Category Archives: Hadith

“WHOEVER RESEMBLES A PEOPLE IS ONE OF THEM”

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said, “Whoever resembles a people is one of them.” [Recorded by Abu Dawud]. 

This is a very important principle in the Shariah. Ulama have written that it is part of the goal of the Shariah to distinguish those people who follow the straight path from all other people.

A look at the Qur’aan and the hadith of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam will show us that we Muslims are not supposed to imitate or be blind followers of any other peoples. We have our own unique guidance and this is what we must turn to.

There are different hadith that clearly state that we are supposed to be different from the Jews, Christians, Romans, Persians, Magians, polytheists, people of jaahiliyyah, bedouins who had not embraced Islaam completely and so forth.

After hearing this long list of groups one will realize the following: We Muslims are a unique people. We take our way of life, our values and our customs only from Allaah’s guidance – the Qur’aan and the Sunnah – and the way of the believers. We don’t care what other people may follow. In fact, in our hearts, we have no desire whatsoever to follow them or to be like them. We want to be like the true believers and only the true believers.

In fact, we pray for this in every rakah in Surah al-Faatiha of every prayer we perform. In every prayer, we state,

“Guide us to the straight path – the path of those whom You have blessed.”

Unfortunately, many people make that du’a and they do not realize who are those people whose path we are asking Allaah to guide us to. By our actions, sometimes, we make it very clear that we are not sincere to that du’aa that we make at least seventeen times a day! When we make that du’a we must realise that we are asking Allaah to guide us to the path of certain people – those who have earned Allaah’s pleasure and grace. They are the ones whom Allaah has described elsewhere in the Qur’aan,

“And whoso obeys Allaah and the Messenger, then they will be in the company of those on whom Allaah has bestowed Grace of the Ambiyaa’, the sincere, the martyrs and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are.” [Surah an-Nisaa, 69]

These are the people whose path we face Allaah seventeen times a day and beseech Him to guide us to. It is very sad that today many Muslims are striving and working hard to follow the footsteps of the opposite people – the people that they ask Allaah against following. We also say in al-Faatiha,

“Not the path of those who have earned Your wrath nor of those who have gone astray.”  [Surah al-Faatiha, 7]

These people whose path we are seeking to avoid are none other than the Jews and Christians, in particular, as Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam explained.

Today in many western countries many people are calling for us to follow in the footsteps of the Jews. They think that we are a minority like them and they have done very well for themselves. It is amazing that we are calling upon each other to follow in the footsteps of those who have earned Allaah’s wrath. Don’t you realize that they gained their place in this society by means that are completely unacceptable in Islam? Do you want us to behave like them and you think that Allaah will be pleased with us if we behave like them? Don’t you see that by their means they have actually given up a great deal of their faith and done many things that go against their own teachings?

There is an expression that states, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. The fact is that an individual would not imitate and follow another unless he has some respect or love for what that other person is and what he is doing. Or, perhaps, he has the desire to be one of them and he does not want to be an outsider as he may not have enough iman and courage to show himself for what he should be: a Muslim, believing in and submitting to God.

When this desire to imitate and follow the ways of the disbelievers happens to a Muslim, it is a very sad thing. It is a sign that there is some weakness or defect in his iman and in his heart – otherwise he would never desire or aspire to be like those who displease Allaah and are destined to the Hellfire.

Following the ways of the disbelievers – as opposed to the ways of the believers – and trying to come close to them is actually one of the characteristics of the hypocrites. Allaah says,

“Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment. Those who take disbelievers for protectors and helpers instead of believers. Do they seek honour with them? Verily, all honour is with Allaah (alone)”  [Surah an-Nisaa, 138-139]

This is exactly what many of those who imitate them are doing. One of the main reasons why one imitates and appears like the disbelievers is that he wants to be accepted, liked or respected by them. He does not want to be looked down upon by them as an outside or as one from a different religion and way of life. But Allaah says,

“Verily all honour is with Allaah (alone)”  [Surah an-Nisaa, 139]

The only one that a believer should try to please is Allaah – and this is achieved not by trying to be like the disbelievers but it comes about by following the Qur’aan and Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam). In reality, the acceptance and approval of the disbelievers should really, in essence, mean nothing in the eyes of a true believer. In the sight of Allaah, they have no value or honour. Allaah states in the Qur’aan:

“Honour belongs only to Allaah, His Messenger and the believers” [Surah al-Munaafiqoon, 8]

A hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) demonstrates that they are worth nothing in the sight of Allaah. That is why Allaah gives them of this world and in the Hereafter they will be nothing but fuel for the Hellfire.

This fuel of the Hellfire are the ones that many Muslims are imitating today, chasing after their customs and fads, trying to please them and win their approval. A Muslim must realize clearly in his mind that all of these disbelievers are either worshipping false gods, other humans or their egos and desires. These are the people who some Muslims are following, imitating and bending over backwards to please. Allaah has said in the Qur’aan:

“Thus We have made you a just and balanced nation, that you may be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be witness against you.” [Surah al-Baqarah, 143]

We are supposed to be witnesses against mankind. We are supposed to be witnesses to the truth of Islaam and its superiority over every other way of life. We should be showing people that we are the true followers of Allaah’s guidance and that what we have is the best guidance for mankind. If this is truly in our hearts, we would not turn to the ways of the disbelievers and imitate them.

How can we be witnesses of Islaam against humanity when, instead of showing that we believe in Islaam and love it and demonstrate its greatness, we give up our ways and customs of Islaam to follow the ways of the disbelievers? I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked by non-Muslims, “If your religion is the truth and so wonderful, why are so many Muslims abandoning your teachings and following the ways of the West in their own countries?” What answer can be given to that question??

We see this phenomena of Muslims imitating the ways of non-Muslims in many ways. The following are all examples of this phenomena: Muslim men shaving their beards to be like their clean-shaven Western colleagues that they respect so dearly. Muslim men giving up the modest attire that was found in every Muslim country for the tightest pants and latest fashions of the West. Muslim women giving up the Islaamic hijaab and come out in public dressing in the latest Western fashions.

In some parts of the Muslim world, even the definition of beauty and cleanliness is defined according to the disbelievers and not according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Some Muslims today believe that having a beard is unclean. They think that to be clean shaven implies being clean, civilized, and proper. Is this what Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has taught us about the beard? Is this how Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and his Companions viewed the beard?

All of these can be seen throughout the Muslim world. What does all of this show? It shows that we have lost the true dignity and honour of being believers. We no longer feel honour, dignity and joy in following the ways of the Ambiyaa’, martyrs, sincere and righteous. Instead, we feel better when we succumb to or follow the ways of those who have earned Allaah’s wrath or have gone astray. Allaah say in the Qur’aan:

“Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the disbelievers, and forgive us. Our Lord, verily, You, only You, are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.” [Surah al-Mumtahanah, 5]

One of the explanations given to this verse is that when the believers do not set an example for the non-believers, when the believers themselves are not following or adhering to the teachings of Islaam, then this is a great trial for the disbelievers. How could they possibly be attracted to Islaam if they not only do not see Islaam as being practised in front of them but they actually see the Muslims abandoning their revelation from Allaah to follow the ways and customs of the disbelievers. This will definitely lead the disbeliever to conclude that Islaam has nothing to offer and it could not possibly contain the truth that will lead to his salvation.

Let us all return to the ways and guidance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Let us all feel the honour and dignity that true iman should give us – we should feel that this is a special bounty that Allaah has given to us. We should turn to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) to take our values, our customs, our beliefs, our aspirations, and our guidance from those two sources. That is the only way of life that is worth living and that is the only way of life that is pleasing to Allaah. If we abandon it and instead follow the ways of the disbelievers, we would be abandoning a great thing in return for something that will actually bring us nothing.

Advertisements

Alleged Origin of Tashahhud (at-Taḥiyyāt)

Question:

Did Tashahhud  really originate on the night of Mi’rāj during a conversation between Allāh ﷻ, the Prophet ﷺ and Jibrīl?

Answer:

The alleged incident in the question has been written in many books. The shortest version is that of ‘Abd al-Laṭīf b. al-Malak (rahimahullah), also known as Ibn Firishtah, in his Mabāriq al-Azhār. This is the same text quoted by Mullā ‘Alī al-Qāri (rahimahullah) in his Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ.

روي: أنه  لما عرج به أثنى على الله تعالى بهذه الكلمات، فقال الله تعالى: «السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته»، فقال : «السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين»، فقال جبريل: أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله

“It has been narrated that when he ﷺ was raised above [for the Mi’rāj], he praised Allāh Most High with these words [i.e. al-Taḥiyyāt], whereupon Allāh Most High remarked: ‘Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allāh’s Mercy and His Blessings.’ He [i.e. the Prophet] responded: ‘Peace be upon us and Allāh’s righteous servants.’ Thereafter, Jibrīl said: ‘I testify that there is no deity but Allāh, and I testify that Muḥammad is His slave and messenger.’”[1]

This has also been quoted by Imām al-Qurṭubī (rahimahullah) in his Tafsīr from Ibn ‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu) with only a partial chain. Preceding the incident is a short academic discussion regarding whether the incident is related to the relevant verses or not. He states:

روي عن الحسن ومجاهد والضحاك: أن هذه الآية كانت في قصة المعراج، وهكذا روي في بعض الروايات عن ابن عباس، وقال بعضهم: جميع القرآن نزل به جبريل على محمد  إلا هذه الآية فإن النبي : هو الذي سمع ليلة المعراج، وقال بعضهم: لم يكن ذلك في قصة المعراج، لأن ليلة المعراج كانت بمكة وهذه السورة كلها مدنية، فأما من قال: إنها كانت ليلة المعراج قال: لما صعد النبي  وبلغ في السموات في مكان مرتفع ومعه جبريل حتى جاوز سدرة المنتهى فقال له جبريل: «إني لم أجاوز هذا الموضع ولم يؤمر بالمجاوزة أحد هذا الموضع غيرك»، فجاوز النبي  حتى بلغ الموضع الذي شاء الله، فأشار إليه جبريل بأن «سلم على ربك»، فقال النبي : «التحيات لله والصلوات والطيبات». قال الله تعالى: «السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته»، فأراد النبي  أن يكون لأمته حظ في السلام فقال: «السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين»، فقال جبريل وأهل السموات كلهم: أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله

“It is narrated from al-Ḥasan, Mujāhid and al-Ḍaḥḥāk that this āyah was in the story of Mi’rāj. Likewise has been said in some narrations from Ibn ‘Abbās. Some maintain that Jibrīl descended with the whole Qur’ān upon Muḥammad ﷺ except for this āyah, because the Prophet ﷺ was the one who heard on the night of Mi’rāj. Others maintain it did not occur in the incident of Mi’rāj because the night of Mi’rāj had occurred in [the era of] Makkah; and this Sūrah, in its totality, was revealed in Madīnah.

Consequently, those who say it was in the night of Mi’rāj also say when the Prophet ﷺ ascended and reached the heavens in a lofty place, Jibrīl was with him until he [i.e. the Prophet ﷺ] had gone beyond the Sidrat al-Muntahā. Jibrīl said to him: ‘I cannot go beyond this juncture; none have been permitted to pass this point other than you.’ The Prophet ﷺ  passed through until he reached the place which Allāh had willed. Jibrīl indicated to him [i.e. the Prophet ﷺ] to convey Salām to his Lord, so the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘All verbal, physical and monetary deeds are for Allāh […]’” The rest is as mentioned above.[2]

Imām al-Qurṭubī (rahimahullah) seems to have taken it almost verbatim from Abū’l-Layth al-Samarqandī (rahimahullah) who mentioned it in his Baḥr al-‘Ulūm.[3] It has also been mentioned in a later work known as Rūḥ al-Bayān of Abū ’l-Fidā al-Khalwatī (rahimahullah)[4] The text is as follows:

وروى- أنه  عرج من السماء السابعة إلى السدرة على جناح جبريل، ثم منها على الرفرف، وهو بساط عظيم. قال الشيخ عبد الوهاب الشعراني: هو نظير المحفة عندنا. ونادى جبريل من خلفه: يا محمد، إن الله يثنى عليك فاسمع وأطع ولا يهولنك كلامه، فبدأ  بالثناء، وهو قوله: «التحيات لله والصلوات والطيبات»، أي: العبادات القولية والبدنية والمالية، فقال تعالى: «السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته». فعمم  سلام الحق، فقال: «السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين»، فقال جبريل: أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله

Aside from a few details, the incident is the same as translated above.

Although this story has been written by a few scholars and is still told by many in public lectures, it holds no academic basis in Sharī’ah. This is for three reasons:

There is no chain of transmission recorded for the incident – neither authentic nor weak. The ḥadīth of Mi’rāj  has been authentically narrated with overwhelming details, and in no narration is the above incident related. The origin of Tashahhud has explicitly been mentioned in authentic narrations.

One ought to not be deceived by names of great scholars when the story is circulated on social media or related in a lecture. Although the likes of al-Qurṭubī (rahimahullah), Ibn al-Malak (Ibn Firishtah), Alī al-Qārī (rahimahumullah) and others have written it, and later scholars like Mawlānā Yūsuf al-Ludhyānwī al-Shahīd (rahimahullah) went to the extent of using it as his argument (ḥujjah) in a certain controversial discussion,[5] none have provided a chain of transmission in their works.

Imām Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī (rahimahullah), in his al-‘Arf al-Shadhī, made an interesting observation. He mentions:

وذكر بعض الأحناف قال رسول الله  في ليلة الإسراء: «التحيات لله» إلخ، قال الله تعالى: السلام عليك أيها النبي» إلخ، قال رسول الله: «السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله» إلخ، ولكني لم أجد سند هذه الرواية، وذكره في الروض الأنف

“And some Ḥanafīs mentioned…” then quoted the report; he continues: “However, I did not find a chain to this narration, and [Imām al-Suhaylī ؒ] mentioned it in al-Rawḍ al-Unuf.” [6]

Al-Suhaylī’s (rahimahullah) text[7] is as follows:

وينضاف إليها في هذا الحديث ذكر الأذان الذي تضمنه حديث البزار مع ما روي أيضا أنه مر وهو على البراق بملائكة قيام وملائكة ركوع وملائكة سجود وملائكة جلوس، والكل يصلون لله، فجمعت له هذه الأحوال في صلاته وحين مثل بالمقام الأعلى ودنا فتدلى، ألهم أن يقول: «التحيات لله» إلى قوله: «الصلوات لله»، فقالت الملائكة: «السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته»، فقال: «السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين»، فقالت الملائكة: «أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، وأشهد أن محمدا رسول الله»، فجمع ذلك له في تشهده

Secondly, the details of Mi’rāj are recorded in numerous authentic narrations of a very lengthy ḥadīth, which would take up several pages should it be typed in a contemporary style. These narrations entail nuanced intricacies with regard to exactly what happened in the Night Journey and illustrate quite a picture. However, two things are not mentioned therein: the date of its occurrence and the incident in question. The narrations can be read in the Ṣaḥīḥayn and other works of Ḥadīth.[8]

Also, the Tashahhud itself has been authentically narrated in the books of Ḥadīth. The great companion, ‘Abdullāh b. Mas’ūd (radhiyallahu anhu) is on record as saying:

كنا إذا صلينا خلف النبي ، قلنا: السلام على جبريل وميكائيل؛ السلام على فلان وفلان،  فالتفت إلينا رسول الله ، فقال: إن الله هو السلام، فإذا صلى أحدكم، فليقل: التحيات لله والصلوات والطيبات، السلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته؛ السلام علينا وعلى عباد الله الصالحين، فإنكم إذا قلتموها أصابت كل عبد لله صالح في السماء والأرض، أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله

“When we used to pray behind the Prophet ﷺ, we used to say: ‘Peace be upon Jibrīl and Mīkā’īl; peace be upon so-and-so.’ Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ looked towards us and said:

“Indeed, Allāh is the Peace. Whenever one of you prays, let him say: ‘All verbal, physical and monetary deeds are for Allāh. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allāh’s Mercy and His Blessings. Peace be upon us and Allāh’s righteous servants.’ When you say this, it will reach every righteous servant of Allāh. [Then, continue:] ‘I testify that there is no deity but Allāh, and that Muḥammad is His slave and messenger.’”[9]

To conclude, the dialogue in question must not be quoted in lectures, nor written in books or articles, nor circulated on social media. If one quotes it in order to critique and/or expose the matter, this is an exception to the rule. Since there is no basis to this story, one must exercise full precaution. The Prophet ﷺ is on record as saying:

«من حدّث عنّي بحديث يُرى أنه كذِبٌ فهو أحد الكاذبين»

“Whosoever relays a ḥadīth from me, thinking it to be false, then he is one of the liars.” [10]

The Prophet ﷺ has also cursed those who fabricate lies upon him:

«من كذب عليّ متعمّدًّا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار»

“Whosoever deliberately lies upon me, let him reserve his seat in the Fire.”[11]

Instead, one ought to strictly adhere to the guidelines to which Allāh ﷻ draws the readers’ attention in the Qur’ān:

يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ إِن جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقُۢ بِنَبَإٖ فَتَبَيَّنُوٓاْ أَن تُصِيبُواْ قَوۡمَۢا بِجَهَٰلَةٖ فَتُصۡبِحُواْ عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نَٰدِمِينَ ٦

“O you who believe, if a sinner brings some news to you, then verify it; lest you unknowingly convey (it) to some people, thereby regretting what you have done.”[12]

Answered by Shahin-ur Rahman, Northampton, UK.

Tuesday 6th Ramadan 1436 AH / 23rd June 2015 CE

Checked and approved by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed, London, UK.

References:

[1] Mabāriq al-Anwār 1/244 and Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ under ḥadīth (909).

[2] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī under [al-Baqarah: 2/285-286].

[3] 1/189 (d. 373 AH).

[4] 5/21 (d. 1127 AH).

[5] Ikhtilāf-e-Ummat Awr Sirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm (Urdu) [Maktabah Ludhyanwiyyah edition, 2009], p. 61. Also in English: Differences in the Ummat [Zam Zam Publishers, 2003], p. 57.

[6] Al-‘Arf al-Shadhī under ḥadīth (289). Note: Some of the scholars named in the previous passages were not of a Ḥanafī background.

[7] 4/186.

[8] Al-Bukhārī (3207) and Muslim (162).

[9] Al-Bukhārī (3207) and Muslim (162).

[10] Muslim in the Preface to his Ṣaḥīḥ [1], al-Tirmidhī: (2662) and Ibn Mājah: (41).
Note: This ḥadīth has not been numbered by Shaykh Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

[11] Al-Bukhārī (110), Muslim in Preface [4] (3) and al-Tirmidhī (2659).

[12] Al-Ḥujurāt: 49/6.

اہل کوفہ اور علم حدیث

چونکہ حضرت امام ابو حنیفه رحمه الله کوفی تھے، اس لیے سابق زمانہ میں حاسدین اور متعصبین اور کچھ حقیقت ناشناس حضرات نے اور اس دور میں غیر مقلدین حضرات نے خاصی قوت صرف کرکے یہ مہم شروع کر رکھی ہے کہ اہل کوفہ کو تو حدیث کا علم ہی نہ تھا اور کوفہ والوں کی حدیث میں نور ہی نہیں اور کوفہ والوں کی نقل ہی معتبر نہیں اور اگر جابر حعفی کذاب نہ ہوتا تو کوفہ والے علم حدیث ہی سے تہی دست ہوتے وغیرہ وغیرہ تعبیرات سے وہ اس عنوان کو ادا کرتے ہیں چناچہ مصنف [حقیقت الفقہ حصہ اول ص 80] میں یہ سرخی قائم کرتے ہیں کہ اہل کوفہ کی حدیث دانی اور پھر کچھ تو دعوی سے بالکل غیر متعلق حوالے نقل کئے ہیں ہمیں ان کے جواب دینے کی ضرورت ہی نہیں اور ایک حوالہ ابو داؤد ج 2 ص 350 طبع مجتبائی کا یوں نقل کیا ہے

[ہم صرف ان کے ترجمہ ہی پر اکتفا کرتے ہیں] “امام احمد رحمه الله فرماتے ہیں کہ اہل کوفہ کی حدیث میں نور نہیں”

1ھ مگر صد افسوس ہے کہ مصنف مذکور بات کو بالکل نہیں سمجھا اور اگر سمجھا ہے تو خیانت سے لیا ہے ، ہم ابو داؤد کی پوری عبارت نقل کرتے ہیں ، ملاحظہ فرمائیں

قال ابو علی سمعت ابا داؤد قال قال النفیلی حیث حدث بهذا الحدیث والله انه عندی احلی من العسل یعنی قوله حدثنا و حدثنی قال ابو علی سمعت اباداؤد یقول سمعت احمد یقول لیس لحدیث اھل کوفة نور قال وما رأیت مثل اھل البصرۃ کانوا تعلموہ من شعبة رحمه الله “انتہی” [ج 2 ص 341]‎

ترجمہ : ابو علی رحمه الله کہتے ہیں کہ میں نے ابو داؤد رحمه الله سے سنا نفیلی رحمه الله جب یہ حدیث بیان کرتے تھے تو یہ بھی فرماتے تھے کہ بخدا یہ حدیث جسمیں “حدثنا” اور “حدثنی” کے [سماع کیلئے صریح] الفاظ آتے ہیں مجھے شہد سے بھی لذیذ معلوم ہوتی ہے – ابو علی رحمه الله نے ابو داؤد رحمه الله یہ روایت کی انہوں نے فرمایا کہ میں نے احمد رحمه الله سے سنا انہوں نے فرمایا کہ اہل کوفہ کی حدیث میں نور نہیں اور میں نے اہل بصرہ کیطرح کوئی اور نہیں دیکھا جو یہ فرق ملحوظ رکھتا ہو کیونکہ انہوں نے شعبہ رحمه الله سے یہ حاصل کیا ہے

‏[بایں ہمہ حضرت شعبہ رحمه الله کا علم بھی اہل کوفہ کا فیض تھا چناچہ بغدادی رحمه الله لکھتے ہیں “وعلمه کوفی” جلد 9 ص 257] بات صرف اتنی ہے کہ اہل بصرہ حدثنا و حدثنی وغیرہ کے الفاظ میں فرق ملحوظرکھتے ہیں – اور اہل کوفہ اس فرق کو زیادہ اہمیت نہیں دیتے – اور اسی عدم فرق پر قاضی عیاض المالکی رحمه الله [المتوفی 544ھ] اور حافظ عراقی الشافعی رحمه الله [المتوفی ‏806‎ھ] نے اجماع نقل کیا ہے [ملاحظہ ہو فتح الملہم‎ ‎ص75 وغیرہ] حافظ ابن حجر رحمه الله فرماتے ہیں کہ امام زہری رحمه الله ، مالک رحمه الله ، ابن عینیہ رحمه الله ، یحیی القطان رحمه الله اکثر اہل حجاز اور اہل کوفہ اور اسی طرح اہل مغاربہ کا یہ مسلک ہے اور اسی کو ابن الحاجب رحمه الله نے مختصر میں ترجیح دی ہے اور امام حاکم رحمه الله نے ائمہ اربعہ رحمهم الله کا یہ مذہب بتایا ہے کہ ان الفاظ کا ایک ہی معنی ہے – اور بعض نے ان الفاظ کی پابندی کو صرف مستحسن قرار دیا [فتح الباری جلد 1 ص 118 طبع مصر]‏‎

حضرت امام احمد رحمه الله بن حنبل رحمه الله فن روایت کے اس دقیق فن کے پیش نظر یہ فرماتے ہیں کہ اہل کوفہ کی حدیث اس فرق کو واضح کرنے کے لیے اتنی روشن نہیں جتنی کہ اہل بصرہ کی سند کے لحاظ سے روشن اور واضح ہوتی ہے ، کیونکہ انہوں نے یہ فرق امام شعبہ رحمه الله سے حاصل کیا ہے ، یہ مطلب ہرگز نہیں کہ کوفہ والوں کی حدیث متن کے لحاظ سے بے نور ہوتی ہے جیسا کہ مؤلف “حقیقت الفقہ” کا یہ باطل اور بے بنیاد مدعی ہے اور مؤلف “نتائج التقلید” نے تو اس سے بھی بڑھ کر غلط بیانی سے کام لیا ہے چناچہ وہ لکھتے ہیں کہ رئیس المحدثین امام ترمذی رحمه الله کا قطعی و ناطق فیصلہ بھی سنتے چلیئے

لولا جابر جعفی لكان اهل الكوفة بغير حديث ولولا حماد لكان اهل الكوفة بغير كوفة [ترمذی ص 29]

اگر جابر جعفی ایسا کذاب نہ ہوتا تو حنفی مذہب کے پاس کوئی حدیث نہ ہوتی اور اگر حضرت حماد کوفی نہ ہوتے تو حنفیت فقہ تہی دست ہوتی – جابر جعفی کو امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله سب سے بڑا کذاب فرماتے ہیں اور حضرت حماد رحمه الله بھی متکلم فیہ یعنی غیر معتبر ہیں – لطف یہ کہ فقہ حنفیہ کا سرمایۂ حیات لے دے کر بقول امام ترمذی رحمه الله جابر جعفی اور حماد رحمه الله کوفی ہی ہیں [انتہی بلفطہ ص 90+91]

مگر حیرت ہے کہ مؤلف مذکور بھی کئی وجوہ سے جہالت کا شکار ہوگیا – اولآ اس لیے کہ یہ قول امام ترمذی رحمه الله کا نہیں بلکہ وکیع رحمه الله بن الجراح رحمه الله کا ہے اور وہ جابر رحمه الله بن یزید جعفی رحمه الله کی توثیق کررہے ہیں [اگرچہ جمہور ان کی تضعیف کرتے ہیں] چناچہ حافظ ابن حجر رحمه الله لکھتے ہیں کہ

وقال وکیع مهما شککتم فی شیئی فلا تشکوا فی ان جابرآ ثقه حدثنا عنه مسعر و سفیان و شعبة و حسن بن صالح 1ھ [تہذیب التہذیب ج 2 ص 47]

ترجمہ : وکیع رحمه الله فرماتے ہیں کہ تم اگر کسی اور چیز میں شک کرتے ہو تو شوق سے کرو مگر اس میں بالک شک نہ کرنا کہ جابر ثقہ ہے – ہم سے مسعر رحمه الله ، سفیان رحمه الله ، شعبہ رحمه الله اور حسن رحمه الله بن صالح نے ان کی حدیث بیان کی ہے

اور ترمذی کی اس عبارت میں بھی مقصود بالذات یہی نکتہ ہے – و ثابیآ مؤلف نے اہل کوفہ کیونکہ علی التعیین حنفی ہی سمجھ لیے ہیں ، کیا کوفہ میں اور حضرات نہ تھے؟ اگر ہماری بات پر یقین نہ آئے تو مولانا مبارکپوری صاحب ہی کی سن لیجئے

قلت الصحیح ان الترمذی اراد باھل الکوفة من کان فیها من اھل العلم کالامام ابی حنیفة رحمه الله والسفیانین و غیرھم و اراد ببعض اھل الکوفة بعضهم ولم یرد باھل الکوفة او ببعض اھل الکوفة الامام ابا حنیفة وحدہ 1ھ [مقدمہ تحفۃ الاحوذی ‎ص 209]

ترجمہ : میں کہتا ہوں کہ امام ترمذی رحمه الله نے اہل کوفہ سے وہ حضرات مراد لیے ہیں جو اہل علم وہاں رہتے تھے مثلآ امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله ، سفیان ثوری رحمه الله ، سفیان بن عینیہ رحمه الله وغیرہ اور بعض اہل کوفہ سے بعض مراد لیے ہیں ، امام ترمذی رحمه الله نے اہل کوفہ یا بعض اہل کوفہ سے صرف امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله ہی مراد نہیں لیے

کیا اس حوالہ کے پیش نظر ہم یہی سمجھ لیں کہ جملہ اہل کوفہ کی حدیث دانی جابر بن یزید جعفی پر قائم ہے؟ اور بقول مؤلف “نتائج التقلید” لے دے کر اہل کوفہ کی حدیث دانی کا سرمایۂ حیات ہی جابر جعفی ہیں؟ و ثالثآ امام حماد رحمه الله کو علی الاطلاق متکلم فیہ سمجھنا اور متکلم فیہ کا معنی غیر معتبر کرنا بالکل غلط ہے – ورنہ اکثر روات متکلم فیہ ٹھہریں گے [مزید تحقیق تعلیق المغنی ج 1 ص 115 میں دیکھئے] اور کیا امام حماد رحمه الله محمد رحمه الله بن اسحاق رحمه الله سے بھی زیادہ متکلم فیہ ہیں؟ جن کی روایت پر قرأت خلف الامام کے مسئلہ کی عمارت کھڑی ہے اور غیر مقلدین حضرات کے دور حاضر میں سب سے بڑے محدث اور جامعۂ سلفیہ کے شیخ الحدیث ایک مقام پر یوں ارقام فرماتے ہیںکہ پھر یہ مرسل کیسے حجت ہوسکتی ہے ، جب اہل کوفہ کی نقل صحیح نہیں تو تطبیق کی بھی ضرورت نہیں 1ھ [بلفظہ خیر الکلام ص 294]

لیجئے : اہل کوفہ کی نقل اور روایت سے گلو خاصی کے لیے کیا ہی تیر بہدف اور زود اثر نسخہ دستیاب کرلیا گیا ہے کہ جب اہل کوفہ کی نقل ہی صحیح نہیں تو پھر تطبیق کی کیا ضرورت ہے؟ بتایئے کہ اس جواب کے تریاق ، مجرب اور اکسیر اعظم ہونے میں کیا کسر باقی ہے؟ جہاں سند میں کوئی کوفی راوی ملے وہاں جھٹ سے یہ اکسیر اس کی روایت کو سونگھادو اور یقین جانیئے کہ کلوروفارم سے بھی پہلے اس کا اثر نمایاں ہوگا اور اہل کوفہ کی حدیث و روایت جہاں بھی ہوگی وہیں خفتہ و بے ہوش ہوجائے گی – مگر یہ خیال رہے کہمسئلہ رفع یدین ، آمین بالجہر اور فوق الصدر وغیرہ میں کہیں سفیان ثوری رحمه الله اور ایسے ہی دیگر کوفی نہ ہوں ، ورنہ یہ سواد سراسر مہنگا پڑے گا اور یہ کہنا پڑے گا

جادو وہ جو سر چڑھ کر بولے

راقم الحروف نے امیر المؤمنین فی الحدیث حضرت امام بخاری رحمه الله کے سن وفات 256‎ھ تک جب محدثین کوفہ کی تلاش تاریخ خطیب رحمه الله ، طبقات سبکیرحمه الله ، تذکرۃ الحفاظ ، معرفت علوم الحدیث ، تہذیب التہذیب اور البدایہ والنہایہ وغیرہ وغیرہ کتب اسماء الرجال و طبقات میں شروع کی تو ان کی تعداد سینکڑوں سے بھی متجاوز نکلی ، خوف طوالت سے سب کو نظر اندازکردیا ، البتہ غیر مقلدین حضرات کو دعوت فکر دینے کے لیے تذکرۃ الحفاظ ک صرف پہلی جلد سے ان محدثین عظام رحمهم الله کا ذکر کرنا بڑا ضروری معلوم ہوتا ہے جن کو علامہ ذہبی رحمه الله نے “الکوفی” یا “نزیل الکوفہ” کے لقب سے یاد کیا ہے عام اس سے کہ وہ مولدآ کوفی ہوں یا مسکنآ – اور اہل علم پر مخفی نہیں کہ علامہ ذہبی رحمه الله نے تذکرۃ الحفاظ میں مستقل عنوان صرف انہی حضرات کے ناموں سے قائم کئے ہیں جو حفاظ حدیث ہیں – کسی کے نام کے ساتھ انہوں نے “الامام” ، القدوۃ” ، “المحدث” اور کسی کے نام کے ساتھ”الحافظ” ، “الحجۃ” ، الثقہ” اور کسی کے نام کے ساتھ “شیخ الاسلام” اور “محدث الکوفہ‎”‎ وغیرہ کے توصیفی‎کلمات لکھ کر اپنی حسن عقیدت کا اظہار بھی کیا ہے ، اور ان کا صحیح مرتبہ اور مقام بھی بتایا ہے – ہم صرف ان حضرات کا ذکر کریں گے جن کو مستقل عنوان کے ساتھ انہوں نے ذکر کیا ہے اور حتی الوسع ہر ایک کا سن وفات بھی عرض کردیں گے

نمبر [01] علقمہ رحمه الله بن قیس رحمه الله [المتوفی 62 ‏‎ہجری]

نمبر [02] مسروق رحمه الله بن الاجدع رحمه الله [المتوفی 63 ہجری]

نمبر [03] عبیدۃ رحمه الله بن عمرو المرادی رحمه الله [المتوفی 72 ہجری]

نمبر [04] اسود رحمه الله بن یزید رحمه الله [المتوفی 75 ہجری]

نمبر [05] سوید بن غفلہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 81 ہجری]

نمبر [06] زر رحمه الله بن حبیش رحمه الله [المتوفی 82 ہجری]

نمبر [07] ربیع رحمه الله بن الخثیم رحمه الله [المتوفی 63 ہجری]

نمبر [08] ‎عبد الرحمن رحمه الله بن ابی لیلی رحمه الله [المتوفی 73 ہجری]

نمبر [09] ابو عبد الرحمن السلمی رحمه الله [المتوفی 73 ہجری]

نمبر [10] شریح رحمه الله بن الحارث رحمه الله [المتوفی 78 ہجری]

نمبر [11] ابو وائل شقیق رحمه الله بن سلمہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 82 ہجری]

نمبر [12] قیس رحمه الله بن ابی حازم رحمه الله [المتوفی 97 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [13] عمرو رحمه الله بن میمون رحمه الله [المتوفی 75 ہجری]

نمبر [14] زید رحمه الله بن وہب الجہنی رحمه الله 84 ہجری]

نمبر [15] معرور رحمه الله بن سوید رحمه الله

نمبر [16] ابو عمرو الشیبانی رحمه الله [المتوفی 98 ہجری]

نمبر [17] ربعی رحمه الله بن خراش رحمه الله [المتوفی 101 ہجری]

نمبر [18] ابراہیم التیمی رحمه الله [المتوفی 92 ہجری]

نمبر [19] ابراہیم النخعی رحمه الله [المتوفی 95 ہجری]

نمبر [20] سعید رحمه الله بن جبیر رحمه الله [المتوفی 95 ہجری]

نمبر [21] امام شعبی رحمه الله [المتوفی 103 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [22] ابو اسحق السبیعی رحمه الله [المتوفی 127 ہجری]

نمبر [23] حبیب رحمه الله بن ابی ثابت رحمه الله [المتوفی 119 ہجری]

نمبر [24] الحکم رحمه الله بن عتیبہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 115 ہجری]

نمبر [25] عمرو رحمه الله بن مرہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 116 ہجری]

نمبر [26] قاسم رحمه الله بن مخمیرہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 111 ہجری]

نمبر[27] عبد الملک رحمه الله بن عمیر رحمه الله [المتوفی 136 ہجری]

نمبر [28] منصور رحمه الله بن معتمر رحمه الله [المتوفی 132 ہجری]

نمبر [29] مغیرہ رحمه الله بن مقسم رحمه الله [المتوفی 136 ہجری]

نمبر [30] حصین رحمه الله بن عبد الرحمن رحمه الله [المتوفی 136 ہجری]

نمبر [31] ابو اسحق الشیبانی رحمه الله [المتوفی 138 ہجری]

نمبر [32] اسمعیل رحمه الله بن خالد رحمه الله [المتوفی 145 ہجری]

نمبر [33] سلیمان رحمه الله بن مہران اعمش رحمه الله [المتو 148 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [34] عبد الملک رحمه الله بن سلیمان العزرمی رحمه الله [المتوفی 145 ہجری]

نمبر [35] محمد رحمه الله بن عبد الرحمن رحمه الله بن ابی لیلی رحمه الله [المتوفی 148 ہجری]

نمبر [36] حجاج رحمه الله بن ارطاۃ رحمه الله [المتوفی 149 ہجری]

نمبر [37] مسعر رحمه الله بن کدام رحمه الله [المتوفی 175 ہجری]

نمبر [38] المسعودی رحمه الله [المتوفی 160 ہجری]

نمبر [39] سفیان رحمه الله بن سعید ثوری رحمه الله [المتوفی 161 ہجری]

نمبر [40] اسرائیل رحمه الله بن یونس رحمه الله [المتوفی 162 ہجری]

نمبر [41] زائدۂ بن قدامہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 161 ہجری]

نمبر [42] الحسن رحمه الله بن صالح رحمه الله بن می رحمه الله [المتوفی 167 ہجری]

نمبر [43] شیبان رحمه الله بن عبد الرحمن رحمه الله [المتوفی 164 ہجری]

نمبر [44] قیس رحمه الله بن الربیع رحمه الله [المتوفی 167 ہجری]

نمبر [45] ورقاء رحمه الله بن عمرو رحمه الله بن کلیب رحمه الله “بعد” [المتوفی 160 ہجری]

نمبر [46] شریک رحمه الله بن عبد الله القاضی رحمه الله [المتوفی 177 ہجری]

نمبر [47] زہیر رحمه الله بن معاویہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 173 ہجری]

نمبر [48] قاسم رحمه الله بن معن رحمه الله [المتوفی 175 ہجری]

نمبر [49] ابو الاحوص سلام رحمه الله بن سلیم رحمه الله [المتوفی 197 ‎ہجری]

نمبر [50] عبثر رحمه الله بن القاسم رحمه الله [المتوفی 178 ہجری]

نمبر [51] سفیان رحمه الله بن عینیہ [المتوفی 198 ہجری]

نمبر [52] ابوبکر رحمه الله بن عیاش رحمه الله [المتوفی 193 ہجری]

نمبر [53] یحیی رحمه الله بن زکریا رحمه الله بن ابی زائدہ [المتوفی 182 ہجری]

نمبر [54] عبد السلام رحمه الله صرب رحمه الله [المتوفی 187 ہجری]

نمبر [55] جریر رحمه الله بن عبد الحمید رحمه الله [المتوفی 188 ہجری]

نمبر [56] ابو خالدن الاحمر رحمه الله [المتوفی 198 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [57] ابو اسحاق الفزاری رحمه الله [المتوفی 185 ہجری]

نمبر [58] عیسی رحمه الله بن یونس رحمه الله [المتوفی 187 ہجری]

نمبر [59] عبد الله رحمه الله بن ادریس رحمه الله [المتوفی 192 ہجری]

نمبر [60] یحیی رحمه الله بن یمان رحمه الله [المتوفی 189 ہجری]

نمبر [61] حمید رحمه الله بن عبد الرحمن رحمه الله [المتوفی 190 ہجری]

نمبر [62] علی رحمه الله بن مسہر رحمه الله [المتوفی 189 ہجری]

نمبر [63] عبد الرحیم رحمه الله بن سلیمان رحمه الله [المتوفی 187 ہجری]

نمبر [64] ابو معاویہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 195 ہجری]

نمبر [65] مروان رحمه الله بن معاویہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 193 ہجری]

نمبر [66] حفص رحمه الله بن غیاث رحمه الله [المتوفی 164 ہجری]

نمبر [67] وکیع رحمه الله بن الجراح رحمه الله [المتوفی 197 ہجری]

نمبر [68] الاشجعی رحمه الله [المتوفی 182 ہجری]

نمبر [69] عبدۃ رحمه الله بن سلیمان رحمه الله [المتوفی 188 ہجری]

نمبر [70] المحاربی رحمه الله [المتوفی 195 ہجری]

نمبر [71] محمد رحمه الله بن فضیل رحمه الله بن غزوان رحمه الله [المتوفی 195 ہجری]

نمبر [72] ابو اسامہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 201 ہجری]

نمبر [73] محمد رحمه الله بن بشر رحمه الله [المتوفی 203 ہجری]

نمبر [74] یحیی رحمه الله بن سعید رحمه الله بن ابان رحمه الله [المتوفی 194 ہجری]

نمبر [75] یونس رحمه الله بن بکیر رحمه الله [المتوفی 199 ہجری]

نمبر [76] عبد الله رحمه الله بن نمیر رحمه الله [المتوفی 199 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [77] شجاع رحمه الله بن الولید رحمه الله [المتوفی 204 ہجری]

نمبر [78] محمد رحمه الله بن عبید رحمه الله [المتوفی 204 ہجری]

نمبر [79] یعلی رحمه الله بن عبید رحمه الله [المتوفی 209 ہجری]

نمبر [80] عبد الله رحمه الله بن داؤد الخریبی رحمه الله [المتوفی 213 ہجری]

نمبر [81] حسین رحمه الله بن علی الجعفی رحمه الله [المتوفی 203 ہجری]

نمبر [82] زید رحمه الله بن الحباب رحمه الله [المتوفی 203 ہجری]

نمبر [83] عبید الله رحمه الله بن موسی رحمه الله [المتوفی 213 ہجری]

نمبر [84] اسحاق رحمه الله بن سلیمان القیسی رحمه الله [المتوفی 200 ہجری]

نمبر [85] ابو احمد الزبیری رحمه الله [المتوفی 202 ہجری]

نمبر [86] یحیی رحمه الله بن آدم رحمه الله [المتوفی 203 ہجری]

نمبر [87] داؤد یحیی رحمه الله بن یمان [المتوفی 203 ہجری]

نمبر [88] ابو عبد الرحمن عبد الله رحمه الله بن یزید رحمه الله [المتوفی 213 ہجری]

نمبر [89] ابو نعیم فضل رحمه الله بن دکین رحمه الله [المتوفی 219 ہجری]‏‎

نمبر [90] ‎قبیصتہ رحمه الله بن عقبہ رحمه الله [المتوفی 215 ہجری]

نمبر [91] موسی رحمه الله داؤد الضبی رحمه الله [المتوفی 217 ہجری]

نمبر [92] خلف رحمه الله بن تمیم رحمه الله [المتوفی 206 ہجری]

نمبر[93] یحیی رحمه الله بن ابی بکیر رحمه الله [المتوفی 208 ہجری]

نمبر [94] زکریا رحمه الله بن عدی رحمه الله [المتوفی 212 ہجری]

نمبر [95] احمد رحمه الله بن عبد الله رحمه الله بن یونس [المتوفی 227 ہجری]

نمبر [96] ابو غسان رحمه الله [المتوفی 219 ہجری]

نمبر [97] خالد بن مخلد قطوافی رحمه الله [المتوفی 213 ہجری]

یہ یاد رہے کہ ہم نے “تذکرۃ الحفاظ جلد اول” ہی سے کوفہ کے ان حفاظ حدیث کا ذکر کیا ہے اور ان میں بھی حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله اور قاضی ابو یوسف رحمه الله [المتوفی 182 ‎ہجری] کا [باوجود یکہ ان کو تذکرۃ الحفاظ جلد اول میں مستقل عنوان دے کر علامہ ذہبی رحمه الله نے بیان کیا ہے] تذکرہ نہیں کیا تاکہ ان کے نام سے “مزاج یار” کہیں برہم نہ ہوجائے

اس سے آپ اندازہ لگا لیجئے کہ تذکرۃ الحفاظ کی بقیہ تین [3] جلدوں اور بیسوں دیگر اسماء الرجال کی کتابوں میں محدثیں کوفہ یا بالفاظ دیگر کوفہ کے حدیث دانوں کی تعداد اور گنتی کا کیا حال ہوگا؟ کیا ہم مصنف “حقیقت الفقہ” سے دریافت کرسکتے ہیں کہ کیا ان محدثین کوفہ یا کوفہ کے حدیث دانوں کی بیان کردہ حدیثوں میں نور کی کوئی کرن اور جھلک ہے یا نہیں؟ صحاح ستہ اور خصوصیت سے صحیحین میں تو ان سے اکثر حضرات کی حدیثیں آفتاب نیمروز کی طرح چمک رہی ہیں اور کیا ہم مؤلف “نتائج التقلید” اور ان کے جملہ مصدقین حضرات سے یہ سوال کرسکتے ہیں کہ کیا انتمام حضرات کا نام جعفر جعفی ہے؟ اور کیا ان سب بزرگوں کو روائتیں صرف جابر جعفی کے طریق ہی سے حاصل ہوئی ہیں؟ اور کیا ان تمام حضرات کا سرمایۂ حیات لے دے کر جابر جعفی پر ہی ختم ہوجاتا ہے؟ اور کیا ہم جامعۂ سلفیہ کے شیخ الحدیث صاحب سے پوچھ سکتے ہیں کہ کیا آپ کے نزدیک ان اہل کوفہ حضرات کی نقل صحیح ہے یا نہیں؟ اور کیا ان اکابر حفاظ حدیث کا روایت کی دوسرے روات حدیث کی بیان کردہ حدیثوں سے تطبیق کی ضرورت ہے یا نہیں؟ اور کیا ان کی نقل اور پیش کردہ روایات و احادیث پر کوئی اعتماد و اعتبار کیا جاسکتا ہے یا نہیں؟

قارئین کرام!! آپ نے بخوبی یہ ملاحظہ کرلیا کہ غیر مقلدین حضرات کا اصل اختلاف تو صرف حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله کوفی سے ہے ، لہذا ان کے لیے صرف یہی کہہ دینا کافی تھا کہ ہم نہ تو امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله کو [معاذ الله] ثقہ مانتے ہیں ، اور نہ ان کی نقل کو اور اگر اس سے بھی آگے نوازش کرنا چاہتے تھے – تو یہ کہہ دیتے کہ ان اہل کوفہ کی نقل کو بھی ہم نہیں مانتے جو حنفی ہیں – اگرچہ کلی طور پر یہ بھی قطعآ باطل ہے – مگر صد افسوس تو یہ ہے کہ امام ابو حنیفہ رحمه الله اور ان کے متبعین کی عداوت کے پر وہ میں سب اہل کوفہ کو کوسا جارہا ہے اور سب پر سے اعتماد اٹھایا جارہا ہے – اس سے بڑھ کر تعصب کی مثال بھی دنیا میں کوئی ہوسکتی ہے؟ اور اگر کوئی یہ تاویل کرے کہ اہل کوفہ سے ہماری مراد ہی حنفی ہے تو یہ بھیباطل ہے – ہم مقدمۂ تحفۃ الاحوذی کے حوالہ سے اس کی تردید لکھ آئے ہیں اور اگر بالفرض یہ مان بھی لیا جائے – تو کیا غیر مقلدین حضراب کے نزدیک امام یحیی رحمه الله بن سعید القطان رحمه الله ، امام یحیی رحمه الله بن معین ، امام عبد الله رحمه الله بن مبارک رحمه الله ، امام وکیع رحمه الله بن الجراح رحمه الله ، امام لیث رحمه الله بن سعد رحمه الله اورامام یحیی رحمه الله بن زکریا رحمه الله بن ابی زائدہ رحمه الله وغیرہ وغیرہ سب کی نقل صحیح نہیں؟ اگر ان کی نقل صحیح نہیں تو محدثین کرام رحمهم الله میں کس کی نقل صحیح ہے؟ ہم نے اپی کتاب “طائفۂ منصورہ” میں تاریخ کے ٹھوس حوالہ جات سے ان اکابر کا حنفی ہونا ثابت کیا ہے – الغرض غیر مقلدین حضرات کا اہل کوفہ کی حدیث دانی کا انکار کرنا چودھویں رات کے نصف السماء چاند اور آفتاب نیمروز کا انکار کرنا ہے جس کو کوئی بھی مصنف مزاج تسلیم کرنے پر کبھی بھی آمادہ نہیں ہوسکٹا ، ہاں البتہ متعصبین کی بات ہی الگ اور جدا ہے – اس کا اس جہاں میں کسی کے پاس کوئی علاج نہیں اور اس کے بارے میں ہم صرف یہی عرض کرسکتے ہیں کہ

باش کہ تاطبل قیامت زنند

آن تو نیک آید و یا ایں ما

کاش تو روز قیامت تک زندہ رہے کہ یہاں تو ہمیں تیری بھلائی پہنچتی رہے یا قیامت ہم تک پہنچ جائیں

اقتاس ! مقام ابی حنیفہ رحمه الله

امام اہلسنت – شیخ الحدیث حضرت مولانا محمد سرفراز خان صفدر رحمه الله

باب سوم : صفحہ نمبر 63 سے 70 تک

راشد حنفی

Response to “Unreliability” of The Rainwater Treatment Hadith

The claim can be viewed here: http://hadithanswers.com/a-lengthy-unreliable-hadith-on-cure-with-rain-water/

[By Mujlisul Ulama]

In refutation of a Hadith pertaining to treatment for sicknesses with rainwater and Qur’aanic recitation, a pseudo-salafi student, in an article captioned: ‘A lengthy unreliable Hadith on cure with rain water’, presents the following flotsam arguments to bolster his charge of fabrication against the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He contends that:

(a) The Hadith appears in the “non-primary” kitaabs, Jami’ul Usool and Jam’ul Fawaaid.

(b) Both these sources do not mention the chain for this narration.

(c) They reference the narration to ‘Razeen’ who does not “usually cite the chains for his narrations”.
(d) Senior latter-day Muhadditheen stated that they were unable to locate several narrations that Razeen had cited in his book.

(e) Allamah Zahabi said: “In his (Razeen’s) books are some very unreliable narrations.”

(f) The chain of this narration is yet to be located.

(g) The Hadith has exaggerations which are usually found in fabricated Hadiths.

(h) The popular reliable Hadith sources have no mention of this Hadith.

(i) There is a real chance of the Hadith being a fabrication.

In a nutshell, the above are the pseudo-salafi critic’s spurious dalaa-il. But, every one of the aforementioned specious arguments is baseless. The critic’s research on this issue is extremely defective. Due to this deficiency he has committed the very serious error of categorizing this Saheeh Hadith a ‘fabrication’ (Maudhoo’).

First argument
(a) The Hadith appears in the “non-primary” kitaabs, Jami’ul Usool and Jam’ul Fawaid.

The appearance of a Hadith in a ‘non-primary’ source is not a principle for classifying a Hadith   a fabrication. Numerous non-primary Hadith kutub are of the highest standard of authenticity and reliability. Kutub other than the Sihaah Sittah (Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmizi, Nasaai’ and Muwatta Maalik, and according to some, Ibn Maajah) also enjoy a high degree of authenticity. The two kitaabs mentioned by the neo-salafi, in fact comprise of the Ahaadith of these Six Kitaabs collectively called Usool.

That Ahaadith are not authentic merely because they happen to be in the so-called ‘non primary’ kutub, is an extraction from some Salafi’s thumb which the misguided student has understood to be a principle in the knowledge of Hadith classification.

Second argument
(b) Both these sources do not mention the chain for this narration.

Firstly, this charge is false. Both the Kutub do mention the Sanad for every Hadith taken from Imaam Razeen’s Kitaab in which he explicitly states that all the Ahaadith in his Kitaab are from the Sihaah Sittah. Since Imaam Razeen, and following him, the Author’s of Jaami’ul Usool and Jam’ul Fawaaid, truncated only that well-known section of the Sanad which links the Compilers of the Sihaah Sittah to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), it is incorrect to contend that the Chain of the Narration is not mentioned. Thus, Imaam Razeen mentions, for example, that the Hadith narrated by Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is from the Sihaah Sittah. This averment is in fact the full Isnaad of the Hadith.

If any person narrates a Hadith from a Sahaabi and says that it is in Bukhaari, then it will be only a Salafi moron or a pseudo-salafi moron who will contend that the Hadith has been truncated, i.e. narrated without its Sanad. But this claim is erroneous in view of the fact that the Isnaad from Bukhaari to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is ma’roof – well-known and confirmed. Any one interested in the full Chain of Narrators should ascertain it from Saheeh Bukhaari. There is no incumbency for a person in this age to narrate the names of all the narrators of Ahaadith which he cites from any of the authentic Kutub, and these are not restricted to the Sihaah Sittah.

Real Truncation is to narrate a Hadith without Sanad and which has not been acquired from any reliable and authentic Kitaab or Thiqah (trustworthy and uprighteous) Source, e.g. like a Bid’ati saying: “Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioned the virtues of mawlid.” The narration is minus Isnaad and cannot be attributed to any well-known, famous, authentic Kitaab to enable one to ascertain its validity. A narration subjected to such truncation will obviously be rejected and not accepted as authentic.

But the type of ‘truncation’ employed by illustrious Muhadditheen such as Imaam Razeen, Imaam Baghawi, Ibnul Atheer and many others, and by the eminent Fuqaha is never grounds for classifying a Hadith as Dha’eef (weak) and Maudhoo’ (fabricated). These Muhadditheen of later times do not perpetrate  Real Truncation. They explicitly state the Source, e.g. Sihaah Sittah. Only morons understand that a Hadith attributed to Bukhaari, for example, is a truncated narration. The full Sanad could easily be ascertained from Saheeh Bukhaari.

Thousands of Ahaadith of the Sihaah Sittah compiled by Imaam Razeen and many other Muhadditheen in their kutub are all superficially truncated. It is indeed moronic to aver that a Hadith is Maudhoo’ simply because the full Isnaad is not mentioned. It is more than adequate for establishing authenticity if an Imaam of Hadith – an Authority of the Shariah – says that the Ahaadith are in Sihaah Sittah.

The practice of the Fuqaha and the later Muhadditheen was to resort to this kind of superficial truncation of Hadith narrations since they had no need for the Isnaad. The issue of Chains had already been finalized by the early Muhadditheen and the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.

Third argument
(c) They reference the narration to ‘Razeen’ who does not “usually cite the chains for his narrations”.

This is another notorious lie of Salafis and their blind followers, the pseudo-salafis masquerading as Muqallideen of the Math-habs.

The neo-salafi critic of Imaam Razeen and the Hadith in question, due to the deficiency of his research has grossly failed to understand the rank of Al-Imaam, Al-Muhaddith Allaamah Razeen Bin Muawiyah Al-Abdari. Imaam Razeen was among the prominent Akaabir Mukharrijeen (Hadith Examiners) and among the Aimmah Muhadditheen. When an Authority of this calibre cites a Hadith without  deprecating and criticizing it, it confirms the authenticity of the Hadith. Insha-Allah, our detailed Response (which will be posted sometime later) will adequately show the extremely lofty pedestal which Imaam Razeen occupies in the firmament of Hadith and Fiqh. It is essential to understand that Imaam Razeen was not just any Zaid, Bakr, Tom, Dick and Harry.

If all the Ulama of this age are shoved into Imaam Razeen’s kurtah pocket, there will be  ample space for several more of   such groups to be squeezed in.

Fourth argument
(d) Senior latter-day Muhadditheen stated that they were unable to locate several narrations that Razeen had cited in his book.  

The inability of latter-day Muhadditheen to locate some narrations cited by Imaam Razeen from the Sihaah Sittah, may not be used as an argument to classify a Hadith as being unreliable or fabricated. It is exceptionally grave to brand a Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ‘Maudhoo’ just because some Hadith examiners who appeared on the scene 6, 7, 8  and 9 centuries after Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), had failed to locate the sources of some of the Ahaadith cited by Imaam Razeen. The spuriousness of this flimsy argument should be quite obvious.

The inability of a Muhaddith to locate the source of a Hadith   narrated by another illustrious Hadith Authority is not a principle for branding the Hadith unreliable or a fabrication, or to even cast aspersions on its authenticity. The authenticity of the Hadith is in fact the Thiqah Authority who declares it reliable and authentic.  Allaamah Ibn Hajr –  who was unable to locate even the sources of many of Imaam Bukhaari’s Ta’leeqaat (truncated narrations), commented: “I did not find it.”   His inability is not grounds for labelling Imaam Bukhaari’s truncated Ahaadith as fabrications or unreliable.

Fifth argument
(e) Allaamah Zahabi said: “In his (Razeen’s) books are some very unreliable narrations.”  

Allaamah Zahabi’s criticism is apodalic and eristic. Having failed to present even a single Shar’i or rational argument for refuting the Hadith narrations of Imaam Razeen, Zahabi conceded that Imaam Razeen was ‘Al-Imaam Al-Muhaddith Ash-Shaheer’.

Furthermore, Zahabi did not claim that the ‘Rainwater Hadith’ is a fabrication. He had not even made reference to it. His statement refers to “some” allegedly “very unreliable narrations”. Nowhere does he say that the specific Hadith under discussion is a fabrication. The only one who has classified it a ‘fabrication’, is the pseudo-salafi critic. 

It is also necessary to say that Zahabi’s notion of some of Imaam Razeen’s narrations being “unreliable” is a subjective conclusion. He advances no rational argument for his contention. There is no reason why we should opt for the taqleed of Zahabi when an illustrious Muhaddith of the calibre of Imaam Razeen who appeared more than two centuries before Zahabi, had accepted the Hadith to be Saheeh. Zahabi’s criticism has been dismissed by great Authorities. Insha-Allah, we shall   elaborate more in our detailed Response where it shall be shown that Zahabi was the victim of   bigotry and many of his averments and views are spurious. His comment has been baselessly employed by the neo-salafi critic.

Sixth argument
(f) The chain of this narration is yet to be located.  

This is yet another falsity blurted out by an unthinking mind. The Chain of Narration of the Hadith is confirmed by the fact that the illustrious Compiler, Imaam Razeen, a Muhaddith of impeccable standard, declared explicitly in the Introduction of his Kitaab, Tajreedus Sihaah, that the Sources of all the Ahaadith in his Kitaab are the Six Hadith Kutub. The authenticity of the Hadith is further corroborated by other eminent Muhadditheen such as Ibnul Atheer, Al-Faasi and Ibn Dabee’. 

Furthermore, the inability of locating the Chain of a Hadith cited and accepted by an illustrious Imaam of Hadith is not valid grounds for rejecting the Hadith as a ‘fabrication’. Yes, if some grave-worshipper or a man belonging to the Ahl-e-Bid’ah cites a narration for which there is no substantiation in the Kutub of Hadith, then there will be justification for dismissing the Hadith without branding it a fabrication. If the genuinely chainless/truncated narration is in conflict with the Shariah, it will only then be labelled a fabrication. But, if it pertains to the sphere of Fadhaa-il, it shall not necessarily be lambasted unless it has been made a basis for bid’ah. 

Imaam Razeen who is a senior Authority of Hadith is in fact the Sanad. In his own right, he is the Chain of Narration establishing the authenticity of the Hadith. There is no need to dwell beyond this illustrious Imaam of Hadith in search of a Chain.

Seventh argument
(g) The Hadith has exaggerations which are usually found in fabricated Hadiths.

The moron neo-salafi while audaciously slandering the Hadith, has not enumerated the “exaggerations” in this specific Hadith. If he presents these, we shall, Insha-Allah, tackle the issue. He has not even explained what exactly he means by “exaggerations” in the context of the Ahaadith of Rasulullah   (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He has simply lapped up the flotsam which the Salafis have disgorged.

Eighth argument
(h) The popular reliable Hadith sources have no mention of this Hadith.  

There is no principle which labels a Hadith Maudhoo’ or unreliable merely because it does not appear in the Sihaah Sittah. In fact, this Hadith does exist in one of the Sihaah Sittah of which there were a variety of manuscripts extant during the age of Imaam Razeen. 90% or more of the Saheeh Ahaadith do not appear in the six popular Hadith books. Besides the Six, there are many other popular Hadith kutub among which are Jaami’ul Usool, Jam’ul Fawaaid, Imaam Razeen’s Tajreedus Sihaah, and many more.

As far as popularity is concerned, Imaam Razeen’s Kitaab is extremely popular. Acknowledging the popularity of Imaam Razeen’s Kitaab, even the critique Zahabi says: “He stayed in Makkah for an age where he heard Bukhaari from Eesa Bin Tharr Al-Harawi, and Muslim from Al-Hasan At-Tabari. He has a popular book in which he has compiled the Six Kutub.”

Ibn Razeen’s Tajreedus Sihaah, and Ibn Atheer’s Jaami’ul Usool in which this particular Hadith is recorded, are extremely popular. These kutub are not obscure, lacking in status or academic lustre or authenticity as the moron Salafis attempt to convey. All of these kutub are reliable sources. In fact, the neo-salafi student, acknowledging the popularity of Imaam Razeen’s Tajreedus Sihaah, says: “His book: ‘Tajridus Sihah’ is famous.” This should clinch the flimsy ‘popularity’ idea.

The ninth argument
(i) There is a real chance of the  Hadith being a fabrication.  

The hallucinated chance is not a daleel. It is an arbitrary, stupid claim devoid of any basis. It is the baseless conclusion of one who lacks the ability to correctly cogitate and excogitate.  

The neo-salafi chap has not advanced a single valid argument for this baseless contention and stupidly fabricated hypothesis. In fact, even Allaamah Zahabi has not labelled the Rainwater Hadith a fabrication. While he claims that some narrations of Imaam Razeen are “unreliable”, he does not say that this particular Hadith or any other specific Hadith of Imaam Razeen is Maudhoo’. It is only the pseudo-salafi student who has mustered up the audacity to brand this Saheeh Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) so unceremoniously.

Should we briefly accept that “some” narrations in Imaam Razeen’s most popular (Mashhoor) Kitaab are “unreliable”, what is the rational argument for claiming that the Rainwater Hadith is included among the “some unreliable” narrations? There is not even an iota of daleel to substantiate this spurious claim. In addition, ascribing unreliability to some of the Ahaadith in Imaam Razeen’s Kitaab is tantamount to the attribution of unreliability to the Sihaah Sittah, for all the Ahaadith in Tajreedus Sihaah are from the Six famous Hadith Kutub.

In his conclusion, the critic says: “In such a situation, caution demands that we abstain from spreading, sharing or publicizing this narration.”  

Imaam Razeen and the illustrious Authors of Jaami’ul Usool, Jam’ul Fawaaid, Taysirul Wusool, etc. had a better understanding of the concept of “caution” regarding Hadith narration. They were great Authorities of Hadith, and they had deemed it appropriate and valid to include this Hadith in their highly authentic kutub. The conclusion of the neo-salafi chap is thus dismissed as utterly baseless.

THE RAINWATER TREATMENT HADITH  – THE MOST WONDERFUL REMEDY

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Jibraeel taught me a medicine which obviates the need for any other medicine or for a physician.”  

Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhum) eagerly asked: “And, what is that medicine? We are in need of it.”  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Take some rainwater and recite on it Surah Faatihah, Surah Ikhlaas, Surah Falaq, Surah Naas and Aayatul Kursi. Each one seventy times (and blow on the water). Then drink of this water morning and evening for seven days. I take oath by That Being Who has sent me as the Nabi with the Haqq! Jibraeel said to me: ‘Verily, whoever drinks from this water Allah will eliminate from his body every disease and protect him against all sicknesses and pains. Whoever gives it to his wife to drink, then sleeps with her, she will become pregnant by the permission of Allah. It cures the eyes, eliminates sihr (magic), cures chest pains, toothache and urine stoppage, etc., etc.………..”   (End of Hadith)

COMMENT

There can be absolutely no doubt in the efficacy of this wonderful remedy prescribed by Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) by the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It has been handed to the Ummah by As-Sadiq (The Truthful), Muhammad Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Its efficacy is dependent on two conditions just as the efficacy of all kinds of remedies is reliant on certain conditions, e.g. diet, dosage, etc.

The two essential conditions for its efficicacy is:

(1) Taa-at (Obedience). Abstention from sin – fisq and fujoor, and cleansing the heart from malice, etc. 

(2) Yaqeen – firm faith. The ultimate result is the decree of Allah Ta’ala with which every Mu’min has to incumbently be pleased. Allah does as He wills.

The Hadith of Hadhrat Musa (Alayhissalaam) Punching Malakul Maut

By Mujlisul Ulama

Narrated Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu Anhu): The angel of death was sent to Musa (alayhissalaam) and when he went to him, Musa (alayhissalaam) slapped him severely, spoiling one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said, “You sent me to a slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and tell him (i.e. Musa alayhissalaam) to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand.” (So the angel came to him and told him the same). Then Musa (alayhissalaam) asked, “O my Lord! What will be then?” He said, “Death will be then.” He (Musa alayhissalaam) said, “(Let it be) now.” He asked Allah that He bring him near the Sacred Land at a distance of a stone’s throw. Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, “Were I there I would show you the grave of Musa (alayhissalaam) by the way near the red sand hill.” [Sahih Bukhari]

The acceptance of this Hadith as authentic by the greatest authorities of Hadith negates the slightest shad­ow of doubt regarding the authenticity of the Hadith which is nowadays being subjected to blasphemous ridi­cule and criticism. The authenticity of the Hadith is established and has been upheld by all authorities of Ahadith. For the past fourteen hundred years, ijma’ (Consensus of the Ummah) has existed on the authenti­city of this Hadith – on the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did make this statement. Who then are those in this belated age to reject and ridicule this authentic Hadith – the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Only those whose hearts have become sealed to the Noor of Hidayah can venture to undertake the peril of mocking and ridiculing the authentic and sacred words of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Hadhrat Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), the great authority of the Shafi Math-hab, states in his Sharhul Muslim (Commentary of the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim):

“AI-Maazari said: ‘Verily, some atheists have refuted this Hadith and have rejected its probability. They say that how is it permissible for Musa to break the eye of Malakul Maut?”

This self-same argument which the mulaahidah (atheists) of Imaam Nawawi’s time advanced is today being propounded by some people who align themse­lves with the people of knowledge. Thus, in considering their reason or intelligence to be the standard for the acceptance of a hadith, they have grouped themselves together with the mulaahidah  mentioned by Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh).

Since this Hadith has been reliably attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and there is not the slightest vestige of doubt in its authenticity, the question of its refutation does not occur to men grounded in Knowledge and Imaan. If logic conflicts with the sacred utterance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh wasallam), we shall and must necessarily abandon such logic as defective and crooked and uphold the correct­ness and validity of the Hadith. Every statement of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was made on inspiration and revelation from Allah Ta’ala, hence the Qur’aan Shareef declares categorically:

“He [Muhammad] does not speak by his desire. It [his talk] is nothing but Wahi which is revealed.”

Hence, those who deny the validity and correctness of the proven and sacred words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) do so at the peril of their Imaan.

In their rejection of this Saheeh Hadith they present another utterly fallacious argument. They cite the Qur’­aanic ayat:

“They [i.e.the Angels] do not disobey Allah regard­ing that which He has commanded them. And, they do as they are commanded.”

This ayat is cited by the rejectors of the Hadith as their proof. It is indeed unworthy of men of knowledge to resort to such baseless ways of argumentation. This fallacious arguments mirrors the lack of understanding of the rejectors of the Hadith and their inability to argue their case on the basis of the Shariah. Firstly, this ayat does not remotely refer to the Hadith or the subject of the Hadith in question. There is no relationship between the ayat cited and the Hadith which is being rejected and subjected to ridicule by some Sheikhs. The Malaaikah (Angels) being in perpetual obedience to Allah Ta’ala is not refuted or doubted. The Hadith pert­aining to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Malakul Maut in no way negates the obedience of the Malaaikah stated in the Qur’aanic verse.

There is absolutely no contradiction between the Hadith in question and the Qur’aanic verse cited by the rejectors. In returning to Allah Ta’ala after being expelled by Musaa (alayhis salaam), Malakul Maut did not disobey Allah Ta’ala because his (Malakul Maut’s) return was not due to disobedience, but was occasioned by helplessness. Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) rendered him helpless. This may seem surprising to the logic of those who have rejected the authenticity of the Hadith without having the slightest Shar’i evidence. But, to people of firm Imaan there is nothing surprising in Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) having rendered Malakul Maut helpless on this occasion. It should be well understood that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are the chosen representatives and messengers of Allah Ta’ala. They have a superior rank than the Malaaikah.

The Sajdah which all Malaaikah made to Nabi Aadam (alayhis salaam) is indicative of the superiority of the Ambiya over the Malaaikah. In fact, it is the unanimous belief of the Ahl-e-Sunnah Wal jama’ah that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are sup­erior in rank to the Angels. This fact is known to Malakul Maut and all the Malaaikah. Therefore, assuming that Malakul Maut had the power to retaliate when Musa (alayhis salaam) struck him, it is inconceivable that he would have retaliated and acted in opposition to the wishes of his superior, viz., Musa (alayhis salaam) in this case. Should Malakul Maut have acted in retaliation or take the soul of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) contrary to his wishes, he would have been acting in contravent­ion of the command which is stated in the ayat: “They do not disobey Allah.”, because it is Allah’s Command that Malakul Maut takes the soul of the Ambiya (alayh­imus salaam) with their permission. Hence, when Mala­kul Maut returned to Allah Ta’ala, he did so in obed­ience to the Divine Command since he was under the impression that Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) refused to die at that time.

The authorities of the Shariah have also said that on that particular occasion, Malakul Maut visited Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) in human form. He appeared unannounced and did not introduce himself. Musaa (alayhis salaam) mistook him for an intruder about to attack him, hence he acted in self-defence. But, when Malakul Maut returned the second time he revealed his identity, hence Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) readily submitted inspite of the fact that Allah Ta’ala granted Musaa (alayhis salaam) the choice of remaining alive for as many years as he wished.

Allah Ta’ala has bestowed tremendous power to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). In one hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)-said:

“Verily, mankind will be in a swoon [of death on the Day of Qiyaamah after the Trumpet has been sounded]. will be the first to be revived [when the Trumpet is sounded the second time]. Then suddenly I will observe Musaa [alayhis salaam] holding onto the side of the Arsh [Throne of Allah]. I do not know if he was among those who had passed out [into non-existence when the Trumpet was sounded the first time] and was revived before me or was he among those who have been saved [from the destruction wrought by the Trumpet].”

Those who are holding up the Throne of Allah Ta’ala are Malaaikah of colossal power. Their size and power as described by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) boggle the human mind. Yet Musa (alayhis salaam) on the Day of Qiyaamah will be in that group of mighty Angels holding aloft the Arsh of Allah Ta’ala. This in itself indicates the enormous power which Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam). Lest the rejectors ridicule this Hadith as well, we furnish here­under the proof of its authenticity. Imaam Muslim (rahmatullah alayh) records this Hadith in his Saheeh with five Sanads.

We have, by the grace of Allah Ta’ala explained the proof and the subject matter of the Hadith which has been ridiculed and rejected in some quarters. Muslims who have been thrown into doubt should now under­stand that the Hadith is Saheeh (authentic) and has been accepted as such by the Ummah and all authorit­ies of the Shariah for the past fourteen centuries. The rejection of the Hadith presented by some Sheikhs is thus baseless and without substance. And, upon us is but to deliver the clear message: 

They follow nothing but baseless opinion,and they do nothing but conjecture. [Qur’an]

Where is Sahih Bukhari’s Original Copy?

Source: http://icraa.org/sahih-bukharis-original-copy/

Sharif Muhammad Jabir

Translated by Waqar Akbar Cheema

Translator’s Note: While I had considered translating this write-up ever since I read it on Al-Jazeera Blog the immediate impetus has been a disastrous article by one Atabek Shukurov whose work “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” I reviewed back in 2015. Although I plan to make a dedicated response to his present article this piece by Sharif Muhammad Jabir, I believe, serves as a principle response to his basic argument. Irony is that Mr. Shukurov himself cites works written hundreds of years ago using editions thereof published within last few decades. How bad he did not give us images from the first copies of the works of al-Bazdawi (d. 482/1089), al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1448) et al. which could be considered authentic according to the criteria laid down by him.

1. Introduction

Some of the ‘researchers’ and those known with the honorifics indicating their educational qualifications have framed an ‘important’ question regarding the absence of original manuscript copy of (Muhammad b. Isma’il) al-Bukhari’s (hereinafter Bukhari) Sahih that he penned down with his own hands. They ask, “If Bukhari did author this book why do we not find its original manuscript in his own handwriting?” They say; “The oldest extant copy of Sahih Bukhari goes back to the fourth century after Hijrah i.e. decades after the death of Bukhari (d. 256/870); it is the copy of Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Marwazi who was born in the year 301/913 and died in 371/982. He listened to the Sahih from his teacher al-Firabri (d. 320/932) in 318/930 who in turn listened to it from Bukhari in 252/866. How then can we trust a book attributed to its author without there being a manuscript written by him available to us?”

2. Naivety of the Question

It is regrettable that we live in an age in which such naïve and absurd questions prop up [in the guise of academics and research]. Who seeks the original manuscript copies of books in our day? Beginning with the Qur’an; we have absolute confidence in the preservation of Allah’s Book though we neither have with us a copy of Qur’an written in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) nor even an original copy of ‘Uthman’s (d. 35/656) mushaf. In fact a very old copy of Qur’an discovered by the scholars in Germany went back only to the time of Harun al-Rashid (d. 193/809). Though they concluded that it confirmed to the Qur’an we have with us today, it did not add to our trust and conviction regarding the Book of Allah [in terms of preservation.] Even as we turn our attention to books of humans we find that it is the only the naïve who seek an original copy in the handwriting of the author as evidence for rightful attribution to him. How many a book of our day and those of days gone by have you read for which you did not find a copy of it in the handwriting of its author? In fact the availability of author’s handwritten manuscript of a book is no guarantee or reference point to establish the attribution of the book to its author. This has been the human practice for centuries. It has been so because the methods of attribution of the book to its author are related to continuous transmission of the book through multiple channels and not in the existence of the original handwritten copy of the author.

3. How has Sahih Bukhari been transmitted to us?

There is no doubt that Imam Bukhari did pen his work al-Sahih with his own hand, however, he [also] recited it to a large number of his students who listened to it from him and copied it in its entirety. Thereafter, they checked it against Bukhari’s personal copy. This way their copies were in accordance with the original one of Bukhari. Afterwards, came another generation who listened to the book from the students of Bukhari and compared their copies to those of Bukhari’s students, and likewise [it happened through subsequent generations] until the book became widely known.[1] If, therefore, the original one written by Bukhari was lost it had no implications, because it had been transmitted among the generations of students of Bukhari and its copies had become widely published each with a chain of transmission back to Bukhari. Commentaries to it were written, and all the copies are, by the grace of Allah, in congruence.  As to the minor differences in the wording, they are in a sense similar to the difference of recitals (qira’at) in Qur’an and are, in fact, a factor confirming the attribution for they establish numerous transmitted links that go back to Imam Bukhari.

Accordingly, even if the reliance is made on a copy much later than that of Bukhari it confirmed to the manuscripts and editions prior to it except for minor marginal differences. See, therefore, how the differences, rare and marginal, increase the authenticity of copying rather than question it. Moreover, whereas the transmission of al-Firabri – a student of Bukhari – became popular, and copies of it were published, it was not because copying was exclusively based on his transmission. Sahih Bukhari was copied through other transmissions as well. This is al-Khattabi (319/931 – 388/998) saying in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari titled ‘Alam al-Hadith that he listened to major part of the book from Khalf b. Muhammad al-Khayyam on the authority of Ibrahim b. Ma’qal al-Nasafi (d. 295/907), a student of Bukhari who listened to the book from him.[2] It is a link other than that of al-Firabri. This is how it was with the early scholars. Among them the oral transmission and reporting of Sahih Bukhari through various links, other than the one popular today, was widespread. Their renderings of the Sahih are in line with the copy common today.

The internal consistence of the transmissions and copies of Sahih Bukhari despite remoteness of the regions, difference of times, and the number of links back to Imam Bukhari are best evidence for the mass narration of Sahih Bukhari and the reliability of its copied transmission.  Thereafter, if one or more of the copies of it became popular among the scholars (as it happens with most of the academic works) it was not because it was the most authentic of the copies or because it included something that other copies did not rather this is simply how it naturally happens. It is similar to a situation wherein a contemporary author writes a book and multiple editions of it come out, however, decades later only one of the editions remains in print and the book becomes popular in that edition because it is the best or, let us say, the most critical of the editions whereas the other editions go out of print and are neglected. This does not mean that the subject matter of the in-vogue edition is different from other editions.

In short, Sahih Bukhari was relayed down from his author through mass transmission. It was not possible for any scribe to make any interpolation or alteration without it being known. Scholars of different schools of thought possessed copies of Sahih Bukhari and knew its content intimately. If any narration were interpolated it would have been known to them immediately through its variance with their own copies of it and their knowledge of narrators and the chains of narrators. Reflect, therefore, on this peculiar and crucial feature of our ummah’s intellectual tradition – the methodology of narration, scrutiny, and comparison of a later copy with the earlier one – the like of which is not found with other nations. This signifies that loss of Bukhari’s own copy makes no difference rather it goes with the natural order of things. It is indeed rare for a manuscript to outlive environmental, historical, military, and political changes and survive for over 1200 years!

4. Availability of the original copy is no greater proof of authenticity

If we assume that the multi-pronged methodology of preservation and transmission as historically in vogue in the intellectual tradition of the ummah had not existed and we had with us a handwritten copy of Sahih Bukhari attributed to Imam Bukhari, it would not have been a stronger proof of authenticity of Sahih Bukhari compared to what we have today! In fact it would be far weaker in terms of reliability. This is because then you would require proving the reliability of the attribution of the copy to Imam Bukhari and there would be no other way to do it.  How doubtful then would have been the attribution of the Sahih to Imam Bukhari compared to all the ways of attestation that we now have with us? Therefore, the method of transmission that the scholars of this ummah have relied upon is the best possible way.

5. What if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari were lost?

If we were to gather all the thousands of copies of Sahih Bukhari, whether manuscripts or printed ones, and put them all to fire and likewise delete whatever of it is available on the internet including what is quoted in the commentaries and books of fiqh etc. If we were to delete them all leaving no trace of Bukhari’s work; even if this were indeed to happen we would not lose anything we know of the sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ) today because whatever is narrated in hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari is available and published in other books of hadith and fiqh as well.

These are the facts that those who indulge in the superficial and sentimental speech asking as to where all these sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) came up from are not aware of.  Many great hadith scholars preceded Imam Bukhari whose multivolume tomes were sources of much of the Bukhari’s work. Some of these scholars were Bukhari’s teachers and some were the teachers of his teachers. If you were to carefully study the reports in Sahih Bukhari you would find them attested and narrated through the very chain of narrators with which they are found in books both prior and later to it. Among the books prior to it is Musnad of Bukhari’s teacher al-Humaidi (d. 219/834) which has reports that Bukhari included in his Sahih. Likewise there is Muwatta of Imam Malik (d. 179/795) most of whose reports with connected chains were narrated by Bukhari as well. And similarly there is Musannaf of Imam ‘Abdul Razzaq al-San’ani (d. 211/827) and Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) and others besides. The works of great hadith scholars who preceded Imam Bukhari greatly overlap with Sahih Bukhari. Moreover, if we take into account the works of the contemporaries of Imam Bukhari such as Imam Muslim (d. 261/875) and Ibn Khuzaima (d. 311/923) and those who came after him we would find the reports in Sahih Bukhari repeated and preserved in these works. Such works are not few rather there are scores of them.  Therefore, even if all the copies of Sahih Bukhari – not just original one – were to disappear nothing from the authentic hadith reports would be lost. Our religion is not based only on the works of one individual or Sahih Bukhari alone though it certainly has a great stature due to its academic value and accordingly the scholars give it preference over other works. May Allah bless Imam Bukhari with great reward for his services to the ummah.

These important facts expose to us the weakness of this question raised concerning Sahih Bukhari as if it is the sole foundational source of Islam that any doubt concerning it would make most of the hadith reports appear dubious and render vain bulk of the information about the Sunnah of the Prophet (ﷺ). In doing this they refer to the saying, “The most correct book after the Book of Allah” assuming that this statement makes Sahih Bukhari an essential source of Islam to the effect that if it were lost with it would go a part of Islam itself. This is a misconception on their part. In reality this statement simply highlights an academic characteristic of the book for Bukhari was the first and foremost to compile a book of only authentic narrations. He ensured that all the hadith reports in his book were authentic with chains of narrators fulfilling rigorous conditions more stringent than those of other compilers of hadith. He kept it free from weak reports having issues such as disconnection in chains of narrators. He did not collect therein all the authentic reports nor is that there are no authentic reports outside Sahih Bukhari that if we were to doubt it we would lose information on a large number of sunnahs of the Prophet (ﷺ). Neither Bukhari claimed this nor would a student in his maiden hadith class say this. In fact any reasonable person who has skimmed through hadith works for even quarter of an hour would not say this.

As a starter it would suffice for the reader to get know of Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abdul Baqi’s (d. 1388/1968) book Al-Lu’lu’ wa al-Marjan, Fima Ittafaqa ‘alaihi Ash-Shaikhan (wherein he collected hadith reported common between Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) in order to find out that Imam Muslim also narrated 1906 of the reports of Sahih Bukhari. How about going through other hadith works as well? Indeed the reader would find the authentic hadith reports of Sahih Bukhari have been adequately published in other books as well. In fact one would find that most of them have been reported through different chains of reporters which only adds to their authenticity.

6. Summary

The gist of what we have mentioned above is that the naivety laden doubt, “Where is the original copy of Sahih Bukhari?” comes only from those who view things superficially, give in to shallow trends, and are ignorant of the Islamic intellectual heritage. I believe the spread of such doubts is a good proof of the shallowness of the modern trends and materialistic approach that has hit our Muslim community. Such superficial rationality cannot rescue us from the backwardness that has overcome our people. It is ironic for someone to clamor about with such a ridiculous questions and thinks of him as an ‘enlightened rationalist’ researching the intellectual tradition. Such an individual should first get over with his ignorance of hadith, its major works and sciences; actually he should return to basic lessons in principles of academic discourse and logical thinking before going about with such non sense.

Notes/References:

[1] Haji Khalifa (d. 1067/1657), for instance, tells us about “Al-Nijāḥ fī Sharḥ Kitāb Akhbār al-Ṣiḥāḥ” by Najm al-Din Abu Hafs ‘Umar bin Muhammad al-Nasafi al-Hanafi (d. 537/1143):

ذكر في أوله أسانيده عن خمسين طريقاً إلى المصنف

In the beginning Al-Nasafi mentioned fifty chains of narrators back to the author [Al-Bukhari].

See, Khalifa, Haji, Kashf al-Zanun, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.) Vol.1, 553 and Vol.2, 1929

[2] Al-Khattabi, Abu Suleman, ‘Alam al-Hadith, Edited by Muhammad b. Sa’d b. ‘Abdul Rahman Aal Saud (Makkah: Jami’a Umm al-Qura’, 1998) Vol.1, 106

Hadith Of Isolation in the Mountains

IS THIS THE AGE FOR ISOLATION AND THE MOUNTAINS??

Some Scholars are using the Hadith in Buk­haari that says when fitnah spreads one should abandon everyone and go to the moun­tains with his sheep and live there even if he has to eat roots of trees. Therefore some Scholars have gone to live on farms with their families, iso­lating themselves. Is this the time of fitnah mentioned in—the Hadith? Is it valid to oneself like this? What would be the best option in terms of the Qur’aan and Hadith? Are those who have not isolated themselves guilty of sinning? What is the cor­rect explanation of this Hadith?

ANSWER [Mujlisul Ulama]

The Hadith pertaining to the Mountains mentioned by you is authentic. The Hadith does not command anyone to take to the mountains. It only mentions the state of fitnah and anarchy, evil and immorality which will prevail and that at such a time the best option for a concerned Muslim will be isolation. Thus, in one Hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Abandon the affairs of the public.” The command even in this Hadith is not for compulsion. It is ad­vice for those who find that calling people to the Path is absolutely futile and is fraught with the unbearable difficul­ties, persecution and hardship beyond one’s ability of tolera­tion. However, not withstand­ing this, there will remain for all time right until the end, a small group of Ulama-e-Haqq who will not take to the moun­tains, but will resolutely pro­claim the Haqq and fight for the Haqq until the end, for this is Allah’s Command, for such Ulama represent the divine institution which Allah Ta’ala has created for the defence of Islam. Thus they will remain active in the field to fight kufr, baatil, dhalaal, ilhaad, bid’ah,shirk, fisq, fujoor, modernism, liberalism, etc., regardless of the overwhelming deluge of these evil satanic forces. For this group of Ulama, isolation is not an option.

Ordinary Muslims who are pious and concerned with their Imaan and Akhlaaq – when they find that they are unable to practise the Deen due to per­secution by the state, it will be –best for them to take to isola­tion in whichever way it is pos­sible.

The Hadith pertaining to mountains will apply  literally in such places where one can find such a mountain where one will be allowed to live in peace. But in today’s era there is no such mountain. A person living in isolation on a moun­tain will be quickly appre­hended and detained by the slaves of America for being a `terrorist’ or for planning `terrorism’. There is no safe mountain any longer currently. However, the time may still come when all central authority of the state will collapse and total anarchy will reign. At such a time the arm of the law will not extend to remote mountains, and one will be able to find refuge there.

However, generally speak­ing, there is no refuge even on the mountains, especially in this age of technological ad­vancement. Furthermore, there are other Ahadith which cor­roborate. what we are saying. For example, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that in the age in close proximity to Qiyaamah, a man will flee with his Imaan – to protect his Deen and morality -from city to city, town to town, village to village, and from mountain to mountain like a hunted fox fleeing from the hunter who is in hot pursuit on its trail. Afghanistan has about the most rugged and highest mountains on earth. It has pro­vided the Taliban with natural refuge against the occupation forces of the kuffaar world. But even there if any person lives alone in isolation in ibaadat, he will be quickly discovered. The places literally teem with spies for the kuffaar. People from nearby villages, lured by the dollars, will most assuredly inform the kuffaar that there is a `Taliban’ hiding and plotting in the mountains. One will then be quickly apprehended.

All the mountains in most countries, western and eastern, are under the control of the departments of forestry. So right now, we don’t know of any mountain range which can provide refuge for a Muslim who wishes to be isolated. Then, again, not a single one of the ordinary Muslims will be able to live a single night in a truly desolate mountain range or wilderness. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to provide for the needs of everyday life for an ordinary Muslim lacking in spiritual elevation. Ordinary Muslims can never withstand the onslaught of the rigours of mountain-life without any modern-day amenities. Who will be able to survive on roots and brak -water for which he will have to search? Mountain life suits only such Auliya who have become like Angels, whose survival depends on Tasbeeh/Thikrullah and who are able to live contently for days and days without food and water. There is no medical treatment, no water facilities, no food arrangement, no proper shelter against the ele­ments, flies, mosquitoes, poi­sonous snakes, wild animals, no lighting system, not even candles, not even matches to light a fire to cook the roots, etc., etc., . Who but a true Wali can survive in such barren, cruel conditions of hardship? The weather in mountains is extreme.

As for those who speak about living on farms, while there may be the .01% who is honest, the rest are dwelling in deception. Almost all of them are wealthy – very wealthy. The farms are holiday resorts. They spend the greater part of the month in the cities and go for an outing for a weekend or a couple of days to enjoy them­selves on their farms fitted out luxuriously with all the ameni­ties found in the city. The farm today is a holiday resort and within the city precincts. There they indulge in sports, futility and stupidities which pave the path of Jahannum. Such farms are haunts of vice. They come no where near to the scope of the mountain Hadith. The iso­lated one is the odd man out. On the farms they perpetrate all their city shaitaaniyat. If they genuinely believe that they are acting in accordance with the mountain Hadith, then they labour in self-deception and are victims of nafsaani and shaitaani ploys.

The mountain Hadith is also ambiguous. No one can say to which era it applies. It can ap­ply to any age, from the age of the Sahaabah to the age in proximity to Qiyaamah. In fact, during the times of fitnah in the age of the Sahaabah when two groups of Sahaabah were pitted against one other, some Sahaa­bah such as Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and others interpreted the Hadith to fit their times, hence they isolated themselves and did not side with any of the two opposing groups of Sahaa­bah.

Then during the time when the Islamic empire was finally demolished by Ghengis Khan, the kuffaar of the time re­garded dogs to be superior to Muslims. In Baghdad and wherever the Tartars reigned, Muslims had to conceal their Imaan for fear of being tor­tured to death. The same sce­nario prevailed during the de­mise of Islamic rule in Spain, Central Asia under the Soviets, and in recent times in Bosnia. It has application even today in countries such as Egypt, Tuni­sia, Algeria, Morocco, Syria, etc. where orthodox Muslims are persecuted for observing the Sunnah. For each of these segments of the Muslim Um­mah, the mountain Hadith had and has reality, but there were no mountains where they could to take refuge. Thus, the Hadith of isolation applies for all ages until the Last Day. It is not conditioned with a specific age. In times of fitnah, wher­ever and in whichever way one can find safe isolation in which one’s Imaan and Akhlaaq can remain safe, it will fulfil the requisite of the mountain Hadith.

And what we are saying is not far-fetched, because it comes in the Hadith that during times of fitnah when there will be no refuge anywhere, a man passing by the Qabrustaan will yearn that he was in the grave. We shall yet be hemmed in on all sides. May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on us.

The aforementioned discus­sion will, Insha’Allah, answer your questions. The specific answers to your questions are:

⚫ The present age is undoubt­edly among the times of fitnah mentioned in the Hadith. The evidence for this are the many Signs of Qiyaamah materializ­ing in front of our eyes. These are the lesser Signs.

⚫It is valid to isolate oneself and adopt seclusion. It is com­mendable provided that no one’s rights are abandoned or violated, e.g. the rights of aged The Qur’aan and Hadith are silent on the ‘best options’. Whatever form of isolation is available will come within the scope of the mountain Hadith.

⚫No, no one is sinful for not isolating himself because the Shariah does not command the isolation as an incumbent obli­gation. Whether in isolation or not, the Muslim is required to follow the Shariah. Submission to the Shariah is the obligation.