

The  sole  repositories  of  the  highest  degree  of  Shar’i  Authority  were  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen.  This  was  a  demarcation  enacted  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  himself,  hence  it  is  the  divine  demarcation  which  excludes  all  conflicting  concepts,  views  and  theories  which  developed  beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  sacred demarcation.  Making  explicit  reference  to  this  fact,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  branded  all  post Khairul  Quroon  ‘religious’  innovations  and  ideas  as  Kithb (falsehood)  which  are  the  effects  of  simaanah  (obesity). 

It  is  indeed  the  epitome  of  jahaalat  to  assault  the  Ahaadith  with  stray  opinions  of  scholars  who  had  appeared  on  the  scene  6,  7,  8  and  10  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  No  one  is  the  Muqallid  of  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah alayh).  Hence,  if  there  is  some  anomaly  in  a  view  of  Imaam  Suyuti,  it  may  not  be  imposed  on  the  Ummah  as  a  valid  opinion  despite  its  glaring  conflict  with  the  Opinion  which  has  flourished  in  the  Ummah  since  the  epoch  of Khairul  Quroon,  for  this  is  the  boundary  cast  in  solid  divine  Rock  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Consider  the  following  stupidity  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  and  trumpeted  by  the  modernist  jaahil  in  his  abortive  bid  to  substantiate  his  baseless  idea  of  meddling  and  fiddling  in  the  Ahaadith  with  the  objective  of  scuttling  the  Shariah:

“Ibn  Qayyim  said  ahadith  that  says:  “He  who  loves,  keeps  chaste  and  dies,  does  a martyr”  are  forged.  Even  if  the  narrators’  chain  was  as  bright  as  the  sun.,  he  said  it  would still  be  wrong.”  

Undoubtedly  there  is  something  drastically  wrong  with  the  brains  of  the  one  who  had  propounded  this  ludicrous,  irrational  and  haraam  view.  The  very  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  established  on  the  basis  of  such  Ahaadith  whose  narrators’  chains  are  as  “bright  as  the  sun”.  This  innovated  theory  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  in  the  belated  age  of  several  centuries  after  Khairul  Quroon  is  pure  ghutha  (rubbish)  which  the  modernist  juhhaal  find  most  palatable.

THE  ISNAAD AND THE MATAN The  fundamental  basis  of  authenticity  of  Hadith  is  the Isnaad,  not  the  Matan.  Thus, regardless  of  perceived  irrationality  and  apparent  contraction  in  Hadith  narrations,  these  elements  will    never  be  factors  for  the  rejection  or  denigration  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  a  Chain  of  Narrators,  “bright  as  the  sun”.    Reason  and  rationality  are  relative  concepts.  What  may  appear  unreasonable  to    someone,  may  be  reasonable  to  another.  Ahaadith  with  Isnaads  “as  bright  as  the  sun”  are  in  entirety  independent  of  the  test  of  rationality.  All  the  raka’ts  of  Salaat  are  based  on  Ahaadith  whose  authenticity  is  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  No  one  may  tamper  with  these  raka’ts  or  doubt  their  correctness  on  the  basis  of  rationality,  moreover  if  such  rationality  is  an  aberration  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  who  proliferate  Muslim  society  of  this  age.

Relative  to  the  Authorities    who  flourished  during  Khairul  Quroon,  the  likes  of  Ibn  Qayyim  recede  into  the  realm  of  oblivion.  It  is  laughable  to  even  cite  Ibn  Qayyim  or  any post  Khairul  Quroon  Scholar  in  negation  of  the  entrenched  beliefs,  practices  and  concepts which  had  existed  during  that  early  era  in  which  the  Divinely  Sealed  Shariah  was  delivered  to  the  Ummah.

Expounding  his  jahaalah,  the  modernist  Ghabi  says:

“It  is  clear  from  these  and  other  verses,  and  there  is  no  doubt,  that  Muhammad  (s)  is, for  us,  an  exemplar  and  a  model.  Nor  should  there  be  doubt  that  rejecting  his  Sunnah  is  a  grave  error.  No  wonder,  then,  that  it  is  generally  accepted  among  most  Muslims  that  his  Sunnah  is  the  second  most  important  source  of  legislation  and  guidance.”

This  moron  with  his  smattering  of  ‘academic’  knowledge’,  suffering  from  the  disease  of oblique  mental  vision,  just  does  not  know  what  he  has  blurted  out.  Alternatively,  his disgorgement  is  a  subtle  stunt  to  dislodge  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  hence  the  ghutha of  the  “secondary  nature”  of  the  Sunnah  which  according  to  the  Qur’aan  is  the  primary  and only  way  of  life  for  Muslims.  The  Sunnah  embodied  in  the  Ahaadith  being  the  second source  of  legislation  should  not  be  confused  with  the  Sunnah  which  has  been  ordained  to  be  the  practical  lifestyle  of  the  Ummah.  The  Sunnah  which  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  by  either  the  First  or  the  Second  or  the  Third  or  the  Fourth  Source  of  legislation  is  the only  Sunnah  for  practical  implementation – implementation  which  is  Waajib.  Nothing detracts  from  the  incumbency  and  the  imperative  importance  of  any  Sunnah  act  confirmed  by  any  one  of  the  Four  Sources  of  legislation.  What  has  been  confirmed  as  the  Sunnah  in Khairul  Quroon,  is  the  Sunnah    whose  practical  adoption  the  Qur’aan  commands  regardless  of  the  status  of  the  confirmatory  source.

The  averment  that  rejection  of  the  Sunnah  is  “a  grave  error”  is  grossly  erroneous.  Rejection  of  Sunnah  is  kufrkufr  which  expels  the  rejector  from  the  fold  of  Islam.  Observance  of  the  Sunnah  is  commanded  by    the  Qur’aan.  In  this  Sunnah  there  is  no  ambiguity,  and  this  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  reasoning  process  of  the  dumb  modernist  juhhaal.

The  modernist  ghabi  peddling  his  haraam  kufr  wares,  seeks    assistance  from  a  Scholar  who  is  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen  a  veritable  non- entity.  Thus  he  says:

“Jalal  al-Din  Suyuti’s  statement  on  matn  criticism  is  now  axiomatic:  “If  you  encounter  a  hadith  contrary  to  reason,  or  principles,  then  you  should  know  that  it  is  forged.”

This  statement  carries  absolutely  no  weight – it  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance  in  the  face  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  based  on  a  Chain  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  It  is  a  forgery  attributed  to  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh).  The  moron  or  whoever  has  schooled  him  in  his  lamentable  smattering  of  hadith  knowledge,  has  torn  the  principle  from  its  context. The  manner  in  which  the  jaahil  has  presented  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  has  been  deliberately  or  ignorantly  calculated  to  convey  the  spurious  notion  that  this  statement  is  a general  principle  for  scrutiny  and  acceptance  of  Hadith  narrations  when  in  fact  this  idea  is baseless – a  figment  of  the  moron’s  hallucination.  The  axiom  mentioned  by  the  moron  has  applicability  only  if  the  narration’s  chain  is  of  a  dubious  nature  or  uncorroborated  by  the  requisite  evidence  for  establishing  authenticity.  In  such  an  event,  the  narration  will  not  be  entertained  even  in  the  domain  of  Fadhaaila  domain  which  allows  room  for  Dhaeef Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  the  moron  did  not  even  understand  what  he  has  read  or  heard about  the  alleged  ‘axiom’.  The  aforementioned  statement  has  been  torn  from  its  context  by the  moron  who  has  failed  to  understand  either  the  statement  or  the  context.

The  statement  mentioned  above  applies  to  such  Maudhoo’  (Fabricated)  narrations  which cannot   be  interpreted  to  reconcile  with  the  Shariah.  It  does  not  even  apply  to  Maudhoo’ in  general. 

The  ghabi  has  attempted  to  pass  himself  off  as  an  authority  by  citing  the  name  of Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh)  to  impress  other  juhhaal  of  his  ilk.  He  has  attributed  a calumny  against  Imaam  Suyuti.  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  does  not  mean  what  the  jaahil  is bandying  out.

It  is  indeed  the  height  of  ghabaawah  to  even  suggest    the  rejection  of  a  Hadith  of  the  Mutawaatir  class  on  the  basis  of  a  moron’s  reasoning  or  simply  because  the matan  of  the  Hadith  militates  against  the  density  of  the  moron’s  brains. Every  jaahil  will  find  almost  every  juz’i  mas’alah of  every  Shar’i  Institution  to  be  in  conflict  with  his  defective reasoning.  Innumerable  ahkaam of  Hajj  will  be  found  to  be  in  conflict  with  ‘reason’ – the  reason  of  ghabis.  Must  we  then  reject  all  these  ahkaam  substantiated  by  Ahaadith  simply  because  morons  perceive  a  conflict  with  their  reasoning  process?  The  ghabaawah  of  the modernist  juhhaal  is  indeed  axiomatic.

WHAT IS THE SUNNAH? Flaunting  his  jahaalah ,  the  moron  asks: 

“After  that  acknowledgement,  however,  it  gets  tricky.  The  question  that  follows  is:  how  do  we  know  what  his  Sunnah  is.”  

The  Imaan  of  this  moron  appears  to  have  been  extinguished  hence  this    ludicrous  question  bordering  on kufr.  Every  Muslim  is  aware  that  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  been  acquired  from  the  Sahaabah  who  had  transmitted  it  to  Taabieen  who  in  turn transmitted  it  to  the  Tab-e-Taabieen  who  in  turn  transmitted  it  to  the  succeeding  generation,  and  so  on  by  way  of  reliable  transmission  the  Sunnah  has  reached  us  intact,  and  so  shall  it  be  transmitted  intact  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah  from  generation  to  generation.

Nothing  of  the  Sunnah  has  been  omitted  in  the  process  of  transmission.  He  who  ventures such  a  kufr  claim  of  the  Sunnah  being  imperfect  or  incomplete  or  that  part  of  it  has  been lost  in  the  transmission  process  is  in  abnegation  of  the  Qur’aan.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has undertaken  the  responsibility  of  safeguarding  this  Deen  of  Islam.  It  will  remain  in  its pristine  purity  until  Qiyaamah  regardless  of  the  deviation,  baatil,  bid’ah  and  kufr  which modernist  morons  and  other  types  of  juhhaal  innovate  from  time  to  time.  Thus  the  Sunnah has  been  extant  since  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Islam  is  the final  DeenNubuwwat  has  been  terminated.  No  new  code  of  life  will  be  revealed.  This  pre-supposes  the  perpetual  existence  of  the  original  Sunnah  and  Shariah  in  their  pristine  purity.  The  attempt  to  cloak  the  Sunnah  with  ambiguity  is  underlined  with  a  satanic  motive,  and  that  motive  is  to  disfigure  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  to  accommodate  the  concepts  of  kufr  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  such  as  the  moron  who  deems  himself  qualified  enough  to  masquerade  as  an  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.

The  moron  further  exhibits  his  gross  ignorance  by  saying  that   the  Ahaadith  merely  “contain  clues  of  what  the  Sunnah  was,  but  they  are  not  the  Sunnah” To  him  the  Sunnah  “was”.  It  is  something  antique,  no  longer  in  existence.  The  Ahaadith  are  not  mere  clues  of  the  Sunnah.  The  entire  structure  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  There  is  no  other  source  of  the  Sunnah  other  than  the  Qur’aan  and  Ahaadith.  That  certain  Ahaadith  do  not  form  part  of  practical  Sunnah  notwithstanding  their  authenticity,  does  not  detract from  the  fact  that  the  foundation  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Ahaadith..  Only  a  moron  has  the  audacity  and  who  is    sufficiently  stupid  to  believe  that  in  the  Ahaadith  are  only  ‘clues’  of  the  Sunnah.  We  wonder  if  the  jaahil  possesses  adequate  expertise  in  the  Sunnah  style  of  Istinja.

The  Ahaadith  do  not  provide  only  a  ‘glimpse’  of  the  Sunnah  as  the  moron  alleges.  It provides  the  whole  of  the  Sunnah,  hence  the  Qur’aan  commands:  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”   The  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  preserved  in  the minutest  detail  in  the  Ahaadith,  and  all  the  Ahaadith  which  constitute  the  Sunnah  have  already  been  authenticated  and  documented.  Ijtihaad  in  the  field  of  Hadith  is  a  closed  book.  There  remains  not  the  slightest  scope  for  revision  and  revisiting  the  Ahaadith  to structure  a  new  ‘sunnah’  to  conform  to  the  brains  of  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah remains  unadulterated.  It  exists  as  it  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah,  albeit very  little  of  it  is  being  practically  implemented  by  Muslims  of  this  era.  But  the  Sunnah  is  not  hidden.

Disgorging  another  figment  of  his  satanic  hallucination,  the  Ghabi  says: “……the  Qur’ an has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  Here  the  moron  implies  that  Allah’s Shariah  is  the  victim  of    change,  interpolation  and    disfigurement  in  the  way  the  Shariahs  of  previous  Ambiya had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  respective  followers.  The  averment  is  a  veiled  rejection  of  the  Finality  of  Nubuwwat    and  of  the  Qur’aan’s  proclamation  of  the completion  and  perfection  of  this  Deen  of  Islam.  In  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have  completed  for  you  My  Bounty (of  the  Perfect  Deen),  and  have  chosen  for  you  Islam  as    (your)  Deen.”   (Aayat  4,  Al-Maaidah)

On  what  basis  does  the  jaahil claim  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  raised  are  not  protected  by  Allah  Ta’ala?  The  Divine  Protection  of  the “Thikr”  mentioned  in  the  Qur’aan  brings  within  its  purview  the  whole  of  the  immutable  Deen  whose  perfection  and  completion  Allah  Ta’ala  has  announced  in  the  Qur’aan.  The  protection  is  not  confined  to  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah’s  promised  Protection  extends  over  the  entire  Deen  which  He  says  He  has  completed  and  perfected.  But  the  jaahil  with  vermiculated  brains  speculates  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  is  based  the authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  and  which  constitute  the  bulwark  of  the  Shariah  have  remained  unprotected  to  be  fodder  for  the  corrupt  interpretations  of  the  modernist  juhhaal.

If  the  Ahaadith  did  not  enjoy  Divine  Protection,  then  today there  would  have  been  no Qur’aan  and  no  immutable  Shariah.  The  compilation  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  was  a  sacred  Task  accomplished  on  the  foundation  of  Ahaadith. Narrations  which  do  not  form  part  of  the  Shariah  should  not  be  cynically  and  deceptively confused  with  the  Protected  Ahaadith  which  constitute  not  only  the  foundation,  but  also the  super  edifice  of  the  Shariah.  For  the  protection  of  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Huffaaz.  For  the  protection  of  the  Shariah,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama.  This  Institution  is  divided  into  several  categories.  For  the  protection  of  the  Ahaadith,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Jamaat  of  the  Muhadditheen.    After  the  accomplishment  of  their  sacred  Task  of  compiling  the  Ahaadith, the  Institution  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  terminated  since  the  objective  had  been  achieved.  Hence,    after  the  era  of  the  Muhadditheen,  we  no  longer  find  Ulama  of  the Muhadditheen  calibre.  The  ‘muhadditheen’  of  later  centuries  were  not  Muhadditheen  in  the meaning  of  the  Institution  as  it  existed  in  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. Thus,  the  averment  that  the  Ahaadith  has  been  left  unprotected  is  kufr.  It  is  a  plot  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  plot  to  introduce  and  innovate  kufr  views  and  ideas  into  Islam.  The  motive  underlying  this  stupid  averment  of  kufr  is  to  leave  open  a  window  through  which  baatil  and  kufr  could  be introduced  by  stealth.

Regardless  of  the  classification  of  Ahaadith  by  the  Muhadditheen  of  the  post Aimmah Mujtahideen  era,  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  were  already  well  defined  and  entrenched  in  the  Ummah,  long  before  the  appearance  of  the  Muhadditheen.  The  Sunnah  as  it  was  handed  to  the  Ummah  by  the  Sahaabah  to  the  Taabieen  is  independent  of  and  not  in  need of  the  Hadith  classification  science  of  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  did  not  need    Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Imaam Muslim  (rahmatullah  alayh)  for  establishing  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  with  its  concomitant  Shariah.  The  Muhadditheen  could  not  and  did  not  discard  any  aspect  of  the  inherited  Sunnah  on  the  basis  of  their  classification  of  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  they  would  make amal  on  (practically  implement)  the  inherited  Sunnah  even  it appeared  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  text  of  any  Hadith  which  they  had  classified  Saheeh.

The  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  Science  formulated  by  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The modernist  Juhhaal  are  making  baboons  and  donkeys  of  themselves  with  their  stupid  attempts  of  shoving  their  ludicrous  snouts  into  this  sacred  Domain.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  does  not  admit  any  dalliance  with  the  stupidities  of  morons  who  attempt  to  project  themselves  as  authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  moron’s  superficial  mention  of  the  Hadith  classes  is  simply  an  exercise  to  flaunt  ‘expertise’  in  the  Science  of  Hadith.  But  the  moron  is  bankrupt  in  this  sphere.

The  modernist  zindeeq  moron  avers:  “An  examination  of  these  classifications  is  sufficient  indication  that  hadith  criticism  is  not  new.  Indeed  hadith  criticism  has  existed  from  the  time  the  first  ahadith  were  narrated.”

The  Ghabi  has  only  exhibited  his  scandalous  jahaalat  by  this  stupid  averment.  Criticism  of  Hadith  is  tantamount  to     criticism  of  the  Qur’aan.  There  never  existed  a  ‘science’  called  ‘Hadith  Criticism’.  The  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  did  not  indulge  in  the  kufr  act  of  criticizing  Ahaadith.  The  consequence  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  was  execution  in the  early  days.  Hadith  classification  is  not  Hadith  criticism.  Rejection  of  a  Hadith  due  to  its  spurious  chain  of  narration    or  lack  of  a  viable  chain  or  on  the  basis  of  any  other  principle  of  the  Muhadditheen,  is  not  to  be  confused  with  Hadith  criticism.  The  examination  of  the  chains  of  narration  by  the  Muhadditheen  was  for  establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith,  not  for  criticizing  the  Matan  (the  body  or  the  actual narration). The  Task  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  Hadith  Compilation,  not  Hadith interpretation  and  not  formulation  of  masaail  on  the  basis  of  Ahaadith.  That  was  a function  superbly  and  adequately  executed  by  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  centuries prior  to  the  age  of  the  Muhadditheen.

Therefore,  it  is  not  permissible  to  wrought  any  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  on  the  basis  of  any  interpretation  of  the  much  later  Ulama  such  as  Imaam  Suyuti,  Ibn  Qayyim,  Shawkaani,  etc.  if  such  interpretation  conflicts  with  the    Sunnah  and  Shariah  which  have  been  handed  down  to  the  Ummah  from  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. These  later  Ulama,  comparatively  speaking,  are  non-entities  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Muijtahideen  and  the  Fuqaha  Mutaqaddimeen.  Furthermore,  these  illustrious  later  Ulama  were  not  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  expounded    and  practised  by the  Mutaqaddimeen  Authorities.  But  the  juhhaal of  these  times  bamboozle  the  ignorant and  the  unwary  by  citing  statements  of  these  Ulama  totally  out  of  context,  as  well  as  on  the basis  of  their  extremely  deficient  understanding  of    what  they  read  in  the  kutub.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  is  for  these  juhhaal foreign  territory.  It  is  dangerous  and  forbidden  for them  to  even  contemplate  traversing  the  Valleys  of  Ahaadith.  The  domain  for  the modernist  moron  is  the  pre-Maktab  class,  for  he  is  still  donning  the  diapers  of  infants.  If  he  has  any  idea  of  the  meaning  of  Imaan,  then  he  should  not  destroy  the  Treasure  with  reckless  disgorgement  of  kufr.

There  did  not  exist  any  Hadith  Criticism  branch  of  Knowledge  in  Islam.  To  say  that  “criticism  of  hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise’  is  to  advertise  jahljahl  murakkab (compound ignorance)  or  jahaalat  piled  on  top  of  jahaalat – ignorance  consisting  of  multiple  of  layers.  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  is  not  a  permissible  enterprise.  Criticism  of  the  Isnaad  is  not  criticism  of  the  Hadith.

The  moron  attempts  to  extravasate  capital  for  his  kufr  idea  from  the  rejection  of narrations  by  the  Muhadditheen.  In  the  rejection  of  narrations  by  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  other  Muhadditheen  there  is no  support  for  the  corrupt  view  of  the  jaahil.  The  setting  aside  of  narrations  was  determined  by  the  status  of  the  Isnaad  (chain  of  narration),  not  by  the Matan  as  the  moron  abortively  attempt  to  convey.  Matan  was  a  Scrutiny  of  the  principle  invoked  in  exceptional  cases  in  the  absence  of  a  viable  Isnaad.

Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  methodology  of  Hadith  Compilation,  the  moron avers:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith.  However, only  3,500  appear  in  his  collection;  he  rejected  the  rest  as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for authenticity.  For  him,  every  hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith    which  did  not  conform  to  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  criteria  is  not a  daleel  for  such  narrations    being  fake  and  fabrications.  Many  other  Muhadditheen  had accepted  and  compiled     numerous  Ahaadith  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  Imaam Bukhaari’s  Compendium.  Furthermore,  he  had  set  aside  the  narrations  in  terms  of  his criteria  applicable  to  the Isnaad.  But,  his  acceptance  and  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith  did  not adversely  affect  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  which  were  in  existence  and  practically implemented  by  even  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh),  not  in  terms  of  his Hadith Compilation,  but  according  to  the  Inherited  Sunnah  and  Shariah.  The  objective  of  Hadith  collection  was  not  to  effect  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah..  On  the  contrary,  the  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  underlying  their  stupid  ‘hadith  criticism’  exercises is  to  scuttle  the  Sunnah  and  to  undermine  the  Shariah.

The  averment  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  believed  every  Hadith  to  be ‘fake’  is  a  dastardly  slander  hurled  at  this  great  Authority  of  Hadith.  Truly,  we  are  living in  the  age  of Juhhaal.  The  density  of  the  brains  of  these  morons  is  indeed  shocking.  This  moron  believes  that  he  is  on  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari.  He  hallucinates  that  he  is  an  authority  of  Hadith  hence  capable  of  submitting  any  Hadith  to  the  scrutiny  of  his  nafs  and  stercoraceous  skull  to  enable  him  to  disgorge  his  skullduggery.  Thus  he  says: “….it  is  very  instructive  to  examine  (historical)  matn  criticism  before  we  ignorant  people decide  to  do  our  own.”   Here  His  jahaalat  boggles  the  imagination.

Here  we  have  a  modernist  moron  deficient  in  even  the  Sunnah  methodology  of  Istinja, believing  that  a  superficial  reading  and   ‘examination  of  matn  criticism’  qualifies  him  to be  a  Bukhaari  or  a  Muslim  or  a  Nisaai’,  etc.  We  must  concede  that  nothing  by  way  of  naseehat  is  capable  of  penetrating  the  layer  of  density  in  which  the  brains  of  a  modernist Juhhaal  is  ensconced.

In  his  endeavour  to  find  room  for  his  haraam  enterprise  of  hadith  criticism,  the  moron says:

“Bukhari’s  hadith  that  Adam’s  height  was  60  cubits  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Hajar,  arguing that  archeological  measurements  of  homes  of  ancient  people  show  they  were  not  abnormally  tall.”  

But  archeological  measurements  show  that  ancient  animals  were  extremely  massive.  Whilst  morons  are  swift  in  their  acknowledgement  of  the  ‘correctness’  of  the  huge  size  of  extinct  animals  such  as  dinosaurs,  they  react  with  kufr  at  the  size  of  Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis  salaam)  stated  in  the  Saheeh  Hadith.  The  existence  and  massive  size  of  dinosaurs and  other  ‘pre-historic’  animals  of  huge  sizes  established  by  archeological  discoveries, dubious  calculations  and  spurious  theories  of  conjecture  and  guesswork  are  accepted  by the  modernist  juhhaal  as  if  these  are  effects  of  divine  revelation  (Wahi),  but  the  height  of  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  substantiated  by  Wahi  is  not  only  frowned  on,  but  rejected  by  the  modernist  Zanaadiqah.  Whatever  the  western  atheists  excrete  into  their  mouths,  the  modernist  morons  ingest  it  with  relish.  This  confirms  their  kufr.

It  is  quite  logical – a  rationality  which  even  a  child  of  discernment  will  comprehend  that  to  ride  and  rein  in  huge  animals  of  the  massive  size  of  dinosaurs,  the  people  had  to  be  of  proportionate  size.  The  people  who  had  lived  in  that  age  of  huge  animals  must themselves  have  been  huge.  A  miniature  modernist  moron  of  this  age  would  not  have  been  able  to  sit  on  a  dinosaur  or  a  horse  of  that  size.  In  fact,  he  would  drown  in  the  animal’s  urine,  and  the  ton  of  faeces  let  out  with  force  would  annihilate  him  in  the  way  lava  is  shot  out  by  an  erupting  volcano.

The  moron,  in  citing  Ibn  Hajar,  has  either  perpetrated  chicanery  or  has  genuinely  stated  what  he  has  stupidly  understood  from  his  excessively  deficient  ‘research’  of  the  writings  of  moron  professors  of  universities,  or  from  some  crash  course  administered  by  his  ilk.  Ibn  Hajar  has  NOT  faulted  the  authenticity  of  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  beyond  the  slightest  vestige  of  reproach.  The  Hadith  in  question  is  of  the  highest  degree  of  Authenticity.  It  is  narrated  by  Bukhaari,  Muslim  and  all  Authorities  of  Hadith.  None  of  the illustrious  Muhadditheen  or  any  of  the  noble  Fuqaha  of  any  age,  had  ever  criticized  the  Hadith,  whether  Sanad  or  Matan.

The  criticism  of  Zindeeqs,  non-entities,  juhhaal  and  modernist  morons  is  of  no significance  and  no  consequence.  One  such  total  non-entity  is  Ibn  Khaldun  and  another  hardcore  modernist  murtad,  Fareed   Wajdi.  Commenting  on  Ibn  Khaldun’s  stupidity, Allamah  Anwar  Shah  Kashmiri  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “What  has  constrained  this person  to  refute  a  Saheeh  Hadith  (which  is  Saheeh)  to  the  Nation  (i.e.  the  illustrious Conglomerate  of  Muhadditheen)…….What  would  be  appropriate  is  that  these  types  of  (kufr)  arguments  should  be  criticized  with  the  Saheeh  Hadith,  not  the  other  way  around,  i.e.  to  mutilate  the  Hadith  (with  arguments  of  kufr).”

Contrary  to  what  the  miserable  modernist  jaahil  has  peddled,  Ibn  Hajar  did  NOT  fault  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith.  He  did  not  criticize  the  Sanad NOR  the  Matan  of  the  Hadith.  He  had  voiced  his  own  lack  of  understanding  in  the  light  of    the  spurious  archeological  facts.  It  is  indeed  surprising  that  an  authority  of  Ibn  Hajr’s  calibre  being  baffled  by  the  ambiguity  generated  by  archeological  facts  which  in  reality  are  the  effects of  conjecture  which  spawned  ambiguity  in  Ibn  Hajar’s  understanding  of  the  Hadith.

Ibn  Hajar  had  failed  to  understand  the  Hadith  in  the  light  of  archeological  discoveries  of  the  size  of  the  houses  which  were  assumed  to  be  the  homes  of  the  Thamud  nation.  This  is  not  the  occasion  to  present  a  detailed  refutation  of  the  spurious  nature  of  archeology.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  Ijma’  of  the  Muhadditheen  can never  be  criticized  if  the  meaning  of  the  text  cannot  be  understood.  Or  if  its  meaning  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  defective  human  reasoning.  When  a  fact  is  declared  Saheeh  by  the  Qur’aan  or  the  Hadith,  no  other  evidence  in  negation  will  be  acceptable.

Despite  Ibn  Hajar  having  accepted  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith  in  question,  and  also  the  text  of  the  Hadith,    the  ambiguity  in  his  mind based  on  what  the  archeologists  say  is  corrupt,  spurious  and  mardood.  The  Hadith  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  on  this  issue  stands  while  the  trepidation  of  Ibn  Hajar,  which  is  bereft  of  Shar’i  daleel  must  necessarily  be  dismissed.

The  inability  of  an  Aalim  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  to understand  the  meaning  of  the  Hadith,  is  not  a  basis  for  justifying  criticism  of  the  Hadith  or  of  the  Shariah  by  modernist  morons.  Be  that  as  it  may.  Hadith  of  this  type  does  not  form  part  of  the  practical  Sunnah,  observance  of  which  is  compulsory  according  to  the  Qur’aan.  Whether  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  was  60  cubits  tall  or  10 cubits,  is  not  Sanad  nor  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  to  maintain  silence  on  such  issues  of  ambiguity.  Since  neither  the Matan  of  this  Hadith  has  been  criticized  by  any  Authority  of  the  Shariah,  the  moron  has  only  displayed  his  gross  jahaalat by  having introduced  this  Hadith in  defence  of  his  kufr  concept  of  hadith  criticism.

In  another  abortive  attempt  to  peddle  his  kufr,  the  moron  says: “Another  hadith  in  Bukhari  that  the  Qur’anic  verse  ‘And  if  two  parties  of  believers  fall  into  fighting,  make  peace  between  them’  refers  to  the  conflict  between  the  Companions  and  Abdullah  ibn Ubayy  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Battal  who  said  Ibn  Ubayy  had  not  embraced  Islam  at  the time.”

A  minor  historical  discrepancy  or  error  of  this  nature  does  not  detract  from  the  validity and  enduring  nature  of  the  Sunnah.  The  occasion  of  the  revelation  of  the  specific Qur’aanic  verse  is  irrelevant  in  the  context  of  the  observance  of  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah, when  two  groups  of  the  Muslimineen  fight/dispute,    remains  static  and  immutable.  The  historical  error  or  the  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  of  the  revelation  does  not  result  in  any  change  of  the  Sunnah  command  of  resolving  mutual  disputes.  Regardless  of  when  the  aayat  was  revealed  or  who  the  disputing  parties  were  at  the  time  of  the  revelation,  the Sunnah  stated  in  the  aayat  remains  unchanged.  The  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  cannot  be  presented  as  a  basis  for  justifying  hadith  criticism  by  morons  more  than  14  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

IBRAAHEEM, THE SON OF RASULULLAH (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)
Selecting  another  Hadith  for  baseless  criticism,  the  moron  avers: “Al-Nawawi,  Ibn  Abdul Barr  and  Ibn  Al-Athir  severely  criticized  the  hadith  that  if  Ibrahim,  son  of  Muhammad  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  nabi.  Shawkani  listed  it  as  a  forged  hadith.”

Notwithstanding  the  status  of  Imaam  Nawawi  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  their  criticism  is  misplaced  and  utterly  baseless.  In  fact  their  decrepit  view   pertaining  to  this  Hadith  has  been  severely  castigated  by  the  Authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  errors  of   even  the  greatest Aalim  are  set  aside  and  rejected.  Those  who  establish  the  errors  of  seniors  as  their  basis for  argument  display  their  lack  or  destruction  of  Imaan

Allamah Abdul  Wahhaab Sha’raani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “He  who  takes  to  the  obscurities  (and  errors)  of  the Ulama,  has  made  his  exit  from  Islam.” 

The  errors,  especially  the  glaring  errors  such  as  the error  of  Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (rahmatullah  alayh)  relevant  to  this  particular  Hadith,  are  to  be  incumbently  set  aside  and  discarded.  Only  a  moron  bereft  of  Imaan  justifies  an  argument  on  the  basis  of  such  baseless  views  structured  on  pure  error.

Commenting  on  this  glaring  error,  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Mirqaatul  Mafaateeh: 

“Of  the  established  rules  in  Usool  is  that  the  Mauqoof  of  a  Sahaabi,  when  it  cannot  be  attributed  to  opinion,  is  in  the  category  of  Mar’foo’.  Thus  the rejection  of  Nawawi  similar  to  that  of  Ibnul  Barr,  is  either  on  account  of  them  both  being  uninformed  (on  this  issue)  or  due  to  their  inability  to  effect  (a  suitable)  ta’weel  (interpretation).  And  Allah  knows  best.”

Allaamah  As-Sindhi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Kifaayatul  Haajat  fi Sharhi  Sunan Abu  Maajah:

“Such  a  statement  (which  is  mentioned  in  this  specific  Hadith)  is  not  the effect  of  opinion.  Verily  a  Jamaat  of  Sahaabah  has  maintained  it.  However,  rejection  of  the  Hadith  of Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  by  Ibn Abdul Barr…………..(this  view  of  Ibnul Barr)  is  not  a  necessary  corollary  of  the  aforementioned  Hadith.”  (We  have  omitted  the view  of  Ibnul  Barr  at  this  juncture – the  author). “It  appears  that  Nawawi  had  followed  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (in  his  baseless  view).  This  is indeed  strange  (ludicrous)  in  view  of  it  (this  Hadith)  being  narrated  by  three  Sahaabah. He  (Ibn  Hajr)  said  in  Al-Fath:  ‘It  is  probable  that  he  (Nawawi)  did  not  remember  the narration  from  three  Sahaabah,  hence  he  rejected  it.”

In  simple  terms,  the  above  means:

➡ A  Hadith  whose  Isnaad terminates  at  a  Sahaabi,  is  termed  Mauqoof.  If  the  content matter  of  the  Hadith  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabi,  then  according  to  the  established  principles  of  Hadith,  the  narration  is  in  the  class  of Marfoo’.

Marfoo’  is  a  Hadith  whose Isnaad  links  up  with  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

➡ The  particular  Hadith  in  question  states  that  if    Ibraaheem  (Rasulullah’s  son  who had  died  in  infancy)  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  Nabi.  This  statement  made  by  at  least  three  Sahaabah    cannot  be  attributed  to  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabah.  It  is  similar  to  Rasulullah’s  statement  reported  in  a  Saheeh  Hadith:  “If  there  had  to  be  a  Nabi  after  me,  it would  be  Umar.”

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  in  all  probability  was  unaware  of  the  Hadith  attributed  to  three Sahaabah  or  he  had  forgotten  this  fact,  hence  he  simply  latched  on  to  the  view  of  Ibn Abdul  Barr  who  had  preceded  him.

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  had  not  presented  a  single  basis  or  evidence  for  arbitrarily  saying that  the  Hadith  is  ‘baatil’.

➡ Ibn  Abdul  Barr’s view  is  likewise  spurious  which  the  Authorities  have  highlighted.

These  modernist  juhhaal are  quick  to  selectively  cite  views  of  tenth  century  Ulama  –  views  which  appeal  to  their  nafs.  They  swiftly  adopt  views  which  developed  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  while  rejecting  the  decrees  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.  They  adopt  an  eerie  silence  regarding  the  orthodox  views  of  even  the  tenth  century  Scholars,  but  project  some  seemingly  ‘liberal’  aspects  of  these  Ulama  in  the  nefarious  attempt  to  eke  out  support  for  their  vile  opinions  of  kufr

The  ‘liberal’  views  which  the  modernist  morons  cite  appear  ‘liberal’  when  presented  deceptively  beyond  the  confines  of  their  respective  contexts.

Ulama  such  as  Ibn  Hajar  and  Imaam  Suyuti  were  extremely  orthodox  and  at  one  with  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon. They  were  staunch  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen.  They  were  not  aberrations,  deviates  and  morons  as  are  the  modernist  juhhaal.  If  a  view  here  and  there  of  these  great  Ulama  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  Sunnah  practice  of  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen,  the  solution  is  to  posit  a  suitable  interpretation  for  attaining  reconciliation.  The  isolated  view  of  conflict  of  some  10th  Century  Ulama  is  never  a  basis  for  the  kufr  fabrications  of  modernist  morons.  These  miserable  morons  have  no  licence  to  quote  Imaam  Suyuti,  etc.  They  are  too  stupid  and  dense  in  the  brains  to  understand  what  these  illustrious  Ulama  said.

That  there  were  and  are  forged  narrations  is  not  denied.  But    such  forgeries  have  already been  sifted  out  and  labelled  by  the  Muhadditheen.  It  is  important  to  understand  that  nothing  of  the  forged  narrations  form  part  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah.  There  is  not  a  single  forged  hadith  which  constitutes  a mustadal  for  the  masaail  of  the  Shariah  formulated  by  the  Fuqha-e-Mutaqaddimeen.  The  job  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  sift  out  the  forgeries.  It  never  was  their  function  to  formulate  the  Shariah  and  to  establish  the  Sunnah. This  obligation  was  executed  par  excellence  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah.  The  Muhadditheen  were  cast  in  a  completely  different  role.

Different  interpretations  of  Ahaadith  on  abstract  issues  do  not  create  latitude  in  the Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  for  intrusion  and  interpolation  by  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah and  the  Shariah  are  immutably  static.  The  accommodation  of    future  and  new  developments  into  the  fabric  of  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  is  likewise  a  static  exercise  since  such    incorporation  is  effected  on  the  basis  of  static  Usool  which  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  had  formulated  in  the  light  of  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah.  Thus  the  latitude  and  free  play  which  the  modernist  jaahil  searches  for  are  not  to  be  found  within  the  framework  of  the  Islam  which  Allah  Ta’ala  had  completed  and  perfected  during  the  very  lifetime  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  thereby  leaving  absolutely  no  scope  for  moronist  interference.  With  regard  to  these  modernist juhhaal,  the  Qur’aan  advises  us:

When  they  (the  Mu’mineen)  hear  laghw  (the  rubbish  and  nonsense  of  morons),  they turn  away  from  it,  and  they  say:  ‘For  us  are  our  deeds  and  for  you  are  your  deeds.  Salaam  on  you.  We  do  not  follow  the  jaahileen  (modernist  morons).

The  aim  of  the  aforegoing    brief  discussion  is  merely    to  highlight  the  ignorance  of  the modernist who  has  set  himself  up  as  a  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.  The  purpose  of  this article  is  not  to  present  a  detailed refutation  of  the  moron’s    spurious  arguments    pertaining to  the  several  Ahaadith  which  have  been  assailed  by  another  moron professor-– a  university in  his  writings  from  whence  the  local  moron  has  lapped  up  his  bunkum.

THE AIM OF THE MORON’S ESSAY The  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  is  to  scuttle  the  14  century  Shariah  of  Islam  and  to substitute  it  with  a  Yahood-Nasaara  type  concocted    religion  which  could  be  paraded under  the  name  of  ‘Islam’.  The  first  step  in  this  pernicious  plot  is  to  fault  and  denigrate the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). To  achieve  this  goal,  the  morons of  our  age  have  latched  on  to  some  rare  criticism  by  some  recognized  Ulama  who  appeared  on  the  scene  many  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Warning  us  to  be  on  guard  against  these juhhaals Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Verily,  I  have  been  given  the  Qur’aan  and  a  likeness  with  it.  Soon  will  there  be  an  obese man  reclining  on  his  couch  saying:  “Adhere  to  this  Kitaab  (the  Qur’aan).  Whatever  you find  halaal  in  it,  regard  it  to  be  halaal.  Whatever  you  find  haraam  in  it,  regard  it  to  be haraam.”  (Then  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  added):  “Verily,  whatever  the Rasool  has  made  haraam  is  just  as  what  Allah has  made  haraam.”

This  Hadith  warns  us  of  the  likes  of  these  modernist  morons  whose  satanic  mission  it  is  to  debunk  the  Ahaadith  which  do  not  find  favour  with  their  western  kuffaar  orientalist masters.

The  morons  aim  to  arrogate  the  right  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  to  themselves,  arguing  that  the  rare  criticism  of  some  Ulama  as  well  as  their  personal  reasoning  are  evidence  for  the validity  of    their  stupid  kufr  theory  of  hadith  criticism.  But  criticizing  Hadith  is  like  criticizing  the  Qur’aan.  The  rare  and  obscure  views  of  a  couple  of  6th,  7th,  8th, and  9th  century  Ulama  have  to  be  dismissed  as  baseless  and  unauthorized.  In  the  face  of  the  rulings  and  views  of  the  Mutaqaddimeen  Muhadditheen  such  as  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam Muslim  and  the  many  others  of  the  Khairul  Quroon era,  the  opinions  of  the  stragglers  who  appeared    hundreds  of  years  later,  have  absolutely  no  footing  and  no  significance.  It  is  gross  stupidity  to  cite  a  view  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  the  deviate  Ibn Qayyim  in  either  negation  of  or  to  fault  the  narrations  of  the  Sihaah  Sittah.  It  is  indeed laughable  to  present  the  criticism  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim  to  attack  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith  of  Bukhaari.

The  views  of  Ulama  of  the  8th  and  9th centuries,  if  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  views  of  the  Ulama  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era,  have  to  be  incumbently  discounted  and  set  aside  as  errors.  The  rulings  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era  are  authenticated  by  the  Qur’aan.  Qur’aanic  command  is  to  obey  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  He  said:  “The  best  of  eras  is  my  era,  then  the  next  era,  then  the  next  era…..” (i.e.  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen).  The  Hadith  continues: “Then  after  them  will  be  people who  will  (make  haste)  to  bear  testimony  whilst  they  are  not  called  on  to  testify;  they  will betray  trust  and  cannot  be  trusted;  they  will  pledge  and  not  fulfil  their  pledges…….Then will  come  people  who  will  love  obesity.” (That  is:  they  will  become  fat,  lazy  and  stupid with  their  indulgence  in  luxuries).

In  another  Hadith,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Honour  my  Sahaabah, for  verily,  they  are  your  noblest;  then  those  after  them;  then  those  after  them.  Thereafter kithb  (falsehood/lies)  will  become  prevalent.”

All  of  these  modernist  juhhaal are  among  the  progeny  of  the  obese  liars  mentioned  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Their  first  hurdle  in    the  execution  of  their  nefarious  conspiracy  of  scuttling  the  Divine  Shariah,  is  to  denigrate  and  negate  the  primary  basis  of  the  Shariah,  which  is  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  is  structured.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  moron  has  disgorged  his  article  of  hadith  criticism.  If  a  window    to  criticize  the  Ahaadith  is  opened  through  which  these  modernist  obese  liars  could  slink,  they  will  wrought  villainy  and  destruction  to  the  Deen.  But  Allah  Ta’ala  has  established  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama-e-Haqq  to  take  care  of  these  obese  liars  and morons  masquerading  as  Muslims  and  wellwishers  of  the  Ummah.  They  are  miserable  sewer  rats  gnawing  at  the  foundations  of  Islam.

Since  the  demarcation  for  the  Divine  Haqq  is  Khairul  Quroon,  we  are  not  interested  in  the tafarrudaat,  errors  and  obscurities  of  Ulama  who    flourished  many  centuries  after  the  termination  of  Khairul  Quroon.  The  Authority  of  the  Shariah  and  the  authentic Shariah  and  Sunnah  are  what  had  existed  in  the  Three  Golden  Ages  of  Islam  specifically  demarcated  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Regardless  of  the  lofty  status  of  any  Aalim  who  existed  a  couple  of  centuries  after  the  Golden  Epoch,  any  view  of  his  which  conflicts  with  the  view  of  the  Sahaabah,  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  Muhadditheen  of  that  epoch  will  be  buried,  albeit  with  decorum.  It  shall  be  interpreted as  a  slip  or  genuine  error  of  the  Aalim.  Every  good  horse  also  slips.  No  man  is  beyond  commission  of  error –  in  fact  numerous  errors.

It  is  indeed  stupid,  in  fact  treacherous,  to  cite  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  and Ibn  Qayyim  who  has  no  rank  in relation  to  the  former  two  authorities,  in  negation  of  any Islamic  ruling  or  practice  which  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  or  the Taabieen.  We  are  not  the  muqallideen  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim.  We  are  the  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era.  The  moron  may  bamboozle  other  modernist  morons  with  these names  and  chicanery.  He  may  perhaps  succeed  with  his  skullduggery  in  the  ranks  of  his  likes.  But  for  those  of  true  Ilm, to  cite  feather-weights  and  non-weights  as  ‘authorities  with  the  power  of  abrogation’  is  ludicrous  and  laughable.  The  morons  simply  make  a  laughing  stock  of  themselves  when  they  disgorge  absolute  rubbish  which  they  attempt  to  pass  off  as  products  of  academic  study.

When  a  view  on  Hadith,  which  developed  300  years  after  Imaam  Bukhaari,  clashes  with    Bukhaari’s  authentication,  the  Deen  and  Intelligence  will  summarily  refute  that  view  as baatil.  That  belated  view  may  not  be  presented  in  negation    of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s accreditation  of  Ahaadith.  Why  did  this  later  view  not  exist  during  the  age  of  Khairul  Quroon?  Why  was  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  valid  and  accepted  by  all authorities  during  the  300  year  gap  between  him  and  Imaam  Nawawi?  It  is  indeed  ridiculous  to  reject  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  and  authentication  on  the  basis  of  a  baseless  view  which  developed  three  centuries  after  him.  Imaam  Nawawi’s  view  of  the  specific  Hadith  being  baatil,  It  is  an  arbitrary  opinion  unsubstantiated  by  any  evidence.  He  presents  no  daleel for  his  view.  Relative  to  Imaam    Bukhaari  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon,  Ulama  who  appeared  many  centuries  thereafter  hold no  rank.  All  of  them  were  the  Muqallideen  of  one  of  the  Four  Mathhabs.  Their  isolated  and  decrepit  views  cannot  denigrate  the  Shariah  as  it  was  known  and  taught  by  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen.

Consider  the  statement  of  Ibn  Qayyim:  he  says  that  even  if  the  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the sun,  the  Hadith  is  not  acceptable.  We  are  constrained  to  say  that  something  had  gone  drastically  wrong  with  his  intellectual  grasp  at  the  time  when  he  was  blabbering  this gutha.  The  bedrock  of  Hadith  Autenticity  is  its  Isnaad, not  its Matan.  Regardless  of  how irrational  the  content  matter  of  the  Hadith  may  appear  to  modernist  morons,  if  the  Isnaad  is  Saheeh,  then  that  Hadith  is  authentic  whether  it  forms  part  of  the  Sunnah  or  not.  And,  rejection  of  a  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the  sun, is  not  tantamount  to  kufr.  It is in  reality  kufr.  The Asaaneed  of  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah  and  Mashhoorah  are  in  fact  “as  bright  as  the  sun.”  They  are  in  the  category  of  Qur’aanic  aayaat.  Ibn  Qayyim  had  indeed  uttered  a  heinous  notriety  by  unthinkably    blurting  out  such  ghutha.

The  sinister  aim  for  propagating  the  haraam  theory  of  hadith  criticism,  and  citing  the  rarities  and  obscurities  of  some  10th century  Ulama  in  an  abortive  attempt  to  justify  the haraam  exercise,  is  to  arrogate  for  themselves  (i.e.  for  the  modernist  juhhaal)  the  right  to  submit  to  their  corrupt  opinion  any  Hadith  appearing  in  Sihaah  Sittah,  then  on  the  basis  of  their  understanding  heavily  contaminated  by  the  indoctrination  of  western  education,  they  desire  to  re-classify  the  Ahaadith  which  were  authenticated  by  the  Muhadditheen  and  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  noble Khairul  Quroon  era.  Thus,  if  a  modernist  moron  reasons  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based,  for  example,  the  Shariah’s  ruling  that  a  grandson  does  not  inherit  his  deceased  father’s  share  in  the  estate  of  his  father  (the grandson’s  grandfather)  since  the  father  (the  grandson’s  father)  had  pre-deceased  his  father,  is  unreasonable,  then  the  Hadith  may  be  excised  and  deposited  in  the  dirt  bin  to  enable  the juhhaal  to  issue  a  new  ruling  allowing  the  grandson  to  inherit  in  this  case.

Or,  if  a  modernist  moron  understands  in  terms  of  his    kufr  westernized  reasoning process  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based  the  ruling  that  the  father  has  the  right  to  have  his  minor  daughter  married,  is  irrational,  then  he  is  allowed  to  ‘attack’  the  Hadith  in  the  manner  in  which  Al-Ismaaili  or  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  Shawkaani  had  ‘attacked’  some  Ahaadith.    In  short,  the  modernist  ignoramuses  indoctrinated  by  the  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,  are  striving  to  arrogate    to  themselves  the  right  to  freely  criticize  just  any  Hadith  which  they  believe  is  in  conflict  with  western  rationalism.

In  fact,  the  ultimate  kufr  plot  is  to  subject  even  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  to  the  same  treatment  of  kufr  criticism.  This  process  has  already  been  subtly  and  devilishly  initiated.  Qur’aanic  verses  which  explicitly  declare  the  superiority  of  men  and  the  subservience  of  women,  especially  the  aayat  which  allows  for  the  grossly  disobedient  wife  to  be  beaten, are  being  subjected  to    interpretation  which  is  baseless  and  kufr.  The  initial  stage  is  to interpret  away  such  Qur’aanic  verses  which  do  not  conform  to  the  rationalism  of  the western  kuffaar.  The  next  phase  to  excise  these  aayat  from  the  Qur’aan  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have    mutilated  the  Tauraah  and  the  Injeel.  But,  as  far  as  the  Qur’aan  and  even  the  Ahaadith  are  concerned,  they  will  miserably  fail.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has  undertaken  the  responsibility  of  guarding  this  Deen – every  aspect  of  it.

The  first  move  in  the  kufr  process  of  transmogrifying  or  destroying  the  Shariah  is  the pernicious  creation  of  a  vast  chasm  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  Thus,  the modernist  moron  says:  ‘the  Qur’an  has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  

The  moron’s  brains  have  become  vermiculated  with  this  shaitaani  waswasah.  The  Hadith is  what  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  said  and  did,  hence  the  Qur’aan  says: “He (Muhammad)  does  not  speak  of  (his)  desire.  It  (i.e. whatever  he  says)  is  Wahi  which  is  revealed  to  him.”

Again  the  Qur’aan  says:    “Whatever  the  Rasool  gives  you,  accept  it  (resolutely),  and  whatever  he  forbids  you  of,  abstain  from  it.”

This,  in  fact,  is  Hadith  on  which  has  been  raised  the  superstructure  of  the  Sunnah.

What  is  truly  mind  boggling  is  the  naked  and  stupid  audacity  of  these  juhhaal  to  equate themselves  to  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  noble  Muhadditheen.  They  seek  to elevate  themselves  to  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam  Muslim,  etc.  Truly,  brains have  gone  haywire. 

While  the  “hadith  criticism  enterprise”  of  these  modernist  morons  is  pure  kufr  designed to  undermine  and  scuttle  the  Shariah,  the  enterprise  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  safeguard the  Shariah  for  posterity  by  compiling  and  codifying  the  Mustadallaat  of  the  Ahkaam  of the  Shariah.  The  obligation  of  the  early  Muhadditheen  was  merely  to  sift  out  fabrications and  to  compile  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  aim  was  to  safe guard  and  preserve  in  book form  the  authentic  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire  Edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  constructed.

The  objective  of  the  modernist  desire  for  hadith  criticism  is  to  dismantle  the  Shariah.  On the  contrary,  the  purpose  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  solidify  and  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Shariah  which  the  authentic  Ahaadith  constitute.  The  two  objectives  are  thus  self  repellant.  The  one  is  the  antithesis  of  the  other.

This  brings  us  to  the  Compilation  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari.

Demonstrating  his  gross  ignorance,  the  moron  says:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith. However,  only  3,500  appear  in  his collection;  he  rejected  the  rest    as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for  authenticity.  For  him  every hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  moron  has  lapped  up  this  rubbish  vomit  from  the  writings  of  another  moron  Professor  of  Moronism  of  some  maloon orientalist  university  in  Calcutta,  India.  It  is  indeed  a  vile  slander  to  accuse  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  had  considered  every  Hadith  ‘fake’  prior  to  his  personal  scrutiny.  It  is  also  downright  stupid  to  claim  that  the  597,000  Ahaadith  which  do  not  form  part  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari  are    forgeries  and  unauthentic,  hence  Imaam  Bukhaari  did  not  include  them  in  his  Kitaab.

Bukhaari  Shareef  is  a  compendium  or  a  comprehensive  summary  of  a  vast  work  which  is  the  600,000  Ahaadith.  The  objective  of  compiling  this  Saheeh  was  not  to  encompass  all  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  objective  was  to  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  covering  all  branches  of  the  Deen.  Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s system  of  compilation,  Al-Ismaaili  (died  371  Hijri)  said: “I  have  heard  from  those  who n arrate  from  him  that  he  had  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  (Ahaadith  which  are)  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  the  majority  of  the  Saheeh  (narrations).”  Thus, whatever  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  has  recorded  is  Saheeh.  Its  authenticity  is  categorical.  Whatever  he  has  left  out  is  not  because  he  has  negated  (their authenticity) …………..He  sufficed  with  a  small  quantity  from  a  large  quantity  (of  authentic  Ahaadith).”  (Taghleequt Ta’leeq)

In  Muqaddamah  fi  Usooli’ l deen it  is  mentioned:  “The  Saheeh  Ahaadith  are  not  confined to  the  Saheeh  of  Bukhaari  and  the  Saheeh  of  Muslim  nor  do  these  two  Kitaabs  encompass all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  these  two  Kitaabs  are  restricted  to  Saheeh Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  such  narrations  which  are  authentic    to  them  on  the  basis  of  their criteria,  (all  of  them)  have  not  been  included  by  them  in  their  two  Kitaabs,  leave  alone  that  which  (is  Saheeh)  according  to  other  (Muhadditheen).

Bukhaari  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  what  is  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  numerous  of  the  Sihaah  (authentic  narrations).”  Muslim  said:  “What  I  have  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  (Saheeh  Muslim)  from  the  Ahaadith  are  Saheeh.  I  do  not  claim  that  whatever  I  have  left  out  is  Dhaeef  (Weak/unreliable).”

Al-Haakim  Abu  Abdullah  An- Naisaapuri  compiled  a  Kitaab  which  he  named Al-Mustadrak  (The  Emmender), in  which  is  recorded  authentic  narrations  which  Bukhaari  and  Muslim  have  left  out  (from  their  Compendiums).  Some  of  the  narrations  (recorded  in  this  Kitaab,  i.e.  Al-Mustadrak)  are  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  of  Shaikhain  (i.e.  Imaam Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim);  some  are  on  the  criteria  of  one  of  them,  and  some  (of  the recorded  authentic  Ahaadith  herein)  are  not  on  the  basis  of  their  criteria.

The  criticism  of  the  (existence  of)  paucity  of  Saheeh  Ahaadith  has  been  refuted  by  the fact  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim  did  not  claim  that  there  are  no  other  Saheeh  Ahaadith  besides  what  they  have  recorded  in  their  two  Kitaabs.”

“Al-Haazmi  said:  ‘It  is    thus  clear  that  the  intention  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  was  to  compile  a brief  summary  in  Hadith.  He  did  not  contemplate  encompassment  (of  all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith),  neither  regarding  the  narrators  nor  regarding  the  Hadith.  There  remains  a  huge  portion  of    Saheeh  Ahaadith  not  recorded  in  the  two  Saheeh  Kitaabs.”  (Al-Imaam  Ibn Maajah  Wa  Sunnanunu)

Innumerable  Saheeh  Ahaadith    not  to  be  found  in  Bukhaari  Shareef  are  record  in numerous  other  authentic  Hadith  Kutub  such  as  Mustadrakul  Haakim, Saheeh  Ibn Khuzaimah,  Saheeh  Ibn  Hibbaan, Al-Mukhtaaratu  lil  Muqaddisi,  Saheeh  Abi  Uwaanah, Al-Saheeh  Ibnus  Sakan,  Muntaqi  libnul  Jaarood,  Abu  Dawood,  Ad-Daaruqutni, Saheeh  Abi  Bakr  Al-Ismaaili, Al-Saheeh  Burqaani,  Saheeh  Abi  Nu’aim Al-Isbihaani, Musnad  Imaam  Ahmad,  Musnad  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah,  At Taqaaseem  Wal  Anwaa’,  and  many  more  Saheeh  Hadith  kutub.

The  moron’s  claim  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  had  abandoned  597,000  Ahaadith  because  he regarded  them  as  ‘fakes  and  forgeries’,  is  manifestly  and  slanderously  false.

The  local  moron  who  has  written  his  silly  article  on  hadith  criticism,  has  simply regurgitated  what  he  has  lapped  up  from  a  book  written  by  a  moron  professor  on  the subject  of  Hadith  literature.  The  poor  moron  professor,  a  product  of  the  western orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,    clearly  lacks  understanding of  the  Shariah  in  general,  and  of    the  sanctity  and  status  of    Ahaadith  in  particular.  He  has  treated  Hadith  as  if  it  is simply  another  secular  topic  to  be  rendered  subservient  to  personal  whim  and  fancy.  He does  not  have  the  haziest  idea  of  the  prime  importance  and  significance  of  the  Sihaah Sittah.  He  believes  that  any  modernist  jaahil  qualification and  kaafir  orientalist  have  the  necessary  to  dissect  and  reject  any  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) which  does  not  conform  to  the  reasoning  of  brains  colonized  by  westernism.  The  (Chain  of  Narration)  Isnaad  of  the  most  authentic  Hadith  on  par  with  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  is  of  no  significance  to  these  westernized  morons  if  in  their    opinion  the  Hadith  happens  to be  in  conflict  with  their  defective  reasoning,  or  if  in  their  opinion  of  kufr  the  Hadith  promises  massive  thawaab  for  acts  of  ibaadat.  What  do  those  wallowing  in  najaasat  and  janaabat  know  and  understand  of  the  value  of  ibaadat  or  the  value  one  Tasbeeh  of  Subhaanallaah  whose  effulgence  can  fill  the  space  between  the  earth  and  the  heaven?  Their  brains  and  hearts  are  bogged  in  the  quagmire  of  materialism  and nafsaaniyat.  In  the  words  of  the  Qur’aan: They  are  more  astray  than  the  dumb  animals. They  eat  and excrete  like  animals,  yet  they  deem  themselves  qualified  to  elevate  themselves  to  the  lofty  Pedestals  occupied  by  the  Sahaabah,  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  and  the Muhadditheen  of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  calibre. 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  has  been  designed  by  the  western  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam  to  undermine  and  dismantle  the  more  than  14  Century  Shariah  of  Islam  about  which  the  Qur’aan  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah  Ta’ala)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen, and  completed  for  you  My Bounty,  and  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”

Salaam  on  those  who  follow  the  Hidaayat  of  Islam!

Isbaal — The Ruling of Wearing One’s Garment Below the Ankles

[By Muhammad ibn Suleman Chothia]

Our discussion will entail the following:

1. Introduction
2. Ahadith with prohibition due to pride
3. Ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride)
4. Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)
5. The Grace of our Role Model’s garment ﷺ
6. Misconceptions and their clarifications


Allah Ta’ala in enumerating His gifts upon us said, “O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as (a means of) adornment. However, the clothing of righteousness – that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember.” [Surah Al-A’raaf: 26]

One of the interpretations of “clothing of righteousness” is clothing which shows humility. (Qurtubi Vol.9 Pg.186, Ruhul Ma’aani Vol.9 Pg.72)

Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever wears a garment of pride and vanity in this world, Allah will clothe him in a garment of humiliation on the Day of Resurrection, then set it ablaze.” (Sunan Ibn Majah #3607)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Eat, give charity and clothe yourselves, without being extravagant, and without pride.” (Sunan Nasai #2559)

Therefore, in dressing, one should opt for clothing that expresses humility and refrain from clothing which has the hint of arrogance and pride in it. 

In doing so, it is also necessary to exercise caution. One should not hastily ascribe piety (humility) to himself and his choices (of clothing) and absolve himself of conceit and pride. Allah Ta’ala, who is fully aware of the hearts and their conditions, has prohibited us from claiming purity and piety. He says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He (Allah) knows best who are the (truly) pious.” [Surah Najam:32] 

One manner of dress which denotes pride and arrogance is the garment which hangs below the ankles of males. Below we will discuss this issue in light of the Quran, Hadith and opinions of the pious predecessors. I ask Allah to open the truth for us, help us to accept it and grant us the ability to follow it.

Before we start, we will like to point out the rulings which the scholars of the Ummah agree upon:

1. The scholars agree that wearing one’s garment up to mid-calf is a Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, which many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) practiced.

2. They also agree that it is permissible for a male to wear his garment up to the ankles.

3. They also agree that it is Haraam and a major sin for a male to intentionally let his garments hang below his ankles out of pride.

4. They also agree that a woman is permitted to let her clothing hang below her ankles. (If she is in sight of a non-mahram, then they agree that she must cover her ankles.)

The one case, on which the scholars disagree, is when the male’s garment is extended below his ankles without pride. Many scholars are of the opinion that it is makrooh (reprehensible) while a large group still maintain that this is also haraam and totally prohibited.

N.B. This ruling of isbaal applies when a person is standing. If a person bends, for instance, into ruku, or a person sits and his garment goes below his ankles, then this is permissible and the ruling of isbaal does not apply.

The evidences for the above will be mentioned below along with a detailed discussion on the point upon which the scholars disagree.
The many authentic ahadith which have been narrated concerning ‘Isbaal’ or lowering the garments below the ankles, are of two types.

1. Those ahadith which prohibit lowering the garments due to arrogance and pride.

2. Those ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride).

Ahadith with the Prohibition Due to ‘Pride’

All the scholars agree that it is prohibited for a male to lower his garments below his ankles if he does such out of arrogance. It is counted as a major sin. (See ‘Zawajir’ of Ibn Hajr Makki Vol.1 Pg.164-165 #109, ‘Fathul Bari’ of Ibn Hajr Asqalani Vol.13 Pg.266)

This is due to the many ahadith which clearly prohibit it in the sternest manner.

Hadith 1:  
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at a person who drags his izãr [below his ankles] out of pride and arrogance.” (Bukhari #5788 and Muslim #2087).

• Imam Nawawi states, “The meaning of ‘not looking at him’ is not having mercy on him and not looking at him with mercy.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.14 Pg.61) 

Hadith 2: 
Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet ﷺ that he said, “Isbaal applies to the izãr (lower garment), the qamis (upper garment) and the a’mamah (turban). Whoever lets any of them drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.”   (Abu Dawud #4094 and Nasa’i Vol. 8 Pg.208).

• Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) states that its chain is sound. (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.2 Pg.116)
• From this hadith we learn that isbaal is not only restricted to the lower garment but it applies to any garment which is worn from above the ankle. (Socks and overall garments worn for protective purposes would not come under this ruling. See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.3 Pg.257)

Imam Tabari (rahimahullah) said that most narrations used the word ‘izãr’ or ‘lower garment’ because in that era most people used to wear izaars and ridaas.  (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.264) However, it also applies to thawb, qamis, jubbah and jackets etc. 

Hadith 3:
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “While a man was walking, dragging his garment with pride, he was caused to be swallowed by the earth and will go on sinking in it till the Day of Resurrection.”  (Bukhari #3485 and Muslim #2088).

• The muhaddith Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes in his commentary on ‘Sahih Muslim’, ‘Al-Mufhim’, “This hadith shows that a person should abandon feeling safe from an immediate punishment on sins and that it is haraam and a major sin for a person to feel proud of himself, his clothing and style.” (Vol.5 Pg.406)
Hadith 4 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “He who drags his clothing out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” I (Shu’bah) asked Muharib (رهمحام الله), “Did he mention the lower garment?” He replied, “He did not specify any lower or upper garment.” (Bukhari #5791 and Muslim #2085e).

• Shu’bah and Muharib (رهمحام الله) are both narrators of this hadith. Muharib (رهمح الله), the teacher, explicitly states that the word used was thawb (clothing or garment) and that there was no specification of any lower and upper garment. Therefore, the rule will apply to any type of clothing that is dragged below the ankles. 

Hadith 5
Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said that I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, “Whoever drags his izãr during the prayer out of pride, then he is not in any halaal with Allah or haraam.”  (Abu Dawud #6371.

• The narrators are all reliable, said Shaikh Shuaib Arnawut.

• The muhaddithun have differed whether it has been narrated as a hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ) or statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu). Imam Tabarani (رهمح الله) narrates it as a statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) with a sound chain. Since it is a statement which cannot be said based on one’s rational, it will still be in the ruling of a Prophetic hadith. (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.256)

• This hadith has been explained in several ways:

i. ‘Any halaal’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not make it permissible for him to commit sin’, which is interpreted to mean ‘He (Allah) will not forgive him of the sins he commits’. ‘Any haraam’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not prevent him’, which is interpreted to mean, ‘He (Allah) will not protect him from committing sins’.

ii. Allah will not permit him into Jannah and He will not prohibit the Hell Fire on him.

iii. He is not doing a permitted action and Allah does not have any respect (ihtiraam) for him.

iv. He has left the halaal and haraam of Allah, meaning he has left the laws of Allah. (See ‘Bazlul Majhood’ Vol.3 Pg.573 and ‘Awnul Mabood’ for the first three Pg.313)

v. Allah does not care about him or his salah. (See ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.170)

vi. He does not believe in the halaal and haraam of Allah.

vii. Allah has freed Himself from him and he has left the Deen. (See ‘Manhal Azb’ Vol.5 Pg.24)

• Regardless of whichever interpretation is taken, it denotes a very severe warning. 

Hadith 6
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever arrogantly drags his garment, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Judgement.” So, Umm Salamah said: “What should the women do with their hems?” He said: “Lower them a hand-span.” So, she said:  “Then their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then lower them a forearm’s length, and do not add to that.” (Tirmithi #1731 and Nasai #5338) .

• Imam Tirmithi (رهمح الله) said, “It is sound (and) authentic.”

• The lowering started from the mid-calf.

• After narrating this hadith, Tirmithi (رهمح الله) commented, “In this hadith, there is a concession for women to drag their izãr because it covers them better.”

• All the scholars agree on this concession for the women. (Sharh Nawawi on Muslim Vol.14 Pg.62)

• If she is in front of a non-mahram, then they agree she must cover her ankles. 

Ahadith with General Prohibition (without mention of pride) 

As for the one who lowers his garment below his ankle, without pride, then this is also haraam and is considered a severe sin according to the most correct scholarly opinion. (See ‘Faidhul Bari’ Vol.6 Pg.72-3, ‘Kitabul Nawazil’ Vol.16 Pg.344, ‘Fatawa Qasmiyah’ Vol.23 Pg.479, ‘Aap ke Masaail aur unka Hal’ Vol.8 Pg.361, ‘Fatawa Haqqaniyah’ Vol.2 Pg.416, ‘Hadith ke Islahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.77, ‘Tuhfatul Alma’i’ Vol.5 Pg.65 & 106, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156)

This is due to the many ahadith which prohibit this, in the harshest words, without any restrictions. Rather, many ahadith state that lowering the garments below the ankles is an act of pride and arrogance, in itself. And arrogance is a major sin. May Allah purify us from it. 

Hadith 1 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The part of an izãr which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire.”  (Bukhari #5787). 

• The literal meaning is that the person’s foot below the ankles or his clothing will enter the Fire. The scholars have explained this in a few ways:

i. What is meant is the foot beneath the clothing will enter the Fire. Once a part of the person enters the Fire, obviously, his whole body will follow.

ii. Along with the person, even that part of his clothing will enter the Fire. This is like the statement of Allah, “Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell…” [Surah Anbiyaa: 98]

So Allah will also throw the idols, which the kuffar worshipped into the Fire, along with them, as a means of intensifying their remorse and highlighting their stupidity, that those from whom they sought prosperity and honour cannot even save themselves from the Fire. (Tafsir Uthmani Vol.5 Pg.262)

Similarly is the case of the garments from which they hoped honour, it will be of no avail to them. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.256, ‘Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.80)

• Therefore, this hadith clearly states that the one who hangs his lower garment below his ankle will enter the Fire of Hell.

• There is no restriction here of pride. Any act in which the Messenger (ﷺ) warns of entering Hell by committing it is considered a major sin. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Vol.6 Pg.652-3 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Zawajir’ Vol.1 Pg.5-6)

Even if one was to consider it a minor sin, it would become a major one in either of the following two situations:

i. If it is accompanied with pride
ii. If one persist in doing it.

• Below, we will learn that dragging one’s garments below the ankles is almost synonymous with pride, if not pride itself.

• Sa’eed ibn Jubair (رهمح الله) reported that a man asked Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), “How many major sins are there? Are there seven?” Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “They are closer to seven hundred than seven, but no sin is major if forgiveness is sought and no sin is minor if it is constantly repeated. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Tabari Vol.6 Pg.651 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim’ Vol.3 Pg.934 #5217, Hafiz Ibn Muflih authenticated its chain in ‘Aadaab Shar’iyah’ Vol.1 Pg.153)

• The muhaddith and faqeeh, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi As-Shaheed (رهمح الله) considered lowering the garment below the ankles a major sin, especially in our times. (See his Fatawa collection ‘Aap ke Masail aur unka Hall’ Vol.8 Pg.361)

This will be explained later on, Allah willing. (See ‘Clarification of Misconception’ #5)

Hadith 2 
Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Three are those with whom Allah would neither speak to on the Day of Resurrection, nor would look at them nor would He purify them and there is a painful chastisement for them.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) repeated it three times. Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) remarked: “They failed and they lost; who are these persons, O Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “The one who wears his lower garment below his ankles, the one who reproaches (on the favours he did to someone) and the seller of goods by false oath.”  (Muslim #106).

• This hadith mentions many extremely severe punishments for those who drag their garments below the ankles:

i. Allah will not speak to them. This means He will not speak to them in the manner that He will speak to the righteous people whom He will be pleased with. Rather, He will speak to them in anger. It can also mean that He will ignore them. Most commentators say it means He will not speak to them in a manner that will benefit them and please them. It can also mean He will not send the angels to them with greetings. It can also mean that Allah will not speak to them directly, which is an honour, in itself.

ii. He will not look at them. This means He will not look at them with mercy. Rather, He will look at them with anger.

iii. He will not purify them. This means Allah will not purify them from the filth of their sins. It also can mean He will not praise them. And whomsoever Allah does not praise, He punishes. (See ‘Sharh Nawawi’ on ‘Muslim’ Vol.2 Pg.116 and ‘Al-Mufhim’ Vol.1 Pg.302-3 for the explanations given)

iv. They will be given a painful punishment other than the above. 

• This person has been placed in the same row as a liar.

• He has been placed in the same row as the one, who is so evil in character, that he reminds people of the favours he did to them. 

Hadith 3 
Abdur-Rahman (رهمح  الله) said: “I asked Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) about the izãr, and he said: You have come to the one who knows about it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘The izãr of the Muslim is to mid-calf, and there is no sin if it comes between that and the ankle, but whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”  (Abu Dawud #4093, Ibn Majah #3573, and Ahmed #11010). 

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Shuaib (رهمح الله) said, “Its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim.”

• This hadith is the clearest in mentioning the distinction between two different sins: 

Sin 1; The one who lets his lower garment drag below his ankle without pride➡He will enter the Fire.

Sin 2: The one who intentionally drags his lower garment below his ankle out of pride➡Allah will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgement.

Hadith 4
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I happened to pass before Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with my lower garment trailing. He said: ‘Abdullah, tug up your lower garment,’ I tugged it up, and he again said: ‘Some more,’ and I tugged it further. Afterwards, I was cautious in practicing that. Some of the people said: To what extent? Thereupon he said: ‘To the middle of the shanks.’”  (Muslim #2086). 

• Again, this hadith has no restriction of pride. The Messenger (ﷺ) commanded Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise it without accusing him of pride.

• Allamah Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes, “This shows that it is such a sin that should not be allowed, rather, one should prohibit it, even if the person may have done it by mistake.” (Al-Mufhim Vol.5 Pg.406) 

Hadith 5
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) clothed him with two garments of the garments of siyaraa, which Ferooz had gifted him. So, I wore the izãr and it drowned me in length and width. So, I dragged it on the ground. I then wore the upper garment and covered my head with it. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) held my shoulders and said, “O Abdullah lift your izãr, because whatever touches the ground of the izãr until below the ankles is in Hell.” Abdullah ibn Muhammad said, “So I never saw a person who was stricter in lifting his clothes than Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).”  (Musnad Ahmed #5713)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said, “It is Sound.” 

• This hadith mentions more details. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) heeded to the Messenger’s ﷺ command right away until his death. There is no mention of pride in any of these two narrations. 

Hadith 6
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: “Once, a person was praying, letting his lower garment trail. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He went, performed wudhu and then returned. He (ﷺ) again said: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He again went, performed wudhu and returned. (On witnessing this) someone asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you order him to perform wudhu?’ He (ﷺ) replied: ‘He was praying with the lower garment trailing, and Allah Ta’ala does not accept the prayer of a man who lets his lower garment trail.’”  (Abu Dawud #638 and ‘Musnad’ Ahmed #16628).

• Imam Nawawi (رهمح الله) said that its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim. Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said that Ahmed (رهمح الله) narrates it and the transmitters are those of the Sahih. (Riyadhus Saliheen Pg.373 #797, ‘Majmauz Zawaid’ Vol.5 Pg.126 Conversely, others have held that Abu Ja’far in the chain is unknown. Based on this, the chain would be slightly weak. See: ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.169, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156 and Arnawut on ‘Musnad’. However, Tirmithi has graded one of Abu Ja’far’s hadith as ‘sound’ [#3442]. Hafiz Ibn Hajr graded him ‘maqbool’ (accepted) in ‘Taqreeb’. This means that his hadith is accepted if supported with a mutaabe’. Well, it is supported by the shaahid of Ibn Masud quoted above. Azim-Aabaadi also considered the hadith sound in ‘Awnul Mabood’ Pg.313. Allah knows best.)

• This hadith indicates to the prohibition of lowering the garments without any restriction of pride to the extent that the man was commanded to re-do his wudhu.

• The command to re-do the wudhu may have been to expiate for the sin committed, as wudhu washes away sins. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever performs ablution as I have done, his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Ibn Majah #285 Busiri authenticated it in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’ Pg.260)

• The salah did remain valid. This is why he wasn’t told to repeat it.

• However, a person will be deprived of the benefits of salah such as forgiveness of sins, purification of the heart, divine reward in the Hereafter, etc. This is what is meant by the salah not being accepted by Allah Ta’ala. (Dalilul Faliheen Vol.5 Pg.342, Shaikh Afzal Ismail, Commentary of Riyadhus Saliheen Vol.2 Pg.175) 

Hadith 7 
Abu Jurayy Jabir ibn Sulaim (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Lift your lower garment halfway up your shin; if you cannot do it, have it up to the ankles. However, beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride and Allah does not like pride.”  (Abu Dawud #4084 and Tirmizi #2722, Bukhari in ‘Adabul Mufrad’ #1182).

• Imam Tirmithi said, “Its chain is sound and authentic.”

• This hadith clearly states that lowering the garments below the ankle is an act of pride in itself.

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani says in ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267,

“In summary, letting down the garment (below the ankles) entails dragging it, and dragging the garment entails pride even if the person did not intend pride.” 

Hadith 8 
The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Sufyan ibn Abi Sahl (radhiyallahu anhu), “Do not trail your garments (below the ankles), because Allah does not like those who trail their garments.”  (Ibn Majah #3574 and Sahih Ibn Hibban #5442). 

• Hafiz Busiri authenticated its chain in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’. (Pg. 467)

• This hadith again mention that Allah dislikes those who lower their garments below the ankles without any mention of pride. 

Hadith 9 
Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) took hold of the calf of my shin – or his shin – and he said: “This is the place of the Izãr, if you must lower it, then a little below, and if you must lower it, then the lzar has no right to be on the ankles.”  (Tirmithi #1783 and Ibn Hibban #5448) . 

• Again, the Messenger (ﷺ) clearly states that the garment has no right on the ankle. Obviously, below is worst. There is no restriction of pride here either.

• Ibn Hibban (رهمح الله) said that this is the furthest limit on the male’s body which is wajib to practice on with regards to hanging the lower garment. 

Hadith 10
Abu Umamah (radhiyqllahu anhu) said, “Once we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and we met Amr ibn Zurarah Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) (who was wearing) a lower and upper garment, which he had trailed below his ankles. The Messenger (ﷺ) took the corner of his garment humbly and started saying, ‘O Allah, Your bondsman, the son of your bondsman and bondswoman,’ until Amr ibn Zurarah (radhiyallahu anhu) heard him and turned to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my shins are thin.’ He replied, ‘O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah beautified the creation of everything. O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah does not love the one who trails his garment below his ankles.’” Thereafter the Messenger (ﷺ) showed him that the izãr should be up to eight fingers below the knees.  (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7909. Also, see ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267).

• Allamah Haithami and Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمحام الله) both said that the narrators are all reliable. (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

• Once again, there is no restriction of pride in this hadith. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح  الله) comments, “It is clear that Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not intend to be arrogant by this lowering of his garment. Yet, the Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited him because it is from the actions which are most likely committed out of arrogance.”  (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

Hadith 11 
Sharid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saw a man trailing his izãr below his ankles so he hastened towards him or he jogged [until he lifted his garment]. He (ﷺ) then said, “Lift your izãr and fear Allah.” The man [exposed his knees and] said, “I am clubfooted. My knees collide with one another when I walk.” He remarked, “All of Allah’s creations are good.” That man was never seen after that but that his izãr was in the middle of his shin [until he died].   (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7238 and Musnad Ahmed  Vol.4 Pg.390. The words between the brackets [] are Ahmed’s). 

• Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said, “The narrators of Ahmed are narrators of the Sahih.” (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

Allamah Munawi (rahimahullah) states that Imam Suyuti (rahimahullah) wrote the abbreviation of authenticity on this hadith.  (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.476)

• “Fear Allah” and refrain from that which Allah has made haraam. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.475-6)

• This Sahabi had a defect in his legs, yet the Messenger (ﷺ) instructed him to lift his garments above his ankles. May Allah grant us the ability to practice on His commands in all circumstances. There is no mention of pride in this hadith. 

Hadith 12 
Samurah ibn Jundub (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said, “Whatever is below the ankles of the izãr is in the Fire.”  (Musnad Ahmed #20098). 

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح  الله) said, “Its chain is authentic.”

• N.B. When a hadith is narrated by a different Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu), it is counted as a separate hadith. 

Hadith 13
Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Surely Allah will not look at the one who lowers his garment below his ankles.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25308).

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah (هظفح الله) graded it authentic. 

Hadith 14 
Abu Ad-Dardã (radhiyallahu anhu) said to Sahl ibn Al-Hanzaliyyah (radhiyallahu anhu), “Tell us something that will benefit us and not harm you.” He said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to us, ‘What a good man Khuraim Al-Asadi is, except that his hair comes down to his shoulders and his izãr hangs below his ankles.’ News of that reached Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) and he went and took a knife and cut his hair until it came to his ears, and he lifted up his izãr to mid-calf.”
(Abu Dawud #4089).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified it sound in ‘Al-Amaali Mutlaqah’. (Pg.36 Also see Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Ahmed’ Vol.29 Pg.159-162)

• The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not mention anything about Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) being proud. Therefore, even if one was to hang his garment without pride, it is not allowed. 

Hadith 15
Abdullah ibn Abil Hudhail (رهمح الله) narrates that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concerning the izãr. So, he took hold of the middle of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he held the lowest part of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he ﷺ replied, “There is no good in anything lower than this.” (Musnad Abi Bakr’ #123)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said that the narrators are reliable, however there is an uncertainty in whether Ibn Abi Hudhail heard from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) or not. Abu Zur’ah said, “Ibn Abi Hudhail from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) is mursal.” It is, however, supported by the narration of Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) quoted above. (See Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Abi Bakr’ Pg.156, ‘Marasil’ of Ibn Abi Hatim #407)

Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) 

The following are narrations in which the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) instructed others to lift their garments above their ankles. Pride is an action of the heart and the traits of the heart are from the unseen. Obviously, the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) did not receive any revelation so they were not aware if someone is doing it out of pride or not. Yet, they instructed them to lift their garments. This shows that the prohibition applies in all cases. 

Athar 1 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person trailing his lower garment, whereupon he said: “From whom do you come?” He described his relationship (with the tribe he belonged) and it was found that he belonged to the tribe of Laith. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) recognized him and said: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with these two ears of mine saying: ‘He who trailed his lower garment with no other intention but pride, Allah would not look toward him on the Day of Resurrection.’”  (Muslim #2085f).

• Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhum) prohibited him from dragging his garments and used the hadith which mentions the restriction of pride. Obviously, he didn’t know what was in his heart. So, this shows that the ruling is general. There are other incidents where Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reprimanded people for dragging their garments below their ankles. (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.274-5)

One more will be mentioned below under the title of ‘Misconceptions and their Clarifications’. 

Athar 2 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person whose lower garment had been trailing and this person started to strike the ground with his foot. He [Abu Hurairah] was the governor of Bahrain and the person was saying: “Here comes the Amir, here comes the Amir.” He (Abu Huraira) reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “Allah will not look toward him who trails his lower garment out of pride.” 
(Muslim #2087).

• Stamping one’s feet is not necessarily an act of arrogance. Rather in certain cases it is even praise worthy. For instance, to show the kuffar that the Muslims are strong and not weak. Even the Messenger ﷺ ordered the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to march when doing tawaf in the Umaratul Qadhaa because the Kuffar of Makkah had said the fever of Madinah has weakened the Muslims. (Sahih Bukhari #1602)

Therefore this person most likely was stamping in that manner as Bahrain still had Jews and Majusis there. 

Athar 3
Kharashah (رهمح الله) said that Umar (Ibn Khattab) (radhiyallahu anhu) called for a blade and lifted the izãr of a man above his ankles. Then he cut what was below that. He (Kharashah) said, “It is though I am looking at the ends of his garment flowing down his heels.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25326. Shaikh Shathri authenticated it in his ‘Ta’leeq’ on ‘Musannaf’ Vol.13 Pg.529)

• Some people say, why do scholars speak about such ‘minor’ issues as dragging the trousers below the ankles when the Ummah is in need of much greater advice? Subhaanallah, Allah forbid. This is the Amirul Mumineen, one of the most outstanding leaders this World has ever seen, taking out his precious time to personally cut the lower garment of one who was dragging it below his ankles. 

Athar 4
There is also another narration collected by Bukhari, which will be mentioned below, in which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) commanded a youth to lift his garment above his ankles after Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by the Majusi. (Bukhari #3700).

• Once again, the leader of the super power of the time, was on his death bed, instructing someone to lift his garment above his ankles. May Allah Ta’ala give us the tawfeeq to honour and practice every single one of his commands. 


Allah Ta’ala said in the Quran Majid that the one who wishes to please Allah and succeed in the Hereafter should follow in the way, method, style and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) “Certainly, you have in the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”  [Surah Ahzab: 21]

The grace and style of the garments which the Messenger (ﷺ) and his companions wore is a well-known fact.  

1. Ubaid ibn Khalid (Or Ubaidah ibn Khalaf. The difference of name is a Sahabi does not cause any weakness to the narration). said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner (or more righteous) for you and long lasting.’ So I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was up to the middle of his calf.’”
(Musnad Ahmed Vol.5 Pg.364, Tirmithi in ‘Shamail’ #114,  and Nasai Sunan Kubraa #9602).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified its chain good (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.266-7). Imam Suyuti indicated to its authenticity in ‘Jameus Sagheer’ and Munawi and San’ani (رهمحام  الله) did not disagree with him in their respective commentaries on ‘Jameus Sagheer’. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ by Munawi Vol.1 Pg.476 and ‘Tanweer’ by San’ani Vol.2 Pg.287)

2. Salamah ibn Akwa’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Uthman ibn Affan (radhiyallahu anhu) used to wear his izãr until his mid-calf and would say, “This is how my companion, the Nabi ﷺ, used to wear his izãr.”
(Shamail Tirmithi #115).

• Even though the Sahabi, Salamah (radhiyallahu anhu) knew the style of the Messenger’s izãr himself, he spoke of Uthman’s style to point out that this Sunnah was established and practiced by the great Sahabah including the Khulafaa Rashideen (radhiyallahu anhum). (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.173, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.173 )

3. Abu Sulaiman (His name is Ayub ibn Dinaar) [Jarh wat Ta’deel Vol.2 Pg.246 #877] narrates from his father that he said, “I saw Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) while he was wearing a najrani izãr up till mid-calf.”  (‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25329 Vol.12 Pg.503)

4. Abu Ishaq (رهمح  الله) said, “I saw people from amongst the companions of the prophet wearing their izãrs until mid-calf.” He then named, “Usamah ibn Zaid, Ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Arqam and Baraa ibnul Azib” (radhiyallahu anhuma). (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25327 Vol.12 Pg.503) 

In Summary, the Sunnah of the Messenger (ﷺ) and many of his companions (radhiyallahu anhum) was to wear the lower garments until mid-calf. Between mid-calf and the ankles is a permissible area. On the other hand, wearing any garments below the ankles is prohibited on males. The punishment for this is entrance into the Fire of Jahannam, may Allah protect us from it. If one knowingly does it out of pride, then he will be in a worst situation, as Allah Ta’ala will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgment. This is the more precautionary opinion, for the outward purport of many strongly-worded Prophetic ahadith state such. 


Misconception 1:
Why do some ahadith place the condition of ‘if it is done out of pride’? 

• Clarification: 
This is to show that the matter is more severe for the one who intentionally does it out of pride. Allamah Sindi (رهمح  الله) says in his ‘Hashiyah’ on ‘Sunan Ibn Majah’, “What is apparent is that this limit is there even if one does not do it out of pride. Yes, if pride is also added to hanging it below the ankle, then the matter is more severe.” (Vol.4 Pg.148) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 2:
It is a case of (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah). That is, the prohibition mentioned a restriction of pride, therefore the opposite ruling will apply when the restriction is not found. 

• Clarification:
Many mujtahidun do not consider this (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah) a valid principle of deducing laws. Even those who use it as evidence, mention a condition that the restriction should not have been mentioned based on it being the norms of such situations. For instance, in the Quran Majid, Allah Ta’ala says, Haraam on you (to marry) are …. your step-daughters, whom are in your care.” [Surah Nisaa: 23]

The restriction of “in your care” here was mentioned because this is the norms of such a case. (The step-father usually takes care of his wife’s children from her previous marriage).

Therefore, its absence will not invert the ruling. It will still remain haraam on a man to marry his step-daughter even if he never took care of her. Similarly, Allamah San’ani (رهمح  الله) states that the restriction of “pride” in some of the ahadith is to indicate that those who usually let their garments below their ankles, do so out of pride. Therefore, if this restriction is not there, then it will not cause the ruling to turn around. (See ‘Istifaaul Aqwaal’ by San’ani Pg.42)

This is also supported by the hadith which called dragging the garments below the ankle, an act of pride in itself. And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Misconception 3:
Applying the restriction to the general ahadith will apply in this case. That is, when certain ahadith are general and others are restricted, then one of the principles of Fiqh is to apply the restriction to the general ahadith. Accordingly, since some ahadith have the restriction of pride, it will also apply to those which are general. 

i. Indeed, this is one principle of Fiqh that is applied in some instances. However, another principle of Fiqh is that the general hadith is practiced on its generality and the restricted one with its restriction. So, we will practice on the general one without any restrictions. The hadith of Abu Saeed Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu), (“Whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”), collected by Abu Dawud (رهمح الله) and others, strengthens the use of this principle here, as it mentions both the scenarios in one hadith, the general and the restricted, and they both were prohibited by mentioning different punishments. Allamah San’ani (رهمح الله) says, “The ahadith indicate that whatever is below the ankles is in the Fire, and this entails prohibition. Other ahadith indicate that whoever drags it out of pride, Allah will not look at him. This also entails prohibition. They also point out that the punishment for the arrogant is a specific punishment, which is Allah not looking at him. This is one of the things that falsifies the claim that it is only prohibited on the proud.” (Istifaaul Aqwaal Pg.26)

ii. One of the conditions for applying the restriction to a general text, for those who use this principle, is that it should not be concerning a prohibition. If the issue is one of prohibition, as is the case with the issue of isbaal, then it is not valid to apply the restriction of one text to the generality of the other. This is explained by Hafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eid in ‘Ihkamul Ahkaam’. (Vol.1 Pg.60 Also see: ‘Al-Bahrul Muheet’ by Zarkashi Vol.3 Pg.430-1). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 4:
The Messenger (ﷺ) told Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) that since he is not letting his garment hang “out of pride”, there is no punishment for him. Therefore, this should also apply to us.  

• Clarification:
Below we will reproduce the complete hadith and then explain it:

Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection at the person who drags his garment (below his ankles) out of pride.” On that Abu Bakr (هنع الله يضر) said, “O Allah’s Messenger, one side of my izãr hangs low unless I meticulously take care of it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You are not one of those who do that out of pride.”   (Bukhari #5784). 

• This narration is usually considered the strongest evidence put forward by those who wish to wear their garments below their ankles. From the following analysis, Allah willing, it will become crystal clear that this narration is actually evidence against their position.

From this hadith, the following points become clear:

i. Only one side was going below Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) ankle. So how can one use this to intentionally hang both sides down his ankles? (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247)

ii. Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not doing it intentionally. How can this be evidence for those who purposely and intentionally wear their trousers below their ankles? (Ibid)

Rather, the scholars wrote that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was very slim and his garments would not stay on him tightly. They would slip off of his hips. Allamah Kirmani (رهمح الله) said he had a slight hunch to his back which also caused his garment to slip off. (Kirmani Vol.21 Pg.53, ‘Umdatul Qari’ Vol.21 Pg.438, ‘Minhatul Baari’ Vol.9 Pg.76)

iii. When he realised it slipped off, he would lift it up. (Umdatul Qari Vol.21 Pg.438) These people never lift it up.

iv. Since Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) didn’t wear it below his ankles intentionally and he would ensure to lift it when he realized it slipped below, there was no question of him being arrogant. Yet, he asked the question concerning his situation. Therefore, this means that he understood it to be general and not restricted to pride. Otherwise, his question would not make sense. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72)

v. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) received revelation from Allah and by it he would know the state of the heart of a person. So, he had the right to testify of the purity of Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu heart.

vi. Since the Messenger (ﷺ) is no longer amongst us, we are not able to claim purity for anyone. Allah alone knows who is pure at heart.

vii. Some scholars say that, out of all the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), only Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was given the reassurance that he is not doing it out of pride. Therefore, this was a specific permission for him. There is no other Sahabi who was afforded this, not even Umar, Uthman or Ali (radhiyallahu anhum). So how can we, who are drowned in sin, claim purity? (Tawdhehaat Sharh Mishkaat Vol.6 Pg.467)

viii. The scholars say that this hadith shows that if one’s garment was to unintentionally fall below one’s ankles, then he would not be taken to task for it. However, this in no way means that one should be careless about it.

ix. Even though this narration clearly negates pride from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), Imam Bukhari (رهمح الله) still mentioned it under the ‘Book of Clothing’, this is to point out that this hadith is a general guideline of wearing garments, without paying attention to the issue of arrogance. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72   

x. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the narrator of this hadith, used to always keep his garments at mid-calf. It is not narrated that he allowed letting the garments go below the ankles for anyone. 

xi. Rather, Hafiz Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) mentions a narration in ‘Tamheed’ in which Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) instructed Abdullah ibn Waqid to lift his garment above his ankles. Ibn Waqid said, “There are some sores on my legs.” Ibn Umar replied, “Even if.” Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) comments, “This is clear that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) held it reprehensible for a person to drag his garments in all conditions.” (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 5:
All those who wear their trousers below their ankles claim that “We don’t do it out of pride.” 

• Clarification:
i. Allah Ta’ala says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.” [Surah Najam: 32]

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani (رهمح الله) writes in ‘Fathul Bari’, “[The faqeeh and muhaddith, Qadhi Abu Bakr] Ibnul Arabi (رهمح الله) said, ‘It is not permissible for a man to let his garment cover his ankles and say, ‘I am not dragging it out of pride’, because the prohibition includes this in its wordings. It is not permissible for he whom the text includes in ruling to say, ‘I am not following it because the primary reason is not in me’, because this is a claim that is not accepted. Rather his lengthening of his lower garment below the ankles is a sign of his pride.’” Then Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) states that this is supported by the hadith, “Beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride.” (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

iii. Shaikh Ibn Ataullah Iskandari (Hafiz Ibn Hajr quotes Hafiz Zahabi (الله اهمحر) saying, “Ibn Ataullah had an extraordinary grandeur, lofty status in the hearts and contribution in virtue. I saw Shaikh Tajuddeen, when he returned from Misr, holding his advices and subtleties in very high regard. He used to speak in the Jame Azhar on a chair with such a speech that revived the hearts. He had combined the statements of the People (i.e. Zuhhad) with the narrations of the Salaf and other topics. So, he had a lot of followers. He had the signs of goodness on him.” ‘Durr Kaaminah’ Vol.1 Pg.274) said, “He who attributes humility to himself is really proud.” (Kitabul Hikam, ‘The Book of Wisdom’ Pg.215, ‘Ummul Amraadh’ by Shaikh Zakariyah Kandhelvi Pg.19)

Humility is the belief that one is the most contemptible and lowest person. The consideration of greatness in oneself is pride. So, the one who puts forth the claim that he is humble is in actual fact considering himself to be elevated. Thus, he is a man of pride. (‘Ikmalus Shiyam’ by Shaikh Abdullah Gangohi Pg.215 White Thread Press)

iv. If we were to assume that it is not always an act of pride, then Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) says that it is still an action that has a high possibility of pride. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

v. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is more righteous for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was till the middle of his calf.’” [  Shamail Tirmithi #114. Its chain is good. (‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7)].

a. Some scholars explain that by saying it is a black sheet with white threads, the Sahabi was indicating that it was not a garment with which one can show off and be proud of. However, the Messenger (ﷺ) informed him of two things. One, there is more piety in lifting it above, as one may feel he is not proud but in actual fact he is. Another point is that we should not feel we are above following the style of the Messenger (ﷺ). This is why the Messenger (ﷺ) rebuked him in a stern manner and said, “Don’t you have a role-model in me?”

b. Another point the scholars derived from this is that one should lift his trousers high so as to prevent any possibility of it dragging below the ankles. This is called  or “closing the doors and means of sin”. (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Mawaahib Ladunniyah’ by Baajuri Pg.235)

vi. The faqeeh and muhaddith, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi (رهمح الله) states that in our times (20th and 21st century. The respected Mufti was assassinated in 2000 CE. May Allah accept his martyrdom) the people who are accustomed to wearing their trousers, pants and lower garments below their ankles consider it an act of honour, rather, they feel ashamed and disgraced in lifting it above the ankles. They look with utmost disdain at the Sunnah of the beloved Prophet (ﷺ), which is wearing the garments at mid-calf. Now you tell me, “Is the cause for this anything other than arrogance and pride?” This is why the respected mufti considered it a major sin, especially in our times. Rather, he went a step further and said, “Further than a major sin, there is a fear of losing one’s Iman by looking at the Prophetic Sunnah in a condescending manner.” (Aap ke Masaail aur unka Haal Vol.8 Pg.361)

vii. In many of the narrations mentioned above, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had instructed many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to lift their garments above their ankles. Would we say (May Allah forbid), that those Sahabah were doing so out of pride? Obviously not.

viii. If anyone had the right to say, ‘I don’t do it out of pride,’ it was Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), but he never made such claims of purification. So, who are we to profess such piety? And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 6:
Yazid ibn Abi Habib (رهمح الله) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to hang his izãr in front of him and lift it from the back. (‘At-Tabaqaat’ Ibn Sa’d Vol.1 Pg.395 ) 

• Imam Suyuti graded it mursal in ‘Jame’us Sagheer’. (Jame’us Sagheer with ‘Taweer’ Vol.8 Pg.563) 

• Clarification:
i. This hadith is mursal, which is one of the types of weak hadith according to the muhaddithun. A mursal hadith is when there is a break in the link of the chain of narration after the tabi’ee. Yazid ibn Abi Yahya (رهمح الله) was a tabi’ee, which means he did not meet the Messenger ﷺ. Therefore, there is a break in the link of this chain of narration. However, a mursal hadith is still used as evidence according to the majority of the mujtahidun, the likes of Abu Hanifah, Malik and Ahmed ibn Hanbal (رمهمح الله). Imam Shafi’ee (رهمح الله) also uses it as evidence when it fulfills a few conditions.

ii. When a hadith is vague, like this one, then it must be interpreted to coincide with the other explicit narrations. Many ahadith mention that the Sunnah and usual method of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was to wear his garments up to mid-calf.

iii. This is why, Allamah San’aani (رهمح الله) explains that this hanging in front was to the extent of the permission given, which is up to mid-calf. (Taweer Vol.8 Pg.563. Permission was given from between mid-calf to above the ankles). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 7:
Ikrimah (رهمح الله) narrated that he saw Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) wearing an izãr; he let the edge of the izãr touch the top of his feet in front and he lifted it higher at the back. I said, “Why are you wearing the izãr in this manner?” He said, “I saw the Messenger of Allah wearing it like that.” (Sunan Abu Dawud #4096)

• Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah classified it as sound. (Ta’leeq ala ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ Vol.12 Pg.503 #25328)

• Some people use this hadith to say that we can drag our garments below our ankles without any restriction of a particular style. 

• Clarification:
i. Firstly, if we were to assume this was the Messenger’s ﷺ regular style of wearing his izãr, it does not clearly state that the front part went below the ankles. The edge of the izãr can touch the top of the foot without going below the ankles, especially when the back part is clearly above the ankles. By taking all the other numerous ahadith on this issue in to consideration, we must interpret it to mean that it did not go below the ankles.

ii. Even if we were to assume it may have gone below the ankles at the front, it clearly did not go below from the back. Also, this manner would leave the ankles exposed and not covered. Therefore, if one was to prove permissibility from this hadith, the izãr would have to be worn in this exact manner. However, this is only possible if one is wearing a lungi or loincloth, which can be tied in such a manner that the front part reaches the top of the foot while the back part stays higher up. This style is impossible with a trouser and extremely difficult with a qamis or jubbah. Those who would like to use this hadith to permit wearing the trousers below their ankles, would never wear them in this manner. 

iii. This is the only hadith that mentions this method of wearing the izãr. All the other ahadith clearly state that the Messenger’s style ﷺ was to wear the garments up to mid-calf. Similarly, the other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) who followed the Messenger’s style ﷺ, wore it up to mid-calf. Therefore, this hadith will be explained in light of what is established.

iv. The great muhaddith and faqeeh, Mulla Ali Qari explains, “Maybe this occurred once from him (the Messenger ﷺ) and Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) happened to see it. This is why he is alone in this style of wearing the izãr from amongst the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum).” (Mirqatul Mafatih Vol.8 Pg.236, The muhaddith Shaikh Idris Kandhelvi also mentioned this interpretation in ‘Ta’liqus Sabih’ Vol.4 Pg.395)

v. Some scholars state that if one was to wear the loincloth in this manner, where the front part is on the top of the foot and the back part is above the ankles and they are exposed, then it would not come under the prohibition of isbaal. (See ‘Awnul Ma’bood’ Pg.1758, ‘Mazahir Haqq Jadid’ Vol.4 Pg.197 Maktabatul Ilm, ‘Khairul Mafatih’ Vol.5 Pg.154)

Refer to point ii of this clarification. And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 8:
It is narrated that Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to let down his izaar. He was asked concerning it, to which he replied, “I am a man whose shins are thin.” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25313)

• Clarification:
i. If a person’s shins are slim then he will simply conceal them by letting the garment below the midway of his calves. There is no need to hang it below the ankles.

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) said, “This hanging narrated from Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) means below the preferable place (of half the calf). It should never be imagined that it went below his ankles.” (Alqamah said, “Ibn Masud was the most similar to the Prophet in his ways, style and mannerism.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #32906])

How could one ever accuse such a great Sahabi, who was known to follow the Messenger (ﷺ) in all his ways, styles and mannerism, of defying the Messenger’s command? Ibn Masud (هنع الله يضر), himself, has narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited from dragging the izãr below the ankles. (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25303, Abu Dawud #4222, Sahih Ibn Hibban #5682-3 and Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’, who classified it authentic. As for the student of Ibn Masud, Abur Rahman ibn Harmalah, then he is truthful. See ‘Jarh wa Ta’dil’ Vol.5 Pg.222-3, ‘Thiqat’ Ibn Hibban Vol.5 Pg.95 and ‘Ta’leequl Awwamah’ on ‘Kashif’.) And Allah knows best.

iii. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) also narrated that on the day Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by Abu Luluah, the Majusi, with such a wound that subsequently took his life, a youth entered upon Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The youth started to praise him. Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw that he was dragging his izãr. So he said, “O my nephew, lift your izãr because, in it, is more fear for your Rabb and cleaner for your garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to always remark, “Amazing! Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw the right of Allah upon him. So, the situation he was in did not prevent him from speaking about the right of Allah.”  (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25312 Ibrahim Nakhai’s Marasil from Ibn Masud are authentic. See ‘Tabribur Rawi’ Vol.3 Pg.166 and Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah’s Ta’lee).

Bukhari also collected it in his ‘Sahih’ but from a different Sahabi, Amr ibn Maimun (radhiyallahu anhu) #3700.

iv. Once Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a man who was hanging his lower garment. So, he told him to lift it up. The man retorted, “And you, O Ibn Masud, lift your lower garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “My feet are slim and I lead people in Salah.” Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) learnt about this and flogged the man saying, “You were rebuking Ibn Masud?” 
(‘Siyar A’laam Nubalaa’ Vol.1 Pg.491-2 Shaik Shuaib said, “Its narrators are reliable.”)

Above, two narrations of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) were mentioned, which showed how strict he was on the issue of the garment hanging below the ankles. Therefore, this clearly shows that Ibn Masud’s garments were simply below the preferable limit and not below the ankles.

v. Rather, the following narration proves that he would never drag it below his ankles. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw two men performing Salah, one had his izãr below his ankles and the other was not completing his ruku and sujood. So, he smiled. They asked, “What makes you smile, O Aba Abdir Rahman?” He replied, “I am surprised at these two men that one has his izãr below his ankles, so Allah will not look at him and as for the second, then Allah will not accept his salah.”  (Musannaf Abdur Razzaq #3735 and Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #9366 Vol.9 Pg.314-5) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 9:
Many scholars say the prohibition is based on pride, and if there is no pride then it is not haraam

• Clarification:
i. The truth is not measured by people, rather people are measured by the truth. The overwhelming evidences as explained above does not support this opinion of theirs. 

ii. Even though these scholars didn’t consider it haram when it is without pride, they still say it is reprehensible (makrooh) and blameworthy.  (See: ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266, ‘Fatawa Hindiyyah’ Vol.5 Pg.333, ‘Tamheed’ Vol.3 Pg.244, ‘Al-Muntaqa Sharh Muatta’ Vol.7 Pg.226, ‘Al-Majmoo’ Vol.4 Pg.338, ‘Al-Mughni’ Vol.2 Pg.298)

iii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr said that even if one was to consider it makrooh to drag the garment below the ankles then that would be in the case where the garment is not unnecessarily long. In other words, it would apply to the one whose garment is actually above his ankles but slips down, like in the case of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). If it is too long, then it would be considered prohibited from many aspects.

a. It would be considered extravagance, (Allah says, “…do not spend wastefully. Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils…”) [Surah Israa: 26-27].

b. It would be considered imitating women. (All the scholars agree that women must hang their garments below their ankles. Kawkab Wahhaj Sharh Muslim Vol.21 Pg.376)

The Messenger (ﷺ) has cursed those men who imitate women and vice versa. [Bukhari #5885 ] He has also specifically cursed those men who wear the garments of women. [Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’ Vol.4 Pg.194, ‘Sahih’ Ibn Hibban #5751. Its chain is authentic on the conditions of Muslim.]

c. If the garments are dragging, then they can collect impurities from the ground. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ).” [‘Shamail’ Tirmithi in  #114. Its chain is good. [‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7] 

d. Faqeehul Ummah Mufti Mahmud Hasan (رهمح الله) adds a fourth reason where it would become haraam. He says that nowadays those who wear their trousers below the ankles are doing so in following the style of the West. Therefore, they will come under the prohibition of emulating the kuffar and fussaq. (Fatawa Mahmoodiyah Vol.27 Pg.413-4)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them.” [Abu Dawud collected this hadith in the chapter entitled, “Garment of Fame and Vanity”. #4031 Ibn Hajr states in ‘Bulooghul Maraam’ #1416, “Authenticated by Ibn Hibban.”]

iv. One should also note that everyone agrees that the Messenger (ﷺ) used to wear his garments above his ankles at half calf. Therefore, this is the Sunnah. The Sahabah, the likes of Uthman, Ali, Ibn Umar, Anas, Jabir and others (radhiyallahu anhu) also used to wear their garments at half calf. (See ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ from narration #25327 to #25331)

So these scholars are in no way promoting wearing any garment below the ankles. Rather they all were strong in practising on the Sunnah.

v. Even though they say that it is not haram to hang the garments below the ankles, they do not claim that any person is free from pride. This is a hidden trait of the heart that is not easily discerned. Rather, Allah Ta’ala states, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.”  [Surah Najam: 32]

vi. After discussing this issue in his commentary of ‘Sahih Muslim’, Shaikhul Islam Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (هظفح الله) concludes, “The original primary cause (illat) behind the prohibition of dragging the garments below the ankles is ‘pride’, as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) explicitly mentioned in the hadith on the topic. However, establishing ‘pride’ is a hidden matter and the one who is afflicted by it does not realise it. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is hanging the garments below the ankles. This is like qasr (shortening the prayers) in travel. The primary cause (illat) is ‘difficulty’. However, ‘difficulty’ is an ambiguous matter which does not come under any rule. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is travel. (So, whenever anyone travels, he will shorten his prayers whether he is in any ‘difficulty’ or not.) Based on this, whenever the garments go below the ankles, the prohibition will apply unless it was unintentional, because in such a case the absence of ‘pride’ is definite. This is so because ‘pride’ is not established by an action in which the slave does not have an intention. It is from this angle that the Messenger (ﷺ) allowed Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) concerning his garment falling below his ankles. He said to him, ‘You are not one who does it out of pride.’ In this manner, all the narrations are reconciled. And Allah knows best.” (See ‘Takmilah Fathil Mulhim’ Vol.4 Pg.108) 

Misconception 10:
I am a person who likes my trousers below my ankles. I find it beautiful and the Messenger (ﷺ) had told a Sahabi, who had asked about beautiful clothing which he liked, it is not a problem as Allah loves beauty. 

• Clarification:
The hadith in question is as follows: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever has a speck of pride (arrogance) in his heart, shall not be admitted into Paradise.” A man asked, “I like for my clothes to be nice, and my sandals to be nice?” So, he said: “Indeed Allah is Graceful and He loves beauty. Pride is refusing the truth and belittling the people.” [Muslim #91 ]

From this hadith, we learn that it is allowed for a person to wear permissible clothing even if it may be beautiful, expensive and valuable, once he does not belittle people by doing such. The other condition is once he does not refuse the truth. In other words, Shariah has placed some guidelines with regards to clothing which are part of the truth. Rejecting these guidelines is arrogance and pride. Below we mention a few guidelines as an example:

i. A man is not allowed to wear silk
ii. A man is not allowed to wear gold

• The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Wearing silk and gold has been made unlawful for the males of my Ummah and lawful for its females.” [Collected by Tirmithi #1720 He said it is sound and authentic. Also see Sahih Bukhari #5831].

iii. The thighs of a man are part of his awrah (private-parts) which is to be covered.

• Jarhad (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Prophet (ﷺ) passed by him while his thigh was exposed, so the Prophet said, “Cover your thigh, for indeed it is awrah.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2798. He said it is sound]  From these guidelines, we see that the hadith concerning the permissibility of wearing beautiful clothing is not subjected to one’s whims and fancies. Rather, it is restricted to the guidelines set out by Shariah. Therefore, a man will not be allowed to wear silk, gold or expose his awrah simply because he considers them beautiful. In the same manner, Shariah has prohibited a man from dragging his clothing below his ankles and has considered this an act of arrogance itself. The evidences have been mentioned above in details. So, it will not be permissible for someone to drag his pants below his ankles, simply because he considers it beautiful. We ask Allah to beautify in our hearts and eyes the Sunnah of His Messenger (ﷺ). And Allah Ta’ala knows best.  

Misconception 11:
We are living in the twenty first century. The style and fashion of today dictates that we wear our trousers below our ankles. If we lift them above our ankles, people will laugh at us and ridicule us.

• Clarification:
The faqeeh, muhaddith and reviver of the Sunnah, Mufti Ahmed Khanpuri (rahimahullah) says in his commentary of ‘Riyadhus Saliheen’ that if you practise on the Deen, then you will be ridiculed and laughed at. Remember, the noblest humans, the Prophets of Allah (alayhimussalam), including our role model, the final Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were all ridiculed and laughed at. Rather, if we are laughed at by the kuffar and fussaq for practising on the Sunnah, then that is a sign that we have passed the exam. It is not something that we should be grieved about. On the other hand, if we follow the fashion of the kuffar and fussaq, then they will not be able to save us from the punishment on the Day of Judgement. [Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen Vol.10 Pg.82-83] And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 


In summary, whether one hangs his garment below his ankles intentionally as an act of pride or without any such intention, it is still prohibited and a sin. There are severe punishments mentioned in many ahadith concerning both of these scenarios. We will list them below:
• Allah Ta’ala will not speak to him. 
• He will not look at him. 
• He will not purify him. 
• The man will be given a painful punishment. 
• He has been placed in the same row as a liar.
• He has been placed in the same row as one who reminds people of the favours he did to them.
• His salah is not accepted.
• Allah Ta’ala has lost respect for him.
• Allah Ta’ala does not care about him.
• He has left the laws of Allah.
• He does not believe in the halal and haram of Allah Ta’ala.
• Allah Ta’ala has freed Himself from him.
• He will enter the Hell Fire. 

We conclude with what Zhahabi said concerning those who fool themselves on this issue. In response to the one who lets his garment hang below the ankle and says ‘I am not doing that out of pride’ he said: 

“We see him behaving in an arrogant manner and purifying his foolish self. And you see him looking at a text (hadith) that is general in meaning, and he restricts it on the basis of another, separate hadith, in the meaning of pride. 

He allows a concession based on the words of al-Siddeeq (Abu Bakr) (radhiyallahu anhu), who said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, my izaar slips down,’ and he (ﷺ) said: “O Abu Bakr, you are not one of those who do that out of pride.’ 

We say: Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not tie his izaar in such a way that it hung below the ankles in the first place, rather he tied it so that it came above the ankle, but it slipped down after that. 

And the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “The izaar of the believer should come to mid-calf, but it does not matter if it comes between (that point) and the ankle.” The same prohibition applies to the one who lets his trousers cover his ankles, or makes his sleeves too long. All of that is from pride which is deeply hidden in the soul.”  [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala Vol.3 Pg.234]

Let us ponder over the following ahadith: The beloved Prophet (ﷺ) said, “One who holds an atoms weight of kibr (arrogance) within his heart will not enter paradise.” [Sahih Muslim 91c] 

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Whoever leaves (certain) garments out of humility to Allah while he is able to (wear), Allah will call him before the heads of creation on the Day of Judgement so that he can select whichever garments of faith he wishes to wear.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2481 and He graded it sound. He also said, “’Garments of faith’ is the garments of Paradise which are given to the people of faith.”] 
May Allah purify our heart from pride and may He save our limbs from actions of pride. May He guide us to practice on each and every Sunnah of his beloved Messenger of Allah ﷺ.   

28 Rabiyul Akhir 1438 = 1/26/2017

Checked and Approved by Mufti Muhammad Mahdi

Refutation of the Belief of Reincarnation

[Allama’  Muhammad Idris Saheb Kandhlavi  (Rahmatullahi  Alayh)]

Just  like  the  Philosophers  and  the  atheists,  the  Brahmans  and  Hindu  also  refute  the  concept  of  resurrection.  However,  the Brahmans  and  Hindus  have  another  strange  belief.  They  say  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as Qiyaamah,  but  they  aver  that  after  death  the souls  change into  different forms.  They  say  that  the  souls  of  good people are  transformed  into  good bodies  and the souls  of evil  characters  are  transformed  into  bad  bodies,  like  dogs,  cats,  scorpions,  etc.,  etc.  This changing  of  bodies  by  the  souls  is  known  as  reincarnation.
Ahle-Islaam  say  that  this  belief  of  reincarnation  is  spurious  and  illogical.  The  reason  being  that  it  is  necessary  for  reward  or  punishment  that  the soul  be  made  aware  of  the  transgression  that  it  had  committed.  When  a  soul  knows  the  transgression  it  had  made  then  it  can in  future  abstain  therefrom  or  at  least  others  will  be  forewarned  thereof.  By  reincarnation,  the  soul  is  none  the  wiser  regarding  its  sin.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  if  a  person  lived  in  a  certain  village  for  many  years,  then  after  moving  to  another  village,  he  will  have  memories  of  his  previous  village,  in  that  he will  relate  to  others  regarding it.  So  now  the  Pundit  (Hindu  priest),  who  according to  his  own philosophy  has  lived  a  previous  (good!)  life  is  now  in  the  form  of  his  present  body,  but  he  cannot  relate  any  part  of  his  past  life  He  says  nothing,  nor  does  his  queen.  It  is  very  possible  that  in  the  previous  life  his  present  wife  was  his  mother,  sister  or  even  daughter! 

Or  maybe  Mahatma  or  Pundit  saheb  was  in  the  previous  life  the  father  of  this  girl  (present  wife)  and  now  he  comes  as  the  husband!  A  person  does  not  even  forget  a  dream  as  much  as  the  Pundit  saheb  forgot  of  his  70  odd  years  of  (previous)  life.  It  is  obvious  that  he  was  not  here in  a  previous  life.  This  sojourn of  his  life  is  the  first  on  earth  and  after  death  he  will  be  cremated  only  to  be  brought  in  to  the  second  stage  of   existence  (Barzakh),  and then  before  Allaah  Ta’ala. 

Even the  philosophers  regard  the   concept  of  reincarnation  as  being  stupid  and  illogical.



JAHEZ  is the haraam system of the bride and her family having to pay exorbitant ‘dowry’ to the  groom. It is a brutal and murderous opposite of the Shariah’s system of Mahr which the man is required to pay to his bride. Jahez is literally a system  which leads to killing of the bride and in some cases to the bride committing suicide. It is not known from which Shaitaan have Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka inherited this barbaric system with regard to which 99.9% of the Ulama in those lands being mute and absolute “DUMB DEVILS”,

This satanic system is so entrenched in the life fabric of Muslim societies of these lands, that it is condoned by even the senior Ulama. The suffering of Muslims in these lands at the hands of the idol-worshipping and cow-worshipping Hindus is therefore not surprising. Perhaps here and there may be heard an isolated whisper of criticism  emanating from some Aalim. The  evil Jahez system is so terribly ingrained in every capillary of the population that even the secular governments are impotent. They have miserably failed to eradicate this abominable system of satanism.

This barbaric system requires the payment of assets – property, cash, furniture, appliances, motorbikes, vehicles, jewellery, etc., etc., by the bride’s family to the bridegroom’s family. If the Jahez requirement has not been fulfilled, the bride is subjected to  great physical and mental abuse. Frequently the bride is murdered, and in some cases, the woman commits suicide to escape the torture of her husband and in-laws. Even in  so-called  respectable and cultured families, while the bride  will not be killed, the custom of Jahez is considered ‘waajib’. It exists even in the homes of Ulama.

Aborting female foetuses is another savage crime and by-product which is perpetrated  by the parents of a woman. If by means of modern technology the gender of the foetus is ascertained to be female, the  baby is aborted – brutally murdered – to avoid paying the jahez in later years. It is akin to the pre-Islam custom of infanticide practised by the Arab mushrikeen who would bury alive their female babies.

Jahez  is the worst form of  savage banditry and extortion which has been accorded acceptability and respectability in the societies of these lands. The  demands  of this system of brutal  banditry continues even after the initial Jahez has been paid.

In NA-Pakistan (the Impure Land) which has a preponderance of ulama-e-soo’, annually 2000 brides are murdered, yet the ulama have deliberately opted to remain deaf, dumb and blind. In India about 8,000 such murders are committed every year.

How is it ever possible for a nation to prosper and lead when the morality of the people is so rotten and savage as to condone the murderous custom of Jahez, and even the brutal killing of brides for their inability  to satisfy in haraam ways the inordinate satanic greed of their in-laws? There are no words which can adequately describe the zulm of these people and the savagery stemming in the wake of this satanic custom.

An occasional whisper by an Aalim does not discharge the obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar which the  sacred Office of Nubuwwat has placed on the shoulders of the Ulama who are supposed to be the Heirs of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). Both the Ulama and the secular government have terribly failed and abandoned their obligation of eradicating this barbaric system.

While the reluctance to act of the secular kuffaar governments of NA-Pakistan and Bangladesh is understandable, the silence of the Ulama is intolerable and lamentable. There is no justification for abstention from Amr Bil Ma’roof. The secular authorities deem it prudent to appease the juhala masses by refraining from embarking on a policy of eradicating the evil. But what has happened to the Ulama. It is their obligation to initiate an educational and da’wat campaign for the elimination of this savagery which the Ulama are condoning with their silence which is interpreted by the masses as acceptance and validity of the system.

In NA-Pakistan the government, to appease the demands of  the U.S.A., has embarked on a vicious and cruel programme of  forced-immunization. People in even the remote countryside are forcefully vaccinated. Heavy fines and jail sentences are meted out to those who refuse to submit to the haraam vaccination ordered by the U.S. master. Yet, no measures are introduced to eradicate the  haraam Jahez savagery.

The western enemies of Islam,  are swift in attributing this barbaric system to Islam despite being fully aware that there is not the slightest affinity between Islam and this evil custom prevalent in the tribal societies of these countries since time immemorial. The deafening silence of the Ulama serves as silent support for the propaganda of the West against Islam. The silence and apathy of the Ulama are the effects of their desire to appease the juhala. The Qur’aan commands the Ulama to fear only Allah Ta’ala, and to proclaim the Haqq regardless of the displeasure and annoyance of the people. Allah Ta’ala commands:

“Do not fear the people. Fear ME, and do not trade My Aaayaat (Laws/Shariah) for a miserable price).”

Misunderstanding Hikmah in Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil

By Abdul Samad Ali

In this age of decadence where the moral fabric of the society is being ripped apart, there are some deluded people, sadly “scholars” too, who remain silent about falsehood and wrongdoings that surround them. In some cases, they endorse it, for whatever reason. And in many other cases, they conflate refutation and rejection of falsehood with “bad-adab”. As if Adab (propriety) entails accepting falsehood and wrongdoings and not speaking against them; handing out chocolates and gifts to the one who has slapped you; and over-emphasising the Prophetic Jamal while neglecting the Prophetic Jalal.

Allah says in the Qur’an:

“[Believers] you are the best community singled out for mankind: you enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah…” [Surah Aali ‘Imran 3:110]

 ‘Good’ in the Arabic language is ‘Khayr‘ and ‘Bad/Evil’ in the Arabic language is ‘Sharr‘. Why then are the words Ma’rūf and Munkar used? Ma’rūf  literally refers to that which is known, because it is what the heart is familiar with. Munkar  literally refers to that which is not known, as it is not known to the heart but the heart learns it. We don’t have the idea of ‘original sin’ or that children are inherently evil. They have to be taught that as their hearts are originally pure. The reason they begin doing bad things is because they are being taught that by humans or Shayātīn.  [R Nsour, Sharh al-Akhdari]

It is interesting that Allah mentions “you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” first and then mentions “and believe in Allah”. Whereas belief in Allah should come first and our actions should then follow. But if we look at the testimony of faith: “There is none worthy of worship except Allah”, we see, as our scholars have mentioned, it is negation (‘There is none worthy of worship…’) followed by affirmation (‘…except Allah’). So, we are negating all deities and refuting all types of falsehood before confirming the Truth; Godhood and Oneness of Allah. One enters the religion with a refutation because falsehood must first be obliterated and only then will true belief manifest. It is also evident from the biography of our Master Muhammad ﷺ that he preached Tawhid (monotheism) for a decade, before conveying anything else, for it is necessary to know the One we are submitting to, before knowing what it is he has commanded us to submit to.

Having said that, to now believe that one must be harsh in preserving the religious boundaries or that we must have a “soft spiritual approach” where transgressions are tolerated, is far from the truth. We discipline our ego, put it aside and love and hate for the sake of Allah only, as that is how our Master Muhammad ﷺ taught us to be. He placed his love and anger appropriately and never got angry for the sake of his own self but only when the rights of Allah were violated.

The conditions for enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong are mentioned by Ibn Rushd in al-Bayan wa’l-Tahsil:

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory upon every Muslim, subject to three conditions:

1.  He should know what ‘right’ is and what ‘wrong’ is. If he is ignorant of the ruling then there is a possibility that he will forbid something that is right and enjoin something that is wrong.

2.  The denunciation of wrong  should not lead to a greater evil, such as if he tells people not to drink alcohol and that may result in murder and the like. In that case, it is not permissible for him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

3.  He should know or think it most likely that his denunciation of evil will put a stop to it, and that his enjoining good will be effective and beneficial. If he doesn’t know that or doesn’t think it (will be effective), then it not obligatory upon him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

The first two conditions are essential for it to be permissible, and the third condition is essential for it to be obligatory. If the first and second conditions are not met, then it is not permissible to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. If the third condition is not met, but the first and second ones are, then it is permissible for him to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, but it is not obligatory.

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman bin Qudamah says in Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Qasidin:

Knowing that there is a certain evil in a market that can be reformed, one should rectify it. Every Muslim should reform himself first, keeping obligations and deserting sins. He should then do the same to his household and relatives, then comes his neighbours, then his fellows of his hometown, then citizens of his country. Finally come people of the world.

Lastly, Ustadh Amjad Mahmood mentions that Shaykh Ramadan al-Bouti (rahimahullah) said during a Dars he delivered on Jami’ al-Iman, almost a decade ago:

People often confuse using Hikmah (wisdom) as being soft and gentle. But Hikmah is rather to use the most effective method and treatment, which can sometimes be harsh and other times soft.

May Allah grant us the right understanding of our religion; forgive us for our shortcomings;  and grant us ‘Afiyah (well-being) in religion, in our life in this world and in the world to come. Aameen!

The Feet In Salaat – A Salafi Error

[Mujlisul  Ulama  of  South  Africa]


In  this  fourteenth  century  of  the  Islamic  era,  a  recently  mushroomed  sect  known  as  the  Salafis,  has  invented  some  new  rules  which  they  believe  are  the  Sunnat  teachings  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Inspite  of  their  views  being  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  belonging  to  the  Noblest  Ages  of  Islam  (Khairul  Quroon),  they  obstinately  cling  to  their  misguided  opinions.  Their  method  is  to  subject  the  Ahadith  to  their  personal  understanding.  Inspite  of  the  divergence  which  this  self-opinion  produces  from  the  Way  of  the  Ummah  inherited  from  the  Sahaabah,  the  Salafis  intransigently  cling  to  their  deviation.

A  little  reflection  would  convince  them  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  who  were  the Students  of  the  Sahaabah  would  propagate  acts  which  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  Any  act  which  has been  accepted  and  practised  by  the  entire  Ummah  from  the  earliest  era  of  Islam  cannot  be  deviation. Deviation  will  be  the  act  which  is  in  conflict  with  this  sacred  Unanimity.

One  of  the  erroneous  practices  of  the  Salafis  is  their  act  of  spreading  their  legs  wide  apart  during  Salaat.  In the  bid  to  touch  the  toes  of  the  musalli  standing  adjacent  to  them,  they  disfigure  their  stance  and  ruin  their composure  with  the  mental  preoccupation  of  touching  the  toes  of  the  musallis  standing  on  both  sides  in  the Saff  during  Jamaat  Salaat.  Even  when  performing  Salaat  alone,  they  stretch  the  legs  hideously  apart.  But  for this  innovation  they  have  absolutely  no  Shar’i  evidence.  A  solitary  Hadith  which  makes  reference  to  ‘foot with  foot’  has  been  grievously  misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  by  them.  Besides  their  misinterpretation, they  have  intentionally  ignored  all  the  other  Shar’i  proofs  which  refute  their  interpretation.

A  perusal  of  the  relevant  Ahadith  on  this  subject  will  convince  every  unbiased  Muslim  that  the  Salafi  interpretation  of  the  Hadith  is  a  concoction  of  the  nafs.  It  is  a  concoction  designed  and  prepared  by  shaitaan to  create  rifts  and  discord  in  the  Ummah.  When  people  opt  to  abandon  the  practices  which  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen  have  reported  on  the  basis  of  the  authority  of  the  Sahaabah,  then  shaitaani  manipulation  is evident.

All  four  Math-habs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  Wal  Jama’ah  unanimously  refute  the  Salafi  contention  on  the position  to  be  adopted  when  standing  for  Salaat.  None  of  the  Math-habs  teaches  that  the  legs  should  be  spread  out  widely  when  standing  for  Salaat  nor  that  the  toes  of  the  Musalli  alongside  should  be  touched. Some  of  the  Salafis  go  to  great  lengths  in  spreading  their  legs  in  the  bid  to  touch  the  next  man’s  toes  causing  annoyance  and  much  irritation.

The  Emphasis  on  Straightening  the  Sufoof (Sufoof  is  the  plural  of  saff  which  refers  to  the  row  of  musallis  in  a  Jamaat)

The  Ahadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  emphasise  the  straightening  of  the  sufoof.  The emphasis  in  all  the  Hadith  narrations  dealing  with  this  subject  is  directed  to  proper  saff*–  formation,  not  on  the  feet  of  the  musallis  touching  the  toes  of  the  musalli  standing  alongside  as  the  Salafis  inordinately  and inconsiderately  practice.

In  the  endeavour  to  sustain  the  practice  of  stretching  the  legs  wide  open  while  performing  Salaat,  the  Salafis  have  gone  to  the  extreme  of  adopting  this  ugly  stance  even  when  performing  Salaat  alone.  While  a  man  who  is  uneducated  in  the  laws  of  the  Shariah  may  misunderstand  the  solitary  Hadith  in  which  reference  has  been  made  to  foot  with  foot,  the  same  mistake  cannot  and  should  not  be  made  in  so  far  as  Salaat  performed  alone  because  the  question  of  foot  with  foot  is  not  remotely  related  to  infiraadi  Salaat,  i.e.  performing  Salaat alone.

The  Salafis  may  abortively  argue  that  the  aim  of  spreading  the  legs  wide  apart  is  to  ensure  straightness  of  the  sufoof,  but  what  argument  do  they  have  for  justifying  this  unbecoming  practice  when  a  man  is  performing Salaat  infiraadan (individually)?  Furthermore,  there  is  no  Hadith  narration  in  this  regard  which  could  even  be  misinterpreted  to  support  the  case  of  a  munfarid  stretching  his  legs  to  the  extremities  of  east  and  west  or  north  and  south,  depending  on  the  location  of  the  Qiblah  from  where  he  happens  to  be.

The  Salafis  claim  that  it  is  Sunnah  to  stretch  the  legs  wide  apart  and  for  a  musalli’s  toes  to  touch  the  toes  of the  musalli  standing  alongside  him  in  the  saff.  This  ludicrous  position  is  imposed  by  the  Salafis  on  even  women  who  are  obliged  to  stand  with  their  legs  wide  open.  What  an  ugly,  miserable  and  immodest  stance for  a  woman  to  adopt?  A  woman  is  an  object  of  concealment  according  to  the  statement  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  When  she  has  to  stretch  her  legs  wide  open,  she  adopts  the  stance  of  lewd  and shameless  women.  Throughout  Salaat,  a  woman’s  postures  are  to  be  constricted  —  made  small  and  drawn in,  not  asserted  like  a  man  asserts  and  expresses  his  actions  during  Salaat.

As  far  as  their  stance  is  concerned  for  the  munfarid,  there  is  not  a  single  Hadith  which  they  can  cite  in substantiation  for  their  view  which  anyhow  is  utterly  baseless.  All  the  relevant  Ahadith  on  this  topic  teach  the contrary,  namely,  that  the  feet  should  be  held  slightly  apart  —  about  four  to  five  inches  (10  cm).  There  also exists  consensus  of  the  Four  Math-habs  on  this  issue.

As  far  as  the  feet  position  for  the  saff  is  concerned,  the  Salafis  conveniently  overlook  all  the  Ahadith  which  negate  their  corrupt  view  and  intransigently  cling  to  a  view  which  they  have  understood  to  be  the  method.  In  taking  to  this  view,  they  deliberately  cast  aside  what  exactly  the  Hadith  in  question  says.  They  took  a  single word  (namely  ‘foot  with  foot’)  out  of  the  context  of  the  Hadith  and  formulated  the  practice  of  stretching  the legs  wide  apart  and  touching  the  toes  of  the  musallis  standing  alongside  on  either  side  in  the  saff.  For  understanding  this  issue,  it  is  best  that  we  cite  all  the  relevant  Ahadith.

The  Ahadith

1.  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: Straighten  the  sufoof,  line  up  the  shoulders,  close  the  gaps  and  become  tender  in  the  hands  of  your  brothers.  Do  not  leave  any  gaps  for  shaitaan.  Whoever  joins  the  saff,  Allah  will  join  him.  And whoever  cuts  the  saff  Allah  will  cut  him.  (Bukhari  &  Abu  Dawood)

[Become  tender:  that  is  to  comply  when  a  brother  musalli  in  the  saff  touches  your  shoulder  indicating  that you  should  bring  it  in  line  with  the  shoulders  of  the  other  musallis  in  the  saff.]

2.  Hadhrat  Baraa’  Bin  Aazib  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) used  to  enter  the  saff  from  end  to  end,  touching  our  chests  and  our  shoulders.  He  would  say:  Do  not  be  irregular  (in  your  rows),  for  then  your  hearts  will  become  irregular  (i.e.  discord  will  overtake  you). He  would  (also)  say: Verily,  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  and  His  Malaaikah  dispatch  Salaam  on  the  first  sufoof

[When  the  word  ‘Salaat’  is  related  to  Allah  Ta  ‘ala,  it  denotes  Rahmat,  i.e.  He  sends  down  mercy.  When  it  is related  to  the  Malaaikah,  it  means  that  they  supplicate  to  Allah  Ta`ala  to  send  His  mercy  upon  His  servants.]

3.  Hadhrat  Anas  Bin  Maalik  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  the  Iqaamah  for  Salaat  was  given. Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  turned  towards  us  and  said:  Straighten  your  sufoof  and stand  close  together,  for  verily  I  see  you  from  behind.  In  a  narration  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu)  it  is  mentioned:  Everyone  among  us  would  put  his  shoulder  with  the  shoulder  of  his  companion  (alongside)  and  his  foot  with  his  foot.

4.  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  Join your  sufoof  and  stand  close  together,  and  stand  in  line  with  (your)  necks.  I  take  oath  by  The  Being in  Whose  power  is  my  life  that  most  certainly  I  see  shaitaan  entering  the  gaps  in  the  saff  as  if  he  is a  lamb.  (Abu  Dawood)

5.  Abul  Qaasim  Jadli  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said  :I  heard  Nu’maan  Bin  Basheer  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  say: ‘Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  turned  towards  the  people  (the  musallis)  and  say  three times:  ‘By  Allah!  Most  certainly,  you  should  straighten  your  sufoof  otherwise  Allah  will  create discord  in  your  hearts.’  Thereafter  I  saw  that  a  man  would  attach  his  shoulder  to  the  shoulder  of  his companion  (the  one  standing  alongside),  his  knee  to  the  knee  of  his  companion  and  his  ankle  to  the  ankle  of  his  companion.  (Bukhari  &  Abu  Dawood)

6.  Nu’maan Bin  Basheer  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  would arrange  (set  in  order)  our  sufoof.  One  day  he  came  out  (from  his  home)  and  saw  a  man  (in  the  saff) whose  chest  was  protruding  in  front  of  the  (chests  of)  the  community  (i.e.  the  musallis).  He  then commented:  ‘Straighten  your  sufoof  otherwise  Allah  will  cast  discord  in  your  faces  (i.e.  in  the  words coming  from  your  mouths).  (Tirmizi)

7.  Maalik  Ibn  Abi  Aamir  Ansaari  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Uthmaan  Bin  Affaan  (radhiyallahu  anhu) would  recite  in  his  Khutbah:  ‘When  the  Salaat  is  ready,  arrange  the  sufoof  properly  and  line  up  with the  shoulders’  (i.e.  the  shoulders  of  the  musallis  should  all  be  in  line  and  touching).  (Muatta  Imaam Muhammad)

8.  Hadhrat  Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrated  that  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  Join  your  sufoof  and  draw  close  among  yourselves  and  line  up  with  the  necks.  Reported  by  Abu  Dawood  and Nisai.  Authenticated  by  Ibn  Hibbaan.  (Bulooghul  Maraam)–*I’laaus  Sunnan

These  are  about  all  the  narrations  pertaining  to  the  manner  and  style  of  standing  in  Jamaat  Salaat. Explaining  these  Ahadith,  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  the  section  captioned:


This  is  what  the  Jamhoor  have  said:  ‘Verily,  the  meaning  (of  joining  in  this  context)  is  complete  nearness and  lining  up,  not  actual  joining  (or  touching).’  Al-Haafiz  said:  The  meaning  of  this  is  to  emphasise  in straightening  the  saff  and  closing  the  gaps.  And  Aini  too  has  said  so.  With  this,  the  indication  is  towards emphasis  in  straightening  the  sufoof  and  closing  the  gaps.  Qustulaani  and  others  have  also  said  this. (Laamiud Duraari commentary of Bukhari)

In  Faidhul  Baari  it  is  reported  as  follows:

It  is  stated  in  Sharhul  Wiqaayah:  ‘The  musalli  should  stand  apart  (with  his  feet)  so  that  there  is  a  distance  of  four  fingers  in  between  them,  and  that  is  also  the  view  of  Imaam  Shaafi  (rahmatullah  alayh),  In  another  view  it  is  said  that  the  distance  (between  the  feet)  should  be  one  hand  (i.e.  about  10  cm).’  (The  author  says):  I  did not  find  any  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Salf  (i.e.  Salf-e-Saaliheen)  between  the  stance  (of  the  musalli) in  Jama’ah  and  in  infiraad  (i.e.  performing  alone).  There  is  no  difference  regarding  the  gap  (between  the feet).  It  is  not  that  the  spreading  of  the  feet  should  be  more  in  Jama’ah  than  when  performing  Salaat  alone.

The  summary  of  this  is:  When  we  do  not  find  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Taabi-een  differentiating  in  their standing  position  between  Jama’ah  and  individual  Salaat,  then  we  understand  that  the  only  meaning  of Rasulullah’s  statement  of  ‘joining  the  shoulders’  is  to  line  up  closely  and  to  abstain  from  leaving  gaps (between  the  musallis).

The  following  appears  in  Laamiud  Duraari,  Commentary  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari:

The  Authorities  (the  Fuqaha)  stated  that  it  is  best  for  the  musalli  to  keep  his  feet  about  four  fingers  apart. They  did  not  say  that  the  feet  should  be  united  in  ruku’  or  sajdah.  Aini  says  in  Binaayah:  ‘It  is  appropriate  that  there  be  the  distance  of  four  fingers  between  the  feet  of  the  musalli,  for  verily,  this  is  nearest  to  khushoo.’

Ibn  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhuma)  would  not  spread  (widely)  his  feet  nor  would  the  one  foot  touch  the  other, but  between  this  there  would  be  neither  much  closeness  nor  much  distance.

In  Raddul  Muhtaar  it  is  reported  as  follows:

The  meaning  of  joining  ankles  to  ankles  is  that  everyone  in  the  Jama’ah  should  stand  alongside  the  other (i.e.  in  a  straight  line).  So  is  it  said  in  Fataawa  Samarqand).  (I’laaus  Sunan)

From  all  the  narrations  and  views  of  the  Muhadditheen  and  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era  it  is abundantly  clear  that  the  Hadith  which  mentions  joining  foot  with  foot  does  not  have  a  literal  meaning.  It simply  means  that  the  feet  should  be  all  in  line,  and  this  is  achieved  by  the  heels  of  the  musallis  all  being  in the  same line. This  will  ensure  a  straight  saff  on  which  the  emphasis  of  all  the  Ahadith  is.

The  Salafis

The  Salafis  of  this  age,  while  grabbing  the  words  ‘foot  with  foot’,  ignore  ‘neck  with  neck’,  ‘shoulder  with  shoulder’,  ‘knee  with  knee’  and  ‘ankle  with  ankle’.  The  narrations  command  joining  of  the  necks  just  as  it instructs  joining  of  the  feet.  And,  in  the  same  way  it  commands  joining  of  the  knees  and  ankles.  How  is  it possible  for  the  neck  of  one  musalli  to  touch  the  neck  of  the  musalli  alongside?  At  most,  shoulders  can  touch.  But  to  achieve  the  phenomenal  act  of  joining  necks,  the  musallis  will  have  to  ruin  their  Salaat  and stand  on  their  toes  balancing  at  a  precarious  angle  to  achieve  the  goal  of  touching  each  other’s  neck.  But  no  one  has  ever  advocated  this  ludicrous  stance.  Similarly,  if  the  literal  sense  of  the  ‘ankle  with  ankle’  has  to  be  accepted,  it  will  place  the  musallis  under  great  stress  to  achieve  what  is  not  simple  because  the  protruding heels  are  barriers  for  this  achievement.  Also,  if  ‘knee  against  knee’  had  to  be  literally  considered,  the  musallis  would  have  to  stand  with  ugly  bandied  legs,  stretching  even  their  thighs  hideously  in  order  to  join their  knees  with  the  knees  of  their  companions?  But,  not  even  the  Salafis  have  ventured  such  ludicrousness.

Why do the  Salafis  choose  only  ‘foot  with  foot’  out  of  the  several  instructions  pertaining  to  the  joining  of various  bodily  parts?  For  this  choice  they  have  only  their  intransigent  nafsaani  desire –no  daleel  whatsoever. What  is  the  determining  factor  to  choose  only  feet  and  to  ignore  necks,  knees,  shoulders  and  ankles?  On the  other  hand,  the  Ahlus  Sunnah Wal  Jama’ah  —  the  followers  of  the  Four  Math-habs  —  *have  a  mass  of evidence  to  support  ‘joining  of  the  shoulders’.  Furthermore,  joining  or  lining  up  of  the  shoulders  is  simple, rational  and  fulfills  in  the  best  way  the  instruction  of  straightening  the  saff.

It  should  be  noted  that  the  emphasis  is  on  closing  the  gaps.  There  should  be  no  gap  between  two  musallis  standing  in  the  saff.  But,  the  wider  the  legs  are  spread  apart,  the  more  the  distance  between  the  shoulders will  increase.  Thus,  spreading  the  legs  wide  apart  defeats  the  very  command  issued  in  the  Hadith  to  close the  gaps  and  straighten  the  sufoof.

In  order  to  achieve  ‘foot  with  foot’  literally,  the  Salafis  are  constrained  to  turn  their  feet  at  angles  away  from  the  Qiblah.  In  this  hideous  exercise  they  manage  only  to  touch  the  toes  of  the  adjacent  musalli  with  much  difficulty  and  irritation  to  those  whose  peace  of  mind  is  disturbed  with  the  unruly  encroachment  of  his companion’s  toes.  When  the  toes  are  made  to  touch  with  the  feet  in  diagonal  positions,  the  shoulders  cannot touch,  the  knees,  ankles,  necks,  etc.  are  thrown  completely  out  of  alignment.

When shoulders  are  not  lined  up,  it  is  impossible  to  achieve  straight  sufoof.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the Hadith  emphasises  more  on  shoulders.  Feet  are  mentioned  only  once.  The  Sahaabah  and  the  Taabi-een  relate  the  instruction  ‘to  line  up’  and  straighten  the  saff  to  the  shoulders,  necks,  knees,  ankles  and  the  feet.  In  other  words,  all  these  should  be  in  line,  not  out  of  alignment.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Hadith  clearly mentions  that  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  in  fact  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  himself,  would  order  protruding  chests  to  recede  into  line.  Never  did  any  of  the  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  speak  about  feet  which  should  touch.

In  the  adoption  of  the  Salafi  mode,  the  movement  is  excessive  in  Salaat.  Neither  is  proper  Ruku’  nor  proper  Sajdah  possible  if  this  hideous  posture  has  to  be  retained  throughout  Salaat.  In  fact  Sajdah  is  not  at  all  possible  with  the  feet  spread  wide  apart.  Therefore,  the  Salafis  are  constrained  to  shift  positions  repeatedly  when  going  to  ruku’.  This  excessive  movement  in  Salaat  in  negatory  of  khushoo’.


While  the  case  of  the  Four  Math-habs  is  logical,  the  actual  daleel  (proof)  for  our  view  is  not  rational interpretation,  but  is  narrational  evidence.  Such  evidence  has  been  transmitted  down  the  centuries  from  the Sahaabah.  It  should  be  understood  that  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  —  the  Imaams  of  the  Math-habs  —  had acquired  their  knowledge  of  Islam  from  either  the  Sahaabah  or  the  Taabi-een  who  were  the  Students  of  the Sahaabah.  Whatever  they  taught  is  therefore,  what  the  Sahaabah  had  instructed.  It  is  the  height  of  folly  and deviation  to  differ  with  them  and  to  choose  a  way  which  is  at  variance  with  what  they  had  disseminated.

It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  —  all  the  Imaams  of  the  Math-bas  were  among  them  —  were in  deviation  and  the  present-day  Salafis  are  on  Rectitude.  This  is  unacceptable  to  any  Muslim  who  is prepared  to  reflect  a  bit.  The  greatest  daleel  for  the  view  of  the  Math-habs  is  that  whatever  they  teach  has been  acquired  directly  from  either  the  Sahaabah  or  the  Taabi-een.

The  Salafi  practice  of  spreading  the  feet  wide  apart  and  the  irritating  attempt  to  touch  the  next  man’s  toes  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  as  the  aforegoing  Shar’i  evidences  have  established.


1.  According  to  the  Hambali  Math-hab  there  should  be  a  ‘small’  gap  between  the  feet  of  the  musalli.

2.  According  to  the  Maaliki  Math-hab,  the  distance  should  be  moderate,  neither  together  nor  so  wide  apart  which  is  considered  repugnant.

3.  According  to  the  Shaafi  Math-hab,  the  gap  between  the  feet  should  be  one  hand.  It  is  Makrooh  to  spread the  feet  wider  than  this.

4.  According  to  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  the  distance  between  the  feet  should  be  four  fingers.

This  is  the  Sunnah  and  the  Way  of  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen.  The  Salafis  have  no  authority  from  the  Salf-e-Saaliheen  to  substantiate  its  view  of  bid’ah.

Manner of standing in the rows of the jama`ah

[Shaikh Muhammad Ilyas Faisal, Madinat  al-Munawwara]

It  is  established  from  several  ahadith  that  the  row  should  be  absolutely  straight and  no  gaps  should  be  left  between  the  worshippers.  However,  some  people  insist on  spreading  their  feet  and  standing  in  such  a  manner  that  their  ankles  touch  the ankles  of  their  neighbour.  What  is  the  reality  of  standing  in  this  fashion?  

Those  who  stand  in  this  way  base  their  practice  upon  a  hadith  narrated  by Nu’maan  bin  Basheer  (radhiallahu  anhu).  He  says:  “Once  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alaihi  wasallam)  faced  us  and  said:  “Straighten  your  rows”.  He  repeated  this thrice.  He  then  said:  “By  Allah,  you  must  most  certainly  straighten  your  rows  or else  Allah  Ta’ala  will  disunite  your  hearts”.  Hazrat  Nu’maan  bin  Basheer (radhiallahu  anhu)  says:  “I  then  saw  the  people  joining  together  their  shoulders and  ankles”.  [Abu  Dawood,  Sahih  ibn  Khuzaima]  

The  concluding  statement  of  Hazrat  Nu’maan  (radhiallahu  anhu)  is  also  reported in  Sahih  Bukhari.  

However,  upon  analysing  this  hadith,  several  points  come  to  light:  Firstly, Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  never  commanded  the  joining  of  the ankles.  No  hadith  has  yet  been  found  wherein  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi wasallam)  himself  instructed  the  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  to  join  their  ankles. The  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  had  themselves  adopted  this  manner  in  order  to fulfil  the  command  of  straightening  the  saff.  Secondly,  this  hadith  clearly mentions  that  Nu’maan  bin  Basheer  (radhiallahu  anhu)  saw  the  Sahaaba (radhiallahu  anhu)  doing  this  PRIOR  to  the  commencement  of  the  salah.  There is  no  mention  of  this  position  being  maintained  even  after  the  salah  had commenced.  Therefore  we  find  that  great  muhadditheen  such  as  Hafiz  ibn  Hajar (Rahimahullah)  and  Allama  Shawkani  (Rahimahullah)  have  regarded  this  as  an  extreme  measure which  was  occasionally  adopted  by  the  Sahaaba  (radhiallahu  anhu)  to  ensure  that the  row  is  straight.  

In  fact,  a  hadith  of  Hazrat  Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  makes  it  absolutely  clear  that this  practice  was  merely  a  measure  adopted  BEFORE  the  salah  to  ensure  the straightening  of  the  row.  He  says:  “If  I  had  to  do  that  (join  the  ankles)  with anyone  of  them  (the  tabi’een)  today,  they  would  run  like  wild  mules”.  [Fath  al-Bari,  vol.2,  pg.176]  

This  simply  means  that  the  taabi’een  severely  disliked  that  anybody  should  join their  ankles  with  them.  Several  points  are  understood  from  this:  Firstly,  Hazrat Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  had  stopped  doing  this  completely.  Had  this  been  a sunnah  and  not  just  a  manner  of  ensuring  that  the  saff  was  straight,  it  is impossible  that  Hazrat  Anas  (radhiallahu  anhu)  would  have  left  it  out  merely upon  somebody  disliking  it.  

Secondly,  the  taabi’een  would  never  have  disliked  it  if  they  had  observed  many  of the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  continuously  practicing  upon  this.  It  was  only due  to  the  fact  that  they  had  not  generally  observed  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu anhum)  adopting  this  procedure  that  they  disliked  it.  Hence  this  makes  it  crystal clear  that  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  had  only  occasionally  adopted  this practice  to  ensure  the  straightening  of  the  saff.  It  was  not  a  sunnah  in  itself, otherwise  they  would  never  have  left  it  out.  

It  has  already  been  made  clear  that  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  never  himself  instructed  the  joining  of  the  ankles,  nor  is  there  any  mention  of  the  Sahaba  (radhiallahu  anhum)  having  maintained  this  position  even  IN  salah. However,  if  for  a  moment  we  do  accept  that  this  position  must  be  adopted  during  the  course  of  the  salah  as  well,  the  question  is:  In  which  posture  of  salah  must this  position  be  maintained?  Must  it  be  maintained  during  qiyam,  ruku,  sajdah  and qada  or  in  only  some  of  these  postures?  If  one  says  that  the  ankles  should  be  joined  only  in  the  qiyam  posture,  on  what  basis  were  the  other  postures  excluded? If  it  is  argued  that  it  is  difficult  to  do  so  in  ruku  and  sajdah,  the  same  could  be  said for  qiyam,  since  to  stand  with  one’s  feet  spread  apart  is  naturally  awkward  and hence  it  presents  a  certain  amount  of  difficulty  and  uneasiness  for  many  people.  In short,  this  practice  is  not  established  as  a  sunnah  of  salah.  It  was  merely  adopted initially  by  the  Sahaba  (radiallahu  anhum)  BEFORE  the  commencement  of  salah  to  ensure  that  the  rows  are straight. 

Related Reading: The Distance to be kept between the feet during Salaat [Hanafi view]



Muhammad Armstrong is a westerner who has entered the fold of Islam by the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala. He is an expert on the evil western system of vaccination. He has written extensively on this extremely harmful practice. The following are some of his very valid and wise comments and salutary naseehat for Muslims – for Ulama and the awaam (the masses) alike. He has seen and experienced both sides of the coin of humanity – kufr and Imaan. The Brother writes:

Assalaamu alaykum

It saddens me to see the Muslims and many Ulama so blinded and passionately impressed with the European system. The Indian Muslims are been herded into accepting this blueprint of kufr, especially with technology, mediSIN (medicine which in fact is SIN—The Majlis) and education. From my observations of seeing both sides, just about everything invented by this system turns out to be harmful or unnatural for mankind in the long run. Allopathic (HELLopathic) MediSIN is one of the biggest illusions concocted.

I am deeply disturbed about the Muslim Ummah in India, even Deoband (even in Pakistan, in fact in all the lands of Muslims- The Majlis), embracing the “modern gift” (the satanic gift –The Majlis) of western education. I have seen a complete change in some madresahs who have felt compelled to teach fancy, colourful books that gradually take away ones Islam. Done in the name of “we must have an education because they are calling us backward”, not realising that no education (illiteracy and being without western education – The Majlis) is better than a destructive education. This western education blueprint seems to be the ultimate unstoppable weapon of mass destruction!

It also grieves me to see top Ulama not seeing the truth about vaccines being harmful or just like gambling and conventional insurance policies!  (End of the Brother’s letter)

COMMENT [Majlisul Ulama]

Allah Ta’ala warning the Ulama in particular, states in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“And, if you turn (your backs on to the Deen), He (Allah) will substitute you  with others besides you. Then they will not be (so miserable)  like you.”

(That is, they will not be scholars for dollars selling the Deen for a miserable price as has become the standard practice of the molvis, sheikhs and maajin muftis of this era).

The ‘others who will not be like you” – who will not be the bootlickers of the western kuffaar – who will not be suffering from the mental disease of inferiority – who will not emulate the Yahood and Nasaara right into the ‘lizard’s hole’, are Brothers such as Muhammad Armstrong. It is our fervent Dua that Allah Ta’ala spans into the arena of the conflict between Haqq and baatil more sincere Brothers such as the author of this letter.

Understanding the Term ‘Ruhullah’ [Spirit of Allah]

O  people  of  the  Book,  be  not  excessive  in  your  Faith  and  do  not  say  about  Allah  anything  but  the  truth.  The Masih  ‘Isa,  the  son  of  Maryam,  is  only  a  Messenger  of  Allah  and  His  word  He  delivered  to  Maryam,  and  a  spirit  from  Him.  So,  believe  in  Allah  and  His  Messengers…. [Qur’an 4:171]

Christians  love  to  mis-represent  the  term Ruhim min & Ruhullah and  consider  it  to  deify  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam).  In  this  article  we  represent  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi’ (rahimahullah)’s  explanation  and  refute  the  missionary  misuse  of  those  terms  in  the  Qur’an.

Let  us  consider  the  statement: ruhim min  (and  a  spirit  from  Him.)  in  this  verse.  Worth  attention  here  are  two  aspects  of  our  probe.  Firstly,  why  has  Sayyidina  ‘Isa   (alayhissalaam)  been  referred  to  as  ruh  or  spirit?  Secondly,  since  by  saying  ‘from  Him’  the  spirit  has  been  attributed  to Almighty  Allah,  what,  then,  would  be  the  sense  of  such  an  attribution?? 

In  this  connection,  several  exegetical  stances  of  commentators  have  been  reported.  Their  gist  is  being  given  below: 

1.  Some  of  them  explain  it  on  the  basis  of  lexical  usage.  They  say  that,  according  to  the  rule  of  ‘urf  or  recognized  customary  practice,  the  word  ‘ruh’  or  ‘spirit’  is  used  in  the  sense  of  ‘essence’  to  enhance  the  effect  of  pristine  purity  in  something.  Since  the  birth  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa   (alayhissalaam)  was  totally  unrelated  to  the  mediation  of  any  father  and  he  was  the  outcome  of  nothing  but  the  will  of  Allah,  in  His  supreme majesty,  and  a  result  of  the  word:  Kun (Be),  therefore,  he  was  blessed  with  the  most  perfect  degree  of  purity.  This  Is  the  reason  why  he  was  called  ‘a  spirit’  or  ‘essence’  as  admitted  by  recognized  practice.

As  for  the  attribution  to  Allah,  it  is  there  to  hold  him  in  esteem.  This  is  like  attributing  Masajid  (mosques)  to  Allah  in  order  to  enhance  the  respect  in  which  they  are  held.  Hence,  the  expression:  Masjidullah  or the  Mosques  of  Allah.  Or,  the  Holy  Ka’bah,  by  attributing  it  to  Allah,  is  called:  Baytullah  or  the  House  of  Allah.  Or,  by  attributing  someone  religiously  observing  and  worshipfully  obedient  to  Allah,  he  is  called: ‘Abd  Allah’  or  the  servant  or  slave  of  Allah.  Thus,  it  is  in  accord  with  this  formulation  that  the  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  been  referred  to  in  Surah  Bani  Isra’il  in  the  wordings:   (carried  His  servant) (17:1) where  the  attribution  to  Allah  reflects  honour  given  to  him.

2.  Some  commentators  have  said  that  the  purpose  behind  the  coming  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  was  that  he  should  infuse  spiritual  life  into  the  dead  hearts  of  people  and  make  them  alive  once  again.  Since  he  was  the cause  of  spiritual  life  very  much  like  the  spirit  is  the  cause  of  physical life,  therefore,  it  was  in  this  light  that  he  was  called  a  spirit.  In  fact,  this  word  has  been  used  for  the  Holy  Qur’an  as well: (and  thus  We  have  revealed  to  you  a  spirit  of  Our  Command  –  42:52)  because  the  Holy  Qur’an  too  blesses  people  with  spiritual  life.

3.  Some  others  have  said  that  ruh  (spirit)  is  also  used  in  the  sense of  secret.  Since  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  was,  because  of  his  unusual  birth, a  sign  and  a  great  Miracle  of  Allah,  therefore,  he  was  called:  Ruhullah  (the  spirit  of  Allah).

4.  Some  say  that  the  adjunct  is  understood  here  since  the  statement  was  to  be  read  as:  (the  possessor  of  a  spirit  from  Him).  However,  since  all  rational  beings  are  equal  as  the  possessors  of  a  spirit,  the  distinction  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  was  made  manifest  when  Almighty  Allah  turned  his  attribution  towards  Himself.

5.  According  to  yet  another  exegetical  view,  the  word:  Ruh  has  been  used  in  the  sense  of  nafkh  or  the  blowing  of  breath.  Sayyidna  Jibra’il  (alayhissalaam)  had,  as  commanded  by  Allah,  blown  his  breath  on  the  collar  of  Sayyidah  Maryam,  and  that  became  the  conception.  Since  only  a  blow  of  breath  had  caused  the  birth  of  Sayyidina ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  as  a  miracle,  therefore,  he  was  called:  Ruhullah  or  the  spirit  of Allah.  Another  verse  of  the  Holy  Qur’an:  (Then, We blew Our spirit in her – 21:91)

In  addition  to  these,  several  other  probabilities  have  also  been  suggested.  However,  none  of  these  come  to  mean  that  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  is  a  part  of  Allah  or  a  divine  person  on  the  basis  of  which  it  could  be  suggested  that  this  very  spirit  we  are  talking  about  has  manifested  itself  in  the  human  form  of  Sayyidna  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam).

A  Telling  Repartee

‘Allamah  Al-Alusi, the  author  of  the  famous  Tafsir  Ruh  al-Ma’ani has  reported  an  episode  from  the  court  of  Caliph  Harun  al-Rashid  where  a  Christian  physician  entered  into  a  debate  against  the  scholar  ‘Ali  ibn  al-Husayn  al-Waqidi  challenging  him  that  his  Book  (the Qur’an)  has  a  particular  word  which  indicates  that  Sayyidna  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  is  a  part  of  Allah.  And  as  a  proof,  he  read  out  the  verse  (171)  which  carries  the  words:   ‘Allamah  al-Waqidi  came  up  with  a  rejoinder  and  recited  another  verse  (45:13)  of  the  Qur’an:  “everything  that  is  in  the  heavens  and  the  earth  is  from  the  same  Allah  where  the  word  minhu:  from  Him”  – serves  to  attribute  every  thing  to  Allah)  and  said:  ‘If ruhim-minhu: a  spirit  from  Him  means,  as  you  think,  that  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  is  a  part  of  Allah,  then,  the  verse  I  have  just  recited  would  mean  that  every  thing  in  the  heavens  and  the  earth  is  also  a  part  of  Allah?’  Thus,  silenced,  the  Christian  physician  chose  to  become  a  Muslim.


Allah Ta’ala says:

“The worldly life is nothing but substance of deception.” 

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam  said: “The world is the prison of the Mu’min and the paradise of the Kaafir.”

All things which give pleasure here to the nafs without being of any merit in the Aakhirah is termed dunya. We are afflicted with a number of spiritual ailments all having their origin in the love of the world. About this disease, hubb-e-dunya, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam  said:

“Love of the world is the root of all evil.”

If this root ailment is treated and cured, all other maladies flowing from it will also disappear. A man overwhelmed by hubb-e-dunya has no concern and time for the Aakhirah. Such a person having no care for the Aakhirah will not be bothered about righteous deeds nor will he abstain from evil. The one in whom there is hubb-e-dunya has very little fikr for the Deen. Increase in the degree of hubb-e-dunya brings about a corresponding decrease in fikr (concern) for the Deen. Total hubb-e-dunya entails total lack of fikr for the Deen. This is manifest in the kuffaar.

Dunya does not mean wealth and family.

Dunya is the intentional and voluntary adoption of anything evil which causes one to become forgetful of Allah Ta’ala irrespective of what that thing may be. Thus, acquisition of wealth and other material means is not evil, but hubb-e-dunya (love for such material objects) is evil. Wealth is like the water in the ocean and the heart of man is like the ship sailing in the ocean. Water, while it facilitates the movement of the ship can also bring about its sinking. As long as the water remains outside the ship, it aids its sailing. But entry of the water into the ship causes it to sink. Similar is the case of wealth. Wealth aids man as long as it remains outside his heart. However, if its love enters the heart it will bring about his destruction.

The Hadith Shareef states: “Halaal wealth is a benefit to a pious man.”

He benefits because he (a pious man) spends his wealth in meritorious ways. On the contrary, if love of wealth captures the heart of man, he suppresses the rights of others. When the treasures of the Persian Empire were ushered into the presence of Hadhrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), he recited the Qur’aanic aayat:

“The love of pleasures has been adorned for mankind.”

He then commented: “O Allah! It is evident that the desire for pleasure is inherent in us. Its total elimination is not the aim. But, we supplicate that wealth aids us in the attainment of Your Love.”

The dunya (or the world) which has been criticized is like a serpent whose skin is colourful and most beautiful. But its poison is fatal. Intelligent people maintain a distance from such danger and are not lured by the externally adorned skin. But a little child unaware of the danger of a snake is attracted by the external beauty and is prepared to grab hold of the snake. We are comparable to the little child. We are attracted to the world by its external beauty and adornment without being aware of its dangers. Men of intelligence and experience do not incline towards the world.

People are generally deceived and overwhelmed by the glitter of the world because they are not aware of its reality. Should the reality of the world be revealed, they would become utterly disillusioned and detest it. The Hadith Shareef states:

“If the value of the world was equal to that of the wing of a mosquito by Allah, He would not have allowed any kaafir even a drink of water from it.”

In the Eyes of Allah Ta’ala the world has no value. It is a detestable object. He therefore prefers it for His enemies. A man aware of the realities if fearful of an object detested by Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam described the world in the following similitude: 

“What relationship with the world have I? My similitude is like a traveller on a mount, halting in the shade of a tree (for a short while only to leave it again, and proceed along the sojourn).”

The traveller rests a while in the shade and then moves on again.


Remember maut (death) in abundance and do not involve yourself in distant and remote hopes. The pursuit of distant schemes and material enterprises should be shunned. In this way the love of the world will be eliminated from the heart.

This elimination is in fact the stage at the end of Sulook (the Path along which the Mureed travels in his spiritual journey). One has, in fact, to become imbued with the spirit and quality spoken of in the following Hadith:

“Die before your death.”

This Hadith means that one has to inculcate the attribute of the dead in one even before death, and that attribute is the lack of worldly love. There are three ways by which one can attain proximity with Allah Ta’ala, These are explained in detail as follows.

1. Atwal (the longest way).

2. Ausat (the middle way).

3. Aqal wa Aqrab (the shortest and nearest way).

This consists of observing in abundance Saum, Salaat, Qiraa’t, Hajj, Jihaad’ etc. This is the way of a class of Auliyaa known as the Akhyaar.

In addition to the above acts of Ibaadat is engagement in Mujaahadah, Riyaadhat, elimination of Akhlaaq-e-Zameemah and the acquisition of Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah, The majority of men travelling along the Path of Sulook become Waasil (attain the goal of Divine Proximity) via this second way.

This is the way of Ishq (Love). Riyaadhat (spiritual exercises) and mingling with people are suffocating to the Saalik (spiritual traveller) along this path. Thikr, Fikr, Shukr and Shauq are the intellectual occupations of the traveller plodding along the Path of Ishq. The traveller along this Road become Waasil by this method. Purification of the nafs and adornment of the heart and soul are realized by the method of Love. They have no interest in kashf (inspirational revelation of the Auliyaa) and karaamat (miracles of the Auliyaa). They are totally immersed in:

“Die before your death.”

This third way is the way of the class of Auliyaa known as the Shataariyah.

At the time of death, the dying man possesses certain attributes, the inculcation of which is exhorted by the Hadith: “Die before your death.” These attributes which are in the perfect state in the dying man are:

Taubah (repentance), zuhd, (abstention), qanaa’at (contentment), tawakkul (trust in Allah), azlat (solitude), tawajjuh ilal-laah (attention directed to Allah Ta’ala), sabr (patience), ridhaa (pleased with Allah), thikr (remembrance of Allah) and muraaqabah (meditation).

Among the Shataariyah the salient feature is Muraaqabah.

One has to inculcate the above qualities which overtake a dying person to a high degree. Taubah, i.e. repentance to emerge from all evil as is the position at the time of maut; Zuhd, i.e. to shun the world and everything in it as is the case at maut; Tawakkul, i.e. to shun all abnormal worldly agencies as is the case at maut; Azlat, i.e. to sever all ties with creation as is the case at maut; Qanaa’at, i.e. abstention from lowly desires–to be contented–as is the case at maut; Tawajjuh ilal-laah, i.e. to rivet one’s attention towards only Allah Ta’ala as is the case at maut; Sabr, i.e. to shun pleasures as is the case at maut; Ridhaa, i.e. to abstain from pleasing the nafs, and to be pleased with Allah and to submit in entirety to Allah Ta’ala as is the case at maut. This is the conception of “Die before your death.”

One has to transform one’s condition so as to be imbued with the conception of “death before death”. In this earthly life, the body is on earth, but the rooh should be directed to the Aakhirah, and be in communion with Allah Ta’ala. Possession of even the kingdom of the earth should not affect one’s heart. The heart at all times should be empty of the world. The sign of this lofty state having settled over one is total abstention from everything branded as evil by the Shariah. The mind, tongue and the whole body have to be sealed from evil. The heart is to be emptied of all things other than Allah Ta’ala. It has to be adorned with Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah.

A man dwelling in this lofty state of purity and communion with Allah Ta’ala is always aloof from gatherings of futility. Whatever diverts the mind of the Seeker of Allah from the remembrance of Allah is futility and nonsensical. The Seeker refrains from association with men of baatil (falsehood and corruption). One who does not pursue the Path in quest of Allah, is in fact a man of baatil.

O beloved one! This then is the meaning of “die before your death” stated by Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. This is the way of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. This is the life which Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam desired for his Ummah.