Category Archives: Hanafi Fiqh

The Mas’alah of the Determination of Tashabbuh bil Kuffar (emulating the Kuffaar)

Question: 

Is there any encompassing rule to determine whether something is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar wal fussaaq) or not, especially with regards to clothes, eating, etc.?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

There is no comprehensive principle regarding Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar. The times and norms play a prominent role. Also, the wijdaan and baseerat of the Aalim of Haqq is important for determining this issue.

To correctly understand the mas’alah of Tashabbuh, there are three essentials: Ilm, Ikhlaas and Baseerat. Baseerat is the effect of Taqwa. Minus Taqwa, one’s ikhlaas will be contaminated. This contamination will eliminate Baseerat. The importance of Baseerat could be understood from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s fatwa on the impurity of Maa-e-Musta’mal (used water). With his Baseerat he observed the spiritual filth in maa-e-musta’mal, hence his view is the strongest on this issue.

Without Ikhlaas and Baseerat, the view on an issue will be the emotion of the mufti maajin (a moron ‘mufti’ whose ‘fatwas’ are the products of his bestial nafs). Consider the example of western clothes. To which extent does Tashabbuh apply? The mufti maajin who himself may be wearing western fashionable dress styles will argue that the dress has become universal (aam) and there is no longer any religious connotation attached to it, e.g. the tie, hence it is permissible to wear shirt, pants, jeans, skippers, ties and all the miserable artefacts of shaitaan and his western progeny. Just imagine the level of jahaalat and mental convolution of even Ulama who argue that the satanic bermuda pants monstrosity is permissible simply because it is below the knees.

The baatini corrosion has blighted the intellectual perception so thoroughly that the mufti maajin fails to realize that a dress such as the bermuda pants is a pure western kuffaar fashionable dress item just recently introduced. Even prior to it assuming the decrepit and apodalic attribute of being aam, the maajin character proclaims it permissible simply on just one count, namely, the covering of the knees. Well, your wife’s ijaar and her burqah offer greater concealment of satr than the bermuda pants, and at the same time it is Tashabbuh bil Muslimah (emulation of a Muslim female), which rationally is better than Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Notwithstanding this fact, Tashabbuh bil Muslimah is also mal-oon (accursed). Thus, to a greater degree will a male who adopts kuffaar dress be mal-oon because of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar.

However, the Mufti who focuses on the Aakhirat and who understands the maqsood (objective) of life on earth, ruminates with his Baatini (Spiritual) Heart and asks: Why does a Muslim want to wear shirt, pants, jacket, jeans, T-shirts and ties and strut about with a bared head, when Islamic dress is available, and when millions of Muslims are wearing such dress by which one can recognize from a mile away that the person is a Muslim? Careful reflection will convince one that there is the thief, shaitaan lurking in his nafs or it is the deception of his nafs which constrains him to proffer the ‘aam’ argument.

Since his nafs craves to don kuffaar garments because it is stylish and appealing to the desire, and it blends suitably with the kuffaar environment in which we live, he presents spurious arguments to justify such kuffaar dress. Little does he realize that in so doing he is according preference to kuffaar dress over and above Islamic dress which is easily available to him. This attitude thus confirms the element of Tashabbuh in kuffaar dress.

Someone may raise the argument that items such as jerseys, socks, shoes, raincoats and other necessary items of dress which all of us wear, are also of western origin. Does Tashabbuh apply here too? The response to this ishkaal (conundrum) is as follows:

Yes and no! At times it will be Tashabbuh and at times it will not be. In our environment and the circumstances in which Muslims work and live, these items are necessary. There is no suitable Islamic substitute for these items of dress. The idea of Tashabbuh is furthest from the mind. In this scenario the argument of the dress being universal is valid. Nevertheless, this still precludes such of these items which have entered society as the latest fashions. It also precludes footwear on which appears logos and the like.

But, in a different setting such as India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are perfectly at home with a chaadar (shawl) thrown around the shoulders. They are comfortable in it and it does not interfere with their activities. Thus, for Muslims in those lands the element of Tashabbuh will be even in jerseys, and to a degree even in the type of shoes which we wear in the western world. The type of jooties worn in India and Pakistan suit them well although it is unsuitable for us here due to the flimsiness of the shoes and due to the feminine appearance.

A daleel for us is the amal of Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh). After he became the Qaadhi and he had to do considerable walking, he changed his style of shoes and adopted the style of the Ajam. When someone objected, he explained that because of the toughness of these shoes he has adopted them.

In conclusion: In our environment, shirts, suits, ties, jeans, T-shirts and the like are Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar without the least doubt, and furthermore it borders on kufr because it is preferred over Islamic dress which is readily available. Preferring a kuffaar style over an Islamic style is a major sin of kufr proportions.

Regarding the practice of eating from tables and eating with knives and forks, the element of Tashabbuh is too glaring for the need to cudgel brains for the determination of the Shar’i Hukm. The argument of its ‘permissibility’ on the basis of this practice having become universal is contemptuously baatil. Abandonment of the Sunnah is haraam whether it is abandoned by a few or by the entire population. After fourteen centuries of the Ummah eating on the floor, suddenly the table and chair practice becomes ‘halaal’ on the decrepit and deceptive basis of ‘universality’. If this has to be accepted as a standard ‘principle’ for abrogation of Shar’i and Sunnah practices, the same fate which has destroyed the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will mangle and mutilate the Sunnah which this Ummah of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has followed since the inception of Islam.

Those who have adopted tables and chairs for eating, after abandoning their original Sunnah practice, are hovering on the brink of kufr for having preferred a kuffaar practice over and above the Sunnah practice. Those who have been eating in western style since birth, whilst not perpetrating haraam as the former group, nevertheless, are under Waajib obligation to abandon the kuffaar style and to adopt the Sunnah style. If, after having been made aware of this essentiality, they refuse, then they will be guilty of the haraam practice of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. And, Allah knows best.  

Hanafi Scholars from Ahlul-Bayt

“Mukhtaṣar A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt”

Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt

In this thread In-shā’-Allāh, I shall post my translation and abridgment of the book “A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt” by Muḥammad Wā’il al-Ḥanbalī.

Objective of the book:

This book is a research done in some books of history and biographies in which the author gathers the names of all famous and iconic men who have two things in common:

1- They belong to the Ḥanafī Madhab.
2- They are from the progeny of Ahl-ul-Bayt.

What the original Arabic book contains that my summary does not contain:

1- Short introduction to the Ḥanafī Madhab and its most important figures.
2- Brief overview of the historical ties between the Ḥanafī Madhab and Ahl-ul-Bayt and which of the Ḥanafī scholars wrote books about Ahl-ul-Bayt.
3- Much more detail about each scholar discussed, such as their teachers and students and books and where they traveled and more…
4- Useful footnotes with sources and comments and opinions by the author.
5- List of books used for this research.
6- Comprehensive index.

NOTES:

– This thread shall only contain names of scholars of Ahl-ul-Bayt who belong to the “Ḥanafī” Madhab, not the average people or the laypeople from that Madhab.
– We shall list those we came across and we cannot claim that we managed to gather all of the Ḥanafī scholars of prophetic descent.
– We have only gathered the names of those who are authentically proven to be from Ahl-ul-Bayt, not those who are said to be from them, or those who claim it without solid proofs from proper sources.
– The Ḥanafī Madhab spread in areas such as Bukhara and Persia and it is known that there was no presence for Ahl-ul-Bayt in those areas in the first couple of centuries.

Who are Ahl-ul-Bayt according to the Ḥanafī Madhab?

They are the children of: `Alī, al-`Abbās, Ja`far, `Aqīl, al-Ḥārith the children of abī Ṭālib. All the rulings of Ahl-ul-Bayt are applicable to their children except the children of abū Lahab.

Example of how each man shall be presented in the list:

– Name (Date of birth – Date of death) Famous for:
Long Name and Lineage.

ex:

– abū Ḥanīfah (b.80 – d.150 AH) Imām al-Madhab al-Ḥanafī, Faqīh, `Ābid, Amīn:
al-Nu`mān ibn Thābit ibn Zūṭā ibn Marzubān, al-Farisī, al-Taymī.

Glossary of some terms in the research:

Faqīh = Jurist.
Muḥaddith = Scholar of Hadith.
Naqīb al-Ashrāf = Head of the order of the prophetic progeny.
Mudarris = Teacher.
Mu’arrikh = Historian.
Qādi = Judge.
Qādi al-Qudat = Head of judges.
Wālī = Governor.
Wajīh = Reputed.
Muftī = Legislator.
`Allāmah = High ranking scholar.
`Ālim = Scholar.
Zāhid = Ascetic/Pious.
Nassābah = Genealogist.
Lughawī = Linguist.
Musnid = Reference in Hadith.
Amīn = Faithful.
Adīb = Writer.
Fāḍil = Virtuous.
Mufassir = Interpreter of Qur’anic text.
Shā`ir = Poet.
Faraḍī = Knowledgeable in matters of inheritance.
Khaṭṭāṭ = Calligrapher.
Khatīb = Speaker.
Naḥawī = Knowledgeable in Arabic grammar.
Raḥḥālah = Traveler.

Transliteration help for special characters:

ا = ā
و = ū
ح = ḥ
ط = ṭ
ي = ī
ص = ṣ
ض = ḍ
ظ = ẓ
غ = gh
آ = aa
ء = ‘
ث = th
خ = kh
ذ = dh
ع = `

————————————————————————————————————–
================================================

In the name of Allāh, most merciful, the list is as follows:

-5th century Hijrī-

– abū al-Faḍl al-Ḥasanī (d.448 AH) / Faqīh, Muḥaddith:
abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Dāwūd bin `Alī bin ` Īsā ibn Muḥammad bin al-Qāsim bin al-Ḥasan bin Zayd bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.

– Ṭirād al-Zaynabī (b.398 – d.491 AH) / Muḥaddith, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Fawāris, Ṭirād bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Zaynabī, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Baghdādī.

– al-Sayyid abū Shujā`(b. beginning of fifth century – d. middle of fifth century AH) / Faqīh, Imām:
Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib.

– abū al-Waḍḍāḥ al-`Alawī (b.438 – d.491 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥusayn bin al-Qāsim bin Ḥamzah bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib.

-6th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah (b.501 – d.566 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Mu’arrikh:
abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Ṭāhir bin Ḥaydarah bin Ibrāhīm bin al-`Abbās bin al-Ḥasan bin al-`Abbās bin al-Ḥasan bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib, al-Maṣrī, al-Dimashqī.

– Nūr al-Hudā al-Zaynabī (b.420 – d.512 AH) / Qādi, Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
abū Ṭālib Nūr al-Hudā,  al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Sulaymān bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Imām bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin `Abdullāh bin al-`Abbās bin `Abdul-Muṭalib, al-Hāshimī, al-Zaynabī.

– al-Akmal al-Zaynabī (b.477 – d.543 AH) / Qādi al-Quḍāt:
abū al-Qāsim, `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.

– ibn Nāṣir al-Ḥusaynī (b.515 – d.599 AH ) / Mudarris, Faqīh:
abū al-Majd, `Alī bin `Alī bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ja`far bin al-Ḥasan, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Baghdādī.

– al-Amīr al-Sayyid (b.521 – d.588 AH) / Faqīh, Wajīh:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin al-Murtaḍā bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin al-Dā`ī bin Zayd ibn Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Ubaydullāh bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-Saylaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ja`far bin al-Ḥasan bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Aṣbahānī, al-Baghdādī.

– Aqḍā al-Quḍāt al-Zaynabī (b.529 – d.563 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi:
al-Qāsim bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin`Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Hāshimī, al-`Abbāsī, al-Zaynabī, al-Baghdādī.

– Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d.556 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Nāṣir al-Dīn, abū al-Qāsim, Muḥammad bin Yūsuf bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad ibn `Alī, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Samarqandī.

-7th century Hijrī-

– Burhān-ul-Dīn al-Ḥanafī (d.689 AH) / al-`Allāmah al-Muftī, al-Zāhid:
Burhān-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad bin Nāṣir bin Ṭāhir, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Imād-ul-Dīn al-Mūṣilī (b. around 562 – d.648AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Imād-ul-Dīn, abū Naṣr, Aḥmad bin Yūsuf bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Mūṣilī.

– abū Ṭālib `Azīz-ul-Dīn (b.572 – d.614 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Nassābah, Lughawī:
`Azīz-ul-Dīn, abū Ṭālib, Ismā`īl bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin `Azīz bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abi Ṭālib.

– Iftikhār-ul-Dīn al-Hāshimī (b.539 – d.616 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Faḍl bin `Abdul-Muṭalib bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Malik bin Ṣāliḥ bin `Alī bin `Abdullāh bin al-`Abbās, al-Hāshimī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Niẓām-ul-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī (d.691 AH) / Amīn, Wajīh:
Niẓām-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn Ja`far al-Ṣādiq, al-Ḥusaynī.

– al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb al-Shurūṭī (d.635 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Wajīh:
al-Musallam bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Manāqib bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī bin Aḥmad bin al-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-Munqidhī ibn Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.

-8th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad al-Sijazī (b.673 – d.762 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Imām al-Hanafiyyah bi-Makkah:
Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Yūsuf bin Abū Bakr bin abī al-Fatḥ bin `Alī, al-Sijazī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad al-Haytī (d.784 AH) / Lughawī, Adīb:
Muḥammad bin `Arab, al-Haytī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, al-Ḥamawī.

– Mūsā al-Mūsawī (b.628 – d.715 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid:
Mūsā bin `Alī bin abī Ṭālib bin abū `Abdullāh bin abū al-Barakāt, al-`Alawī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

-9th century Hijrī-

– `Abdul-Salām al-Baghdādī (b.776 – d.859 AH) / Fāḍil, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Abdul-Salām bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Mun`im bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Kaydūm ibn `Umar bin abū al-Khayr Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāhirī, al-Ḥanafī.

– `Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (lived at the end of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
`Abdul-Kabīr bin abī al-Sa`ādāt bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī.

– `Alī ibn al-Naqīb (b.852 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Lughawī, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Alī bin Muḥammad bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin `Adnān bin Ja`far bin Muḥammad bin `Adnān  bin Nāṣir al-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– Muḥammad bin abī al-Ṣafā (died in the end of of the ninth century Hijri) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, abū Yūsuf, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Irāqī, al-Qāhirī.

-10th century Hijrī-

– `Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt (b.853 – d. tenth century AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh:
`Abdullāh bin abī al-Sa`ādāt, Muḥammad bin Maḥmūd bin `Ādil bin Mas`ūd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Madanī, al-Ḥanafī.

-11th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad al-Ḥamawī (d.1098 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-`Abbās, Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Makkī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥamawī, al-Maṣrī.

-Ṣabghatullāh  al-Barwajī (d.1015 AH) / Faqīh, Murabbi:
Ṣabghatullāh bin Rūḥullāh bin Jamālullāh, al-Barwajī, al-Madanī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh Qaḍīb al-Bān (b. beginning of eleventh century – d.1096 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Adīb:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ḥijāzī bin `Abdulqādir bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥalabī.

– Muḥammad al-Kawākibī (b.1018 – d.1096 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī, Adīb, Shā`ir:
Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn ibn Ḥamzah (b.1024 – d.1085 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh:
Muḥammad bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

-12th century Hijrī-

– Ibrāhīm al-Murādī (b.1118 – d.1142 AH) / Faqīh, Mudarris:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Mūsā bin Ṣāliḥ al-Qādī bin Muḥammad bin `Umar bin Shu`ayb bin Hūd bin `Alī al-Hādī bin Muḥammad al-Jawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn bin al-Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin abū Ṭālib.

– Ibrāhīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1054 – d.1120 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Muḥaddith, Naḥawī:
Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥusayn bin Ḥāfiẓ al-Muḥaddith bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Iz-ul-Dīn Ḥamzah bin abī al-`Abbās Aḥmad bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin al-Ḥāfiẓ Shams-ul-Dīn Muḥammad bin `Alī bin al-Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin Muḥammad bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin `Alī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Ismā`īl al-Ḥarrānī bin al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-‘A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.

– Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1130 – d.1197 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Shā`ir:
Aḥmad bin abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad al-Kawākibī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Alī bin Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn Mūsā bin Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn Isḥāq bin Amīn-ul-Dīn Jibrīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Quṭb-ul-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn Rashīd bin Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ bin `Awḍ al-Khawwaṣ bin Fayrūz-Shāh al-Bukhārī bin Mahdī bin Badr-ul-Dīn Ḥasan bin abī al-Qāsim Muḥammad bin Thābit bin Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin al-Amīr Dāwūd bin `Alī bin Mūsā al-Thānī bin Ibrāhīm al-Murtaḍā bin Mūsā al-Kāẓim bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq.

– Aḥmad al-Sa`īd al-Murādī (b.1150 – d.1170 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb:
abū al-Majd, Aḥmad al-Sa`īd bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Kawākibī (b.1054 – d.1124 AH) / `Allāmah, Muftī, Adīb:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Ḥusayn al-Murādī al-Kabīr (b.1138 – d.1188 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb:
Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī, al-Murādī, al-Ḥanafī.

– Sa`dī ibn Ḥamzah (b.1075 – d.1132 AH) / Faraḍī, Muḥaddith, Muhandis:
Sa`dī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– abū al-Su`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1090 – d.1137 AH) / Mufassir, Faqīh, Muftī:
abū al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan, al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– `Abdul-Rahmān al-Sulaymānī (d. 1165 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Ṭabīb:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad Aslam bin `Abdul-Rahmān, al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī, al-Sulaymānī, al-Makkī.

– `Abdul-Karīm ibn Ḥamzah (b.1051 – d.1118 AH) / Naqīb lil-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
`Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh Bāshā al-Jitjī (b.1115 – d.1174 AH) / Faqīh, Wālī, `Ālim, Mushārik:
`Abdullāh Bāshā bin Ibrāhīm, al-Jitjī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Jarmakī.

– `Abdul-Mun`im ibn al-Ashraf (d.1160 AH) / Muftī, Muhandis:
`Abdul-Mun`im bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Khiḍr bin Muṣṭafā bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥumṣī.

– `Alī al-`Ajlānī (b.1127 – d.1183 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
`Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Alīmullāh al-Hindī (d.1176 AH) / Murabbi, `Ālim, Mudarris:
`Alīmullāh bin `Abd-ul-Rashīd, al-`Abbāsī, al-Hindī.

– Muḥammad Amīn al-Mīrghanī (d.1161 AH) / Muḥaddith, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Amīn bin hasan bin Muḥammad Ameeen bin `Alī, al-Mīrghanī,al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makkī.

– Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd al-Ḥusaynī (d.1172 AH) / Faqīh, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Su`ūd bin `Alī bin `Alī bin abī al-Khayr Iskandar, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī, al-Sayyid al-Sharīf.

– Muḥammad al-Murādī (b.1094 – d.1169 AH) / `Ālim, Qādi, Faqīh, Zāhid:
Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād bin `Alī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Murād al-Murādī (b.1050 – d.1132 AH) / `Allāmah, Raḥḥālah, Mufassir, Muḥaddith:
Murād bin `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ṣāliḥ bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Yūsuf al-Naqīb (b.1073 – d.1153 AH) / Muftī, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Jamāl-il-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ḥusayn bin Darwīsh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

-13th century Hijrī-

– `Ārif Hikmat (b.1201 – d.1275 AH) / Shaykh-ul-Islam, `Allāmah, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, Aḥmad `Ārif bin Ibrāhīm `Iṣmatullāh bin abī al-Walīd Ismā`īl bin Ibrāhīm Bāshā, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Istānbūlī.

– Aḥmad al-`Ajlānī (d.1277 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Aḥmad bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, ibn `Ajlān.

– Ismā`īl Ḥamzah (b.1183 – d.1222 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā:
Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muhamamd al-Ḥusaynī, ibn Ḥamzah.

– Amīn al-Jundī al-Muftī (b.1229 – d.1295 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Adīb, Khatīb, Shā`ir:
Amīn bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin Isḥāq bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad, al-Jundī, al-Mu`arrī, al-Dimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Ḥasan Taqī-ul-Dīn (d.1264 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Ḥasan bin Taqī-ul-Dīn bin Ḥasan bin Muṣṭafā bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Ismā`īl bin Muhibb-ul-Dīn bin Shams-ul-Dīn bin Zayn-ul-Dīn bin Ḍiyā’-ul-Dīn Humaydah bin Zayn-ul-Dīn `Umayrah, al-Būṣilī, al-Balqawī, al-Ḥuṣnī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥusayn al-Murādī (b.1200 – d.1267 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, Faqīh:
Ḥusayn bin `Alī bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Murād, al-Naqshabandī, al-Bukhārī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥusayn Ḥamzah (b.1161 – d.1203 AH) / `Ālim, Shā`ir, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Badr-ul-Dīn abū al-Luṭf Ḥusayn bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm bin Muḥammad bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ḥamzah al-`Ajlānī (d.1228 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan bin Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Ḥamzah Ḥamzah (b.1142 – d.1217 AH) / Naqīb Ashrāf Dimashq, min Ṣuḍūr Dimashq:
Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin hasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Muḥammad, al-Hamzawī, al-Ḥanafī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Darwīsh al-`Ajlānī (b.1228 – d.1297 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Darwīsh bin Ḥusayn bin `Umar bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Darwīsh Ḥamzah (b.1200 – d.1249 AH) / Faqīh, Khaṭṭāṭ:
Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Rāghib al-`Ajlānī (b.1236 – d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
Rāghib bin Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-`Ajlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Sa`īd al-Ḥalabī (b.1188 – d.1259 AH) / Shaykh al-Hanafiyyah, Marji` Bilād al-Shām:
Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥalabī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Abdul-Rahmān al-Murādī (d.1218 AH) / Muftī:
`Abdul-Rahmān bin Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.

– `Abdulqādir Ḥamzah (b.1235 – d.1279 AH) / `Ālim Mushārik, Amīn lil-Fatwā:
`Abdulqādir bin Darwīsh bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdullāh al-Maḥjūb (d.1207 AH) / Faqīh, Adīb, Mushārik fīl-`Ulūm:
`Afīf-ul-Dīn, abū al-Siyādah `Abdullāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad Amīn ibn `Alī Mīrghanī bin Ḥasan bin Mīrkhūrd bin Ḥaydar bin Ḥasan bin `Abdullāh ibn `Alī bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin `Īsā bin Abū Bakr bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl bin Mīrkhūrd al-Bukhārī bin `Umar ibn `Alī bin `Uthmān bin `Alī al-Muttaqī bin al-Ḥasan bin `Alī al-Hādī bin Muḥammad al-Jawād bin `Alī al-Riḍā, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Makki, al-Ṭā’ifī, al-Ḥanafī, al-Maḥjūb.

– `Abdullāh al-Murādī (b.1160 – d.1212 AH) / Muftī Dimashq:
`Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Ṭāhir bin `Abdullāh bin Muṣṭafā bin Muhamamd Murād, al-Murādī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdul-Muḥsin al-`Ajlānī (d.1263 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn al-Bukhārī (b.1154 – d.1200 AH) / Muḥaddith, Musnid, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Faḍl, Ṣafiy-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Khayrullāh, al-Atharī, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Muḥammad Kamāl Ḥamzah (d.1258 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Wajīh:
Muḥammad Kamāl bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥamzah bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Nasīb Ḥamzah (b.1201 – d.1257 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Faqīh, Adīb, Zāhid:
Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin `Abdul-Karīm, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-`Ajlānī (b.1170 – d.1250 AH) / Muftī Dimashq, `Ālim, Niḥrīr:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥamzah bin `Alī bin `Abbās bin `Alī bin Ismā`īl bin Ḥasan, al-Ḥusaynī, al-`Ajlānī.

– Muḥammad Tillū (d.1282 AH) / `Ālim Jalīl, Faqīh:
abū al-`Irfān, `Alam-ul-Dīn, Muḥammad bin `Abdullāh bin `Umar bin Muṣṭafā, ibn Tillū, al-Dimashqī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Muḥammad Khalīl al-Murādī (b.1173 – d.1206 AH) / Mu’arrikh, Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah, Adīb:
Ṣaḍr-ul-Dīn, abū al-Faḍl, Muḥammad Khalīl bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad Murād ibn `Alī bin Dāwūd bin Kamāl-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī.

– Muhamamd Amīn `Ābidīn (b.1198 – d.1252 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Muḥaqqiq, Marji` al-Hanafiyyah fīl-Shām:
Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabaydī (b.1145 – d.1205 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Muḥaddith, Mu’arrikh, Lughawī, Imām, Nassābah:
abū al-Fayḍ, Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-Razzāq bin `Abdul-Ghaffār bin Tāj-ul-Dīn bin Ḥusayn bin Jamāl-ul-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm bin `Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin abī al-`Izz bin abī al-Faraj bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Nāṣir al-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm ibn Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn, al-Murtaḍā, al-Zabaydī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Shihāb-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1217 – d.1270 AH) / Mufassir, Muḥaddith, `Allāmah:
Shihāb-ul-Dīn, abū al-Thanā’, Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-Baghdādī.

– Yūsuf al-Maghribī al-Ḥasanī (d.1279 AH) / Raḥḥālah, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Makārim, Sayf-ul-Dīn Yūsuf bin badr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Abdul-Wahhāb bin `Abdullāh bin `Abdul-Malik bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin `Umar bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin `Abdul-`Azīz al-Tabbā` bin Hārūn bin Junūn bin `Allūsh bin Mindīl ibn `Alī bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin `Īsā bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin `Īsā bin Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar, al-Ḥasanī, al-Marākishī, al-Maghribī, al-Dimashqī.

-14th century Hijrī-

– Aḥmad Shākir al-Kabīr (d.1315 AH) / `Allāmah Mushārik, Dā`iyah:
Aḥmad Shākir bin Khalīl, al-Za`farānbūlī, al-Jūlānī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad `Ābidīn (b.1239 – d.1307 AH) / Amīn lil-Fatwā, Zāhid:
Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn ibn Najm-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Kamāl ibn Taqī al-Dīn bin Muṣṭafā bin Ḥusayn bin Raḥmatullāh bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin `Izz-ul-Dīn `Abdullāh bin Qāsim bin Ḥasan bin Ismā`īl ibn Ḥusayn al-Mantūf(Maftūn) ibn Aḥmad bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad bin Ismā`īl al-A`raj bin Ja`far al-Ṣādiq bin Muḥammad al-Bāqir, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Ḥalabī (b.1252 – d.1304 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Ḥasan bin Aḥmad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Aḥmad al-Ḥasībī (d.1357 AH) Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Wajīh:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad abī al-Su`ūd bin Aḥmad bin `Alī bin Muḥammad Ḥasīb bin Muḥammad, al-`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.

– Aḥmad Rāfi` al-Ṭahṭāwī (b.1275 – d.1355 AH) /  `Allāmah, Faqīh, Mufassir:
Aḥmad Rāfi` bin Muḥammad bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Rāfi`, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qāsimī, al-Ṭahṭāwī.

– abū al-Ashbāl Aḥmad Shākir (b.1309 – d.1377 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, `Allāmah, Muḥaddith:
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Shākir bin `Abdulqādir, Shams-ul-A’immah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Maṣrī.

– Ḥusayn al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1300 – d.1395 AH) / `Ālim, Faraḍī:
Ḥusayn bin `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Salīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Nasīb bin Ḥasan bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf Muḥammad Kamāl-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Riḍā al-Ḥalabī (b.1279 – d.1329 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Mushārik, Faqīh:
Riḍā bin Aḥmad bin `Abdullāh bin Muḥammad Sa`īd, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥalabī.

– Shākir al-Ḥamzāwī (d.1328 AH) / Qādi, Wajīh:
Shākir bin As`ad bin Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Ṭāhir Ḥamzah (d.1335 AH) / Amīn al-Fatwā, Faqīh:
Ṭāhir bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Dimashqī.

– `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Aalūsī (b.1232 – d.1324 AH) / `Ālim:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī.

– `Abdul-Ḥamīd al-Ḥawāṣilī (b.1311 – d.1389 AH) / Ṣāliḥ, Zāhid:
`Abdul-Ḥamīd bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥawāṣilī, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Abdul-Muḥsin al-Murādī (d.1332 AH) / Mudarris, Amīn al-Fatwā:
`Abdul-Muḥsin bin Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Murādī.

– `Alā’-ul-Dīn `Ābidīn (b.1244 – d.1306 AH) / Amīn Fatwā, `Allāmah Mushārik:
`Alā’-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Amīn bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– `Alī al-`Aṭṭār al-Ḥasībī (d.1341 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Ālim:
`Alī bin abī Mas`ūd  bin Aḥmad bin `Alī, al-`Aṭṭār, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Ḥasībī.

– Muḥammad abū al-Khayr `Ābidīn (b.1269 – d.1344 AH) / Muftī al-Shām, `Allāmah, Faqīh:
Muḥammad abū al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad ibn `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Mas`ūd al-Kawākibī (b.1281 – d.1348 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Su`ūd, Muḥammad Mas`ūd bin Aḥmad Bahā’ī bin Muḥammad Su`ūd al-Kawākibī, al-Ḥalabī, al-`Alawī.

– Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (b.1248 – d.1307 AH) / Amīr, `Allāmah, Nābighah:
abū al-Ṭayyib, Muḥammad Ṣiddīq Khān bin Ḥasan bin `Alī bin Luṭfullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Bukhārī, al-Qinnawjī.

– Muḥammad Khalīl al-Qāwiqjī (b.1224 – d.1305 AH) / Faqīh, Mufassir, `Allāmah Mushārik:
abū al-Maḥāsin, Muhamamd bin Khalīl bin Ibrāhīm, al-Ḥasanī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1313 – d.1398 AH) / Naqīb al-Ashrāf, Ra’īs Jam`iyat al-Hidāyah al-Islāmiyyah:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin Darwīsh Aal-Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Sa`īd al-Bānī (b.1294 – d.1351 AH) / Faqīh, Mufakkir:
Muḥammad Sa`īd bin `Abdul-Rahmān bin Muḥammad, al-Mūṣilī, al-Ḥasanī.

– Muḥammad `Ārif al-Jūyjātī (b.1317 – d.1395 AH) / Faqīh, Lughawī:
Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

– Maḥmūd al-Ḥamzāwī (b.1236 – d.1305 AH) / `Allāmat-ul-Shām, Muftī-ul-Shām:
Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad Nasīb bin Ḥusayn bin Yaḥyā bin Ḥasan bin Naqīb al-Ashrāf `Abdul-Karīm, ibn Ḥamzah, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Nu`mān Khayr-ul-Dīn al-Aalūsī (b.1252 – d.1317 AH) / `Allāmah, Wā`iẓ:
abū al-Barakāt, Nu`mān bin Maḥmūd bin `Abdullāh, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Aalūsī, al-`Irāqī.

– Yāsīn al-Jūyjātī (b.1301 – d.1384 AH) / `Ālim, Faqīh, Qāri’:
Yāsīn bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

-15th century Hijrī-

– Ibrāhīm al-Ya`qūbī (b.1343 – d.1406 AH) / `Allāmah, Muḥaddith, Faqīh Mālikī, Faqīh Ḥanafī:
Ibrāhīm bin Ismā`īl bin Muḥammad al-Ṣiddīq bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-`Arabī bin Aḥmad bin BāBā Ḥabīy bin al-Khiḍr bin `Abdulqādir bin Mizyān bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣaghīr ibn Ibrāhīm bin Yaḥyā bin Aḥmad bin Ṣāliḥ bin Idrīs ibn abī Ya`qūb bin Muḥammad al-Ḥasan bin al-Jūdī bin Aḥmad bin `Abdulqādir bin `Arabī bin Ṣāliḥ bin Sa`īd bin `Umar bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd bin Ḥusayn bin `Alī ibn Idrīs al-Anwar bin Idrīs al-Akbar bin `Abdullāh al-Maḥḍ bin al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā bin al-Ḥasan ibn `Alī ibn abī Ṭālib, al-Ya`qūbī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Dimashqī.

– abū al-Ḥasan al-Nadwī (b.1333 – d.1420 AH) / Dā`iyah `Ālamī, Mufakkir Kabīr, Raḥḥālah:
abū al-Ḥasan, `Alī bin `Abdulḥay bin Fakhr-ul-Dīn bin `Abdul-`Alī bin `Alī, al-Ḥasanī, al-Nadwī.

– Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn al-Qudsī (b.1321 – d.1400 AH) / Kutubiyy, Nāshir:
Muḥammad Ḥusām-ul-Dīn bin Muḥammad Shafīq bin Muḥammad `Ārif bin Muḥyī-ul-Dīn, al-Ḥusaynī, al-Qudsī.

– Muḥammad abū al-Yusr `Ābidīn (b.1307 – d.1401 AH) / Ṭabīb, `Allāmah Mushārik, Muftī:
Muḥammad abū al-Yusr bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar bin `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muḥammad Murshid `Ābidīn (b.1327 – d.1428 AH) / Faqīh, Qādi, Mu`ammar:
Muḥammad Murshid bin Muḥammad abī al-Khayr bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Ghanī bin `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Azīz bin Aḥmad bin `Abdul-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ-ul-Dīn, ibn `Ābidīn, al-Ḥusaynī.

– Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī al-Jūyjātī (b.1315 – d.1411 AH) / Faqīh, Muṣliḥ, `Allāmah Mushārik, Qāri’ Mutqin:
Muṣṭafā Ḥamdī bin Muḥammad Waḥīd bin Ṣāliḥ al-Jūyjātī, al-`Abbāsī.

————————————————————————————————————–
================================================

Praise be to Allāh, this book was finished in ‘2011’ by the original author from “مبرة الآل والأصحاب” . The abrigement was written in English in ‘2013’ by Hānī al-Ḥasanī al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭarābulsī al-Shāfi`ī.

خون نکل کر بہ جائے تو وضوء ٹوٹ جاتا ہے کی ایک دلیل پر اعتراضات کے جوابات

باسمہ تعالیٰ

✍ حافظ محمود احمد عرف عبدالباری محمود

حامداً و مصلیا و مسلما!

محترم قارئین! حنفیہ کے نزدیک خون نکل کر اپنی جگہ سے بہ جائے تو وضوء ٹوٹ جاتا ہے اور اس طرح سے وضوء ٹوٹ جانے پر حنیفہ کے یہاں کئی دلائل ہیں جن میں سے ایک دلیل یہ بھی ہے کہ:

سیدنا زید بن ثابت رضی اللہ عنہ بیان کرتے ہیں کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم  نے فرمایا:

«اَلْوُضُوءُ مِنْ کُلِّ دَمٍ سَائِلٍ»

”ہر بہنے والا خون ناقض وضو ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال]

لیکن حنیفہ سے بغض و تعصب میں ایک غیر مقلد عالم غلام مصطفے ظہیر صاحب اور ایک عامی غیرمقلد کامران الٰہی ظہیر نے اس دلیل کو ناقابلِ عمل باور کرانے کے لئے چند اعتراضات کیے ہیں۔ ذیل میں وہ اعتراضات اور ان کے جوابات ملاحظہ فرمائیں۔

نوٹ: واضح رہے کہ غیر مقلد عالم غلام مصطفے ظہیر صاحب نے اعتراضات لکھ کر کیے ہیں جبکہ کامران الٰہی ظہیر غیرمقلد نے اپنی ایک آؤڈیو میں یہی اعتراضات کہہ کر کئے ہیں۔

اعتراض اول اور اس کا جواب:

”سند “سخت ضعیف” ہے۔
امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ کے استاد عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی، کے حالات زندگی نہیں مل سکے، نا معلوم اور لاپتہ افراد کی روایتیں کون قبول کرتا ہے؟“

جواب:
غلام مصطفے ظہیر اور کامران الٰہی ظہیر صاحبان! امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ کے استاد عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی، کے حالات زندگی آپ دونوں کو نہیں مل سکے، اور نا آپ دونوں کو معلوم ہو سکا تو اسکا مطلب یہ نہیں یہ مجہول و نا مقبول شخصیت ہیں اور ان کا انکار کر دیا جائے۔

ارے حضرات یہ شخصیت لا پتہ و نہ معلوم کی نہیں ہے بلکہ اہل علم کی نظر میں ثقہ شخصیت ہیں۔ البتہ آپ صاحبان جیسی کم علمی و جہالت سے پر شخصیات ہی کا کام ہو سکتا ہے جو ان کی روایتیں قبول کرنے سے بھاگتے ہیں۔

جبکہ عبد اللہ بن ابی سفیان موصلی رحمہ اللہ کو کئی محدثینؒ نے ثقہ مانا ہے۔ نمونہ کے طور پر چند ایک ملاحضہ ہو:

١) محدث قاسم بن قطلوبغاؒ نے انہیں ثقات میں شمار کیا ہے۔

٢) امام ابن مسلمہ بن قاسمؒ بھی انہیں ثقہ مانتے ہیں-

٣) امام ضیاء الدین المقدسیؒ نے ان کی روایت کو صحیح کہا ہے وغیرہ۔

[حوالہ جات: کتاب الثقات للقاسم: ج۶، ص٢٨. الاحادیث المختارۃ: ج ٣، ص١١٢]

اور محدثین کا کسی حدیث کی تصحیح و تحسین کرنا غیرمقلدین کے نزدیک اس حدیث کے ہر راوی کی توثیق ہوتی ہے۔ [دیکھیں: نماز میں ہاتھ باندھنے کا حکم اور مقام۔ از زبیر علی زئی: ص١۷۔ انوار البدر۔۔۔از کفایت اللہ سنابلی: ص٢۷، ۲۴۶-٢۴۸]

لہٰذا اس ثقہ راوی کو نامعلوم و لاپتہ کہنا آپ صاحبان کا اپنی جہالت و فریب کو آشکارہ کرنا ہے۔

اعتراض دوم اور اس کا جواب:

”بقیہ بن ولید تدلیس تسویہ کے مرتکب ہیں۔ سماع بالمسلسل درکار ہے!“

جواب:

محترمین! بقیہ بن ولیدؒ کے بارے میں فیصلہ کن قول یہی ہے کہ وہ جمہور کے نزدیک ثقہ ہیں جب وہ سماع کی تصریح کردیں۔ [الکاشف: ص٦١٩]

اور اس روایت میں بھی انہوں نے سماع کی تصریح کی ہے۔ لہذا وہ یہاں پر ثقہ ہیں۔

اور دوسری بات، اگر بقیہ بن ولیدؒ  کا کوئی ثقہ راوی متابع یا شاہد مل جائے تو اس صورت میں بھی بقیہ بن ولیدؒ پر تدلیس کا الزام مردود ہوگا اور وہ ثقہ ہونگے۔ اور اس روایت میں بھی انہوں نے سماع کی تصریح کی ہے اور ان کے شیخ بھی ثقہ ہیں۔

تفصیل و حوالہ جات کے لئے ملاحظہ کریں۔ [دوماھی مجلہ الاجماع، شمارہ: ۴، ص ۳ اور صفحہ ۴ کا حاشیہ]

اعتراض سوم اور اس کا جواب:

”بقیہ یہ روایت امام شعبہ سے بیان کر رہے ہیں۔ خود امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ فرماتے ہیں:

«وَلِبَقِیَّۃَ عَنْ شُعْبَۃَ کِتَابٌ وَّفِیہِ غَرَائِبُ وَتِلْکَ الْغَرَائِبُ یَتَفَرَّدُ بِہَا بَقِیَّۃُ» “بقیہ کے پاس امام شعبہ رحمہ اللہ کی کتاب تھی۔ اس میں کچھ غریب روایتیں ہیں، جنہیں بیان کرنے میں بقیہ منفرد ہیں۔” [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال : ٢/٢٦٨]۔“

جواب:

امام شعبہ مشہور ثقہ، حافظ الحدیث، امیر المومنین فی الحدیث ہیں۔ [تقریب: رقم ١۷۹۰]

امام سمعانی وغیرہ محدثینؒ نے صراحت کی ہے کہ بقیہ بن ولید جب ثقہ سے روایت کریں تو ثقہ ہیں، ان پر کلام مجہولین سے روایت کرنے کی وجہ سے کیا گیاہے۔ [دیکھیں: تہذیب التہذیب: ج۱، ص۴۷۶۔ اکمال تہذیب الکمال: ج۳، ص۷]

لہٰذا آپ صاحبان کا یہ اعتراض فضول ہے۔

اعتراض چہارم اور اس کا جواب:

”عبد الرحمن بن ابان بن عثمان کا سیدنا زید بن ثابت رضی اللہ عنہ  سے سماع و لقا نہیں، لہٰذا یہ متکلم ومرسل ہے۔ امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ  فرماتے ہیں: وَإِنْ کَانَ فِي إِسْنَادِہٖ بَعْضُ الْـإِرْسَالُ۔ ”اگرچہ اس کی سند میں ارسال بھی ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال : ٢/٢٦٨]

عبد الرحمن بن ابان کا کسی صحابی سے سماع و لقا ثابت نہیں۔ حافظ ابن حجر رحمہ اللہ  نے تقریب التہذیب میں طبقہ سادسہ میں ذکر کیا ہے۔ اس طبقہ کے رایوں کی کسی صحابی سے ملاقات ممکن نہیں۔“

جواب:

آپ دونوں حضرات اس اعتراض کے دو جواب ملاحظہ فرمائیں:

جواب نمبر١۔

بطور الزام کے عرض ہے کہ نذیر رحمانی صاحب (غیر مقلد) مقتدا عبدالعزیر بن رفیعؒ کے ایک اثر کو رد کرنے کے لئے تقریب کے حوالے سے لکھتے ہیں کہ یہ چوتھے طبقے کے راوی ہیں اور چوتھا طبقہ وہ ہے جو تابعینؒ کے طبقہ وسطی کے قریب ہے جنکی اکثر روایتیں تابعینؒ سے لی گئی ہیں صحابہؓ سے نہیں۔ [انوار المصابیح: ص 280]

جبکہ عیسی بن جاریہؒ جو آٹھ رکعات تراویح کے راوی ہیں جنہیں تقریب ہی میں چوتھے طبقہ کا راوی قرار دیا گیا ہے۔ لہٰذا غیرمقلدین کس اصول سے آٹھ رکعات تراویح کے اثبات میں عیسی بن جاریہؒ کی روایت لیتے ہیں؟؟؟

فما ھو جوابکم فھو جوابنا
فافھم

جواب نمبر٢ـ

بےشک ہم کہتے ہیں کہ یہ مرسل ہے۔ اور مرسل کے بارے میں امام شافعیؒ اور ان کے ہم فکر محدثینؒ اور غیر مقلدین علماء کا کہنا ہے کہ اگر مرسل کی تائید میں کوئی دوسری مرسل یا ضعیف مسند روایت آجاۓ تو وہ مرسل سب کے نزدیک حجت ہوگی۔ [دیکھیں: شرح مسلم للنووی: ج۱، ص۳۰ ۔ نزہۃ النظر لابن حجر: ۲۲۰۔ ابکار المنن لعبد الرحمٰن مبارکفوری: ص۲۷۱، ۲۷۲۔ نیل الاوطار للشوکانی: ج۷، ص۹۲۔ نماز جنازہ اور اس کے مسائل از محمد رئیس ندوی: ص۴۶۔ صلاۃ الرسول اور القول المقبول وغیرہ]

تو یہاں اس مرسل کی تائید میں دوسری حدیث موجود ہے لہٰذا خود غیرمقلدین کے اصول کے مطابق یہ روایت قابلِ قبول ہوتی ہے۔

نوٹ: (((بقیہ بن ولیدؒ نے الکامل کی اس روایت میں حدثنا کے ساتھ سماع کی تصریح کردی ہے۔ الکامل لابن عدی ج 1 ص 313)))

کیونکہ سنن الدار قطنی کی روایت میں بقیہؒ نے یزید بن خالد سے عن کے ساتھ روایت کی ہے تو وہاں غیرمقلدین کہتے ہیں کہ یہ روایت بقیہؒ نے عن کے ساتھ کی ہے لہٰذا ضعیف ہے جبکہ بطور الزام کے عرض ہے کہ غیرمقلد عالم نذیر رحمانی صاحب ابن حجرؒ کے حوالے سے لکھتے ہیں کہ عن میں معاصرت کا ثبوت شرط ہے اور ابن الصلاحؒ کے بقول ملاقات کا ثبوت شرط ہے۔ [انوار المصابیح: ص 295]

لہٰذا عرض ہے عیسی بن جاریہؒ نے بھی تو آٹھ رکعات تروایح والی روایت میں حضرت جابرؓ سے عن کے ساتھ روایت کی ہے وہاں ذرا عیسی بن جاریہؒ کی ملاقات حضرت جابرؓ کے ساتھ ثابت کرکے دکھائیں؟؟؟

اعتراض پنجم اور اس کا جواب:

اس حدیث کے بارے میں امام ابن عدی رحمہ اللہ  فرماتے ہیں: «وَہُوَ مُنْکَرٌ» ”یہ “منکر” روایت ہے۔“ [الکامل في ضعفاء الرجال: ٢/٢٦٨]

فائدہ: احمد بن الفرج بن سلیمان ابو عتبہ حمصی جمہور کے نزدیک ”حسن الحدیث” ہے۔
End_______________________

جواب:

اس کا آسان جواب یہ ہے کہ اگر یہ روایت امام ابن عدیؒ کے نزدیک منکر ہے تو اس سے یہ لازم نہیں آتا کہ حقیقت میں بھی یہ روایت منکر ہو… کیونکہ ایک حدیث ایک محدث کے نزدیک صحیح ہوتی ہے جبکہ وہی حدیث دوسرے محدث کے نزدیک ضعیف ہوتی ہے…بات بعض دفعہ اس سے بھی آگے بڑھ جاتی ہے ایک حدیث ایک محدث کے نزدیک صحیح ہوتی ہے وہی حدیث دوسرے کے نزدیک موضوع بناوٹی ہوتی ہے… اس وقت ہم کیا کریں گے تو ایسے وقت میں فقہاءؒ اس حدیث کے بارے میں کیا فرماتے ہیں یہ دیکھنا ضروری بھی بہت ہے کیونکہ وہ حدیث کی مراد اور مطلب کو بہتر جانتے ہیں…اگر فقیہ اس سے استدلال کرتا ہے تو ہم کہیں گے یہ روایت اگرچہ سند کے لحاظ سے ضعیف ہے لیکن مفہوم کے لحاظ سے صحیح ہے… اور کتب احادیث میں ایسی کئی مثالیں مل جاتی ہیں… (مثلاً:
حضرت علیؓ و حضرت عمارؓ سے مروی حدیث میں ہے:
«كَانَ يُكَبِّرُ يَوْمَ عَرَفَةَ صَلاةَ الْغَدَاةِ وَيَقْطَعُهَا صَلاةَ الْعَصْرِ آخِرَ أَيَّامِ التَّشْرِيقِ» [سنن الدارقطنی: ج2، ص390. كِتَابُ الْعِيدَيْنِ ، رقم الحديث 1734. بتحقیق شعیب الارنؤوط]

”(نبیﷺ) یوم عرفہ کی صبح کی نماز کو تکبیر پڑھتے اور ایام تشریق کے آخری دن کے عصر کے نماز پر بند کردیتے۔“

اس کو امام حاکمؒ نے ”المستدرک علی الصحیحین“ میں صحیح الاسناد قرار دیا ہے جبکہ علامہ ذہبیؒ نے ”التلخیص“ میں موضوع کہا ہے۔ [دیکھیں: مستدرک علی الصحیحین مع التلخیص للذہبی: ج1، ص 439۔ کتاب صلاة العيدين، حاشیۂ رقم الحديث 24/1111. دارالکتب العلمیۃ بیروت-لبنان]

لہٰذا اس حسن / مقبول روایت کا انکار کرکے اسے شدید ضعیف باور کرانا یہ آپ جیسے غیرمقلدین کا عوام کو دھوکہ دینا ہے۔

✍ خاکپاۓ اکابرِ اہل السنّۃ والجماعۃ علمائے دیوبند:

حافظ محمود احمد عرف عبدالباری محمود

Imam Abu Hanifa’s View on Tawassul/Waseelah and the Position of the Hanafi Math-hab

Question: Asalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu Maulana Sahib,

Recently, I received a mail by a Ghayr-Muqallid who rejected Waseela or Tawassul even in its permissible concept claiming that Imam Abu Hanifah and his student Imam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhim) have prohibited even the correct form of Tawassul, I would like to produce the mail here as follows:

“It occurs in Durr ul Mukhtar (the famous book on Fatwa in the Hanafi Madhab) (2/630), ‘From Abu Hanifa: “It is not fitting at all that anyone should supplicate to Allah except by Him (Allah), and using such supplications have been permitted and ordered in the like of the Saying of Allah, the Most High, “And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call upon Him by them.”

In al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya (5/280), and al-Quduri (d. 428/1037) said in his large book of Fiqh called Sharh ul Kharkie in the chapter of detested matters: “Bishr Ibn al-Walid said: ‘Abu Yusuf (the students of Imam Abu Hanifa) narrated to us that Abu Hanifa said: ‘It is not right that anyone should supplicate to Allah except by Him, and I hate that anyone should say: ‘By the right of so and so’ or ‘By the right of your Prophets and Messengers’ or ‘By the right of your sacred house and the sacred area (of Muzdalifah).”

Murtada Az-Zabidi (d. 1205/1790) says in Sharh ul Ihya (2/285): “Abu Hanifah and his two companions hated that a person should say, ‘I ask You by the right of so and so’ or ‘By the right of Your Prophets and Messengers’ or ‘By the right of the sacred house and sacred area (of Muzdalifah)’ and the like, since no one has any right upon Allah. Likewise, Abu Hanifah and Muhammed Ibn Hasan ash-Shaybani hated that a person who made supplication should say: ‘O Allah I ask you by the glory of Your Throne.”

Al-Quduri (d. 428/1037) also said: “Asking Him by His creation is not allowed since the creation had no right over the Creator, therefore it cannot be allowed.”

Similar statements can be found in many Hanafi Fiqh books like;

-Al Ikhtiyaar of Imam Mawsili (d. 683/1284)

-Molla Husraw’s (d. 885/1480) ; Durar al-hukkam fi Sharh Ghurar al-Ahkam

-Multaka-Al Abhur of of Ibrahim al-Halabi (d. 956/1549)

-Al Hidaya of Imam Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani (d. 593/1197)

From these quotes it is clearly that Imam Abu Hanifa and his students hated these kinds of Waseelah. (End of the mail).

Maulana Sahib please comment on this issue, 

1. Did Imam Abu Hanifa and his student really prohibit Tawassul? If yes then is it permissible to cite the later Hanafi scholars who justified a specific form of Tawassul?

2. Which principle should be applied if the main Imam of the Math-hab and his student has ruled prohibition on a mas’alah and some later scholars of the same Math-hab had given permissibility for the same mas’alah?

Maulana Sahib, please guide me regarding this issue as I am very confused and feeling guilty regarding this Issue.

Jazakallahu Khayr

Answer: (by Mujlisul Ulama):

The makrooh view is one view of the Hanafi Fuqaha. The other view is of permissibility and this is according to Imaam Abu Yusuf, Faqeeh Abu Layth, and obviously innumerable Fuqaha and Ulama subscribe to this view of permissibility in the same way as numerous subscribe to the karaahat view. Add to the above the consensus of all the Auliya of former times and all our Akaabireen of recent times.

This brief explanation suffices for claiming that there is no absolute certitude for the view of prohibition.

The only reason for karaahat stated on the basis of the narration pertaining to the Waseelah of the Arsh is possibility of the idea of the annihilation of Allah Ta’ala’s Izzat (Greatness and Glory) because the Arsh itself is a creation which can be annihilated. Therefore, there is the possibility of people understanding that Allah’s Glory can also be annihilated. From this perspective the karaahat view is pure figment of human opinion. It is unsubstantiated by Nass.

It appears that the primary difference pertains to the word ‘Haqq’ in view of the possibility of the idea of divinity stemming from the word Haqq which is the attribute of Allah Ta’ala, especially when there is such a great prevalence of shirk by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah. It is advisable and best to refrain from using the term Haqq in supplications involving Waseelah. But to understand that the concept of Waseelah is impermissible on the basis of the ibaarat of Shaami and other kutub is unintelligent and not valid. It is not possible for all the Auliya and innumerable Fuqaha and Ulama of all ages confirming permissibility if there was absolute certitude for karaahat.

Our Akaabireen were all branded kaafir because of their resolute opposition to bid’ah and to the slightest vestige of shirk.

Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi alayh) was faced with the peculiar shirki situation of the Khawaarij and Mu’tazilah. For this reason certain of the views of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi alayh) ostensibly appear in conflict with the views of the other Fuqaha. Hadhrat Thaanvi (Rahmatullahi alayh) mentions that the Mu’tazilah’s brains are deranged for they consider that makhlooq has a right over Allah Ta’ala. Imaam Abu Hanifah’s proscription of using the words Bihaqqi Fulaan was thus in this context.

As far as the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah are concerned, wherever the words Haqqan Alallah, etc. appear it means that Allah Ta’ala will treat it like a Haqq, not that Allah Ta’ala is now bonded and compelled to fulfil the right. Since the deviant sects treated the word Haqq as an obligation upon Allah Ta’ala Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi alayh) thus proscribed its use.

And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Was-Salaam

(Mufti) AS Desai

Mujlisul Ulama of SA

Levels of Hanafi Fuqaha & Scholars

1. Mujtahidin fil Shar’a – These are those who don’t follow any other mujtahids and are the source of methods and principles to be followed by others.
These include the likes of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik ibn Ans, Imam Muhammad bin Idris Shaf’i, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal [may Allah have mercy on them], etc.

2. Mujtahidin fil madhab – These are those who have the capability of deriving ruling (ijtihad) from the sources of Shari’ah and even though they disagree with mujtahideen fil shara on certain matters but in principle (usool) they are in conformity with them.
These include the likes of Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad bin Hassan al-Shaybani [may Allah have mercy on them].

3. Mujtahidin fil Masail – These are those who derive ruling (ijtihad) in those issues (masail) regarding which there is no report from mujtahideen of the school.
These are the likes of Imam Kashaf, Imam Tawahi, Shams al-Ai’ma Abul Hassan Karkhi, Shams al-Ai’ma Halawai, Shams al-Ai’ma Sarakhsi, Imam Bazdawi, Imam Qadi Khan [may Allah have mercy on them], etc.

4. Ashab Takhrij – This group does not have authority for ijtihad. They just clarify what are not clear in their school books based on other texts of their imams .They very rarely draw some rulings from the nas, when there is none.
Example of this level would be Imam Bazzazi, Imam Abu Bakr al- Jassas and Abu Abd Allah al-Jurjani [may Allah have mercy on them].

5. Ashab Tarjih – This group distinguishes between different narrations within the madhab and decide on those opinions which are better and more accurate than the others among the opinions and reports made in their school.
Example of these would be Imam Marghinani [author of Hidaya], Imam Abul Hassan Ahmad Qudoori, Muhaqqiq mutlaq Imam bin Humam [may Allah have mercy on them], etc.

6. Ashab Tamyiz – This level of muqallid scholars are able to distinguish between strong and weak opinions within the school as well as Zahir al-Riwayah and Nawadir.

They include the likes of Imam Abul Fadl Abdullah bin Mahmud [author of Mukhtar], Taaj al-Sharia Mahmud Mahbubi al-Bukhari [author of Wiqaya], Imam Muzaffaruddin Ahmad bin Ali [author of Majma al-Bahrain], Imam Abul Barakaat al-Nasafi [author of Kanz], as well as Imam ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi [may Allah have mercy on them all].

7. Simply Muqallids – These are those who simply memorized the majority of the hukms and problems and their solutions in their schools of thought.
Many faqihs after 800 A.H. are in this group such as Allamah Ibn `Abidin [may Allah have mercy on him].

Taken from Majumua al-Fatawa of ‘Allamah Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi and Usul al-Fiqh of Dr. Yusuf Ziya Kavakci.

Some include Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad bin Hassan al-Shaybani among level 1 in the above. They just agreed with Imam Abu Hanifah.

Via Tavares Avery

A Relevant Point:

The Ashab takhrij (class 4) elaborate on any ambiguity within the existing edicts and suggest possible applications.

The Ashab tarjih (class 5) give preponderance to one position after analysing contending edicts and elaborations.

The Ashab tamyiz (class 6) recognising the preponderant views gather and disseminate works which contain only the preponderant positions within the mazhab and avoid obscure, anomalous and weak views.

Note: This categorization is based on Imam Ibn Kamal Pasha’s ranking. And he was heavily criticized for it, by great Hanafi Ulama like Imam Shihab al-Din al-Marjani, Imam al-Kawthari, Abu Zahra and others.

There are different categorizations. For example Abu Zahra has only four categories. But, I personally think, that the important matter here is not the number of categories, but the level of the individual scholars. For example saying that Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas is not a mujtahid is according to Imam Shihab Al-Din al-Marjani “great injustice“. Because he was a great scholar and reading is works show one that he has definitely a degree of ijtihad. And this is even confirmed by a Shafi‘i scholar like Imam Dhahabi. And furthermore Imam al-Marjani notes that, how can Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad be Mujtahid fil Madhhab when they disagree with Imam Abu Hanifa in fundamental principles  (ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ). This shows that they are rather Mujtahidun mutlaqun.
I tend to agree with Imam Al-Marjani, Abu Zahra, Kawthari and others, because this categorization places our great hanafi scholars below their actual level.

The Timing of Salaat al-‘Asr – Analysis of the Different Views of Imam Abu Hanifa and his Students

Question: Asalaam alaikum. In the Hanafi Madh-hab it says the Mufta-bihi opinion is that ‘Asr enters around two shadow length but there is an opinion (within the Madh-hab) that says it is one shadow length.

I am confused because recently we got a new Imam he is Bengali and he told me that the two shadow length opinion is the weaker opinion and ‘Asr enters at one shadow length he said this is the mufta bihi opinion and Imam Abu Hanifah held this opinion a few days before he died.

Is this true? he told me only Hanafis from the Asian Sub-Continent ascribe to the two shadow length view whereas the Arab Hanafis ascribe to the one shadow opinion.

Which is the stronger view in the Madh-hab. I’m asking as I am very confused and unsure.

Answer (by Mufti Waseem Khan): 

Wa Alaikum As Salam,

With respect to the time Salaah Al-Asr enters (according to the Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa), there are two famous opinions. One is that it enters at ‘two shadows’ length’, and the other is that of one shadow’s length. Both of these opinions have been accepted and, none of the great Hanafi Jurists from the former and latter times has considered the ‘two shadows’ length’ to be the weaker opinion. In fact, it is a very strong opinion and it is a saheeh (sound) one. It is also not evident that Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) held the opinion of ‘one shadow’s length’ before he died.

The difference of opinion held in this regard is as follows:-

Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) says, ‘the ending time for Dhuhr Salaah (upon which ‘Asr time begins) is when the shadow of anything becomes twice its size besides its original size at midday. While explaining this opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) which is to be found in all the famous classical texts on the Hanafi Fiqh, the author of Al-Lubab (commentary of Mukhtasar Al Qudoori) writes, ‘This opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa is the Dhahir riwayah from the Imam (An Nihayah), and is also the riwayah of Imam Muhammad in Al-Asl. It is the Saheeh (sound/correct) opinion as mentioned in Al Yanabee, Al-Badaa’i, Al-Ghayah Al-Muniyah and Al-Muheet. Burhan Ash-Shari’ah Mahboobi has also preferred it. An Nasafi has relied upon this opinion. Sadr Ash-Shariah has agreed with/conformed to the opinion and has given preference to its proof. In Al-Ghayathia it is mentioned that it is the chosen/preferred opinion. The authors of the Mutoon (classical texts of Fiqh) have preferred it. The expounders of these texts have also agreed with it.  [Al-Lubab – Sharh Mukhtasar Al-Qudoori Vol.1 pg. 71 Qadeemi Kutub Khana Karachi Pakistan].

The author of Al-Lubab Fi-Sharh Al-Kitab has further written, ‘The author of Miraj Ad-Dirayah has explained its evidence (that is, the evidence of Imam Abu Hanifa in which he said ‘Asr enters when the shadow becomes twice its size besides the original) and stated, ‘To adopt that which is precautious in the chapter of worship is better, since it is agreed by all that (when the shadow is twice its size, then) it is ‘Asr time (all scholars agreed that this is a good and valid time for Asr Salaah). Therefore, it is better in the Deen, since at this time when a person performs ‘Asr Salaah it would be established with certainty that he has fulfilled his responsibility (by performing his ‘Asr Salaah). As for one’s performing ‘Asr Salaah after ‘one shadow’, this is not unanimously agreed upon, and all scholars have agreed that performing Salaah before its time is not permissible, while delaying it from its beginning time is permissible. [Al-Lubab – Sharh of Mukhtasar Al Qudoori Vol.1 pg.71 Qadeemi Kutub Khana Karachi Pakistan].

With respect to the other opinion, it is stated in the classical books of the Hanafi Fiqh, ’And Abu Yusuf and Muhammad have stated that the ending time for Dhuhr Salaah (upon which ‘Asr time enters) is when the shadow of anything becomes one of its size besides its original size at Midday’. While explaining this opinion, the great scholar, Shaikh Abdul Ghani Al-Ghunaimi Al-Maidani, the author of Al Lubab says, ‘This is also a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa. Imam Zufar and the three Imams, Imam Malik, Shafi and Ahmad have adopted this. Imam Tahawi from among the Hanafi Jurists has stated, ‘This is what we accept’. In Al-Burhan it is mentioned, ‘This is a clearer opinion’. In ‘Al-Faidh’ it is stated, ‘This is the practice of the people of the times and fatwa is given upon this’. After giving these references, the Shaikh has stated, ‘The best is that which has been mentioned in As-Siraj from Shaikh Al-Islam that precaution in this matter is that one should not delay Dhuhr Salaah until the shadow has become one of its size, and should not perform ‘Asr Salaah except when the shadow reaches twice of its size.

In this way, one will perform the two Salaah in their respective timings which have been agreed by all’. [Al-Lubab – Sharh of Mukhtasar Al Qudoori Vol.1 pg.72 Qadeemi Kutub Khana Karachi Pakistan].

From the above explanation, it shows that there are two well established opinions in the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding the entering time for the ‘Asr Salaah. One is that which Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) has officially preferred/accepted and viewed as the correct verdict. The other is that of the two great students of Imam Abu Hanifa, namely Imams Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. Although, this is an opinion narrated from the Imam himself, it is not evident that he held on to it or adopted it as the correct verdict.

As for the Imam’s verdict of ‘two shadows’ length of an object’, this has been well accepted as Saheeh (sound/correct) by many great/leading Hanafi Fuqaha from the former and latter times. These were from among the most reliable and noteworthy scholars whose works have been accepted by the leading Hanafi jurists with great authority.

It has also been explained that Imam Abu Hanifa’s position (of two shadows’ length) is the Dhahir Riwayah, which is the strongest and most authentic narration in Hanafi Fiqh.

It is well known in the Usool of Hanafi Fiqh that the status of narrations that are known as Dhahir Ar-Riwayah is of the highest and strongest (as mentioned in Sharh Uqood Rasm Al-Mufti by Allama Shami).

The author of Al-Lubab has also explained that the authors of the classical Hanafi texts have all preferred the stance of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah), and the commentators of these texts have also agreed with this position.

As cited above, many great Hanafi jurists have given preference to the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa. In this regard, the great jurist Ash Shaikh, Al-Allama, Al-Faqih, Sirajudeen has also written in his famous ‘Fatawa As-Siraji’ah’, ‘And the time for ‘Asr comes in when the shadow of anything is twice besides the original size according to Imam Abu Hanifa. This is the chosen/preferred opinion’. [Al-Fatawa As-Siraji’ah by the great Jurist Sirajuddeen Abu Muhammad Ali bin Uthman bin Muhammad Al ‘Oushi Al Farghawi died 569 A.H pg. 57 Zam Zam Publishers Karachi Pakistan 2011].

The great Scholar, Allama Ibn Abideen Shami, while explaining the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa which states, ‘The time for Dhuhr is from Zawal until the shadow reaches twice its size’, writes, ‘This is the Dhahir Riwayah from the Imam- (Nihayah), and is Saheeh (sound/correct) – Badaa’i, Muheet and Yanabi’. It is the preferred opinion – Ghayathia, Imam Al-Mahboobi has chosen it. Imam An Nasafi and Sadr Ash-Shariah have relied upon it – Tasheeh Qasim. The authors of the classical/authoritative texts (of Hanafi Fiqh) have preferred it. The expounders and commentators of the Fiqh texts have agreed and approved of this position of Imam Sahib.

Hence, the statement of At-Tahawi (rahimahullah), in which he has stated, ‘and we have accepted the opinion of Imams Abu Yusuf and Muhammad’, does not give any proof that this is the official stance/verdict of the Madh-hab (of Imam Abu Hanifa). As for that which is written in ‘Al-Faidh’ that Fatawa is given upon the statement of Imams, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad with respect to (the time for) ‘Asr and ‘Isha, this is only with regards to ‘Isha [Raddul Muhtaar Ala Ad Dur Al Mukhtar Vol.1 pg. 359 H.M. Saeed Company Karachi Pakistan 1406 A.H].

Further, while responding to the statement of the author of Ad-Durr in which he says that the opinion of ‘One shadow’s length’ is clearer, on account of the explanation given by Jibra’eel (Alayhissalaam), and that this is the determined text (evidence) in this chapter, ‘Allama Ibn Abideen Shami writes, ‘In the statement of the author of Ad-Durr, the evidence is suitable (for the opinion of Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad). However, this does not show the weakness of the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa. In fact, his proofs are also strong’. [Raddul Muhtaar Ala Ad-Durr Al-Mukhtar Vol.1 pg.359 H.M Saeed Company Karachi Pakistan 1406 A.H].

Similarly, while discussing the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) and that of his two famous students, the great Hanafi jurist, Ash-Shaikh Zainuddeen Ibn Nujaim (Alayhi Rahmah) writes, ‘The best opinion is that of Imam Abu Hanifa’. In Al-Bada’I, it is stated that this is what is mentioned in Asl and that it is correct opinion. And in An-Nihayah, it is mentioned that this is the Dhahir Riwayah from Imam Abu Hanifa’. In this way, Allama Ibn Nujaim mentioned all the other references given before in Al-Lubab and Raddul Muhtaar, showing that many of the great jurists have adopted, preferred and accepted the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa as the official stance of the Hanafi Madh-hab in this regard. [Al-Bahr Ar-Raiq – Sharh Kanz Ad-Daqaa’iq Vol.1 pg. 245 Maktaba Rasheediya Queta Pakistan].

Allama Ibn Nujaim has also explained that the official Madh-hab of Imam Abu Hanifa in this matter is that of the verdict of the Imam himself regarding the entering time of ‘Asr Salaah (as being when the shadow of anything becomes twice its size besides the original size at midday). [Ibid.].

On account of the differences in this mas’alah, the great jurists like Allama Ibn Nujaim and Ibn Abideen Shami have mentioned the approach one should take in this matter. They have stated, ‘Shaikh Al-Islam has stated that precaution (in this mas’alah) is that one should not delay Dhuhr Salaah until the shadow of anything reaches one of its size besides the original size at midday, and one should not perform Asr Salaah except when the shadow of an object reaches twice of its size. In this way one will perform both Salaah in their respective timings which have been agreed by all scholars. [Raddul Muhtaar Ala Ad-Durr Al-Mukhtar Vol.1 pg. 359 H.M. Saeed Company Karachi Pakistan 1406 A.H.; Al-Bahr Ar-Ra’iq Vol.1 pg. 245 Maktaba Rasheediya Queta Pakistan].

The great Hanafi jurist, Imam Burhan al-Deen (died 551 A.H) has narrated the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa which states, ‘The time of ‘Asr does not enter until the shadow of a thing becomes twice its size’ and then states, ‘Abul Hasan (Alayhi Rahmah) states, ‘This narration is the Most Correct one’ [Al-Muheet Al-Burhani Vol.2 pg. 6 Idaratul Quran wal Uloom Al Islamiya Karachi Pakistan 2004].

From all these narrations and explanations of the great scholars and jurists of the Hanafi Fiqh (who did not belong to the Asian Sub-Continent) it can be clearly seen that the well-established position in the Hanafi Madh-hab is that ‘Asr enters when the shadow of a thing is twice its size besides the size at midday. This is the verdict of Imam Abu Hanifa (Alayhi Rahmah). It is the Dhahir riwayah, the most correct opinion and the one that has been preferred and agreed upon by the most reliable and authoritative Hanafi jurists of the early centuries until today.

None of the jurists has stated that Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion is weak, nor has anyone from among them stated that he adopted the opinion of his two students before he died.

With respect to which is the Mufta bihi opinion, the great scholars have ruled that Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion of ‘two shadows’ length’ is the Mufta bihi opinion. In this regard, the jurist and scholar of Islam, Faqihul Ummah Mufti Mahmood Hasan Gangohi (rahimahullah) writes. ‘The preferred opinion and the Mufta bihi statement/verdict is that the time for Asr starts when the shadow of an object is twice its size besides the original size at midday’. [Fatawa Mahmoodiya Vol.5 pg. 338 Idarah Al-Farooq Karachi Pakistan 2009].

Similarly, the great jurist expert and scholar Mufti Sayyid Abdur Raheem Lajpuri (rahimahullah) writes, ‘The Mufta bihi opinion and that which Fatawa is given upon is that ‘Asr enters when the shadow of something is twice its size besides the original size at midday’. [Fatawa Raheemiya Vol.4 pg. 77 Darul Ishaa’at Karachi Pakistan 2009].

And Allah Knows Best

Darul Uloom Trinidad & Tobago
—————————————–

Also Read: Refuting La-Madhabi’s Regarding the Timing of Salaat al ‘Asr

Women Attending the Eid Salaah – Response to the Corrupt Arguments

BY JAMIATUL ULAMA NORTHERN CAPE

“And (O Women) remain firmly in your homes” [Qur’aan]

HAZRAT AYESHA RADHIYALLAHU ANHA’S FATWA 

Hazrat Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha has said: ‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam knew what the women had innovated after him, he would have prevented them from the Musaajid just as how the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited’ [BUKHARI]

THE AMUSING CONTROVERSY OF THE MORONS 

Commencing their putrid article, the Mazaar-Mawlid Bid’atis aver: 

“There has been much controversy in South Africa regarding our mothers and sisters in Islam attending the Eid prayers. Others in the Muslim world will find it amusing!”

Before responding to the Bid’ati Mass-Mawlid and Grand Moulood clowns, the official rulings of all four Math-habs will be salutary for those who think that they understand the Shariah better than the four Math-habs: 

The Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab:

According to Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, Shopping malls, etc. He clearly states: “And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the subtleties of the Shariah …………The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’ Math-hab).”  [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]

The Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab:

Allamah Kaasaani Rahimahullah states: “The Fuqaha have unanimously agreed (enacted Ijmaa`) that indeed there is noconcession for Ash-shawaabb to emerge (khurooj) for Jumu`ah, Eidayn and Any Salaah because of the statement of Allah Ta`ala:

(And (O Women) remain firmly in your homes)’ And the command of qaraar (remaining steadfastly at home) is a prohibition of roaming/travelling/parading around and on the grounds that their khurooj is indisputably a sabab (means) of fitnah. And fitnah is haraam and whatever leads to haraam is also haraam!!!” [Badaai us Sanaai]

(The term as-shawaabb means young women, and ash-shawaabb are not confined to teenage girls. All those females who are not aged hags and who hold sexual attraction come within the scope of ash-shawaabb.)

The Fatwa of the Maaliki Math-hab:

“And Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha has said: ‘if Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam knew what the women had innovated after him, he would have prevented them from the Musaajid just as how the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited’. And when the situation is like that, then such a ruling of prohibition will be applied. Thus, the prohibition of women (attending the Eidgah and Musaajid) is categorical in this era under all circumstances because in there emergence from their homes, there is fitnah which is never concealed…” [Allamah Ibnul Haaj 737 – Al-Madkhal]

The Fatwa of the Hambali Math-hab:

“It is impermissible for beautiful women even if they are not young to attend Jamaat Salaah with men because of the fear of fitnah by them!” [Matlab Ulin Nuha]

The above rulings are found in many more Kitaabs of all four Math-habs. It is the only correct Fatwa and it confirms that all four Math-habs have enacted Ijmaa’ on the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, the Eidgah, etc. already many centuries ago!

Thus, it should be clear that those who clamour for women attending the Eidgahs are morons according to the Shaafis! The ones who propagate opinions in conflict with the four Math-habs are the worst of fitnah-makers! According to the Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab by Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, it is only stupid people who claim that women may attend the Eidgahs, Masaajid, etc!

What is the objective of the Bid’atis when they say that ‘Others in the Muslim world will find it amusing!” The objective is to portray the idea that in Islam, women may attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah! Far from being  the truth, we have presented the views of all four Math-habs! The Four Math-habs is in fact the Shariah which portrays the correct understanding of the Ahaadeeth!

It is rather amusing that these so-called ‘sunnis’ are clamouring for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgahs, etc! The Sahaabah were the very first ones who enacted the ban! Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said that his Sahaabah are like stars! The Sunnah cannot be understood without the medium of the Sahaabah. And the Sahaabah and the entire Shariah will not be properly understood without submitting one’s self to the official rulings of the Math-hab which one follows!  

THE ERA OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

Clutching at straws, they state: “The Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) as narrated by Imam Bukhari and others is CLEAR that the women would attend the Eid Salah in the  Era of the Prophet (SAW).”

The response:

First and foremost, it is necessary to mention that ‘saw’ is not a Durood! The shortest Durood is Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam – not disrespectful abbreviations like ‘saw’ and ‘pbuh’!

Secondly, the Hadith of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha in Bukhari is clear that Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam would have prohibited women from the Masaajid, thus Hazrat Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha has said: ‘if Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam knew what the women had innovated after him, he would have prevented them from the Musaajid just as how the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited’

Thirdly, the Fuqaha utilize the Fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha, the Fatwa of Hazrat Umar and other Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum as the basis for prohibition!

Fourthly, we are Muqallideen. We have no right to refer directly to the Ahaadeeth for Fiqhi rulings. Only the Mujtahideen have such a right. That is why those who opine that women may attend the Masaajid, are against all four Math-habs and are unable to present a valid argument for their weak case!

Fifthly, no one – not even one of the Fuqaha of the four Mathhabs – have denied that women attended the Eidgah as well as the Masaajid during Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s time! However, they all explained that this permission was restricted with strict conditions. And these conditions were not upheld even in Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha’s time, that is why the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid.

The conditions were stipulated by Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself! Allah Ta’ala has granted us the Ni’mat (bounty) of Aql (intelligence). And we should use our brains. The Sahaabah followed the Sunnah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam very meticulously. From the entire Ummah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, the best of mankind is the Sahaabah. It is a sign of Kufr to believe or imagine that the Sahaabah would oppose Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam! Thus, when the conditions were not upheld in Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s time, then what does intelligence dictate in this era of immorality and promiscuity!

Sixthly, the era of the Sahaabah is known as Khairul Quroon – the best of eras! In such pure eras, women were banned. Then what should be said about this filthy era of ours! The Fuqaha have mentioned the details in their Fiqh Kutub! Thus, it is highly irresponsible and also deviation to submit the Ahaadeeth to one’s personal opinion!

Seventhly, it would be beautiful to quote Allamah ‘Aini Rahimahullah who said:

“So look at what Hazrat Aisha Radhiyallahu Anha said: ‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam saw what the women have introduced’. And it was not (a long period of time) between this statement (i.e. the above-mentioned portion of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha’s Fatwa) and the demise of Nabi Alayhis Salaam except a very short period that the women (of that era) did not introduce even  one-hundredth (100th) of what the women of this era (i.e. around 800 Hijri) have introduced. Thus, if it was the women of this era, they would have been banned from living, leave alone them being prohibited from the Masaajid and other places.” [Sharah Abu Dawood]

THE SUNNAH OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

The anti-Sunnah Bid’atis state: 

“In fact, the Prophet (SAW) would order all women, including the young virgins, those in haydh, and those did not have proper clothes to attend (the latter were instructed to borrow clothes and the menstruating women to just sit there in the Eidgah/Musalla). This was the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) as he established it for all generations.”

The Sunnah of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam is what the four Math-habs say. The Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid! Do you Bid’atis understand the Sunnah better than the Sahaabah? If you claim yes, then we have no discussion with you morons! And if you say No, then utilize your Aql and clearly try to understand the rulings of the Fuqaha of the four Math-habs. 

The above-mentioned Hadeeth is the Hadeeth of Hazrat Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha. The Fuqaha of all four Math-habs understood the Hadeeth quoted above better than the morons of today! Even Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah has responded to the above-mentioned Hadeeth with the Hadeeth of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha which we already mentioned above!

Allamah Sarakhsi states: “there is no khurooj (emergence from the home) upon women for the two Eids. And undoubtedly, they were given concession in this regard (i.e. attending the Eid-Gah). However, today, I certainly regard it as Makrooh (their attendance at the Eidgah) i.e. for Ash-Shawaab for undoubtedly women have been ordered with qaraar fil buyoot (to stay always at home) and they have been banned from khurooj (emerging from the home) because there is fitnah in khurooj.”

(The term as-shawaabb means young women, and ash-shawaabb are not confined to teenage girls. All those females who are not aged hags and who hold sexual attraction come within the scope of ash-shawaabb.) 

Furthermore, the term Makrooh above means Haraam! This is based on Fiqh! 

Explaining the concession which is not applicable anymore, Allamah Sarakhsi states: “So it is evident that their Khurooj (for Eid Salaah during the concession period) was only to increase the number of the Muslims.” This is confirmed by the Hanafi and Shaafi Fuqaha and this is the response to the Hadith of Umme  Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha which deviates love to quote. The view of impermissibility is backed up with the fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha. Allamah Aini says: “Where is Hazrat Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha in comparison to Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha?”

Furthermore, it is a blatant lie to say that it is Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid. Not one authority from amongst the Fuqaha held such a view! It was merely permissible, but not even a general permissibility. It was permissibility restricted  lwith conditions. The following extract from Fataawa Fiqhiyyatul Kubra explains the reality which the stubborn Bid’atis don’t want to accept:

“Therefore if you say: ‘What, do you prohibit women from the Musaajid, places of Eid Salaat and visiting the quboor besides the Qabar of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? My response is: ‘How is it possible for me not to say so when there is consensus on this (prohibition) because of the non-existence of the conditions of permissibility for khurooj (i.e. emergence from the home to attend the Musjid, etc.). And that (the conditions for permissibility) during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were piety and moral purity.” – Portion of a lengthy Fatwa of Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah!

THE STUPID ARGUMENT OF TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED

The stupid Bid’atis assert “Of course, in later times, with the expansion of Islam to various lands and cultures, this Sunnah was “temporarily suspended” by some Fuqaha, especially noting that the attendance of women was not considered an Obligation, but an Encouraged matter (which may be “suspended temporarily” by the Ulama considering their context). They tried to suspend it due to (genuine or cultural) fears of Fitna and danger.”  

Firstly, it was never and will never ever be Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. The claim of Sunnah is a blatant lie! Does anyone in his right mind believe that the Sahaabah would have prohibited others from the Sunnah?

Secondly, the argument of expansion to Islam to various lands is absolutely baseless. These Mawlid rubbishes don’t seem to know what they utter and mutter in their stupid arguments! These Bid’atis need to expand their brains to understand that the Sahaabah banned women in Medina Munawwarah from the Masaajid! Furthermore, none of the Fuqaha mentioned culture or the expansion of Islam as a reason for prohibiting women from the Masaajid. Thus, it is drivel to speak of the expansion of Islam. 

Thirdly, women were not prohibited temporarily from the Masaajid by the Fuqaha. We already quoted all four Math-habs and all the Fuqaha have enacted Ijmaa’ that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid! The following quotes prove this fact:

➡ The correct version is that the Fatwa is absolute prohibition.  [Al-Fataawa Al Fiqhiyatul Kubra]

➡ On the issue of women attending the Musaajid and the Eidgah, Sheikh Imaam Allamah Jundi (771) Rahimahullah states: “and in this era of ours, prohibition is conclusive. Allah knows best. The famous statement of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha – “If Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had seen what women have innovated…until the end of the Hadeeth” – indicates towards it (the prohibition)”.   [At-Towdeeh]

➡ Allamah Bukhaari (616) states: “Verily, the correct view according to us is that there is no concession for women to attend any Salaah whatsoever….and our companions have taken proof from Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu’s prohibition of women emerging from their homes based on the fitnah which he had observed.” [Muheetul  Burhaani]

➡And it is mentioned in An-Naseehah that women will be prohibited from attending the Eid Salaah – very strictly with beauty, perfume and (anything) which intends/causes/is a means of fitnah. And he said: ‘Banning them in these times from khurooj is most beneficial for them and for men in several ways.” [Al-Furoo’ of Ibnul Maflah]

The above quotes are just a few. We can fill a catalogue of quotes to prove that it is absolutely Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, etc. The talk of a temporary prohibition is pure rubbish!

Fourthly, it is not an issue of “some Fuqaha”, but there is Ijmaa’ of all the Fuqaha on prohibition!

Fifthly, the statement ‘especially noting that the attendance of women was not considered an Obligation, but an Encouraged matter’ is absolute nonsense! The Fuqaha did not prohibit women from the Masaajid simply because it was not Fardh for women to attend. 

Sixthly, women attending Masaajid was never encouraged. These Bid’ati morons quote only  the Ahaadeeth which suit them. The following Ahaadeeth prove that women were never encouraged to attend the Masaajid. On the contrary, they were encouraged to perform their Salaah at home!

➡ Hadhrat Umme Salmah (Radhiyallahu Anha) reports from Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) that he said, “The best Musaajid for women are the innermost corner of their homes.” [Imaam Ahmad/Baihaqi/ Kanzul Ummaal]

➡Allamah Ibn Nujaim states: “Women should not attend the Jamaat (Salaat) in view of the aayat: “And remain resolutely in your homes…’ and the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that the Salaat of a woman in the innermost corner of her home is better than her Salaat in the courtyard of her house, and her Salaat in the courtyard of her house is better than her Salaat in the Musjid, and her home is better for her than the Musjid. The author of Kanzud Daqaaiq has mentioned in Kaafi that the Fatwa of this era is impermissibility for women to attend any/all Salaat (in the Musjid/Eidgah) because of the prevalence of immorality.”

➡ It is reported from Umme Humaid, the wife of Abi Humaid As-Saa`idi from Nabi (sallallahu Alayhi wasallam) that he said to her, “I have been informed that you like to perform Salaat behind me, but your Salaat in the innermost corner of your house is better than your Salaat performed in your room and it is better for you to read in your room than in your veranda and it is better for you to read Salaat in your house than in your local Masjid and your Salaat performed in your local Masjid is better than your Salaat performed in my Masjid.” [Imaam  Ahmad/Ibn Hibbaan/Kanzul Ummaal]

The statements of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the above-mentioned Ahaadeeth clearly prove that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had emphasized that the Salaat of a woman in the remotest corner of her home is superior to performing Salaat in his Musjid behind him!

The Shaafi Faqeeh, Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah states in his Fatwa:

“The statement of Ibn Khuzaimah who is among our Akaabir (senior) Ashaab supports this: ‘The Salaat of a woman in her home is superior to her Salaat in the Musjid of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) despite it being equal to a thousand Salaat. This means the Salaat of men, not of women. Therefore, when it (her Salaat in her home) is superior (than even 1000 Salaat of men who perform in Musjid Nabawi), then the motive which brings her out of the home is either riya (show) or pride, and this is haraam.”

Keeping these Ahaadith in front of us, it is clear that the attendance of women for congregational Salaat in the Masjid during the era of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) was not due to any virtue or greater reward; rather it was based on mere consent and permissibility. And then too, the permissibility was restricted with very strict conditions!

How sad and deplorable then is the state of those morons who call women to the Musaajid and encourage them to perform their Salaat in congregation. They are actually exhorting opposition to the teachings and wishes of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). To further aggravate the issue they deem this a Sunnat, and they regard their actions as being a revival of the Sunnat! 

If it had been Sunnat for women to attend the Masjid for congregational Salaat, why then did Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) teach that a woman’s Salaat in her local Masjid is better than her Salaat in Masjid-e-Nabawi and that her Salaat in her home is better than her Salaat in her local Masjid? It is obvious then that a woman’s Salaat performed in isolation in her home would be an omission of the Sunnat. Is the reward in practising a Sunnat greater or omitting it? It will then be as though Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is encouraging an omission of a Sunnat by encouraging women to perform their Salaat in their homes!

It is as though these people (who clamour for women attending the Masjid) regard themselves as being more virtuous than Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and that their Musaajid hold greater virtue than Masjid-e-Nabawi!

It is neither Fardh, Waajib, nor Sunnat-e-Muakkadah for women to attend the Masjid for the five times Salaat in congregation with men. The fact of the matter is that there exists not even the weakest of weak Ahaadith which exhorts and encourages women to attend the Masjid.

Seventhly, the deviates state: “They tried to suspend it due to (genuine or cultural) fears of Fitna and danger”. Even these moron Bid’atis are constrained to concede that the prohibition was based on ‘Fitnah and danger’. The Fuqaha never tried to suspend women from the Masjid. They categorically prohibited women from the Masaajid. We already mentioned many of their Fataawa above which is the official ruling of the Shariah. The element of Fitnah is an element of prohibition. Can’t these Bid’atis understand such a simple fact which all the Fuqaha Rahimahumullah have explained???

RESTRICTING THE PROHIBITION  TO THE HANAFI MATH-HAB

The morons of Habibia Soofie-goofie Mosque state: 

“The Hanafis were at the forefront of this “suspension”. The founding savant of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Imam Muhammad bin al-Hasan narrates in his Kitab al-Athaar that: “Imam Abu-Hanifah informed us from Abd-al-Karim ibn Abi’l-Mukhariq that (the female Sahabi) Umm Atiyyah (RA) said: “Women used to be granted as a concession (“ordered” in other stronger narrations) to go out to attend the two Eids (prayers): al-Fitr and al-Adha (i.e. in the time of the Prophet SAW).” However, immediately after that, Imam Muhammad states:

“Their going out to attend the Eid does not please us, except for old women beyond child-bearing age. This is the opinion of Abu-Hanifah also.” As we can see from this early Hanafi text: all women were already attending the Eid prayer (as per the established Sunnah) in those early days. However, it seems that the noble Imam Abu-Hanifah (a Persian from Iraq) did not “like it”. Nevertheless, even he (RA) also, made an exception for “older women”. He didn’t ban it outright!”

Response:

Firstly, it is misleading to say that ‘The Hanafis were at the forefront of this “suspension”. As explained earlier, it wasn’t a suspension, but a prohibition. The Sahaabah were at the forefront prohibiting women from the Masaajid.

Hadhrat Abu Amr Shaibaani reports that he saw Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhu) expelling women from the Masjid on the day of Jumu’ah, saying, “Go to your homes, it is better for you.” [Majmauz Zawaaid – Haafidh Haithami said that all the narrators are authentic and reliable]

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the second Khalifah, prohibited women from the Musjid. Not a single Sahaabi differed with him. Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar and Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu Anhuma) would pelt women with pebbles, chasing them away from the Musjid.

Secondly, the citation from Kitaabul Aathaar is in fact an admission that our Fuqaha were well aware of the Ahaadeeth which indicated permission. Whilst the prohibition is until Qiyaamah, the permission was very temporary.

Thirdly, we had already responded to the Hadeeth of Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha above. Even Imaam Muhammed Rahimahullah understood the Ahaadeeth differently than the Bid’atis.

Fourthly, the translation of the Bid’atis of Imaam Muhammed’s’ statement is a hard nail into the coffin of the Bid’atis dead dalaail on the issue of women attending the Masaajid and the Eidgah which is: “Their going out to attend the Eid does not please us, except for old women beyond child-bearing age.”.

However, it is also necessary to clarify that La-Yu’jibuna is in fact interpretation of “karaahat’ which means impermissibility. The following text in Kitaabul Asl clarifies the issue:

Concerning women attending Eid Salaah, Imaam Abu Hanifah stated: “Verily today, I regard it as Makrooh.” Explaining the reality, Allamah Sarakhsi states: “there is no khurooj (emergence from the home) upon women for the two Eids. And undoubtedly, they were given concession in this regard (i.e. attending the Eid-Gah). However, today, I certainly regard it as Makrooh (their attendance at the Eidgah) i.e. for Ash-Shawaab for undoubtedly women have been ordered with qaraar fil buyoot (to stay always at home) and they have been banned from khurooj (emerging from the home) because there is fitnah in khurooj.”

The above clearly shows that it is Haraam for women to attend the Eidgah. The Fitnah is much worse in this era! The concession for ‘old women beyond child-bearing age’ is a clear admission that the element of Fitnah is an element which all the Fuqaha considered which the Sahaabah Radhiyallahu Anhum had understood from Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam!

Fifthly, the Bid’atis state: “As we can see from this early Hanafi text: all women were already attending the Eid prayer (as per the established Sunnah) in those early days.” Women attending the Eid Salaah was not an established Sunnah as proven above! The established Sunnah by the Sahaabah who understood the Sunnah better than anyone else, was to ban and prevent women from the Masaajid, etc. From the early days, women were banned from the Masaajid, the Eidgahs, etc. 

Sixthly, according to all four Math-habs, it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah as proven earlier. Thus, there is no merit in saying: “However, it seems that the noble Imam Abu-Hanifah (a Persian from Iraq) did not “like it”.” Imaam  Abu Hanifah did not just dislike the presence of women at the Masaajid and Eidgahs, but was against it and abhorred it, except for old hags attending Fajr, Esha and Eidgah due to the element of Fitnah being less! Why not Zuhr and Asr – O morons?

Imaam Abu Hanifah was not just any ordinary Persian from Iraq. Imaam Shaafi Rahimahullah mentioned that ‘the people are the children of Abu Hanifah in Fiqh’! Imaam Maalik has mentioned regarding Imaam Abu Hanifah’s intellect and great Ijtihaad, that if Imaam Abu Hanifah said that the pillar is made out of gold, then he will even prove to you that it is made out of gold!

The statement “Nevertheless, even he (RA) also, made an exception for “older women”. He didn’t ban it outright!” really means nothing for the Bid’atis. The exception of older women is in fact a solid proof that it is Haraam for all young women to attend the Masaajid and Eidgah! Any women which holds sexual attraction is prohibited from attending the Masaajid and Eidgah! The question is: why did Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah ban all young women??? The claim of Sunnah by the Bid’atis is false!!!

Even if Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah did not ban women outright, the Fuqaha of the Hanafi, and the other three Math-habs banned all women outrightly from the Masaajid and the Eidgah! They based the outright ban on the principles of the Imaam of the Math-hab.

Even old women are raped in these days! Nowadays, the fitnah is not only from criminals who ravage even old hags. The fitnah also stems from the hags themselves. It is standard practice nowadays for hags to emulate young women in dress, make-up and zina stunts. Cant these Bid’atis understand such a reality? Are they so blind to see that the element of Fitnah is so glaring that there is really no need even to explain that it is Haraam for women to  attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc! 

THE ARGUMENT OF HANAFI-RULED LANDS

The Bid’atis then present the following stupid argument: “It seems that this Hanafi opinion of “suspending the Sunnah” (not “prohibiting it” as no one can do that), spread in Hanafi ruled lands (e.g. Indo-Pak), where the local pre-Islamic cultures were already very conservative regarding women attending public gatherings.”  

Response:
Firstly, it does not only seem, but it is clear that these Bid’atis are incapable of understanding that the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, shopping centres, etc. is not solely a Hanafi opinion. It is the Fatwa of the Shaafi, Maaliki and Hambali Math-habs! It is the Fatwa of Hazrat Ayesha, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Abdullah Bin Mas’ood, Hazrat Abdullah Bin Umar Radhiyallahu Anhum, etc.

If anyone in the world feels that they have a lot of knowledge, then they should present to us just the name of one Sahaabi who never agreed to the ban which Hazrat Umar Radhiyallahu Anhu had imposed upon women attending the Masaajid?????????????????????????? 

Secondly, it is a baseless slander to accuse Hanafis of suspending a Sunnah! If it was a Sunnah for women to attend the Masaajid, then why did Imaam Maalik Rahimahullah prohibit women from the Masaajid whereas Imaam Maalik’s Math-hab is from Madina Munawwarah?

Thirdly, to say that no one can prohibit women from the Masaajid clearly indicates the Ilmi bankruptcy of those who make such stupid claims. The Sahaabah prohibited women from the Masaajid. So who the hell are these stupid Mawlid Bid’ati morons to say that no one can prohibit women from the Masaajid? Do these Habibia Soofie-goofies think that they understand the Sunnah better than the Sahaabah?

Fourthly, it is incorrect to say that the prohibition “spread in Hanafi ruled lands (e.g. Indo-Pak)”. In the very beginning, we had quoted the Fataawa of all four Math-habs. All four Math-habs are against it! And none of them were from the Indo-Pak sub-continent which the stupid Bid’ati scavengers present as a ‘daleel’. Hence, the following appears in the Mufta-Biha Kitaab of the Maaliki Math-hab:

“Qaadhi Iyaadh said: ‘and when they are prohibited from the Musjid, then to a greater extent they will be prohibited from attending other places.” [Mawaahibul Jaleel]

And according to Shaafis, Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

“Verily, the young woman and beautiful woman and those whom men desire: it is impermissible for them to be present at the Eidgah due to the fear of fitnah upon them and by them. And if it is said that this fatwa contradicts the Hadith of Umme Atiyyah Radhiyallahu Anha, then we say: ‘it is established in the two Saheehs (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) from Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha who said: ‘If Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam had to observe what women had introduced, he would have prohibited them just as how the women of the Bani Israeel were prohibited.” And also because the fitnahs and causes of evil in these times are much more than the first era (which Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha speaks about).”  [Al-Majmoo’ of Nawawi –  676]

Even Allamah Aini Rahimahullah criticized the women of Egypt approximately 600 years ago in his Umdatul Qaari stating that the women who were banned from the Masaajid in the time of the Sahaabah, did not introduce even 1000th of the Fitnah of the women in Egypt in the era he lived! In our day of filth and crime, the fitnah is a million times worse.

Fifthly, the following statement has no academic worth: ‘where the local pre-Islamic cultures were already very conservative regarding women attending public gatherings’. Pre-Islamic cultures was not the basis for prohibiting women from attending public gatherings. 

The following ruling appears in a Shaafi Fiqh Kitaab:

“Women should not attend Jamaat (in the Musjid) whether they are young or old because of the spread of fasaad (evil, immorality). …..The fatwa today is on prohibition for all…..This includes (the daily) Jamaat Salaat, Eid, Istisqaa and gatherings oflectures, especially the lecture programmes of the juhhaal (the cardboard muftis and paper molvis) who masquerade as Ulama whilst their motive is carnal lust.” [Tuhfatul Habeeb]

The lecture programs of Juhhaal refer to the stupid Mawlids/Mouloods and functions of the Ninowy, Habibia, Sultan Bahu, Saaberie Chisty, Urs, Giyaarwi, and Qabar Pujaari Bid’atis!

UNINTERRUPTED ATTENDANCE OF SHAMELESS WOMEN

The Bid’atis lauding praises on all the corrupt deviates who allow women to attend the Masaajid, the Eidgahs, etc. states: “HOWEVER, I wish to remind everyone here that while this may have been the case with Hanafi India or Salafi Arabia (exception of the Haramayn though); in OTHER PARTS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD, the Sunnah of women attending the Eid Salah has continued uninterrupted.”  

Response:
Firstly, we wish to remind you that the Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid!

Secondly, currently in this world, it is only deviates, Mudhilleen, Bid’atis and the Ulama-e-Soo morons who allow women to go to the Masaajid! 

Thirdly, there is no benefit in mentioning Hanafi and Salafi as the ruling is not restricted to the Hanafis or the anti-Taqleed Salafis! We have proven that according to all four Math-habs, women may not attend the Masaajid! We have quoted excessively from the Kutub above!
Fourthly, what happens in other parts of the Muslim World, is not a valid proof according to Fiqh! The Fatwas of the Fuqaha should be quoted – not the abnormal practices of corrupt Muslims in other parts or some parts of the Muslim world!

Fifthly, there is no Sunnah of women attending the Eid Salaah. It was never Sunnah and will never be Sunnah until Qiyaamah. Allamah Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah clinches the ruling of the Shaafi Math-hab as follows:

“Tahaawi said that the command for their emergence was in the initial period of Islam so that the Muslims may appear large in number in the  eyes of  the enemies.  

It is mentioned in Sharh Ibn Daqeequl Eid: ‘Verily, in that time (the initial period of Islam) the people of Islam were in numerical inferiority, hence there was a need to emphasize the emergence of women and (even) the females of khudoor (young girls who remain within their homes).….. 

It is mentioned in Musannaf of Ibnul Attaar that going to the Musjid in the darkness at the time of safety from harm and fitnah, was permitted during the era of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and for a while during the time of the Sahaabah. Thereafter this (emergence from the homes to go to the Musjid) was prohibited because of the (fitnah) which women had introduced such as adornment, perfume, and their mischief with men. Then he (the Author of Musannaf) mentioned the Hadith of Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) in which appears the prohibition of females.……………

It is appropriate (i.e. necessary) for a man not to aid his wife or any woman under his jurisdiction to emerge from her home.………. This (i.e. their attending the Musjid in the initial period of Islam) has been prohibited for other eras because in their attendance there are many acts of haraam corruption.

And, he (i.e. Imaam Ghazaali) said in Al-Ihya: ‘It is Waajib to prohibit women from attending the Musaajid for Salaat and gatherings of thikr when there is fear of fitnah. These then are the different views of the Ulama according to the changing times. When there is the incidence of fitnah, then (their attendance) is haraam without any doubt. The meaning of fitnah is zina and its introductory steps such as looking (at females), privacy with them, touching, etc.

At the time of the prevalence of haraam acts, the correct view is absolute haraam, and a Faqeeh does not hesitate in this (i.e. in issuing the fatwa of haraam).  ………………….The correct version is that the Fatwa is absolute prohibition.” [Al-Fataawa Al Fiqhiyatul Kubra]

The argument of the Bid’atis that ‘Nobody “suspended it” or stopped it ever’ is a blatant lie. Read again what Ibn Hajar Haitami of the Shaafi Math-hab has said above! Since, these Habibia Soofi—Darbaar-goofies have attributed the prohibition to ‘Hanafi India’, it would be exciting to know which Math-hab they follow! It can be none other than the Math-hab of ghabaawat and Shaitaaniyyat. And Imaam Ghazaali was not from the Indo-Pak subcontinent. The Bid’ati grave-worshippers may check out this fact.

Applicable to these Habibia Bid’atis 100%, Ibn Hajar states:

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the subtleties of the Shariah…………The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’ Math-hab).” [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]”

‘Congratulations’ to all those morons who say that women may attend the Masaajid in this belated age of Fitnah, immorality, promiscuity and shamelessness. These moron Bid’ati clowns feast on lies.

HARAAM PHOTOS
The Bid’ati says: “I attach here photos from the Eid Salah in the Mauritanian Desert. It is perhaps the closest image one can get of the Salah of the Prophet (SAW)’s time. You will notice the women sitting behind the men.”  

Haraam photos are not academic proofs! The official rulings of all four Math-habs have already been mentioned! These Habibia Bid’atis are conducting themselves like corrupt Salafis on the issue of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc! They don’t seem to be following any of the four Math-habs, except the Math-hab of Shaitaaniyyat and Haraam Mawlid-merrymaking circus-type carnivals!

It is indeed scraping the very bottom of the barrel of stupidity to present as proof haraam photos of haraam practices of the ignoramuses of this belated century to negate what the Shariah has ruled during the era of the Sahaabah at a time when not a single Sahaabi had ventured near to the Indo-Pak subcontinent to be influenced by Indian culture which the moron Bid’atis hallucinate.

THE SHAAFI MATH-HAB AND INDONESIA

The lost Bid’ati states: “Also, photos from Indonesia (country with largest Muslim population). Muslims of the Cape come from Indonesia generally and follow the Shafi’i Madh-hab. As a photo says a thousand words, attached are also photos of mass female Eid congregations from: Egypt, Kashmir, Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Iran, Philippines, UK, Gambia and INDIA. Please look at them carefully so that we can expand our horizons! We are part of a global Ummah. After that, as South Africans, we are part of Africa.”

Even the circus-clowns would be amazed at the comicality of these Mawlid comedians! We have already explained the ruling of the Shaafi Math-hab. According to Ibn Hajar Haitami Rahimahullah, all those in Indonesia, Egypt, Kashmir, Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Iran, Philippines, UK, Gambia and INDIA who allow women to attend the Masaajid are MORONS! 

There is no academic value in this article of the Bid’atis besides misleading statements, lies, and laughable disgorgements. What type of a ludicrous argument or statement is ‘After that, as South Africans, we are part of Africa.’!!!!

We follow the Shariah – not Africa or any of the other countries mentioned by the moron! Really, these Bid’atis seem to be very sciolistically skilled in the art of verbal antics! They seem to have enough time to fool around with the laws of Allah which is dangerous for one’s Imaan! May Allah save us. Aameen!

These Bid’atis need to expand the horizons of their intelligence and need to realize that the final-word on all issues is the verdicts and rulings of the Fuqaha. If they can’t understand this, then they are worse than the deviant Salafis who shun the Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. In rejecting the Ijma’ of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah on the prohibition of women attending the Eidgah, Musjid, etc., the deviance of the Bid’atis is worse than that of the Salafis.

THE GLOBAL/AFRICAN CONTEXT
Posing their laughable question, these moronic Bid’atis state:

“The question for our local Fuqaha is: As 21st century South African Muslims, will we continue to advocate this “suspension of the Sunnah” that we inherited from our Indian Hanafi roots? or are we going to suspend that “suspension” itself and go back to the Sunnah as the more suitable option for our multi-cultural global/African context???”

Firstly, the local Ulama are not Fuqaha. They are Muqallideen who must follow the official rulings of the four Math-habs! And according to all four Math-habs, it is Haraam for women to attend the Eidgah!

Secondly, there has been no suspension of the Sunnah. Accusing the Sahaabah or anyone of suspending the Sunnah is a slanderous lie! It was only a concession which women were granted to attend the Masaajid during the era of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam restricted with very stringent conditions which did not exist even in the Sahaabah’s time which led to the Sahaabah banning women from the Masaajid! Today, it is much worse!

Thirdly, the prohibition of women attending the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. is not inherited from Indian Hanafi roots. In this entire article, we have quoted many Fuqaha. Kindly prove to us if even one of the Fuqaha whom we quoted in this article, is Indian! If not, then please don’t speak rubbish in the name of Deen! It has been proven that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid, Eidgah, etc. according to all four Math-habs!

Fourthly, we will continue to advocate the ban which the Sahaabah and all four Math-habs have placed upon women. Anything contrary to it, is against the Shariah! The prohibition has been inherited from the Sahaabah, from the time of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) when Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) had not yet been born. The alleged ‘Hanafi roots’ is a cunning deception of shaitaan who is the Imaam of the Bid’ati grave-worshippers.

Fifthly, The Sunnah of the Sahaabah is to prohibit women from the Masaajid! The talk of suspending a suspension is the effect of moronic hallucination!

Sixthly, the talk of a ‘multi-cultural global/African context’ is pure bunkum! We are bound to follow the Shariah! The context in which the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha had issued the prohibition should be looked at! View things according to the Shariah, not according to Haraam photos and the corrupt contexts of corrupt societies! 

Seventhly, as 21st Century followers of the Shariah, we follow the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of all four Math-habs who have regarded the attendance of women at the Masaajid and Eidgahs as HARAAM! This is the one and only option for all true Muslims – but not for morons! The corrupt societies which are today sinking further and further into the mire of immorality and transgression are not evidence to present in negation of a law of the Shariah enacted by the Sahaabah.

USOOLE FIQH

The jaahil Bid’atis state: “Do note that going against the Hanafi Madh-hab in one issue does not remove one from the Madh-hab as is well-known to anyone who has studied Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh.”  

Firstly, it is not an issue of “going against the Hanafi Madh-hab on one issue” as these moron Bid’atis contend. It is an issue of rejecting the Ijma’ of all Four Math-habs – an Ijma’ inherited from the Sahaabah. It is an issue of rejecting the Shariah as upheld by all Four Math-habs. These Bid’atis don’t seem to know what they are speaking! If you against your own Math-hab on one issue, then you are going beyond the parameters of Taqleed! Full submission to the Fuqaha is necessary!

Secondly, Taqleed demands full submission to the rulings of the Fuqaha! Furthermore, on this issue, all four Math-habs are unanimous that it is Haraam for women to attend the Masaajid and the Eidgah! Therefore, if one goes against the Haraam ruling, then one is going against the Shariah. Thus, it is best for rubbishes to shut their mouths, instead of vomiting out filth in the name of Fiqh and Usoole-Fiqh.

These morons seem to know very little of Fiqh. That is why Ibn Hajar has declared them as morons as he smashes Baatil with the Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab as follows:

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the subtleties of the Shariah…………The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And,  this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’  Math-hab).”  [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]”

A SALAFI CONTENTION

Presenting an argument which only the rubbish Salafis quote, these wayward Bid’atis aver:

“Note also that Imam Abu-Hanifah (RA) himself stated:”If the hadith is authentic, then that is my Madh-hab”. Hanafi Ulama stated that this important statement of the Imam means: ‘If an opinion of Imam Abu-Hanifah – that was based on analogy or contextual considerations (and not a hadith) – seems to contradict an authentic hadith, then one should leave that opinion and follow the hadith. One will still remain a Hanafi’. See the Radd al-Muhtar of al-Allamah Ibn-Abidin al-Shami.”  

So the Hadith of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha is authentic which all four Math-habs have accepted as a basis for prohibition! So what benefit is the citation of the principle, and then too citing it out of context! The Fatwa of all four Math-habs is based on the Hadith of Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha, etc. 

Furthermore, the statement “If the hadith is authentic, then that is my Madh-hab” is not general. The above-statement of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah clearly refers to only the Mujtahideen as mentioned by Allamah Shaami Rahimahullah. Allamah Shaami states: “and it is not hidden that this (principle of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah) refers to those who have Nazr in the Nusoos and are acquainted with the Muhkam from the Mansookh!” Thus, the above-citation of the Bid’atis from Shaami is very selective and not complete! These Bid’atis are very dishonest in their stupid articles of Baatil! 

In addition, the era of Ijtihaad has ended long ago! The statement of Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah has been torn out of it’s context! Imaam Shaafi Rahimahullah also mentioned this statement. However, what does the statement mean? Imam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

وهذا اذي قاله الشافعي ليس معنا ان كل احد راى حديثا صحيحا قال هذا مذحب الشافعي و عمل  بضاهره: و انما هذا فيمن له رتبة ال اجتهاد في المذحب على ما تقدم من صفته او قريب منه: وشرطه ان يغلب على ظنه ان الشافعي رحمه الله لم يقف على هذا الحديث اؤلم يعلم صحته: وهذا و انما يكون بعد مطالعة كتب الشافعي كهلا ونحوها من كتب اءصحابه الاخذين عنخ وما اشبهها وهذاشرط صعب قل من ينصف به

“What Imaam Shaafi’ee said does not mean that everyone who sees a Saheeh hadith should say “This is the Math-hab of Imaam Shaafi’ee,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person who has the rank of Ijtihaad in the Math-hab as explained earlier… It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imaam Shaafi’ee was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of Imaam Shaafi’ee and other similar books of the companions of Imaam Shaafi’, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them. This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfil. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times.” [Al Majmoo’]

The one who baselessly claims that women may go to the Masjid in this era of Fitnah is a member of the Math-hab of morons as he has contradicted Ijmaa! It is injudicious for ignorant morons to speak on Islamic topics as they only flaunt their ignorance and stupidity on issues in which they are wholly unqualified to comment on! 

To aver that the Fatwa of Tahreem (i.e. it is Haraam) of women attending Eidgah is “an opinion based on contextual considerations, and not textual evidence” is a blatant lie. It is not just opinion, but the Fatwa of all four Math-habs based on Ahaadeeth!

The Sahaabah banned women from the Masaajid. But, these morons are unable to understand the status of the Sahaabah. Their mentality and mind-set is like the corrupt Kuffaar Shias and the deviated and lost Salafis. These Bid’atis are totally lost and off-track!

Therefore, if anyone goes against the (Ijmaa’ee) unanimous Fatwa of the four Math-habs in order to follow his shameless and baseless opinions based upon his misunderstanding of the Hadith, is a moron, as confirmed by Allamah Ibn Hajar Haithami Rahimahullah of the Shaafi Math-hab!

“And, no one will hesitate in prohibiting women (from the Musjid, the Eidgah, the shopping malls, and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi (moron) who is a jaahil, and who lacks ability in understanding the subtleties of the  Shariah …………The correct verdict is categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’ Math-hab).” [Kifaayatul Akhyaar]