Category Archives: Hanafi Fiqh

Ruling on Kissing the Hands of a Shaykh/Aalim

Question: The Majlis said that kissing the hands of a Shaikh is improper. However, there are several Hadith narrations which prove that Sahaabah did kiss the hand of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Imaam Nawawi and other Fuqaha have also said that it is permissible.

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

Brother, the fatal mistake which you and numerous people in this age commit is to subject the Ahaadith to personal opinion. There exists the severe disease of laymen digging out narrations from the kutub and when they become confused because the masaa-il of the Shariah appear to be in apparent conflict with somec narrations, they subject the Ahaadith to their personal opinion. For such persons, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned that their abode will be the Fire of Jahannum.

You have cited some Ahaadith pertaining to kissing of hands, and you mentioned the opinion of Allaamah Aabid Sindhi (rahmatullah alayh) while you are perhaps unaware of the clear ruling of Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Muhammad and countless Fuqaha of the Hanafi Math-hab. They all were fully aware of the narrations which you have cited. But despite these narrations, they ruled the impermissibility of kissing hands.

While you have mentioned the narrations pertaining to kissing of hands, you either are unaware or you have forgotten or you intentionally chose to ignore the following Hadith and similar others:

“Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that a man said to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “O Rasulullah! “Someone from amongst us meets his brother or his friend. May he bow for him?’ Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “NO!” The man said: “May he embrace and kiss him?” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “NO!” The man said: “May he hold his hand and make musaafahah?” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Yes!” – [Tirmidhi]

In Bahrur Raa-iq appears the following explanation:

“In Jaamius Sagheer it is stated: ‘It is Makrooh for a man to kiss a man or his hand or to embrace him.’ Tahaawi narrated that this is according to Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam (rahmatullah Muhammad alayhima). Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘There is nothing wrong with kissing and embracing…’ The daleel of Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah  alyhima) is the Hadith of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu), and it is also narrated that the Nabi (alayhis  salaatu was salaam) forbade from mukaa-ma-ah, i.e. kissing. And the Ahaadith which have been narrated in conflict of this (prohibition) are Mansookh (abrogated)
…………………. Sarakhsi and some of the Muta-akh-khireen have granted concession to kiss the hand of a pious Aalim and Zaahid for the sake of barkat.”

From the aforegoing you will understand that there is difference of opinion on this issue in the same way as there is difference of opinion on numerous masaa-il of the Mathaahib. Our Akaabireen follow the ruling of Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhima) in the mas’alah. Other senior Ulama and
Mashaaikh follow the other view of permissibility. So while we adhere to Imaam Abu Hanifah’s ruling and discourage kissing the hands of even Ulama and Mashaaikh, due to the difference of the Akaabireen, we do not apply vehemence to our discouragement.

However, in this age, it is best to abstain from kissing the hands of even a Shaikh/Aalim because there no longer is true Taqwa. The Shaikhs of this age are generally bogus, ignorant or bid’atis. They are ignorant in even the rudiments of Tasawwuf. Their primary concentration is on singing and poetry, especially poetry sung by their mureeds to extol their own hallucinated greatness, piety and virtues. They swoon, get deceptively transported into nafsaani ecstasy and shed crocodile tears to impress the audience. People are insincere. They do things for riya, and this practice of kissing the hands entails bowing (making ruku’) which according to the Shariah is in the category of Sajdah, has become a custom devoid of reality and humility. It is an external show and a hollow custom devoid of sincerity and true respect in the heart. Furthermore, the spiritual guides are not of that calibre of piety to warrant such veneration. And, Allah knows best.


The Hanafis and their Practice on Hadith

[A considerable portion of this chapter is quoted from Taqlīd kī Shar‛ī Haythīyyat of Hadhrat Maulānā Muhammad Taqī ‛Uthmānī Sāhib with a few additions and subtractions]

One objection is levelled specifically against the Hanafīs, viz. the Ahādīth which they use as proofs are by and large weak. However, this objection is essentially a product of fanaticism. An answer to this objection is that if the Hanafī books are studied with an open mind, the reality will dawn on the person. A study of the following books will prove very useful in this regard:

1. Sharh Ma‛ānī al-Āthār of Tahāwī rahimahullāh.
2. Fath al-Qadīr of Ibn al-Humām rahimahullāh.
3. Nasb ar-Rāyah of Zayla‛ī rahimahullāh.
4. al-Jauhar an-Naqī of al-Māridīnī rahimahullāh.
5. ‛Umdah al-Qārī of ‛Aynī rahimahullāh.
6. Fath al-Mulhim of Maulānā ‛Uthmānī rahimahullāh.
7. Badhl al-Majhūd of Maulānā Sahāranpūrī rahimahullāh.
8. I‛lā’ as-Sunan of Maulānā Zafar Ahmad ‛Uthmānī rahimahullāh.
9. Ma‛ārif as-Sunan of Maulānā Binnaurī rahimahullāh.
10. Fayd al-Bārī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhārī.

These books explain detailed proofs of the Hanafī school from the Qur’ān and Sunnah. However, I consider it appropriate to make reference to a few fundamental points for the benefit of the masses.

1. Authentic Ahādīth are not restricted to Sahīh Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim. Rather, the basis for the authenticity of a Hadīth is to see whether its transmission fulfils the conditions of the principles of Hadīth or not. Consequently, thousands of Imāms of Hadīth – apart from Imām Bukhārī rahimahullāh and Imām Muslim rahimahullāh – have compiled Hadīth collections. Any Hadīth which falls within the conditions of authenticity will be acceptable. Ahādīth from other collections can be on the same level as those of Bukhārī and Muslim. In fact, it is also possible for certain Ahādīth of other collections to be of a higher level than those of Bukhārī and Muslim. For example, the collection of Ibn Mājah rahimahullāh is the sixth of the Sihāh Sittah. Despite this, it contains certain Ahādīth whose chains of transmission are of a higher level than those of Bukhārī and Muslim. [Refer to Mā Tamussu Ilayhi al-Hājah for details]

Therefore, it is most incorrect to label a Hadīth as weak merely because it is not found in Bukhārī and Muslim or in the Sihāh Sittah. Instead, what ought to be seen is its level according to the principles of Hadīth. If this point is borne in mind, many of the objections which are levelled against the Hanafīs by those who merely look at matters superficially will automatically be removed.

2. The second point which must be realized is that the fundamental reason behind the differences which exist among the Imāms and Mujtahids on thousands of juristical issues is the fact that the approach of each Mujtahid and his method of extracting a ruling are different. For example, the approach of some Mujtahids is that if there are apparent conflicts between Ahādīth on a particular issue, they would take the Hadīth whose chain of transmission is most authentic, notwithstanding the fact that the chains of the other Ahādīth may also be sound. On the other hand, some scholars would explain the different narrations in a manner which would make them all concur with each other, and the contradiction is removed. They will do this even if it means considering a less authentic or sound Hadīth to be the basis, and giving an explanation which is not obvious for the Hadīth which is more authentic. The approach of other Mujtahids is to select a Hadīth which was practised by the Sahābah radiyallāhu ‛anhum and the Tābi‛ūn, while providing some sort of explanation for not adopting the other Ahādīth.

In short, each Mujtahid has a different approach and not one of them can be accused of discarding an authentic Hadīth. Generally, Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh tries to reconcile conflicting Ahādīth and, as far as possible, tries to act on every Hadīth even though it may be un-preferred as regards its chain of transmission. In fact, if there is no opposing Hadīth to a weak Hadīth, he practises on it as well even if it may be against Qiyās. For example, he abandoned Qiyās in favour of weak Ahādīth for the breaking of ablution due to laughing aloud, the obligation of zakāh on honey and several other rulings.

Let us make this point clearer through an example. The raising of hands and not raising them (This refers to raising the hands in different postures of salāh) are both established. However, as regards the chains of transmission, some Ahādīth on the raising of hands are better than those on not raising the hands. However, Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh, Sufyān Thaurī rahimahullāh, Imām Mālik rahimahullāh and others are of the view that the act of raising the hands in salāh is visible to all. The raising of hands is mentioned in only a few Ahādīth. Most of the narrations which contain details about the description of the salāh of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wasallam do not make mention of raising the hands. This shows that he did not raise his hands in the majority of salāhs performed by him. On the other hand, Imām Shāfi‛ī rahimahullāh and Imām Ahmad rahimahullāh looked at the fact that the narrations which mention the raising of hands are stronger as regards their transmission. No matter which side you are inclined towards, you will certainly have to accept that there is room for both views. This is the situation with most rulings and issues.

3. Labelling a Hadīth as authentic or weak is also based on Ijtihād. This is why we see differences among the scholars of this subject [of assessing Ahādīth]. One Imām considers a Hadīth to be authentic or sound, while another regards the same Hadīth as weak. This point is clearly gauged from a study of the Hadīth collections. Sometimes, Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh – based on his Ijtihād – considers a Hadīth to be worthy of practising on, while other Mujtahids consider it weak and therefore abstain from practising on it. Since Imam Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh is a Mujtahid himself, the opinions of other Mujtahids are not proofs against him.

4. If a Muhaddith labels a certain Hadīth as weak, it is sometimes due to a specific chain which is before him. Therefore, it is certainly possible for the same Hadīth to have come through another chain which is authentic. For example, the Hadīth:

من كان له امام فقراءة الامله قراء ة

Is labelled by some Muhaddithūn as weak based on a certain chain of transmission. However, the Musnad Ahmad ibn Manī‛, Kitāb al-Āthār and other Hadīth collections contain the same Hadīth which came down through an absolutely authentic chain of transmission.

5. Sometimes, a Hadīth may be weak as regards its transmission but because it is narrated through several chains and many transmitters from various regions narrate it, it is accepted. The Muhaddithūn refer to such a Hadīth as Hasan li ghayrihi. People practising on this Hadīth cannot be accused of using a weak Hadīth as proof.

6. Sometimes a Hadīth is weak and this means that it contains a weak narrator. However, this does not necessarily mean that every weak narrator is always wrong. If there is other evidence to suggest the authenticity of that Hadīth, it will be accepted. For example, a Hadīth is weak in itself but all the Sahābah radiyallāhu ‛anhum and Tābi‛ūn are practising on it. This will be a strong indication that the weak narrator related an authentic Hadīth. It is on this basis that all the Muhaddithūn practise on the Hadīth:

لا وصية لورث

A bequest cannot be made in favour of an heir.  

In fact, there are times when the weak narration is given preference over an authentic Hadīth on this very basis. For example, the incident with regard to Hadhrat Zaynab radiyallāhu ‛anhā, the daughter of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu  ‛alayhi wasallam. She was married to Hadhrat Abul ‛Ās radiyallāhu ‛anhu. He was an unbeliever in the beginning and embraced Islam later on. There are differing narrations as to whether Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam upheld their previous marriage after he embraced Islam or whether he made them renew their marriage. The narration of Hadhrat ‛Abdullāh ibn ‛Umar radiyallāhu ‛anhu states that they were asked to renew their marriage and a new dowry was also stipulated. The narration of Hadhrat Ibn ‛Abbās radiyallāhu ‛anhu is that the previous marriage was upheld, they were not asked to renew it. The first of these two narrations is weak while the second is authentic. However, a distinguished Muhaddith like Imām Tirmidhī rahimahullāh gave preference to the first Hadīth despite its weakness on the basis of the practice of the Sahābah radiyallāhu ‛anhum. [Refer to Jāmi‛ Tirmidhī, Kitāb an-Nikāh, Bāb az-Zaujayn al-Mushrikayn Yuslimu Ahaduhumā. This example was given in the light of the view of Imām Tirmidhī rahimahullāh. The Hanafī view is quite different.]

Similarly, Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh sometimes also practises on a weak Hadīth on the basis of similar strong indications and evidences. This cannot be held as an accusation against him.

7. Sometimes no effort is made to correctly understand the view of Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh and he is considered to be acting against Hadīth because of this. Whereas he is practising exactly in accordance with the Hadīth. Some well-known scholars have also erred in this regard. For example, while objecting to the Hanafī view of Ta‛dīl Arkān,  Hadrat Maulānā Muhammad Ismā‛īl Gajranawala, writes:

A Hadīth states that a person performed salāh in the presence of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam. He did not carry out the bowing and prostrating postures with tranquillity. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam said to him on three occasions:


“Repeat your salāh because you have not performed your salāh.”  

In other words, your salāh is not considered to have any existence according to the Sharī‛ah. Based on this Hadīth, the Ahl al-Hadīth, Shāfi‛īs and others are of the opinion that if there is no tranquillity in the bowing and prostrating postures, the salāh will not be valid. The Hanafīs say that after learning the meaning of bowing and prostrating, we do not accept the explanation of the Hadīth and the rejection of the salāh. [Tahrīk Āzādī Fikr, p. 32]

This is really an erroneous portrayal of the view of the Hanafīs. The fact of the matter is that the Hanafīs also state that if the bowing and prostrating postures of salāh are not carried out in a calm and balanced manner, it will be obligatory to repeat the salāh. They are therefore practising completely on the words: “Repeat your salāh because you have not performed your salāh.” However, the only real point is that Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh differentiates between fard and wājib while the other Imāms do not differentiate between the two. Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh says that the fard acts of salāh are those which have been established with certainty from the Qur’ān and Mutawātīr Ahādīth, e.g. the bowing and prostrating postures. The wājib acts of salāh are those  which have been established  through single narrations. There is no difference between the two in practice in the sense that when a fard act is left out, salāh will have to be repeated, so is the case when a wājib act is left out. However, there is an observational difference between the two: the one who leaves out a fard act will be referred to as one who has left out salāh and the rules of a person who leaves out salāh will apply to him. On the other hand, a person who leaves out a wājib act is not labelled such. Rather, he is referred to as a person who has left out a wājib act of salāh. In other words, the fard salāh will be fulfilled but it will be wājib on him to repeat it. This ruling does not contradict the meaning of the Hadīth. In fact, this is clearly stated in the latter part of the same Hadith.

It is related in Jāmi‛ Tirmidhī that when Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam said to the person: “Repeat your salāh  because you have not performed your salāh”, this statement appeared to be heavy on the Companions radiyallāhu ‛anhum. But when Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam demonstrated the correct manner of performing salāh to the person and emphasised on him the importance of tranquillity in salāh, he said to him:


Once you do this, your salāh will be complete. If you decrease anything from it, there will be a deficiency in your salāh.

Hadhrat Rifā‛ah radiyallāhu ‛anhu, the narrator of this Hadīth, says:


This statement appeared much easier to the Companions than the first one, viz. by decreasing any part of the salāh, his salāh will be deficient but his entire salāh will not be non-existent.

This statement of the Hadīth clearly provides the same details which are practised by the Hanafīs. While practising on the first part of the Hadīth, they also say that when Ta‛dīl Arkān is left out, the salāh will have to be repeated. While practising on the second part of the Hadīth, they say that if the person leaves it out, he will not be referred to as one who has abandoned salāh; rather, one who has committed a deficiency and defect in it. After considering this entire explanation, look at the incorrect and erroneous impression which is created by the statement: “we [Hanafīs] do not accept the explanation of the Hadīth”.

Anyway, the point we were making is that sometimes the objections which are levelled against the Hanafīs stem from incorrect understanding of their views.

If these few fundamental points are borne in mind while pondering over the proofs of the Hanafīs, then – Allāh willing – this misunderstanding will be removed that the proofs of the Hanafīs are weak or that they give preference to Qiyās over Hadīth. The fact of the matter is that a Mujtahid has the right to differ with the evidence provided by Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh or to disagree with a certain opinion of his, but it is a serious transgression and injustice to unilaterally label his Madh-hab as weak or to claim that he gives preference to Qiyās over Hadīth.

Countless erudite and distinguished ‛ulamā’ praised the perceptive Ijtihād of Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh. However, we will suffice by quoting a few statements of a Shāfi‛ī scholar who is considered to be an Imām in the fields of the Qur’ān, Hadīth, jurisprudence and Sufism, viz. Hadrat Shaykh ‛Abd al-Wahhāb Sha‛rānī Shāfi‛ī rahimahullāh. He is not a Hanafī, but he severely refutes those who level objections against Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh or his juristical school. In fact, he has several sections in his book, al-Mīzān al-Kubrā, dedicated to the defence of Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh. He writes:


My brother! You ought to know that whatever I said in these sections [in defence of] the Imām [Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh] was not done out of mere noble thoughts about him, as is the habit of some people. Rather, I answered on his behalf after thoroughly researching the books of proofs. All praise is due to Allāh, when I wrote my book on the proofs of the Madhāhib, I closely examined his [Imām Abū Hanīfah’s] views and the views of his companions. I did not find any of his views or of his companions not having any basis from a verse [of the Qur’ān], a Hadīth, a statement of a Sahābī, a meaning derived from them, a weak Hadīth which becomes reliable when it has several chains of transmission, or a correct Qiyās based on a correct principle.

The Mas’alah of Standing at Hayya Ala al-Salah during Iqamat

Issues Related to Standing at Hayya Ala al-Salah

[By Maulana Zainul Abidin al-Qasmi, Jamia Arabia Rashidia Taajwid al-Quran, Jama Masjid, Nawabganj Aliabad, Dist. Bahraich]  

The followers of Barelwi sect are very strict regarding standing at Hayya ala al-Salah during iqamat (takbir) for Salah. If a person stands while the iqamat starts, they try to make him sit down. This issue has become a point of dissent between Barelwis and Deobandis; therefore many a times the Barelwis challenge their opponents to have debate over the issue.

Let us have a look at the books of Barelwis which prove that there is no scope of strictness in this regard; neither has it deserved the importance that they have given nor should it be made a point of dissent. Moreover, it would be proved that the Barelwi Muftis and ‘Ulama have deceived their people in this regard.

Great scholar of Barelwi Sect, Mufti Amjad Ali Ghoswi (Khalifa of Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi) says in his book ‘Bahar-e-Shari’at’ under the title: Namaz ke Mustahabbat i.e. the desirable acts of Salah: “(11) To stand at Hayya ala al-Falah during takbir.” (Bahar-e-Shari’at, 3/107)  

This quote says that standing for Salah is mustahab at Hayya ala al-Falah, and in the same book he defines mustahab: “Mustahab is an act desired by Shari’ah, but causes no displeasure if left; if done will bring reward and if left then no reward at all.” (Bahar-e-Shari’at, 2/5)

It shows that there is neither an undesirability in standing at Hayya ala al-Falah according to Shari’ah nor any sin as it is mustahab and not standing at Hayya ala al-Falah is leaving a mustahab act and there is neither undesirability nor sin as per the Shariah in leaving a mustahab act. So there is no room for strictness in this issue and those who do not stand on Hayya ala al-Falah deserve no curse, as Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan himself has admitted in an issue that a person not practicing upon mustahab act is not to be condemned; since this is the status of mustahab. (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/414) 

Since standing on Hayya ala al-Falah was mustahab, there was no sense for strictness, so the Barelwi Ulama and Muftis diverted it to other direction and started saying that “it is Makrooh to listen takbir in standing position.” So Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi wrote: “Listening takbir in standing position is makrooh.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/419)

Similarly, a fatwa issued by Darul Ifta Bareilly says: “Listening takbir in standing position is makrooh.” (Fatawa Bareilly Sharif, p. 66) 

It is obvious that one who will stand at the beginning of takbir instead of standing on Hayya ala al-Falah he will listen takbir in standing position, so the Barelvi Ulama regarded it as makrooh. But here what they mean by makrooh; makrooh tanzihi or tahrimi? Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi has written: “When makrooh is general, it means makrooh tahrimi.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 1/911, 916)

Now let us see whether it is makrooh to listen takbir while standing or the Barelvi Ulama and Muftis have deceived their people?

It has previously been mentioned with reference to Bahar-e-Shari’ah that standing at Hayya ala al-Falah is mustahab, it means that whoever will stand on Hayya ala al-Falah he will listen takbir sitting, so listening takbir in sitting position will be mustahab; therefore Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan has written that “Listen the takbir sitting and stand for Salah at Hayya ala al-Falah.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/421)

So one who listens takbir standing he leaves a mustahab  act (listening takbir sitting). Nowwe have to confirm “whether leaving mustahab act is makrooh tahrimi?”  Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi himself has written that “leaving mustahab is not even makrooh tanzihi let alone makrooh tahrimi.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 6/64) So now the question is: how listening takbir in standing position is makrooh tahrimi when it is mustahab act. This is only a mischief created to deceive the people; since it is already proved that listening takbir sitting is mustahab and leaving mustahab is neither makrooh tahrimi nor makrooh tanzihi

Now let us analyze the proof of Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi which he gave to consolidate his claim that listening takbir standing is makrooh. He writes: “It is mentioned in Jam’i al-Muzmarat, Fatawa Alamgiriya and Radd al-Muhtar that if a person comes for Salah during takbir, it is makrooh for him to wait [for Salah] standing, rather he should sit down and stand at Hayya ala al-Falah. (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/380)
This quote mentions nowhere that listening takbir standing is makrooh, rather it says that waiting in standing position is makrooh. However, if it is supposed that waiting in standing position includes listening takbir standing, then also the aforementioned text of the books (Jam’i al-Muzmarat, Fatawa Alamgiriya and Radd al-Muhtar) denote that it is neither makrooh tanzihi nor tahrimi; since it is already said that leaving mustahab is not makrooh, so makrooh here will imply ‘tark-e-afzal’ (leaving a better act) which is in fact not ‘makrooh’ in real term. Therefore it is mere deception to present the texts of Jam’i al-Muzmarat, Fatawa Alamgiriya and Radd al-Muhtar in order to prove that listening takbir in standing position is makrooh.  

If someone objects that listening takbir in standing position is not makrooh tahrimi, rather tanzihi, then we can reply that it is already mentioned with the reference of Fatawa Rizwiyah that leaving mustahab act is not even makrooh tanzihi, so how listening takbir in standing position be called makrooh tanzihi? However, if someone insists to call it makrooh tanzihi then also there is no room for strictness in this issue; since Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi writes: “It is better not to commit makrooh tanzihi, but there is no sin if committed.” (Ahkam-e-Shari’at, 3/284) So when it is not sin to stand on Hayya ala al-Salah it is not all right to observe strictness on it. Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi himself used to commit makrooh tanzihi act as he writes about smoking huqqah that “it can be called makrooh tanzihi due to some reason” (Ahkam-e-Shari’at, 3/284) and he used to smoke huqqah as he himself says: “I do not recite bismiAllah while smoking huqqah.” (Malfoozat Ala Hadhrat, 2/199) If Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi commits makrooh act, there is no problem, but if someone else does so why the Barelwis fight with him? Whereas listening takbir in standing position is not even makrooh tanzihi, while smoking huqqah is makrooh in the opinion of many Ulama. For this you can refer to Ahkam-e-Shari’at itself.

So far I have established the above-mentioned points from the books of Barelwi Ulama. It shows very clearly that the Barelwi Ulama and Muftis write something at a place and contradict it at another place, and as a result they are caught in the cobweb of their own writings. One more example of it is that Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi writes at a place: “Imam and musallis should stand at Hayya ala al-Salah” then at the next page he says: “the imam and musallis should stand when the muezzin says Hayya ala al-Falah during the takbir.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/380)

While replying to a question whether Imam and muqtadi should sit down or stand up during takbir, he replies: “there is no special ruling for imam, but the muqtadis are asked to listen the takbir sitting and stand at Hayya ala al-Falah”. (Fatawa  Rizwiyah, 5/421) But he writes at another place: “After the khutba of Jumu’ah, the imam is at liberty either to sit down after the khutbah and stand at Hayya ala al-Salah or remain standing. There is no proof that he [the Prophet peace be upon him] used to sit down and wait for takbir, rather this ruling  (of sitting till Hayya ala al-Salah) is for the musallis only.” (Fatawa Rizwiyah, 5/419) See he writes at two places that Imam and muqtadi both should stand on Hayya ala al-Salah, while at two other places he says that there is no ruling for  imam in this issue, the ruling of standing at Hayya ala al-Salah is only for muqtadis. This is the condition of Ala Hadhrat!!!

Interesting point: Iqamat (takbir) is composed of 17 phrases from Allahu Akbar to La Ilaha Illa Allah, so one who stands at Hayya ala al-Salah he also listens much of takbir (9 phrases) in standing position. So on one hand you ask people to stand at Hayya ala al-Salah and at the other hand you say that listening takbir in standing position is makrooh, so the question is whether the phrases after Hayya ala al-Salah are not part of takbir, whether those are not listened in standing position?  

Those who emphasize on standing at Hayya ala al-Salah should know that as standing at Hayya ala al-Salah is mustahab, in the same way starting Salah at Qad Qamat al-Salah is also mustahab. (Bahar-e-Shari’at 3/538; Fatawa Rizwiyah 5/380) Is there any Barelwi mosque where the Salah is started at Qad Qamat al-Salah or they emphasize starting Salah at it? Is it not strange that they emphasize on a mustahab to an extent of fight, while they avoid acting the mustahab next to it?

Finally, I wish to state whether those who stand in the beginning of takbir instead of standing at Hayya ala al-Salah have any reason for doing so? There are two important things to note:

(1) standing at Hayya ala al-Salah and it is mustahab act,

(2) straightening the rows and filling the gap, this is Sunnah Mu’akkadah which is greater in rank than mustahab, so the mustahab act is left in order to act upon Sunnah Mu’akkadah; since leaving mustahab is neither makrooh tahrimi nor makrooh tanzihi, while it is bad to leave Sunnah Mu’akkadah which is bigger than makrooh tanzihi.  (Bahar-e-Shari’at 2/5)

Moreover, the mosques where people stand at Hayya ala al-Salah, the imam starts Salah while the muqtadis are still busy straightening the rows, whereas starting Salah with imam is also mustahab. While, those who stand up with the beginning of takbir they usually straighten the rows before the takbir completes and then start the Salah with imam. 


When should one stand up during the Iqamah?

By Mufti Muhammad Shafi’

When should the muqtadis stand up for salah in congregation? Should they stand before the iqamah begins, when the iqamah begins or when the words hayya ‘ala al-falah are reached?

The answer to this question lies in the practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the Noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them).

Practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)

(1) Sayyiduna Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) would render the adhan for Zuhr after zawal (i.e., when the sun reaches its zenith or midway point). He would not say the iqamah until the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) emerged from his quarters. When he emerged and he saw him, the iqamah would begin. (Muslim)

(2) The people would stand for salah in preparation for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). The people would take their place in the prayer rows (saffs) before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) stood up from his place. (Muslim)

(3) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) says that once they stood up for salah and straightened the rows even before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) emerged from his quarters. (Muslim)

(4) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) told the Companions: “Do not stand for salah until you see me”. (Al-Bukhari)

(5) Ibn Shihab narrates that the people would stand up for salah when the muezzin would say Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar. The rows would be straightened before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) reached his place [to lead prayer]. (Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq)

(6) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) would stand up from his place when Sayyiduna Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say: “qad qamat al-salah“. (Majma’ al-Zawa’id)

These are six narrations describing the practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).

The first narration explains that the general habit of Sayyiduna Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) was to keep an eye on the quarters of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). When he emerged from his quarters, Sayyiduna Bilal would commence the iqamah. ‘Allamah Zurqani in his commentary of the Muwatta of Imam Malik and Qadi ‘Iyad in Sharh al-Shifa have mentioned the above-mentioned explanation.

The words of ‘Allamah Zurqani:

“Sayyiduna Bilal would await the appearance of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). As soon as he saw him, he would begin the iqamah; and this was even before most of the people saw him. The people would stand as they saw him. He would not stand in his (Allah bless him and give him peace) position until the rows were straightened.” (Sharh al-Zurqani, 1:214)

The second and third narrations substantiate that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would usually stand up when the iqamah started and would begin straightening the rows.

Explaining the words “straightening the rows” in the third narration, Imam Nawawi writes in the commentary of Sahih Muslim: “There is an indication (in the words ‘straightening the rows’) that they considered this a Sunnah. The ‘ulama are unanimous on the merits of straightening the rows.” (Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim, 5:103)

The fourth narration is indicative that at times Sayyiduna Bilal would commence with the iqamah even before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) emerged from his quarters and the Companions would stand up and prepare the rows when the iqamah started. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) for some reason got delayed in emerging from his quarters so he advised them not to stand before he came out. Obviously this was to save the people from the inconvenience of waiting while standing for a long period of time.

The words “do not stand until you see me” means that do not stand until I emerge from my quarters. It is also indicative that there is no harm in standing as soon as he emerged from his quarters.

The fifth narration explains the common routine; Sayyiduna Bilal would commence with the iqamah when he saw the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) emerging from his quarters and the people would stand up as soon as the iqamah commenced and begin straightening the rows.

The sixth narration makes clear that at times the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) would be present in the masjid well before the commencement of salah. In this case he would stand up for the salah when the muezzin said qad qamat al-salah. It seems that in this case the Companions stood up when he stood up.

The common factor derived from these narrations is that when the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not present in the masjid beforehand but would come out from his quarters, Sayyiduna Bilal would commence with the iqamah as soon as he emerged from his quarters and the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would stand immediately on hearing the iqamah and straightened their rows and the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) never forbade this practice.

Yes, he did discourage them from commencing the iqamah and standing up before his appearance from his quarters and this was because of his consideration for them, and if done, it is termed makruh tanzihi (slightly disliked) by the jurists [because of his discouragement].

Practice of the rightly-guided Caliphs

(1) Sayyiduna Nu’man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) would straighten our rows when we stood up for salah and only said the takbir  (i.e.,Allahu Akbar) for salah after we were straight [in the rows]. (Sunan Abu Dawud)

(2) Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would appoint people to straighten the rows. He would not begin the salah until he was told that the rows were straight. Imam Tirmidhi has recorded this narration and he has also written that this was also the practice of Sayyiduna ‘Ali and Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them both). (Nayl al-Awtar, 2:187)

The first narration explains the method of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the second narration the method of Sayyiduna ‘Umar, Sayyiduna ‘Ali and Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). They would also themselves check on the rows and would not begin the salah until they were satisfied that the rows were straight, i.e., there were no gaps in-between the rows and all were in a straight line. They would not begin the salah until then.

This is possible when the people stand up for salah from the commencement of the iqamah, as mentioned in the narrations above that this was the usual procedure of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). If they had stood when the muezzin said hayya ‘ala al-salah or hayya ‘ala al-falah or qad qamat al-salah, and thereafter the straightening of the rows took place, the salah would have been delayed for a long period after the completion of the iqamah, which is unanimously condemned by the ‘ulama.

Rulings of the jurists

The jurists (fuqaha) have included this issue under the heading Adab al-Salah, i.e., Etiquette of Salah. Etiquettes are those factors that if a person leaves them out, he is not committing a makruh (disliked) act nor is he worthy of reproach. Fulfilling the etiquettes is best but to reproach a person who fails to fulfil them is not permissible and in fact a bid’ah.

The following is recorded in Al-Durr al-Mukhtar:

“The salah consists of a few etiquettes. No sin is incurred by leaving them out nor is reproach like leaving the Sunan al-Zawa’id but to act upon them more virtuous.” (Al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:477)

Regarding the views of the mujtahid Imams, Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in the commentary of Sahih Muslim:

“According to Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) and a group of scholars, it is mustahabb (recommended) not to stand up until the muezzin has completed the iqamah. Qadi ‘Iyad has related from Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) and from many ‘ulama  that it is mustahabb to stand up when the muezzin commences the iqamah. Sayyiduna Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) would stand up when the muezzin said qad qamat al-salah and Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is of the same view. The view of Imam Abu Hanifah and the ‘ulama of Kufah is the people should stand when the muezzin says hayya ‘ala al-salah.” (Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim, 5:103)

The details of the Hanafi madhhab are recorded in Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah (or Fatawa Alamgiri):

“If the muezzin and the imam is not the same person and the imam and muqtadis are in the masjid, the imam and muqtadis will stand when the muezzin says hayya ‘ala al-falah, according to our three ‘ulama (Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammed) and this is the correct view.

“If the imam is outside the masjid and he enters from behind the rows, each row [of muqtadis] will stand when he passes that particular row. This is the opinion of Shams al-A’immah Al-Halwani, Al-Sarakhsi and Shaykh al-Islam Khuwahar Zadah. If the imam enters the masjid from the front, the people will stand as soon as they see the imam. They will not stand before he enters the masjid.” (Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, 1:57).

The following is recorded in Al-Badai’ al-Sanai’:

“The qiyam (standing) is for the purpose of salah [in Congregation] and it is not possible without the imam. Thus, standing [without the presence of the imam] is not beneficial. If the imam enters from the front of the masjid, the people will stand as soon as they see him because when he enters he will directly proceed to the place of leading the salah (imamah). If he enters from the back of the masjid [from behind the rows], the correct view is that each row [of muqtadis] will stand as he passes the particular row, for by his passing of each row it becomes valid for that row to follow him in salah. It is as if the imam is already on his place [in front of them] for each row passed.” (Al-Badai’ al-Sanai’,1:200)

Imam Malik himself has expressed his view in his compilation Muwatta in reply to a question:

“Imam Malik was asked when is it necessary for the people to stand for salah. He replied: ‘I have not heard of any definite ruling regarding this, but I suppose that this is according to the strength of the people. For, among them are those who are heavy and those who are light-bodied. All of them are not the same [and cannot stand at the same time]’”. (Muwatta Imam Malik, 2:96)

The views of the four Imams have been mentioned above. The summary is as follows: According to Imam Shafi’i it is mustahabb to stand after the completion of the iqamah. According to the statement of Qadi ‘Iyad, the view of Imam Malik is that it is mustahabb to stand from the commencement of the iqamah. But according to the statement in Muwatta, there is no fixed ruling for this and people should stand up according to their ability, respectively. A heavy-bodied person takes longer to stand up compared to a light-bodied person. A sick person also takes longer to stand up. A light-bodied person can stand up quickly.

The view of Imam Ahmad is to stand when the muezzin says qad qamat al-salah. The details of the view of the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah is explained in Fatawa Alamgiri and Al-Badai’ al-Sanai’ (above). If the imam and muqtadis are present in the masjid, then according to the reliable narration, they should stand when the muezzin says hayya ‘ala al-falah. If the imam is entering from outside then there are two scenarios: (a) if he is entering from the front of the masjid, themuqtadis will stand upon seeing the imam and (b) if the imam enters from the back of the masjid, each row will stand as he passes it.

Where the Hanafi madhhab is explained in Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq that if the imam and muqtadis are present in the masjid before time, the imam and muqtadis will stand when the muezzin says hayya ‘ala al-falah, the following reason is furnished:

“It is better to stand up on the words of hayya ‘ala al-falah because these words carry an instruction [to come to success]. Therefore on these words a person will make an effort and hasten [towards success]”. (Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, 1:321)

This implies that those who are of the opinion that it is mustahabb to stand at hayya ‘ala al-falah and qad qamat al-salah because of the instruction contained in it, consider it against etiquette to still be seated thereafter but do not consider standing up before these words to be against etiquette, because standing before these words are said is also hurrying [towards success] on a greater level.

Thus, those who consider it mustahabb to stand at hayya ‘ala al-salah are not saying that to stand before it is contrary to mustahabb, but to remain seated after those words is against etiquette, for this will be against hastening towards obedience.

After pondering it will be realised that the four Imams are unanimous on two aspects:

(a) The differences of opinion is based on better and best and not a matter of impermissibility and blameworthiness (makruh). Thus, no one has the right to object or oppose anyone in this regard. The followers of the four madhhabs do not oppose each other in this matter.

(b) The consensus of the Companions, Followers (tabi’un) and unanimity of the four Imams proves that it is wajib (compulsory) to straighten the rows which should be attained before the salah commences and this can be easily achieved when the people stand up at the commencement of the iqamah. According to Imam Malik, there is no harm if the weak and the ill stand up a bit later.

The essence of this is as follows: When the Imam and muqtadis are present in the masjid before time, it is best to stand at hayya ‘ala al-falah and qad qamat al-salahaccording to Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and according to Imam Shafi’i after the iqamah is complete. According to Imam Malik, at the beginning of the iqamah and the general practice of the rightly-guided Caliphs and most Companions substantiate this view. Thus, the ruling of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab is that to stand up at the beginning of the iqamah is not onlymustahabb but wajib.

Not one of the four Imams have ruled that it is necessary for the imam to first sit on the place of prayer to reprimand those who are standing and to consider those standing wrong. It is not the madhhab of any Imam to consider standing from the beginning as makruh or to or to think ill of or to insult such people.

The authentic views of the Hanafi madhhab has been mentioned in Fatawa Alamgiri and Al-Badai’ al-Sanai’ which have been approved by Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsi and other Hanafi scholars. No one among the Hanafi scholars in their books, commentaries and fatwa compilations have written that it is makruh to stand from the beginning except in the narration of Al-Mudmarat which has been related by Al-Tahtawi. No one else has said that it is makruh, and how could they say so whereas standing from the beginning [of the iqamah] has been proven from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), the rightly-guided Caliphs, the other Companions and Followers.

As far as the narration of Al-Mudmarat is concerned, Al-Tahtawi has recorded it as follows:

“If a person enters the masjid when the muezzin has begun the iqamah, the person will sit and will not wait while standing”. (Hashiyah al-Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi al-Falah, 1:186)

This narration can clearly imply that the person will not wait while standing if the iqamah has begun before the imam has entered the masjid, which has been discouraged by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) as mentioned earlier. The words “do not wait” means not to wait for the imam while standing. By taking this meaning of this narration, it now complies with the other narrations of the Hanafi madhhab and does not oppose the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and of the Companions.

On the other hand, if it is interpreted that it is makruh for a person entering to stand while the iqamah is being said [but should first sit] and the imam is present in the masjid, then because it is contrary to the other texts and commentaries of the Hanafi madhhab, this narration will be ignored, because it is also contrary to the Sunnah and because the narration can be interpreted (to comply) as mentioned above.

Al-Tahtawi has interpreted the narration of Al-Mudmarat in this manner which opposes the common texts and commentaries of the Hanafis and also the Sunnah of the Companions in this regard. The greatness and knowledge of ‘Allamah Al-Tahtawi is in its place, but to interpret the narration in this manner is reason in itself to discard it.

In fact ‘Allamah Al-Tahtawi has recorded the same view as mentioned in Fatawa Alamgiri and Al-Badai’ al-Sanai’ in his commentary on Al-Durr al-Mukhtar, i.e., if the imam enters from the front of the masjid, the people will stand on seeing him, and if he enters from the back, each row will stand as he passes it.

It is recorded in Al-Durr al-Mukhtar that if the imam himself also renders the iqamah, the people will not stand until the completion of the iqamahAl-Durr al-Mukhtar narrates this with reference to Zahiriyyah.

Al-Tahtawi has written the following under this issue:

“From this previous discussion, sometimes some people understand (i.e., misunderstand) it to mean that it is makruh to stand from the beginning”. (Al-Tahtawi ‘ala al-Durr, 1:245)

The words “sometimes some people understand” used by ‘Allamah al-Tahtawi shows that to believe it as makruh is not a weighty opinion and he did not say that this is his opinion but said that some people take this meaning from the text.

To sum up, among all the Hanafi texts on this discussion, the text of only Al-Mudmarat is unclear and it can also be interpreted according to the views of the majority and the common texts of the Hanafi books. If the meaning of makruh is taken from it, then because it is contrary to the view of the Imams of the madhhab and texts and commentaries, it will be thrust aside.

Concluding remarks

It has been elucidated that the practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), the rightly-guided Caliphs and the majority of the Companions and Followers was that when the imam enters the masjid people would stand from the beginning of the iqamah and straighten the rows.

If the imam is present in the masjid before time, it is mustahabb to stand at hayya ‘ala al-falah, meaning that it is against etiquette to remain seated after these words because it will be against the instruction of hastening towards success but not against etiquette to stand up before these words because it is hastening towards success even earlier.

In some masjids there is a custom that at the time of iqamah the imam emerges from one of the corners, considers it necessary to sit on the place of prayer (musallah) first, instructs those standing to be seated and censures them, this is not the view of any Imam or jurist of this Ummah but is a pure innovation (bid’ah).

Important advice

The purpose of this article was to clarify and explain this issue. Although the last method is contrary to the view of majority of the jurists and abominable, fighting and arguing over this issue is far worse. It is not appropriate to fight and argue over this issue. With affection and kindness, explain the issue to those whom there is hope that they will accept otherwise silence is better. Align your own actions according to the Sunnah and do not oppose others.

Allah Most High knows best.

Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 1, p. 309, Maktabah Dar al-‘Ulum Karachi, Karachi


Marriage without Wali – The Hanafi Perspective

By Ebrahim Saifuddeen


Women require a wali (guardian) who ensures and secures their rights. The question over here is whether the woman needs permission from her wali to marry or whether she has the right to marry anyone whom she likes without permission. The Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools say that nikah entered into by a woman herself, without the permission of her wali, is invalid and void. The Hanafi ruling on this matter is that a woman can enter into a marital contract by herself without permission from her wali. The definition of such a “woman” will come later on and it does not incorporate every woman.

The position of all the four schools in Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’a is that the rulings of all four schools of thought are valid. However, the ghair muqallid accuse the Ahnaf of following an opinion contrary to hadith. This allegation of theirs is quite baseless and it is only due to their superficial knowledge of hadith as well as of the ruling of the Hanafi school that they raise such allegations.

Hanafi Position

Before we go into the evidences, it is better to clarify what the Hanafi position is regarding this matter. It is stated that an adult, sane woman, virgin or previously married, has the right to carry out her nikah without the permission of her wali (guardian) to someone who is suitable. This step is to be used as a last resort when all other steps have been exhausted to obtain permission from the father. It is stated in Imdad ul-Mufteen pg 440:

“Nikah of a woman without permission of father is valid but if this woman marries without permission in the absence of a valid legal reason, then she is sinful. Firstly, it is a sin to displease the father without any valid cause. Secondly, to marry without permission of the wali is also a shameless act and not void of sin.”

Hence it is seen that a woman should marry herself off to someone suitable only if it is extremely necessary. However, if the woman marries herself off to someone who is unsuitable, then such a marriage has not taken place. It is stated in Durr al-Mukhtar vol.2 pg 29:

“If a woman marries a ghair kufu’ (unsuitable) man without the permission of her wali, then this is invalid.”

The marriage will only be valid if the woman marries a kufu’. If her wali, however, gives permission for her to marry a non-kufu’ then the marriage will be valid.

This was the gist of the Hanafi position regarding marriage of an adult, sane, free woman who is a virgin or previously married, without the wali’s permission.

Evidence for Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools

Qadhi Abu’l Waleed Muhammad bin Ahmed Ibn Rushd Maliki (rahimahullah), in Bidayatul Mujtahid vol.2 pg. 6-7, writes:

“Imam Malik (rahimahullah), in Ashhab’s narration from him, said that there is no marriage without a guardian and that it (guardianship) is a condition of validity.
. . . .The fourth opinion is Malik’s (rahimahullah), as derived from ibn al-Qasim’s narration that its stipulation as a demand is Sunnah, but not Fardh. This is because it is narrated from him that he used to view inheritance among parties married without a guardian (as valid), and permitted an unchaste woman to appoint a man as her guardian for her marriage, and he held as recommended that a deflowered woman present a guardian who could contract on her behalf. Thus, guardianship for him is one of the complementary demands and not a condition for validity, as against the statement of Malik’s (rahimahillah) disciples from Baghdad, who consider it a condition of validity and not that of perfection. The reason for their disagreement is the absence of a verse or tradition that is apparent, not to say explicit, about the stipulation of guardianship as a condition of marriage.”

In Sharh Muslim vol.9 pg 205 [Publication: Matba’a Misriyya bil Azhar; 1929], Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) states:

“There is disagreement in the issue of permission by wali for the nikah to be valid. Imam Malik (rahimahullah) and Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) have said the validity of the nikah rests on the permission of the wali.

. . . .Imam Malik (rahimahullah) and Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) have derived their opinion from the hadith ‘la nikah ila biwali’ (There is no nikah without wali).”

It is stated in al-Mughni vol.7 pg 5, by Ibn Qudama (rh):

“Nikah without wali is not valid and a woman can neither do her own nikah nor do someone else’s nikah. A woman cannot make a non-wali her wali and if she does this then such a nikah will be invalid. ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, Abu Hurraira (radhiyallahu anhuma) and ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anhuma) had the same view. Sa’eed bin Musaib, Hasan, ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Jabir bin Zaid Thawri, Ibn Abi Laila, Ibn Shabirma, Ibn al-Mubarak, Shafi’i, Ishaq and Abu ‘Ubaid also hold the same opinion. And it is narrated from Ibn Sireen, Qasim bin Muhammad, Hasan bin Salih, Abu Salih and Abu Yusuf that nikah without permission of wali is not correct and if she does the nikah then the validity depends on the permission of the wali.

. . . .And our evidence is the hadith where Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has said ‘la nikah ila biwali’ (There is no nikah without wali). Imam Ahmad and Yahya (rahimahumullah) have declared this hadith to be sahih.”

Evidence by the Hanafi School

The hadith ‘la nikah ila biwali’ is reported in Jami’ Tirmidhi, Kitab an-Nikah, as follows:

“Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, ‘Marriage is not performed if (consent of the) guardian is not there.”

This hadith has also been reported in Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah and Darmi.

Maulana Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehalwi in Ashi‘-‘at al-Lama’aat, Sharh Mishkat vol.4 pg 286 writes:

“There has been kalam (discussion) whether this hadith is sahih or not. Many a’imma hadith do not accept it to be sahih.”

In Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar vol.3 pg 17-18, Imam Tahawi writes:

“The people of the first opinion (la nikah ila biwali) consider as evidence that which has been narrated from Abu Ishaq through Israel. He narrates from Abu Barda who narrates from his father that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, ‘no nikah without (consent of) the wali.’

So the evidence against them is that according to their rules it is not correct to use this hadith as proof because those people who have stronger memory than Israel, like Sufyan and Shu’bah, have narrated it ‘munqati’an’ (broken) from Abu Ishaq.

. . . .If they say Abu ‘Awanah narrated this hadith marfu’an like Israel, Abu ‘Awanah narrates from Ishaq who narrates from Abu Burdah who narrates from Abu Musa that, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, ‘no nikah without (consent of) wali.’

Then we will say that this hadith has been narrated through Abu ‘Awana like you have said but we have checked the origin of the hadith and it is narrated from Abu ‘Awana from Israel and he narrates it from Abu Ishaq and thus the narration of Abu ‘Awana also returns to Israel.

Mu’alla bin Mansoor Razi says that Abu ‘Awana narrated to me from Abu Ishaq through Israel from his sanad similar to this.

Hence this negates that Abu ‘Awana had anything from Abu Ishaq directly.”

Dr. Maulana Fadhal Ahmed, in his commentary on the English translation of Jami’ Tirmidhi vol.1 pg 403 has noted:

“As for the hadith of Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) it is not a worthy piece of evidence because there is a contradiction in its reporting and connection. Imam Tirmidhi (rahimahullah) has himself confirmed this. Hence, the correct position is that this hadith is mursal, as Imam Tahawi also confirms, while Ibn Hajr Asqalani (rahimahullah) said that it is not correct to deduce from it.”

A slight variant of this hadith is reported in Ibn Majah as follows:

حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو كريب ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عبد الله بن المبارك ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏حجاج ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عروة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏عن النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏و عن ‏ ‏عكرمة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏قالا

“The prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no nikah without (the permission of) the wali,’ and in the narration of ‘Ayesha it is added, ‘the sultan is the wali of the person who has no wali.’”

Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi as-Sanadee, in Sunan Ibn Majah bi Sharh as-Sanadee wa Misbah az-Zujajah fi Zawa’id Ibn Majah vol.2 pg 428 [Publication: Darul Ma’rifah, Beirut; 1996], comments on this hadith:

“According to al-Zawa’id, its isnad contains in it al-Hajjaj who is Ibn Artaah. He is mudallis. He has transmitted it through ‘an‘ana and he has not heard from ‘Ikrama. He transmits from ‘Ikrama on the authority of Dawood bin al-Husain. Imam Ahmad held this opinion. Hajjaj did not hear from Zuhri. ‘Abbad bin Zuhri said this. Sulaiman bin Musa is in agreement with him in it and he is reliable. Zuhri reported ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) on the authority of ‘Urwa as saying the word: ‘Any woman who marries without the consent of her guardian (her marriage) is invalid,’ as the scholars of sunan transmitted it. I said: ‘The scholars and devotees of hadith have criticized this isnad also.’”

Another strange point is observed by Maulana Muhammad Qasim Amin, in his brief commentary of the Urdu translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, where he writes that Shafi’i generally do not accept Hajaj bin Artaah and Ibn Luhai’ah but in this case they are using their narration as evidence. He further adds in, Sunan Ibn Majah vol.2 pg 31:

“Some hadith experts have stated that three ahadith are not proven to be from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺand one of them is the hadith ‘la nikah ila biwali’ and this is why it has not been recorded in the Sahihain; there is extreme ikhtilaf in the hadith.”

Allama Badruddin al-‘Ainee, in ‘Umdatul Qari, vol.20 pg 165 [Publisher: Darul Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah; 2001] comments on a similar hadith narrated from Abu Huraira:

“As for the hadith of Abu Hurairah, al-Mugheerah ibn Musa is in the chain of narrators about whom Bukhari said, ‘munkar al-hadith’ and Ibn Hiban said, ‘he narrates from people of trust that which does not resemble confirmed hadith,’ so he is not taken as hujjah anymore.”

Further, these ahadith cannot be taken to be general and apparent in meaning as they will then act as evidence against those who oppose the Ahnaf. As Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) deems the nikah of an adult man without wali to be permissible, these ahadith will go against Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) as they do not mention whether the condition is restricted to males or females. Hence if the apparent and general meaning is taken then the nikah of an adult male will also be void without a wali, thus going against the opinion of Imam Shafi’i.

The hadith of ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anga) is reported in the following words in Jami’ Tirmidhi:

“‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) reported that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, ‘If any woman marries without the consent of her guardian then her marriage is void. Her marriage is void. Her marriage is void. If he cohabits with her then for her is the dower as the man enjoyed her. And if her awliya dispute with each other then the ruler is the wali of the one who has no wali.”

Mufti Ahmed Yar Khan Na’eemi, in Mir’atul Manajih vol. 5 pg 48 writes:

“This hadith is da’eef and troubled just like the one preceding it. . . .Ibn Jareej says, ‘I asked Ibn Shuhab about this hadith and he denied it (Mirqat).’”

Maulana Manzoor Ahmed, in Fadhl al-Ma’bud vol. 3 pg 285, writes:

“Zuhri denied this hadith”

Maulana Mohammad ‘Aqil, in Ad-Durrul Mandhud vol.4 pg 35, says:

“One of the replies given in regards to this hadith is that its da’eef and it has Sulaiman bin Musa in the chain of narrators and he is weak. Bukhari said it was weak and Nasai said something (wrong) is in this hadith.”

However, we will take all these ahadith to be of a sound chain. Yet, as explained previously, their apparent meaning cannot be taken. Even in this hadith, note that it mentions, if the man cohabits with the woman then she will get the dower. Dowry is something that is given to the wife. If the nikah would have been invalid, like how the opposition of the Ahnaf state, then this is a case of zina (fornication). And zina cannot be legalized by paying dowry to the woman. Thus it is obvious that “her marriage is batil (void)” cannot be taken literally to mean that the nikah never took place.

It is also important to note that the hadith which the opposition quotes from ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) is contrary to her action. Ghulam Rasool Sa’eedi, in Sharh Muslim vol. 3 pg 828, quotes a hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba which is as follows:

“Qasim bin Muhammad says that ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) did the nikah of the daughter of ‘Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr with Mundhir bin al-Zubair. At that time ‘Abdur Rahman was not present. When he came, he became angry and said, ‘O slaves of Allah! Is it done to a person like me that his daughter is married without his consultation? ‘Ayesha got angry and asked, ‘do you dislike Mundhir?’”

A variant of this hadith is also recorded in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar by different chains, where Mundhir stated that ‘Abdur Rahman has the authority and ‘Abdur Rahman said that he will not cancel anything which has been decided by ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha).

In light of this one can come up with two conclusions. The first being, that ‘Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) did not consider the hadith ‘Her marriage is void. Her marriage is void. Her marriage is void,’ to be sahih and thus she acted opposite to it as seen in the hadith above. In this case, the former hadith cannot be used as evidence. The second being, that she does hold the former hadith to be true but the sense she implies is not what the opposition understand.

Allama Badruddin al-‘Ainee, in ‘Umdatul Qari vol.20 pg 163, observes:

“But its meaning refers to kamal (perfection) like in the hadith of the prophetﷺ about prayer when he says “no prayer (is valid) unless in a masjid.”

Mufti Sa’eed Ahmed Palanpuri, in Tuhfatul Alma’ee vol.3 pg 518 adds:

“Imam A’zam says that this hadith is to threaten against something and in such ahadith the deficient is declared as banned. This is seen, for example, in the hadith in Kitab at-Tahara where it is stated that a man who sleeps with a menstruating woman or enters his wife from behind or goes to soothsayer to ask about things of ghaib has rejected the deen which has been revealed onto Muhammad ﷺ. This hadith is to threaten and in it deficient iman has been talked about as being banned. Hence no one will do takfir of such a person. Over here also, deficiency in nikah has been expressed as banned. And the evidence (daleel) is that the prophet ﷺ has said that such a woman married without a wali, with whom the husband has cohabited, will get the dowry.

. . . .And the meaning of the hadith is that if a woman does her nikah without consent of wali, then if the wali objects and the judge cancels the nikah, then if is wajib on the husband because the nikah was correct and the husband benefitted physically from his wife after a proper nikah. Thus dowry becomes wajib.”

Moreover, in their apparent meaning, these ahadith also contradict the Qur’anic verse:

فَلاَ تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ أَن يَنكِحْنَ أَزْوَاجَهُنَّ
fala taAAduloohunna an yankihna azwajahunna

Do not prevent them from marrying their husbands – [Qur’an 2:232]

This verse is evidence for the Hanafi as if attributes the right of nikah to the women and also that the wali has no right to interfere in the matter of the woman. However, people who oppose Hanafi say this verse is evidence for their stand as the Qur’an forbids something to the wali and something can only be forbidden for someone who has authority over it.

Mufti Taqi Uthmani responds to this in Dars e Tirmidhi vol.3 pg 377:

“The answer is that Shari’i or legal opposition by the wali is not referred to in this verse. In fact, ethical and social pressure is referred to here. Hence this verse was revealed at the time of the matter of Ma’qil bin Yasaar (radhiyallahu anhu) who was stopping his sister from marrying her previous husband. This subject of the verse is clarified by attributing ‘يَنكِحْنَ’ to the women.”

The second verse which the Hanafi use as evidence is as follows:

فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنفُسِهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ

faitha balaghna ajalahunna fala junaha AAalaykum feema faAAalna fee anfusihinna bialmaAAroofi

When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. – [Qur’an 2:234]

Mufti Muhammad ‘Aashiq Ilahi, in Tafsir Anwar ul Bayan vol.1 pg 297, writes:

“Once her ‘iddah has expired, she is at liberty to do as she pleases on condition that she conforms with the Shari’ah. In this way, if she wishes to remarry, none can stop her.”

The Quran also mentions:

فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلاَ تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىَ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ

Fain tallaqaha fala tahillu lahu min baAAdu hatta tankiha zawjan ghayrahu

Thereafter, if he divorces her, she shall no longer remain lawful for him unless she marries a man other than him. – [Qur’an 2:230]

Mufti Taqi Uthmani, in Dars e Tirmidhi vol.3 pg 377, writes:

“This verse also attributes marriage to the woman which is evidence by ‘Ishaaratun Nass’ that woman can do her nikah.”

The opposition cites a verse in the Qur’an which is as follows:

وَأَنكِحُوا الْأَيَامَى مِنكُمْ

Waankihoo alayama minkum

Arrange the marriage of the spouseless among you – [Qur’an 24:32]

They say that the awliya are addressed in this verse and thus conclude that women do not have the right to marry without permission of the awliya.

In the footnotes of Dars e Tirmidhi (by Mufti Taqi Uthmani) vol.3 pg 375, it is explained:

“From this verse Allama Qurtubi Maliki (rahimahullah), in his tafsir and other muhaqqiqeen have used this to support the view of the majority.

But the answer to this is that ‘Ayami’ is the plural of ‘Aym’ and it is referred to someone who has no spouse whether it is a male or a female just as Allama Qurtubi (rahimahullah) has mentioned. In light of this, the verse would thus mean that it is preferred for both men and women that they should not take steps for nikah without wali.

As for the issue that if someone does do it without the wali then what is the hukm, the verse remains silent regarding it.

Then if both adult males and females come under the meaning of ‘Ayami’ then as the nikah of a man who enters in it without wali is considered to be valid, similarly it would be valid if a woman does it without a wali.”

Apart from the mentioned evidence, the Ahnaf derive their evidence from another hadith which appears in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab an-Nikah, and is as follows:

“Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) reported Allah’s Messenger ﷺ as saying: An unmarried woman (al-Aym) has more right to her person than her guardian. And a virgin should also be consulted, and her silence implies her consent.”

There is a disagreement among the scholars regarding the meaning of ‘al-Aym’. Its basic meaning is ‘an unmarried woman’. The disagreement lies in whether it means a previously married woman only or does it include an unmarried virgin (bikr) as well. Some have considered it to mean ‘thaib’ and these are the people who say a woman cannot do nikah without permission of wali. The others have said ‘al-Aym’ includes a woman who was never married. This latter meaning is confirmed by the ahl al-lughah. Imam Nawawi (rahimahullqh) confirms this in his Sharh Muslim vol.9 pg 203 and adds that this was said by Ibrahim al-Harbi and Isma’eel al-Qadhi and others.

Allama Shabbir Ahmed Uthmani, in I’laa us-Sunan, writes:

“If one asks why the prophet ﷺ mentioned bikr again if Aym was supposed to include it, I say, bikr was mentioned so that one does not think bikr is not included because she is shy, so the prophet ﷺ mentioned her to confirm hukm on her. So this is takhsees (specialization) after ta’meem (generalization) to show difference between the 2 permissions.”

In Sahih Muslim other variants of this hadith are also transmitted where the word ‘thaib’ is used. Thus those opposing the Hanafi opinion say ‘al-Aym’ means ‘thaib’.

Mufti Taqi Uthmani, in Dars e Tirmidhi vol.3 pg 379, explains:

“If we accept the tafsir of Imam Shafi’i and state that ‘Aym’ means ‘thaib’ only, even then the argument agrees and supports the Hanafi view. This is because it at least proves that a woman who has been previously married (thaib) has more rights on her nikah than the wali. (Imam Shafi’i says thaib cannot enter into contract by herself)” – text in parenthesis added

In Muwatta Imam Malik, Kitab at-Talaq (Chapter: The ‘iddah of the widow if she is pregnant), a hadith appears as follows:

“Umm Salama said, ‘Subai’a al-Aslamiyya had delivered after her husband’s death by half a month. Two men asked to marry her. One was young, and the other was old. She preferred the young man. The old man said, ‘You are not free yet (to marry).’ Her family was away, and he hoped that when her family would come, they may prefer him over the other man. She came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he said, ‘You are free (of the ‘iddah), marry whoever you desire’.”

This hadith supports the view of the Ahnaf and the authority to marry was clearly given to the woman by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

Mufti Taqi Uthmani, in Dars e Tirmidhi vol.3 pg 378, lists a number of ahadith to support the Hanafi view:

“There is a hadith reported in Muwatta Imam Malik (Kitab an-Nikah; Chapter: What was said in the dower and un-returnable gifts) and Sahih Bukhari (Kitab an-Nikah; Chapter of the woman who gives herself in marriage to salih man), which states that a woman came to Prophet Muhammad ﷺand said, ‘Messenger of Allah! I have given myself to you.’ The prophet ﷺ maintained silence and the woman stood there for long. Then a man got up and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, marry her to me if you have no need of her.’ The prophet ﷺ asked him what dowry he can afford to give after which he said, ‘I have married her to you for what you know of the Quran.’

At this time there was no wali of the woman present.

It is mentioned in Tahawi (Kitab an-Nikah; Chapter of marriage without wali of authority), ‘Umm Salmah narrates that after the death of Abu Salmah the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came and proposed to me. I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! At this moment I do not have any wali present.’ He said, ‘No wali of yours, whether present or away, will dislike your marriage with me.’ So Umm Salmah said to her son, ‘O ‘Umar! Get up and do my nikah with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Hence, he did their nikah.

This nikah also took place without any wali as ‘Umar bin Abi Salmah was a minor and hence it was not proper according to shari’ah for him to carry out the nikah. This was just a formality and to say that this nikah was carried out under the universal guardianship of the prophet ﷺ, then this is something farfetched because such a guardianship is in effect when guardians from among the family are not alive.”

Further he states:

“There is a narration in Kanz ul ‘Ummal (vol.12 pg 532) that ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) used to tell people nikah without wali is impermissible but if such a nikah would take place then he would declare it valid.

(And there is another narration in Kanz ul ‘Ummal vol. 12 pg 530) from Sa’eed bin al-Musaib who said that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) said, ‘the woman does not get married off unless with the permission of her wali or permission of someone responsible (ذی الرای) good judgment or the sultan.’

So in this way he permitted the nikah without the permission of a wali, provided someone of sound judgment or responsibility from among the relatives allow even if the person is not a wali.”

Ghulam Rasool Sa’eedi, in Sharh Muslim vol.3 pg 828 mentions a narration from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba:

“It has been narrated from ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) that he validated the nikah of a woman whose nikah mother married her off with her agreement without consent of any wali.”

He further writes, while quoting from Musannaf Abdul Razzaq:

“Mu’amar says, ‘I asked Zuhri the ruling on someone marrying without a wali. He said that if it is done in kufu’ then it is valid.’”

When asked, “What are the basic requirements for Islamic Nikah,” Maulana Ahmed Mirpuri (rahimqhullah) who was one of the leading scholars of the ghair muqalid, replies, in Islamic Verdicts (Fatawa Sirat-e-Mustaqeem) pg 228:

“We have the following conditions for Nikah: 1) Acceptance from both sides, 2) Two witnesses, 3) Mahr (dowry). Basically, these are the requirements for a nikah. In some cases, the bride’s attorney is also conditional, and is recommended in some cases. Proper conduct of the ceremony, the khutbah and explanation of the duties after marriage, are all considered as Sunnah but not a condition.”

While many ghair muqalid try to criticize the Hanafi regarding their ruling on this issue, one of their scholars has given a ruling similar to the Hanafi opinion.


It is thus seen that the position of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullqh) is by far the strongest position in this matter. There is also a matter of Qiyas here whereby the Ahnaf say that just as an adult man can utilize his property may marry properly by word, so also a woman who can utilize her property may marry by her word. Hence as she has right over her property she has right over her person. For the Ahnaf, ahadith like ‘la nikah ila biwali’ hold the meaning that the compulsion for the presence of wali is for immature or slave women and not for adult, sane women. And in light of the evidence given to support the Hanafi view, one cannot interpret the narrations used by the opposition in any other way.



By Mujlisul Ulama


We have always understood from the senior Ulama that when a woman in the state of haidh goes on a journey and becomes paak along the journey or at her destination then she should perform Salaat in full if the distance to her destination remains less than 77 km. However, I have just recently read a brand new fatwa claiming that there has come forward “new information” on the basis of which the generally accepted view is now rejected. 

According to the new fatwa issued by Mufti Taqi of the Karachi Darul Uloom, and supported by Advocate Emran Vawda of Durban, the woman should perform Qasar Salaat on the journey or at her destination as soon as she becomes paak. Is this correct? Please comment in detail.


We have read Mufti Taqi’s fatwa as well as the article by Advocate Emran Vawda. What they have said is in reality old hat having no validity in relation to the more than a thousand-year Fatwa of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha. There is no “new information” on this mas’alah. This mas’alah is as old as Islam. Whatever has been mentioned in Mufti Taqi’s fatwa is old, decrepit information well-known to our illustrious Fuqaha who had set it aside. It is information not for practical implementation. The information is all old hat which is being presented as ‘new information’.

How is it possible for there to be ‘new information’ on such an old, antique issue of a female in haidh going on a journey? They have been going on journeys right from the time of the Sahaabah. Thus, this is not a new mas’alah. The one who claims ‘new information’ for changing the Fatwa of the Jamhoor, has miserably failed to apply his mind. The Fatwa of the Fuqaha which all our Akaabir Ulama have accepted and disseminated all these years is 100% correct.

When a woman in haidh attains purity along the journey, then if from that point to her destination there is a distance of 77 kilometres or more, she becomes a musaafir and has to perform Qasar Salaat. If from the point of purity to her destination, it is less than the safar distance (i.e. less than 77 km), then she has to perform Itmaam Salaat, i.e. Salaat in full.

Similarly, if she attains purity at her destination, she has to perform Salaat in full – four raka’ts Fardh. Only if she undertakes a journey of 77 km or more from her destination, or from the point of purity will she become musaafir and perform Qasar Salaat. This is the Fatwa for practical implementation. 

The other fatwa issued by Mufti Taqi based on so-called ‘new information’ is only of academic interest, and nothing more.


Let us now examine the ‘brand new’ fatwa which the Korangi Muftis have deemed appropriate for creating a silly, unnecessary controversy. 

Mufti Taqi rejects the popular view on the basis of a view mentioned in the kitaab, Muheet Burhaani. This is his sole basis for the ‘new’ fatwa which has no credibility in the Shariah since it is in conflict with the Ijma’ (Consensus) of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha regardless of the very senior Hanafi Faqeeh to whom Muheet Burhaani attributes the view.

Mufti Taqi is baselessly implying, in fact claiming, that all the Akaabir Ulama and the Fuqaha of the past thousand years were unaware of this Kitaab, hence they opted for the view which is known as the popular view explained above. He further preposterously implies that all the illustrious Fuqaha had to incumbently submit to the view in Muheet Burhaani. And, by illogical inference it also should apply to the noble Author of the highly  authoritative KitaabAl-Haawi which appeared on the scene about a century before Muheet Burhaani, and to all the Fuqaha who had preceded the Author of this Kitaab.

There is no incumbency to rely on Muheet Burhaani for accepting or rejecting a view. This has greater emphasis when the view is in conflict with the popular Mufta Bihi view of the Math-hab. In fact, Muheet Burhaani mentions both  views – The so-called ‘new’ view and the popular view. But Mufti Taqi deemed it proper to cite only the so called ‘new’ view from the Kitaab. The following appears in Muheet Burhaani:

“When the haaidh attains purity along the journey, she should perform Qasar Salaat because she has been addressed (by the Shariah in this regard). (However) it is mentioned in Al-Haawi: ‘When the haaidh attains purity from her haidh (along the journey), she should perform four raka’ts…”

Muheet Burhaani does not override the centuries old view of the Hanafi Math-hab nor did the noble Author conceal the Jamhoor’s view stated in Al-Haawi. All the illustrious Ulama who have adopted the popular view were fully aware of the other view stated in Muheet Burhaani. Whether they had access to Muheet Burhaani or not, is irrelevant. The Shariah was never reliant on Muheet Burhaani despite the lofty status of the Kitaab

Imaam Al-Haseeri who stated the popular view was not a junior Molvi. Imaam Al-Haseeri, (d 505 Hijri), the illustrious Author of the illustrious work, Al-Haawi, was among the most eminent Students of Imaam Sarakhsi (Rahmatullah alayh). About him, it is mentioned in Kashfuz Zunoon:

“Haawil Haseeri fil Furuil Hanafiyyah of Shaikh Muhammad Bin Ibraaheem Bin Anoosh Al-Haseeri Al Hanafi was the Student of Shamsul Aimmah As-Sarakhsi. He died in the year 505 Hijri. It (his Kitaab, Al-Haawi) is an Asal (fundamental basis) of the Kutub of the Hanafiyyah. It contains numerous Fataawa of the Mashaaikh to which reference is made, and on which reliance is reposed.”

His view may not be brushed off lightly as Mufti Taqi has erroneously committed. In fact, Mufti Taqi and the rubber stamping Korangi Muftis do not make the slightest reference to Al-Haawi. Imaam Burhaanuddeen Abul Ma’aali (Rahmatullah alayh), the Author of Muheet Burhaani, died in 616 Hijri. He appeared on the scene a century after the illustrious Author of Al-Haawi. The mas’alah was not new to him, i.e. the Author of Al-Haawi. He had acquired it from authorities above him, most likely from his noble Ustaad, Shamsul Aimmah Imaam Sarakhsi (Rahmatullah alayh), died 483 Hijri, who was among the greatest Fuqaha of the Hanafi Math-hab of that era.

Mufti Taqi has also attempted to minimize the extremely lofty status of Imaam Zaheerud Deen  Al-Bukhaari (d.619) who also held the popular view which has always been the verdict of the Hanafi Math-hab. He states in his highly authoritative Kitaab, Az-Zaheeriyyah:

“When the haaidhah attains purification from her haidh and the distance between her and her destination is less than the distance of three days, then she should perform four raka’ts. This is the most authentic correct view.”

He states: “Huwas Saheeh”. This explicitly and emphatically confirms that the Fuqaha long before Muheet Burhaani made its appearance, were fully aware of the dissenting view which they had set aside. But the idea which the Korangi Muftis are attempting to disseminate is that the Fuqaha, of former and later times, were unaware of the proper mas’alah, and that the ‘correct’ view had surfaced only with the publication of Muheet Burhaani. The assumption is ludicrous.

This great Faqeeh, Imaam Zaheeruddeen, was not in need of Muheet Burhaani for the mas’alah in question.

Allaamah Aalim Bin Al-Alaa’ (Rahmatullah alayh) – d.786 Hijri states in his Fataawa Tatarkhaaniyyah:

“It appears in Az-Zaheeriyyah ……… (As above)”

Imaam Abu Bakr Bin Ali Al-Haddaad (rahmatullah alayh), d. 800 Hijri, states the same popular view in his As-Siraajul Wahhaaj from which Allaamah Shaami cites the mas’alah in his Minhatul Khaaliq:

“It is mentioned in As-Siraaj and similarly in At-Taatarkhaaniyyah narrating from Az-Zaheeriyyah that the haaidh when attaining purification from her haidh, and between her and her destination remains a distance of less than three days, she should perform four raka’ts. This is the Saheeh view.”

Imaam Badruddeen Al-Aini (Rahmatullah alayh), d.855 Hijri, in his Al-Masaailul Badriyyah in which he has compiled masaa’il selected from Al-Fataawa Az-Zaheeriyyah, adopts the very same popular view.

Allaamah Ibraaheem Al-Halabi (Rahmatullah alayh), d.1190 Hijri, also states the popular view in his Al-Kabeeri and As-Sagheeri. He also relies on the authority of Az-Zaheeriyyah.

Allaamah Haskafi, d. 1088 Hijri (Rahmatullah alayh), states in his Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar: “When the haaidh attains purity and there remain two days (journey) to her destination, then she should complete (the Salaat, i.e. perform four raka’ts) according to the Saheeh view. She is like the child who attains buloogh (puberty along the journey, and has to perform four raka’ts), unlike the kaafir who accepts Islam (for he will perform Qasar).”.

In 1415 Hijri, the senior Muftis of Darul Uloom Deoband issued a lengthy detailed fatwa on this question. They were fully aware of the other view, yet they maintained the popular view for practical implementation. But Mufti Taqi, set aside the popular view of innumerable Hanafi Fuqaha and Ulama who have adopted the Itmaam view prior to the appearance of Muheet Burhaani

In his fatwa, Mufti Taqi says: “The qawl of itmaam (i.e. the view of four raka’ts) has been acquired from Nahjun Najaat and Fataawa  Zaheeriyyah. The author of Nahjun Najaat is unknown, and some have claimed that he was of the Shaafi’ maslak. On the other hand, the qawl of Qasar (performing two raka’ts) has been narrated from the well known Faqeeh Imaam Abu Ja’far Al-Hindwaani, died 362 Hijri. He is enumerated among the senior Hanafi Imaams. By virtue of his Fiqhi insight, he has been called ‘The Junior Abu Hanifah.”

Leave alone the ‘Junior Abu Hanifah’, even some views of the Senior Imaam Abu Hanifah – Imaam A’zam (Rahmatullah alayh) – have been set aside by senior Hanafi Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Fuqaha on the basis of solid Shar’i dalaail, and this they effected in the light of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s instruction.

Firstly, Shaikh Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen Ibn Hamzah Al-Harraani Al-Hanafi (Rahmatullah alayh), died 1085 Hijri, the Author of Nahjun Najaat, is not an ‘unknown’ entity as baselessly averred by Mufti Taqi. The fact that Allaamah Shaami (Rahmatullah alayh) cited him debunks Mufti Taqi’s baseless claim of him being an unknown entity. Shaikh Ibn Hamzah was among the Mashaaikh of Shaikh Abdul Ghani An-Nabulusi (died 1143 Hijri). 

More shall, InshaAllah, be said about this illustrious Hanafi Faqeeh of the 11th Islamic century. 

The very first claim of Mufti Taqi is false. Imaam Ibn Hamzah was not ghair ma’roof (a non-entity). The second falsity is Mufti Taqi’s claim that Shaami cited the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat. Mufti Taqi’s entire case relies on this falsity. Shaami did NOT extract the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat. The Korangi Muftis have abortively attempted to convey the impression that the basis of the popular view is Nahjun Najaat which is a Kitaab of the 11th century by an unknown author. This is a despicable act of chicanery committed by these Muftis who have hopelessly failed to apply their minds when they made a defective research of Shaami to ascertain Allaamah Ibn Aabideen’s view. They stumbled on the name, Nahjun Najaat which was mentioned in the context of the mas’alah, then without proper rumination, they concluded that Shaami’s source for the mas’alah was Nahjun Najaat when in reality it was not. This falsity shall be discussed more in this treatise, Insha Allah. At this juncture it suffices to know:

•  The Author of Nahjun Najaat was not a non-entity.

•  The Author was not a Shaafi’.

•  Allaamah Shaami did NOT acquire the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat.

Secondly, Allaamah Haskafi (Rahmatullah alayh) d.1088 Hijri, in his Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar simply states the mas’alah pertaining to the haaidh, namely, she should make Itmaam. Thus, commenting on what appears in Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar, Allaamah Shaami says:

“(His, i.e. Allaamah Haskafi’s statement: ‘She should make Itmaam according to the Saheeh view’): So is it mentioned in Az-Zaheeriyyah. He said: It is like Salaat has been waived for her for the distance she has traversed (in the state of haidh), hence the hukm of safar is not considered during that time. Then when she has become ready for fulfilling (Salaat), it shall be regarded from that time (of her purity).

{His, (i.e. Allaamah Haskafi’s) statement: ‘She is like a (minor) child…} i.e. during the journey, and there remains for his destination less than three days. Then, verily he will make Itmaam, and what has past will not be considered because of non-imposition (of the ahkaam on a minor).

(His statement: ‘Contrary to a kaafir who accepts Islam), i.e. he will perform Qasar. The author of Ad-Durar said: ‘Because, verily, his niyyat is valid, hence he is a musaafir from the beginning whilst a child becomes a musaafir from this time (i.e. when he reaches buloogh).”

Allaamah Shaami comments on Allaamah Haskafi’s statements, not on Shaikh Ibn Hamzah’s (the Author of Nahjun Najaat) view of the mas’alah.

Thirdly, Allaamah Shaami did not acquire the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat. He attributes it to Az-Zaheeriyyah whose author, Imaam Zaheeruddin Al-Bukhaari died in 619 Hijri, four centuries before the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

Hence Mufti Taqi’s claim that Shaami acquired the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat is baseless.

Fourthly, Allaamah Shaami cites Nahjun Najaat with reference to the rationale for the mas’alah in refutation of Shurumbulaali who held the view that the haaidhah should perform Qasar. Shurumbulaali after attributing this mas’alah of Itmaam to Az-Zaheeriyyah, whose illustrious Author died in 619 Hijri, 4 centuries before Nahjun Najaat, argued that the status of a haaidhah is not lower than that of a kaafir who has embraced Islam, hence she is entitled to Qasar just as the new Muslim who has embraced Islam along the journey.

In response to Shurumbulaali’s argument, Allaamah Shaami cited the rationale from Nahjun Najaat. Thus, Shaami states:

“He (i.e. Imaam Ibn Hamzah) responded in Nahjun Najaat that the factor prohibiting her (from Qasar) is heavenly (i.e. it is a hukm of the Shariah which may not be cancelled by opinion) whilst it is not so regarding the new Muslim despite both of them being repositories of niyyat. On the contrary, a child is not so. (i.e. a child before puberty is not a repository of niyyat). However (although she is a repository of niyyat) that which has prohibited her from Salaat is not of her own making, hence her niyyat from the beginning (i.e. when she set out on the journey in the state of haidh) is futile. On the contrary, the kaafir does have the ability to eliminate the prohibition from the  very initiation (of the journey by embracing Islam), hence his niyyat (for the journey) is valid.”

Thus, Shaami has cited Nahjun Najaat only for the rationale, not for the actual mas’alah. For the mas’alah he presented Az-Zaheeriyyah and Siraajul Wahhaaj. Mufti Taqi has erred in claiming that Shaami has acquired this mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat. In an attempt to deflect the focus from what exactly Allaamah Shaami had cited, Mufti Taqi says in his fatwa:

“In Shaami this very mas’alah (of Qasar) is cited with reference to Shurumbulaali”.

This is incorrect. This statement creates the impression that Shaami has adopted the Qasar view on the basis of Shurumbulaali’s claim. In reality, Shaami has negated Shurumbulaali’s view with the rationale acquired from Nahjun Najaat. As far as the mas’alah of Itmaam is concerned, Shaami cites Az-Zaheeriyyah NOT Nahjun Najaat.

Whilst Mufti Taqi concedes that Shaami has cited the mas’alah from Az-Zaheeriyyah, he deflects attention from this fact by erroneously emphasizing Nahjun Najaat to create the idea that Shaami had relied on Nahjun Najaat who was a latecomer on the scene. Mufti Taqi does not comment at all on Shaami’s citation of Az-Zaheeriyyah.

Mufti Taqi offering a flabby argument in his bid to negate the Fatwa of all our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband on this mas’alah, says:

“From the Urdu Fataawa, this mas’alah is found in Ahsanul Fataawa, and also this mas’alah is mentioned in Beheshti Zewer. Both these Kitaabs have adopted the Itmaam view. Since at that time Muheet Burhaani had not been published, there is no tarjeeh from these two views in the kitaabs of the Akaabir.”  

This argument is ludicrous. Regardless of Muheet Burhaani which is not the final word of the Shariah, the Akaabir did not rely on Nahjun Najaat for this mas’alah, nor did Allaamah Shaami, nor did any of the other senior Ulama and  Fuqaha nor were they obligated to accept one view from Muheet Burhaani which mentions both views. They relied on Haseeri’s Al-Haawi and on Imaam Zaheeruddeen’s Az-Zaheeriyyah for this mas’alah, and both these illustrious Fuqaha flourished approximately 5 centuries before Nahjun Najaat. It is therefore despicable to make Nahjun Najaat a scape goat for the propagation of a view which conflicts with the centuries old Fatwa of the senior Fuqaha and Ulama.

Imaam Haseeri appeared a century before Muheet Burhaani. He was a Faqeeh of great eminence. Imaam Zaheeruddeen was under no obligation to accept the view of Muheet Burhaani whose Author was his contemporary. Just as the Author of Muheet Burhaani was aware of Imaam Abu Ja’far, so too was the Author of Az-Zaheeriyyah. And, Imaam Haseeri, the Author of Al-Haawi, logically had greater awareness of Imaam Abu Ja’far than the Author of Muheet Burhaani since he was closer to the age of Imaam Abu Ja’far by a century. It is therefore highly improper for Mufti Taqi to  attempt a negation of the view expressed by Imaam Haseeri and Imaam Zaheeruddeen on the basis of Imaam Abu Ja’far’s view.

In his attempt to denigrate the status of Nahjun Najaat and also of Allaamah Shaami, Mufti Taqi deceptively states:

“The view of Itmaam has been acquired from Nahjun Najaat and Fataawa Zaheeriyyah. The author of Nahjun Najaat is unknown, and some maintain that he was of the Shaafi’ Maslak. On the other hand, the view of Qasar is narrated from the well-known Faqeeh, Imaam Abu Ja’far Al-Hindwaani, died 364 H…. It is therefore obvious that in such a case (of difference), the view of a well-known Faqeeh will be valid.”

This is a lamentable attempt by Mufti Taqi to obfuscate the reality of this mas’alah. Whilst he has  endeavoured to denigrate the Author of Nahjun Najaat, he remains silent about the Author of Fataawa Zaheeriyyah who is Allaamah Shaami’s source of reference for the mas’alah, not Nahjun Najaat. The attempt of Mufti Taqi is to negate Allaamah Shaami’s citation on the basis of Nahjun Najaat being a late-appearance. But, as explained earlier, Allaamah Shaami does not rely on Nahjun Najaat for this mas’alah. Although Mufti Taqi is fully aware or should be aware that Shaami relies on Az-Zaheeriyyah, he deliberately and deceptively promotes the baseless idea of Shaami relying on Nahjun Najaat.

Mufti Taqi, then says: “On the other hand, the narrator of the view of Itmaam is Allaamah Shaami (Rahimahullah), died 1252 H. He is among the Mutaakhkireen Hanafi Fuqaha. On the contrary, the narrator of the view of Qasar is the Author of Muheet Burhaani, Imaam Burhaanuddeen Mahmood, died 616 H. He is of the third strata of Fuqaha (Mujtahideen fil Masaail). Apparently Allaamah Shaami was not aware of Muheet Burhaani.”

This conclusion is baseless. The narrator of the Itmaam view is not only Allaamah Shaami. Numerous senior Hanafi Fuqaha and Ulama have narrated and adopted this view. The comparison with Imaam Burhanuddeen Mahmood is improper since Allaamah Shaami merely reports the view stated in Az-Zaheeriyyah whose Author was a contemporary of the Author of Muheet Burhaani. 

Furthermore, this view has been also narrated from Al-Haawi which preceded Muheet Burhaani by a century.

It is also incorrect to believe that Allaamah Shaami had no knowledge of Muheet Burhaani. Mufti Taqi has no certitude on this issue, hence he is compelled to aver: “Apparently Allaamah Shaami was not aware of Muheet Burhaani.” This is a superfluity devoid of any significance. Awareness or not being aware of Muheet Burhaani is not the decisive factor for this mas’alah.

Mufti Taqi’s attempt to pass off and dismiss the Author of Nahjun Najaat as a Shaafi’ is also lamentable. Allaamah Shaami had better knowledge of the Author of Nahjun Najaat than Mufti Taqi. Besides this, it must be reiterated, that Shaami did not acquire the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat which is the impression peddled by Mufti Taqi. The Shaafi’ claim made in Eedhaahul Maknoon and Hadiyyatul Aarifeen from which Mufti Taqi cites, is incorrect. 

In these two kitaabs, the name of the Shaafi Faqeeh given is Izzuddeen Abil Abbaas Hamzah Bin Ahmad Al-Husaini Ash-Shareef Ad-Damishqui who died in 872 Hijri. Allaamah Shaami does not cite this Shaafi Faqeeh. The one whom he cites and who is the Author of Nahjun Najaat is Ash-Shaikh Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen Ibn Hamzah Al-Harraani who died in 1085 Hijri.

For a comprehensive biography of the noble Hanafi Author of Nahjun Najaat, Mufti Taqi should make a perusal of the Kitaab, Al-Khulaasatul Athar fi A’yaanil Qarnil Haadi Ashar. He should be impressed by the glowing appraisal presented in this Kitaab. Clearly, Mufti Taqi has confused the Author with someone else, with the Shaafi Faqeeh who died about 2 centuries before Imaam Ibn Hamzah. Also of note is the fact that Nahjun Najaat deals with Hanafi Fiqh, not Shaafi Fiqh.

Furthermore, Muheet Burhaani, despite the lofty status of its Author, is not on par with Al-Haawi and Az-Zaheeriyyah. Regarding Muheet Burhaani, Mufti Taqi himself states in his kitaab, Usoolul Iftaa wa Aadaabuhu:

“The Mutaakhkhir Ulama have enumerated Muheet Burhaani in this category. Verily, its Author although he was from the A’yaan Hanafi Ulama so much so that he has been regarded among the Mujtahideen fil Masaail, but Fuqaha such as Ibn Nujaim and Ibn Humaam have explicitly stated that it is not permissible to issue Fatwa with it (i.e. on the basis of Muheet Burhaani). Some of them (i.e. some Fuqaha) attributed this to him having compiled ratb wa yaabis (i.e. authentic and fake issues).”

Allaamah Lucknowi has attempted to defend Muheet Burhaani against this charge, but his argument does not achieve the objective. Of the approximately 40 volumes of Muheet Burhaani, according to Allaamah Lucknowi himself, he has perused only one volume, hence his vindication is based on conjecture which is the effect of an emotional bias in favour of the illustrious Author. On the other hand, the Fuqaha who have levelled the charge of ratb wa yaabis against Muheet Burhaani, did not slander the Author. They made proper studies of the Kitaab, then commented. Anyhow, the fact is that Muheet Burhaani, despite the elevated status of its Author, does not occupy the extremely lofty pedestal which Mufti Taqi has now suddenly accorded it solely to provide support for the Qasar view. 

The impression which Mufti Taqi is trading is that the Shariah is reliant on Muheet Burhaani which had disappeared from the radar screen of history for a couple of centuries. The reality is that Allaamah Lucknowi in India had Muheet Burhaani. The Fuqaha who had demoted  it, had copies of the Kitaab which justified their comments.

In the eagerness to promote their view, the Korangi Muftis attempted to portray Shaikh Ibn Hamzah, the Author of Nahjun Najaat, as a Shaafi’. Their defective research in this regard produced the following reference from the kitaab, Idhaahul  Maknoon:  

“Nahjun Najaat ilaa Masaailil Muntaqaat of Izzuddeen Abil Abbaas Hamzah Ibn Ahmad Al-Husainish Shareef Ad-Dimashqui Ash-Shaafi, died 874.”

They have presented a similar citation from Hadiyyatul Aarifeen:
“Izzuddeen Hamzah Bin Ahmad Bin Ali Al-Husaini Ash-Shareef Abul Abbaas Ad-Dimashqui Ash-Shaafi, died 874.”

It is surprising that the Korangi Muftis failed to realize that the noble Author of the kitaab, Nahjun Najaat which Allaamah  Shaami cites, is NOT the person mentioned in the two aforementioned references provided by the Korangi Muftis. The Author of Nahjun Najaat, the Kitaab to which Shaami refers died in 1085 Hijri, i.e. 211 years after Izzuddeen Hamzah who had died in 874 Hijri. There is a gap of more than 2 centuries between these two Authors.

The Korangi Muftis who have rubber-stamped Mufti Taqi’s fatwa also failed to understand that an author who died in 874 cannot quote in his Kitaab from kutub written decades and centuries after his demise. The Author of Nahjun Najaat mentioned by Shaami, in his Kitaab (Nahjun Najaat) cites from kitaabs long after 874. The following are some of the kutub subsequent to the death of Izzuddeen Hamzah, from which the Author of Nahjun Najaat quotes:

•  Sharhul Kanz lil Maqdisi (died 1004 H)
•  Al-Bahrur Raaiq of Zainuddeen Ibn Nujaim (died 970 H)
• An-Nahrul Faaiq of Siraajuddeen Ibn Nujaim (died 1005 H)
• Fatawa Khairuddeen Ramali (died 1081).

While we have picked up the above information from the Author’s Nahjun Najaat manuscript, even an Orientalist non-Muslim, Rudolph Mach of Princeton University Library, who had passionately devoted himself to the Kutub of our Fuqaha, discovered the error. He comments as follows:

[2034] fols. 9v265v: Abu Abd Allah Kamal al-Din Muhammad Ibn Hamza al-Harrani al-Hanafi al-Maturidi – Kitab Nahj al-najat ila al-masa’il al-muntaqat

The author is only mentioned in Kahhale XI 163 with the name Muhammad Ibn Kamal al-Din Ibn Muhammad Ibn Husayn Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hamza al-Husayni al-Hanafi (died 1085/1674).

Two more mss. of this work on applied law are Princeton no.1241 and Köprülü no. 658. Isma’il Pasha al-Baghdadi, Idah II p.695 ascribes the text to Izz al-Din Abu al-Abbas Hamza Ibn Ahmad al-Husayni al-Sharif al-Dimashqi al-Shafi’i (died 874/146970).

This cannot be correct, however, as the text refers to later works, e.g. (fol. 85v7) to Mu’in al-mufti by Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah al-Arabi who wrote ± 986/1577 (→ GAL II 311; S II 427). 

The description of the abovementioned Köprülü manuscript correctly mentions as date of death the end of the 11th/17th century; the catalogue of Köprülü library gives as name of the author: Muhammad Ibn Kamal al-Din Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Husayn Ibn Kamal al-Din Muhammad Ibn al-Sayyid Hamza al-Husayni al-Hanafi al-Dimashqi mawlidan al-Harrani aslan wamahtidan (Catalogue I p. 318).

The Köprülü Ms. ends with fol. 265r24 of our Ms., which continues with an epilogue enumerating some of the sources which the author used. After this enumeration we are informed by the author that he finished his book on 18 Dhu al-Hijja 1080/8 May 1670. In the margin the copyist repeated keywords and sentences. 

[End of Rudolph’s comment]

The Kitaab, Mueenul Mufti, to which the Author of Nahjun Najaat refers, and mentioned by Rudolph in his review, was written in 986 H, more than a century after the demise of Izzuddin Ibn Hamzah who was a Shaafi’ Faqeeh and the great, great, great grandfather of the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

While it is not expected of Mufti Taqi and the Korangi Muftis to be aware of all these facts, they should have resorted to caution on the basis of Allaamah Shaami’s citation of the Kitaab. They should not have pounced on the conclusion that the Author was a Shaafi’ and ghair ma’roof (a non-entity). It was expected of them to have made proper research to ascertain the status of both the Author and the Kitaab. Although they have acquired the Shaafi’ fact from Idhaahul Maknoon, they sucked the ghayr ma’roof stupidity from their thumbs because Idhaahul Maknoon as well as other kutub of biographies do not label Izzuddin Ibn Hamzah who died in 874 H as a ‘non-entity’. They list him as a Shaafi’ Faqeeh of lofty standing.

It should be palpably clear that Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen Bin Muhammad Bin Husain Bin Muhammad Bin Hamzah, described as Naqeebush Shaam, Allaamatul Ulamail A’laam Al-Husaini Ad-Dimashqui Al-Hanafi, died 1085, is NOT Izzuddeen Hamzah who died in 874, and with whom the Korangi Muftis have confused the former, viz., the Author of the Nahjun Najaat from which Allaamah Shaami quotes.

In Khulaasatul Athar he is lauded with the following glowing accolades: “Aalim, Muhaqqiq, Hibr, Mudaqqiq, Ghawwaas alal Masaail, Katheerut Tabahhur, Mamlooan Muaarifan wa Funoonan. He surpassed all the seniors of his era and his fame extended to the horizons.” This is the illustrious Shaikh whom the Korangi muftis have attempted to portray as a non-entity.


Presenting the qiyaasi (rational) dalaail for the Qasr view, Mufti Taqi states:

“The Qasr view is also in accord with qiyaas.”

His arguments for this contention are:

1) The intention (niyyat) of safar by the haaidhah is valid despite her state of haidh. She does have the ability and qualification of making this niyyat at the time of setting out for the journey.

2) Those who lack the ability and qualification for making a niyyat at the time of commencing their journey, their intention will not be valid in terms of the Shariah. Conversely, those who possess the qualification and ability for making an intention, their niyyat of safar will be valid at the time when they set out on the journey, hence the rules of safar will be applicable to them.

He bolsters this argument with the following three scenarios mentioned in the Kutub of Fiqh:

a) A naabaaligh (minor) sets off with the intention of safar. Along the route he attains buloogh at a place which is at a distance less than the safar distance from his destination. He will not avail himself of Qasr, but has to perform Salaat in full because at the time when he had set out on the journey he lacked the qualification for making a valid niyyat. Thus, according to the Shariah he will not be a musaafir at that juncture.

b)  A non-Muslim left home with the intention of safar. Along the route he embraces Islam at such a place which is less than the safar distance to his destination. He will perform Qasr because at the commencement of the journey he had the qualification of forming a valid intention. Kufr is not a musqit (waiver) of niyyat, i.e. kufr does not cancel the ability to make niyyat, whereas it is musqit of Ibaadat.

c) This scenario applies to the haaidhah who does have the qualification of making a niyyat. She is also bound by the Ahkaam of the Shariah. Precisely for this reason will her Ihraam of Hajj and Umrah be valid even if adopted during the state of haidh. It is therefore more preferable to base her state on the mas’alah pertaining to the kaafir who embraces Islam, hence she should perform Qasr.

The kaafir is aaqil (intelligent and sane) and baaligh (an adult) and a valid repository for niyyat. Likewise is the haaidhah. Just as the kaafir’s safar is valid, so too is the safar of the haaidhah valid.

The above are the three grounds presented by Mufti Taqi to rationally support his argument of Qasr for the haaidhah who attains purity along the journey.

The narrational evidence, Mufti Taqi cites is ambiguous and contradictory. Different views have been expressed by the Fuqaha on these scenarios. Mufti Taqi, has selectively adopted the view which suits his fancy despite such view being in conflict with the more than thousand-year Ijma’ of the Fuqaha. The fact that such consensus has been extant in the Ummah for a thousand years is the evidence for the validity of the view from long before a thousand years. The rational grounds presented are also faulty and may not be proffered to scuttle the popular view of the Math-hab.

The argument that haidh is not musqit of niyyat for the haaidhah in relation to Salaat is not valid. It is confirmed beyond doubt, that Salaat is waived / cancelled for the haaidhah, hence it is haraam for her to perform Salaat. Furthermore, there is no qadha of such Salaat. Thus haidh is musqit-e-salaat. Since the Shariah prohibits her from Salaat, it is fallacious to claim that she has the salaahiyat of forming an intention for safar. The ahkaam of safar are directly related to Salaat. But in view of the obligation of Salaat falling away, her intention of safar is futile and not valid. The contention that she is mukhaatab (addressed) by the Shariah is not valid for the purposes of Salaat despite the applicability of the ahkaam of Hajj and Umrah which the Shariah does not waive for her.

Since the haaidhah has no qualification and ability for Salaat, her niyyat of safar has no validity in relation to Salaat. For Salaat and the rules pertaining to it, she is not a valid substratum. As far as Umrah and Hajj are concerned, there are no ahkaam related to safar. The ahkaam are the same for both the muqeem and the musaafir. The difference is relevant to only Salaat. The analogy is thus fallacious.

In a vain attempt to provide evidence for the Qasr view, Mufti Taqi has been able to quote only the rational argument of Shurumbulaali who was a very late-comer on the scene. He died in the year 1069 H.

In proffering the Qasr view, Shurumbulaali states:
“It should not be hidden that the haaidh does not descend to a status lower than the one who accepts Islam, hence qasr is her right just as it is the right of him (the convert).”

Firstly, the rational (qiyaas) view of Shurumbulaali stated in the 11th century, cannot cancel the more than thousand year Fatwa of our Fuqaha.

Secondly, the rule of Itmaam does not denigrate the status of the haaidhah in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, she performs more raka’ts for which there will be greater thawaab.

Thirdly, it is baseless to analogize her with the kaafir who accepts Islam. The kaafir is at all times mukhaatab of the Shariah to accept Islam, and at all times he possesses the salaahiyat for entering into the fold of Islam. It is his evil intention which constitutes the impediment for his acceptance of Islam. Since he has the ability to eliminate the impediment at all times, his intention of safar will be valid. This is according to those who believe that Qasr is valid for him. On the contrary, the haaidhah despite being a Muslim is not allowed to perform Salaat, hence her niyyat will not be valid for safar. The objective of forming a niyyat when embarking on a journey is nothing other than to entitle the musaafir to perform Qasr. The intention has no other practical or Deeni significance. Now since the haaidhah is not the Shariah’s subject for Salaat, her intention for this purpose will be lahw (futile/nonsensical).

Fourthly, there is no consensus of the Fuqaha regarding Qasar for the convert Muslim. According to some Fuqaha, even he has to perform Itmaam. It is stated in Al-Fataawal Ghiyaathiyah:

“When the kaafir musaafir accepts Islam and between him and his destination is (a distance of) less than three days, then he is in the category of a muqeem. He has to complete his Salaat. And, it is more viable that the haaidh resembles the kaafir who has accepted Islam (i.e. perform Itmaam). And this is the adopted (Mukhtaar) view.”

Al-Ghiyaathiyah also mentions the other conflicting view:

“A child and a Nasraani (Christian) went on a journey. After travelling two days, the Nasraani accepted Islam and the child became baaligh. The Nasraani shall perform Qasr, and the baaligh child shall make Itmaam. This is the view of As-Sadrush Shaheed Husaamuddeen.”

In Al-Masaailul Badriyyatul Muntakhabatu min Al-Fataawaz Zaheeriyyah, Allaamah Aini (died 855 H) states:

Others said: When the child attains buloogh (on the journey), he shall perform four raka’ts, and when the kaafir embraces Islam (on the journey), he shall perform two raka’ts. This view is the adoption of As-Sadrush Shaheed Husaamuddeen. Some of them (i.e. some Fuqaha) said: Both shall perform two raka’ts.

When the haaidh attains purity (along the journey) and between her and her destination is a distance of less than three days, she shall perform four raka’ts. This is the correct view (Huwas-Saheeh), and the effect of this statement is that the opposing view is not Saheeh. Thus in Rasmul Mufti it is mentioned that the opposing view will not be Mufta Bihi.
Note: The pronoun denotes emphasis, i.e. this is the most authentic view.

In Minhatul Khaaliq, Allaamah Ibn Aabideen commenting on Ibn Nujaim’s statement in Al-Bahrur Raaiq, viz. the child who attains buloogh along the journey shall perform four raka’ts because his niyyat is not valid, states:

“It is mentioned in As-Siraajul Wahhaaj, similarly in Taatarkhaniyyah narrating from Az-Zaheeriyyah: ‘The haaidh who attains purity along the journey and the distance between her and her destination is less than the distance of three days, she shall perform four raka’ts. This is the most authentic view.”

The mas’alah as it appears in As-Siraajul Wahhaaj is as follows:

“When the kaafir (musaafir) accepts Islam and between him and his destination there is (a distance of) less than three days, the hukam for him is the hukam of a muqeem (i.e. he will perform 4 raka’ts). Similarly is the child along the journey with his father, who attains buloogh and between him and his destination are less than three days. His hukam is the hukam of a muqeem. So said Muhammad Bin Fadhl. Others said that both will perform the Salaat of the musaafir. Similarly is the haaidh. When she attains purity and between her and her destination is a distance of less than three days, she will perform four raka’ts. And this is the Saheeh view.”

The Author of As-Siraajul Wahhaaj was Shaikh Allaamah Abu Bakr Bin Ali Al-Haddaad Al-Yemeni (died 800 H). He attributes the haaidhah mas’alah to Muhammad Bin Fadhl who was the Student of Imaam Muhammad through three links. He passed away in 381 Hijri. It is clear that the mas’alah has been transmitted from Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh).

According to Allaamah Shaami, the Itmaam view for the haaidhah who attains purity along the journey is based on the second view that both the kaafir and the child shall make Itmaam.

The same difference is stated in Ghunyatul Mutamalli, and in other kutub as well: “The kaafir sets off intending a journey. Along the route he accepts Islam whilst between him and his destination there remains a distance of less than three days. He will not make Qasr. The same applies to a child….. (i.e. he too shall not perform Qasr). This is the view of Abu Bakr Muhammad Bin Al-Fadhl. Other Mashaaikh say that this applies to the child. However, the kaafir (who accepts Islam) shall make Qasr. In Al-Khulaasah it is mentioned that this is the Mukhtaar view. It has also been said that both shall perform Qasr.

When the haaidh attains purity, and there remains between her and her destination a distance of less than three days, then she shall perform Itmaam, and this is the Saheeh view. This is stated in Az-Zaheeriyyah.”

In short, regarding the child attaining buloogh and the kaafir accepting Islam along the journey, the views are as follows:

• The convert shall perform Qasr
• The convert shall perform Itmaam (full 4 raka’ts)
• Both shall perform Itmaam
• Both shall perform Qasr

But as far as the haaidhah is concerned, all the authentic kutub state that she shall perform Itmaam. It is only mentioned in Muheet Burhaani, according to one view that she shall perform Qasr. But at the same time the view of Itmaam is also stated in Muheet Burhaani.

NOTE: The attempt by Mufti Taqi is to peddle the idea that the Itmaam view for the haaidhah is unreliable. To achieve this objective he abortively endeavours to portray that this mas’alah has been acquired by Shaami from Nahjun Najaat whose author is an 11th century Faqeeh. This endeavour is the effect of either defective research or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Allaamah Shaami does NOT attribute this mas’alah to Nahjun  Najaat. He has stated explicitly that the sources of the mas’alah are Az-Zaheeriyyah, As-Siraajul Wahhaaj and Taatarkhaaniyyah. To dispel any misgiving created by Mufti Taqi, it must be emphasized that Nahjun Najaat is a highly authentic and reliable Kitaab of the Hanafi Math-hab unlike Muheet-e-Burhaani which is the sole source of reliance for Mufti Taqi.

Notwithstanding the lofty status of the noble Author of Muheet Burhaani, very senior Fuqaha stated that it is not permissible to utilize this Kitaab for issuing Fatwa. They claim that Muheet Burhaani also contains baseless narrations. Such a charge has not been levelled at Nahjun Najaat.

It is difficult to understand the confusion of the Korangi Muftis regarding the two illustrious personalities, the one having appeared more than two centuries before the other. The Faqeeh, Izzuddeen Hamzah mentioned by Mufti Taqi was the great, great, great grandfather of Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen, the Author of Nahjun Najaat, from which Allaamah Shaami quotes some other masaa’il, NOT the mas’alah of Itmaam for the haaidhah. While the Author’s great, great, great grandfather, Izzuddeen Hamzah was a Shaafi, Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen was without any dispute a leading Hanafi Faqeeh. His Kitaab deals with Hanafi Fiqh, not Shaafi’ Fiqh.

The mustafti (the one who posed the question) presented in his istifta’ some stupid specimens of qiyaas in the attempt to debunk the thousand-year Ijma’ on the ruling that the haaidhah who attains purity on the journey shall perform Itmaam. It is quite surprising that the Korangi Muftis upheld his nonsensical reasoning.
The mustafti says: “The reason given (i.e. by the Fuqaha) for her to perform full Salaat is: ‘Her prevention from Salaat is not of her own making, hence her niyyat is futile from the very beginning (of the journey).’

However, it comes to mind that why will she not be qualified for making a niyyat on the basis of the waiving of Salaat when the niyyat of safar is not restricted to Salaat. Other masaail are also related to niyyat of safar. For example, if this woman travels during the days of Udhiyyah (Qur’baani), then Qur’baani will not be Waajib on her. Thus, in relation to Qur’baani, the safar is regarded valid. In the Shariah no such example of an intention of safar being valid for some ahkaam and not valid for other ahkaam has crossed us.

On reflection it transpires that whilst haidh is musqite salaat, it is not musqit-e-ahliyyat. In fact, she remains liable for the other ahkaam of the Shariah because she is a Muslimah, aaqilah and baalighah. To rule that her niyyat is invalid merely because of haidh is an issue for evaluation (i.e. it should be re-evaluated for ascertainment of rectitude).”

It is unexpected of senior Muftis to uphold this reasoning, the status of which, is better conveyed by the Urdu term, lachar, i.e. foolish and stupid. The reasoning of the mustafti accepted by Mufti Taqi is deceptive and stupid.

Let us examine and refute the lachar arguments, one by one.
(a) The mustafti states: “However, it comes to mind that why will she not be qualified for making a niyyat on the basis of the waiving of Salaat when the niyyat of safar is not restricted to Salaat?”

For the simple reason that this is a Shar’i hukm, which lachar qiyaas cannot override. Her lack of qualification for making niyyat in this context is applicable to ONLY Salaat. Since she has been disqualified from Salaat by the Shariah, her disqualification from making a niyyat for Salaat purposes is axiomatic. It is simply a logical consequence of lack of ahliyyat for Salaat.

In the context of Salaat, safar has a direct bearing, and Tahaarat is a fundamental requisite for validity of Salaat. Haidh totally effaces the ability of performing Salaat, and this is not of her own making.
She has no power whatsoever of eliminating the impediment which prevents her from Salaat. Unlike a junubi whose impurity is momentary and whose elimination is fully within his power, the haaidhah is helpless. Even if she makes a niyyat of safar, it will be laghw in view of her inability to eliminate the obstacle which prevents her from Salaat.

Explaining this fact, Shaikh Ibn Hamzah states in his Nahjun Najaat in refutation of the objection presented by Shurumbulaali:

“The impediment regarding the haaidhah is samaawi (heavenly, i.e. an order of the Shariah). Therefore there is no difference between her and the child (who attains buloogh along the journey). On the contrary, (is the case of) the kaafir.”

The kaafir at all times is capable of eliminating the obstacle which impedes him from Salaat, namely the impediment of his kufr. The same applies to the junubi. On the other hand, the haaidhah and the child lack the ability to eliminate the impediment, hence the futility of making a niyyat. Thus, for the purposes of Salaat, the haaidhah lacks the ahliyyat of niyyat. It is therefore palpably erroneous to say that for the duration of her haidh she is mukhaatab (addressed and commanded by the Shariah). Yes, she remains mukhaatab regarding the other Ahkaam of the Shariah. But, when the Shariah itself has totally exempted her from Salaat, not even demanding qadha, then it is irrational to claim that she is mukhaatab. Those who assert that she is mukhaatab are either confused or ignorant. Her being the substratum of being mukhaatab for Hajj and Umrah, does not render her mukhaatab for Salaat.

(b) The mustafti states: “Other masaail are also related to niyyat of safar. For example, if this woman travels during the days of Udhiyyah (Qur’baani), then Qur’baani will not be Waajib on her. Thus, in relation to Qur’baani, the safar is regarded valid.”

Qur’baani devolves as an obligation on only those who are Muqeem. A condition for the wujoob of Qur’baani is Iqaamat. The simple response to this objection of the mustafti is that Qur’baani will be Waajib on the haaidhah if she is by the financial means whilst she is still a muqeem in Shar’i terms. If the haaidhah reaches her destination in the state of haidh, Qur’baani will be Waajib on her in view of the existence of the condition of Iqaamat. This is the ruling on the basis of the view that her status as a muqeem remains unchanged due to the futility and invalidity of her safar niyyat.

On the basis of the view of the validity of her safar niyyat, Qur’baani will not be Waajib on her. Thus, the ruling of invalidity according to the first view remains constant, and so does it in terms of the second view. However, as mentioned earlier, the second view is not the most authentic. It is not the popular view.

Furthermore, the relationship of other masaail to the niyyat of safar has no bearing on the invalidity of her niyyat of safar relative to Salaat. These are two different issues which the Korangi Muftis are confusing due to their failure of applying their minds. While according to the Shariah her niyyat for other masaail is valid, for Salaat purposes it is not valid.

(c) The mustafti says: “In the Shariah no such example of an intention of safar being valid for some ahkaam and not valid for other ahkaam has crossed us.”

If it has not crossed you, it does not axiomatically follow that there are no such examples.

The mas’alah pertaining to the haaidhah is the classical example of the invalidity of the intention of safar niyyat for Salaat purposes. The Fuqaha who have decreed this invalidity were not morons. After the Aimmah Mujtahideen of Khairul Quroon era they were the noblest and the highest Authorities of the Shariah. When they have recognized the invalidity of the intention of safar relative to Salaat, it is contumacious for an absolute non-entity to attempt to refute this decree.

Furthermore, in terms of the invalidity of niyyat view, there will be a difference in effect when the haaidhah attains purity. Whilst her Qasr Salaat will not be valid, her Qur’baani will be valid despite it not being Waajib. The reason for this difference is that whilst for Salaat, Tahaarat is a shart, it is not a condition for the validity of Qur’baani. Hence, Qasr will be negated in view of the intention having been made during the state of impurity. But, this does not affect the validity of Qur’baani since it is not dependent on Tahaarat.

On the basis of the view that her niyyat of safar is valid for Qasar as well as for the rule of exemption applicable to Qur’baani, she may abstain from Qur’baani, but this is the contentious issue under discussion.

Another example of the invalidity and validity of a safar niyyat relates to travelling without a mahram. It is not permissible for a female to embark on a journey of three days without a mahram. For the purpose of Qasar Salaat she cannot avail of her safar intention for the benefit of the concession. But for the journey, her niyyat will be valid, hence she is obliged to travel with a mahram. She cannot argue that in view of her safar niyyat being invalid for Salaat, it should likewise be invalid for the journey, thus permitting her to travel without a mahram since hukman (legally according to the Shariah) she remains a muqeem.

In brief, those Fuqaha who maintain that her safar niyyat is invalid from the very inception, restrict it to Salaat. For other purposes, her intention is regarded as valid since the Shariah has not cancelled her ahliyyat as it does relative to Salaat.

Another example of the invalidity of the haaidhah’s niyyat is her intention of Sajdah Tilaawat. Since for this purpose she is not the mukhaatab of the Shariah, Sajdah will not be binding on her even if she recites such an aayat or hears it being recited. On the other hand, the Sajdah will be incumbent on a junubi. After ghusl, he has to compulsorily make the Sajdah, but not the haaidhah. Thus, the claim that she is mukhaatab for the ahkaam is not general. It does not apply to all the ahkaam. (Al-Furooqu fil Furoo’ of Imaam Abu Al-Muzaffar Al-Karaabeesi, An-Naisapuri, died 570 H)

(d) The mustafti says: “On reflection it transpires that whilst haidh is musqit-e-salaat, it is not musqit-e-ahliyyat.”

This conclusion is erroneous. Haidh is not only musqit-e-salaat. It is also musqit-e-ahliyyat-e-salaat. It totally negates the qualification of Salaat for the haaidhah for the duration of the haidh. If the effect of haidh was only musqit-e-salaat, whilst not affecting ahliyyat, then on attaining purity, Qadha of Salaat would have been Waajib as it is in the case of Saum.

Just as haidh is musqit-e-salaat, so too is it musqit-e-saum. But relative to Salaat, it negates ahliyyat, but retains it (ahliyyat) for Saum, hence qadha of Saum is Waajib, but not qadha of Salaat. The difference is conspicuous, and the elimination of ahliyyat in relation to Salaat is palpably clear.

Both the mustafti and Mufti Taqi committed the grave injustice of despicably attempting to denigrate the lofty status of the illustrious Author of Nahjun Najaat. They labelled him ghair ma’roof, i.e. an unknown entity, and cast adverse aspersions on his view by peddling the false idea of him being a ‘Shaafi’.

It is necessary to repeat that in the first instance, the mas’alah of the haaidhah was NOT acquired by Shaami from Nahjun Najaat. Assuming that the illustrious, well known (Ma’roof) Author was truly an unknown entity, then too it would not affect the stance of Allaamah Shaami because he did not acquire the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat.

Our concern is to vindicate the illustrious Author and to show that the view which the mustafti and the Korangi Muftis hold of him is absolutely baseless, in fact slanderous. It appears that the mustafti is also one of the Korangi muftis. The same errors stated in the Istifta’ appear in the fatwa.


His noble lineage
The Noble Lineage until Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu): As-Sayyid Muhammad Bin Kamaalud Deen Bin Muhammad Bin Husain Bin Muhammad Bin Hamzah Bin Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Hamzah Al-Harraani Ibn Muhammad Bin Naasirud Deen Bin Ali Bin Al-Husain Al-Muhtarif Ibn Isma’eel Bin Al-Husain An-Nateef Ibn Ahmad Bin Isma’eel Ath-Thaani Ibn Muhammad Bin Isma’eel Al-A’raj Ibnul Imaam Ja’far As-Saadiq Ibnul Imaam Muhammad Al-Baaqir Ibnul Imaam Ali Zainul Aabideen Ibnul Imaam As-Sayyid Al-Husain Bin Sayyidina Ali Bin Abi Taalib, (Ridhwaanullahi Ta’ala alaihim ajma’een).

This is the lineage of the Bani Hamzah, the Chiefs and Elders of Shaam from generation to generation.

He (As-Sayyid Muhammad) was the Naqeeb (Chief) of Shaam and the Allaamah of the eminent Ulama. He was Al-Husaini (that is, his lineage goes up to Hadhrat Husain, Radhiyallahu anhu) and he was a leading Hanafi Faqeeh. He was the leader in his time in Ilm and Jaah (knowledge and popularity) and unmatched in his leadership and piety.

He was an Aalim of lofty status, Muhaqqiq, exceptionally deep penetrator of Masaaa’il and absolutely profound in his awareness and skills. He surpassed all contemporary luminaries. His name and fame spread all over. When his father passed away he became the Chief of the Sayyids and the Head of Shaam. Students and people were perpetually at his door. He continuously remained engrossed in benefitting and fulfilling their needs and granting authorization in requests.

He authored wonderful and accepted books. He passed away at the end of the month of Safar in the year 1085 Hijri. He is buried in Maqbarah Al-Faraadees. (Rahimahullahu Ta’ala).

(Extracted from Khulaasatul Athar, V.4, by Shaikh Muhammad Ameen Al-Muhibbi Ad-Dimashqi, d.1111 Hijri)

Thus, he was not the ‘ghair ma’roof’ (non-entity) portrayed by the Korangi Muftis who themselves are ghair ma’roof acting as rubber stamps.

It has been averred that just as the haaidhah’s niyyat is valid for Hajj and Umrah, so too is her intention valid for all acts of Ibaadat. However, this view is incorrect. The analogy is baseless. Tahaarat is not a shart for the validity of Hajj and Umrah whereas it is an incumbent condition for the validity of Salaat. Thus the validity of her niyyat for Hajj and Umrah does not render her niyyat valid for Qasr Salaat. Entering into the state of Ihraam is not reliant on Tahaarat, while Salaat is dependent on Tahaarat. Her safar niyyat for the concession of Qasar is directly related to Salaat, hence the invalidity of her intention.

Shaikh Abu Ja’far is the only authority which Mufti Taqi has been able to cite for the Qasar position. Besides Muheet Burhaani no other Authority mentions him for the haaidhah mas’alah despite the fact that Allaamah Haseeri flourished a century prior to the Author of Muheet Burhaani.

It may not be stupidly argued that Allaamah Haseeri was not aware of Shaikh Abu Ja’far, and that the latter’s kitaab, Al-Mutafarriqaat was unknown to him. Allaamah Haseeri quotes Abu Ja’far extensively in his Al-Haawi, and so does Allaamah Zaheeruddeen in his Fataawa Zaheeriyyah.

The fact that despite these great Fuqaha acknowledging the status of Abu Ja’far and citing him copiously in their kutub, they do not narrate the haaidhah mas’alah which Muheet Burhaani attributes to him, is indicative of something amiss. Either the attribution in Muheet Buhaani is an error or the Fuqaha believed in the error of the view propounded by Shaikh Abu Ja’far. No great person is free of error. Every good  horse also slips. Whatever the case may be, the indisputable fact is that despite all the Fuqaha of the early eras being aware of Abu Ja’far’s status and having access to his kitaab or kutub, they did not accept the haaidhah-qasar view attributed to him.

Whereas Mufti Taqi stumbled on Shaikh Abu Ja’far in Muheet Burhaani almost eleven centuries after his demise, Allaamah Haseeri flourished about 150 years after Abu Ja’far. Haseeri was more competent to cite Abu Ja’far than Mufti Taqi, and in fact he does refer to Abu Ja’far extensively in his Al-Haawi.

The Jamhoor Ahnaaf Fuqaha do not entertain the view which Muheet Burhaani attributes to Shaikh Abu Ja’far. Notwithstanding his lofty status, the fatwa of the Jamhoor cannot be set aside to accommodate the isolated view attributed to Shaikh Abu Ja’far.

The Jamhoor Ahnaaf Fuqaha certainly had valid reason for setting aside the view of Shaikh Abu Ja’far. It is highly improper for Muftis of the current age to override a decree which has been the official view of the Hanafi Math-hab for at least a thousand years.

It is grossly erroneous to baselessly presume that the noble Fuqaha who were the Authors of Al-Haawi, Fataawa Zaheeriyyah and many other Kutub of those early eras were unaware of Shaikh Abu Ja’far’s kitaab, Al-Mutafarriqaat to which Muheet Burhaani attributes the mas’alah of the haaidhah. Al-Mutafarriqaat of Abu Ja’far had not receded into oblivion as far as these eminent Fuqaha are concerned. They cite from it.

Mufti Taqi has also selectively and without valid basis adopted only that view of Shaikh Abu Ja’far pertaining to the haaidhah while he ignores the view of Shaikh Abu Ja’far regarding the kaafir who embraces Islam along the journey. In this regard, Muheet Burhaani states:

“It appears in Mutafarriqaatil Abi Ja’far that both of them should perform four raka’ts because both were not addressed by the Shariah, hence they may not perform Qasar Salaat.”

The Korangi Muftis have eagerly accepted Shurumbulaali’s rationale for arguing the validity of Qasar for the haaidhah in terms of the view which entitles the kaafir who accepts Islam to perform Qasar. But Abu Ja’far does not hold the view of Qasar for the haaidhah on the basis of the rationale posited by Shurumbulaali five centuries later. According to Abu Ja’far, the kaafir who embraces Islam will make Itmaam, hence the rational daleel of Mufti Taqi acquired from Shurumbulaali is at variance with Abu Ja’far on whom the Korangi Muftis rely for their fatwa – solely on the view of Shaikh Abu Ja’far. Therefore, they should likewise accept his view of Itmaam for the convert and uphold the Itmaam fatwa for the haaidhah who attains purity along the journey or at her destination in terms of Shurumbulaali’s logic because she is not lesser in status than the kaafir.

Shaikh Abu Ja’far Al-Hindwani is Mufti Taqi’s sole basis for his view in conflict with the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha of all ages. Furthermore, Mufti Taqi acquired this view not directly from the source, viz., Abu Ja’far’s kitaab. He stumbled on this view in Muheet Burhaani which appeared several centuries after Shaikh Abi Ja’far. And he conveniently ignores the Jamhoor’s view which is also stated in the very same Muheet Burhaani. But he ignores Abu Ja’far’s view regarding the kaafir.

Mufti Taqi, furthermore, has no corroboration from any other source whatsoever to bolster the qasar view for the haaidhah.

It is extremely contumacious for Mufti Taqi and the Korangi rubber-stamping Muftis to set up the pedestal of Tarjeeh for themselves for sitting in arbitration over the illustrious Fuqaha of the status of the Authors of Al-Haawi and Fataawa Zaheeriyyah and many others, to effect the amal of Tarjeeh. Further, to implement their brand of ‘tarjeeh’ for rejecting the 1000 year Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab, they miserably fail to provide solid dalaail. The solitary Muheet Burhaani argument is a flapdoodle ‘daleel’ devoid of valid Shar’i substance. It may not be presented in negation of the accepted and ‘Saheeh’ and ‘Mukhtaar’ view of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Math-hab.

It will also be salubrious for the Korangi Muftis to divest their minds from the hallucination of themselves or Mufti Taqi being Mujtahids. It is incumbent and in their own Imaani interests to understand that they are pure muqallideen of the Math-hab. In comparison to the illustrious Fuqaha of yesteryear the muftis of the current age, all piled up together, are absolute non-entities. The Noble Fuqaha of bygone times were members of a special celestial Breed created by Allah Azza Wa Jal to defend and guard this Deen from contamination – contamination such as that of the Ahle-Bid’ah, Ahle-Baatil, Ahle-Hawa and liberals such as Mufti Taqi and the Korangi Muftis and others of their ilk. Those glorious Fuqaha are the effects of Allah’s Declaration:

“Verily We have revealed The Thikr, and verily We are its Protectors.”

The noble Sahaabah and their immediate successors, and their successors and their successors – all of the early eras of Islam – constitute the Institution established by Allah Azza Wa Jal for guarding and defending this Deen to ensure its pristine purity until the Day of Qiyaamah.

The muftis of this age in close proximity to Qiyaamah should therefore not become too big for their boots by dwelling in self-deception with the hallucination that they possess the expertise and the right to override the view of the Jamhoor who had set aside the view of Shaikh Abu Ja’far. In fact, Mufti Taqi has committed a grave injustice by blowing much hot air on the basis of the view he had stumbled on in Muheet Burhaani.

While there are Usool permitting divergence from the Fatwa which is an incumbent norm for the Ummah to follow, there is nothing to warrant abrogation of the Jamhoor’s haaidhah mas’alah. She simply has to perform four raka’ts. There is no Dhuroorah here to dictate otherwise. The exercise of Mufti Taqi is therefore grossly futile, negative and tantamount to undermining the Shariah as presented by the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha. It is not a simple issue related to a woman attaining purity from her haidh. The accepted Masaail of the Deen are not toys with which to trifle.

The issue of the adoption of selective Taqleed is serious, and may not be scanned over. It is stated explicitly in Muheet Burhaani that according to Shaikh Abu Ja’far, the kaafir who embraces Islam along the route shall perform four raka’ts (make Itmaam) if the distance between him and his destination is less than the safar distance.

Muheet Burhaani also states that this view is a narration in Al-Mutafarriqaat. While Mufti Taqi very conveniently ignores this view of the Shaikh Abu Ja’far – the only Authority on whom he relies for the haaidhah mas’alah – there is no conundrum underlying his selective taqleed of Abu Ja’far.
Since Abu Ja’far’s view is in conflict with Mufti Taqi’s view regarding the convert Muslim stated in his (Mufti Taqi’s) fatwa, he deemed it appropriate to ignore and set aside the Itmaam view in relation to the kaafir who accepts Islam along the journey. But Mufti Taqi makes haste to accept Shaikh Abu Ja’far’s view pertaining to Qasar for the haaidhah.

In terms of Abu Ja’far’s principle, the kaafir who enters Makkah, then embraces Islam, will not be required to pay the Dumm penalty for having crossed the Meeqaat. The same applies to a child who attains buloogh after entering Makkah. The rationale for this is that both are not Mukhaatab by the Shariah regarding Ibaadat. Since this logic should also be extended to the haaidhah in view of her not being the Shariah’s Mukhaatab for the duration of haidh in relation to Salaat, Abu Ja’far’s view that she should perform Qasar is at variance with his logical principle. It is for this reason that the Jamhoor Fuqaha have set aside his view of Qasar for the haaidhah.

This methodology does not befit a Mufti. It reeks of nafsaaniyat. What is the rational reason for this selective taqleed? 

For supporting his view of Qasar for the kaafir embracing Islam, Mufti Taqi relies on several Hanafi Fuqaha, and totally abandons Shaikh Abu Ja’far whose title of ‘Junior Abu Hanifah’ he highlights in his fatwa. Thus, he cites Fathul Qadeer, Badaaius Sanaai, Al-Fataawa Al-Hindiyyah, and Al-Ashbaah Wan Nazaair. With the views of these Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha, he overrides the view of Abu Ja’far who is his sole authority for the Qasar view for the haaidhah.

Rationalizing validity for the Jamhoor’s view of Qasar for the convert, and which is in negation of Abu Ja’far’s view stated in Muheet Burhaani, the Korangi fatwa states:

“…Hence, it appears more appropriate to analogize (the haaidhah’s mas’alah) on the basis of the kaafir’s mas’alah because the kaafir is also aaqil and baaligh, hence has the qualification for niyyat. The haaidhah too is aaqilah, baalighah and ahl of niyyat. Therefore, just as the niyyat of safar of the kaafir has Shar’i validity, the haaidhah’s niyyat of safar will be valid to a greater extent.”

On the basis of this rationale, Mufti Taqi sets aside Abu Ja’far’s Itmaam view narrated in Muheet Burhaani. But he accepts with gleeful alacrity the view of the very same Abu Ja’far pertaining to Qasar for the haaidhah. Yet there is valid rationale for upholding Abu Ja’far’s Itmaam view. Mufti Taqi had made tarjeeh of Abu Ja’far’s view pertaining to the haaidhah solely on the basis of this illustrious Faqeeh being the “Junior Abu Hanifah”. Ostensibly it was on the basis of Abu Ja’far’s outstanding status that Mufti Taqi had deemed it valid to override the view of the Jamhoor. He should adopt the very same stance regarding Abu Ja’far’s Itmaam view for the kaafir. But Mufti Taqi has conveniently forgotten that he, Abu Ja’far is the ‘Junior Abu Hanifah’!.

The rationale presented by Mufti Taqi to reject the view of Abu Ja’far is in fact the daleel of those Fuqaha who maintain that when a kaafir embraces Islam along the journey, then he should perform Qasar. However, other Fuqaha, including Abu Ja’far, are of the opinion that like the haaidhah, the convert will also perform Itmaam. Whilst an opinion of a Faqeeh may exercise greater appeal than the opinion of another Faqeeh, it is contumacious and baseless to claim that the opinion preferred by one group is the only valid one, and that the opposite view is in conflict with the principles of the Shariah as is stupidly averred in the fatwa issued by the Korangi Muftis. The Fuqaha were not morons or maajin muftis which abound in the current age. These Muftis lack the qualification for resorting to Tarjeeh in the sphere of the Aqwaal of the Giants of Uloom and Taqwa of the early eras of Islam. They should hold on powerfully to the Rope of Taqleed of the Jamhoor of the Math-hab. Lest some moron may misconstrue what we are saying, we hasten to clarify that in the adoption of the Jamhoor’s view relevant to Itmaam for the haaidhah, we are not resorting to Tarjeeh. We are not preferring one view over the other. We are pure muqallideen, hence we have embarked on only the defence and narration of the mas’alah as it exists in the Hanafi Math-hab, and which Mas’alah has been the Mufta Biha version of all our Akaabireen.

The mustafti, with Mufti Taqi concurring, says:

“Now the scenario is this: One juziyah (a particular mas’alah), namely, Itmaam, is in conflict with the principles, narrationally weak and in conflict with rationality while the other juziyah, namely, Qasar, is in conformity with the principles of the Math-hab. Its propounder is Shaikhul Islam Imaam Faqeeh Abu Ja’far and Allaamah Shurumbulaali.”

Firstly, it is really silly to place Allaamah Shurumbulaali in the same bracket as Shaikh Abu Ja’far. The former was an eleventh century Allaamah. He is not of the  same calibre as Abu Ja’far. But, since Mufti Taqi has failed to find another Name of valid substance between the fourth and eleventh century to support him, he clutched at a straw and lumped Shurumbulaali together with Abu Ja’far.

It is most surprising that the Korangi Muftis saw fit to uphold this preposterous stupidity. Let us examine this specimen of stupidity which has been proffered without application of the mind.

(a) The first stupidity: Itmaam is in conflict with the principles of the Shariah.

Neither the mustafti nor the mufti or the muftis have explained their hallucinated conflict. Which are the principles with which Itmaam conflicts? Were the noble and illustrious Fuqaha who held the Itmaam view morons, and so stupid as not to have understood the hallucinated conflict? For the edification of those who hold this preposterously stupid view, the Fuqaha of the calibre of the Author of Al-Haawi, Al-Haseeri, were Giants of Uloom who split not only hairs, but atoms, in the presentation of their dalaail. Were the numerous Fuqaha who held the Itmaam view bereft of sufficient intelligence to render them incapable of understanding the imagined conflict? We can say with certitude that this claim made by the Korangi Mufti is bunkum, unexpected of Muftis who are supposed to be senior Ulama.

(b) The Itmaam view is narrationally weak

This is another stupidity blurted out without application of the mind. If they had applied their minds correctly, they would not have disgorged this drivel. In which way is the Itmaam view narrationally weak? Besides blurting out nonsense, they have not explained the nonsense which is devoid of Shar’i substance.

The Itmaam view has been narrated in Al-Haawi of Al-Haseeri (a century prior to Muheet Burhaani), in Fataawah Zaheeriyyah, Muheet Burhaani, As-Siraajul Wahhaaj, Fataawa Al-Ghiyaathiyyah, Al-Masaa’il Badriyyah, Tatarkhaaniyah, Sagheeri, Kabeeri, Ad-Durrul  Mukhtaar, Raddul Muhtaar, Nahjun Najaat, etc.

All our Deobandi Akaabir have upheld and abided by this view.

The following were the eras in which these illustrious Fuqaha flourished:

1) Imaam Muhammad Bin Ibraaheem Al-Haseeri died 505 H.  
2) Imaam Burhaanuddeen Abul Ma’aali – died 616 H. (He is the author of Muheet Burhaani, the sole Kitaab from which Mufti Taqi cites Abu Ja’far Al-Hindwaani)
3) Imaam Zaheeruddeen Al-Bukhaari – died 619 H
4) Shaikh Dawood Bin Yusuf Al-Khateeb 7th century H
5) Allaamah Aalim Bin Alaa – died 786 H
6) Imaam Abu Bakr Bin Ali Al-Haddaad – died 800 H
7) Imaam Badruddeen Al-Aini – died 885 H
8) Shaikh Muhammad Bin Kamaaluddeen Ibn Hamzah – died 1085 H. (Author of the baselessly much maligned authoritative, well-known Kitaab, Nahjun Najaat)
9) Allaamah Haskafi – died 1088 H
10) Allaamah Ibraaheem Al-Halabi – died 1190 H
11) Allaamah Ibn Aabideen (Shaami) – died 1252 H

All these illustrious Authorities of the Shariah enumerated above have over the centuries narrated the mas’alah of Itmaam for the haaidhah in their famous Kutub. Thus, the narrational foundation for the riwaayat which the Korangi Muftis have abortively attempted to debunk, is Solid Rock – unassailable evidence. The authenticity of the narration is beyond the slightest vestige of doubt.

On the other hand, the Qasar view being peddled by Mufti Taqi, has been narrated by only Muheet Burhaani. There is no other Authority, besides Muheet Burhaani, who narrates this view. The Korangi Muftis have also flabbily attempted to elevate the status of the solitary source by presenting the deception that since Muheet Burhaani was not extant, other Fuqaha have not referred to it. This is baseless.

Fataawa Alamghiri cites Muheet Burhaani, and Allaamah Abdul Hay Lucknowi had access to Muheet Burhaani. Allaamah Lucknowi mentioned that of the 40 volumes, he had made a perusal of the first volume. Allaamah Kaashghari, died 705 H, in his well-known Kitaab, Munyatul Musalli, quotes Muheet Burhaani extensively. The Author of Al-Ghiyaathiyyah (7th century) quotes Muheet Burhaani extensively. He also cites Faqeeh Abu Ja’far in several places, but does not take his qasar view for the haaidhah. He adopts the Itmaam view of the Jamhoor. Taatarkhaniyyah (786 H) also cites Muheet Burhaani extensively. Allaamah Ibraaheem Al-Halabi refers to Muheet Burhaani several times in his As-Sagheeri. He also criticizes the Author of Muheet Burhaani in some issues. In fact, even Allaamah Shaami cites Muheet Burhaani. Other Fuqaha who had access to this Kitaab, labelled it unreliable, saying that it contained such narrations which are labelled ratb wa yaabis (i.e. authentic and unauthentic). The bottom line is that the Jamhoor Fuqaha were not reliant on the sixth century Muheet Burhaani.

Regarding Muheet Burhaani, Ibn Nujaim states in his Risaalah Fi Suratin Waqfiyyah: “It is not permissible to narrate from it (i.e. from Muheet Burhaani), nor is it permissible to issue fatwa with it. This is stated explicitly in Fathul Qadeer.”

The aspersions which have been cast at Muheet Burhaani do not emanate from us. We regard the illustrious Author of Muheet Burhaani to be a veritable Authority of the Shariah. He is among the Giants of Shar’i Uloom. We have merely recorded the views of other very senior Authorities of the Shariah to show that the numerous Kutub in which the haaidhah-itmaam mas’alah is confirmed and promoted over the other view, are on a higher pedestal than Muheet Burhaani. Whilst Muheet Burhaani has been blemished by the criticism of illustrious Authorities, the other Kutub from which we have narrated such as Al-Haawi and Fataawa Zaheeriyyah from which the later Fuqaha narrate the mas’alah are free of the same or similar blemishes.

We state unequivocally, that from the narrational angle, the Qasar qawl for the haaidhah is decrepit, weak and unsubstantiated by the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Math-hab. The attempt by the Korangi Muftis to elevate the status of the decrepit narration is a dismal failure.

(c) The Itmaam view is irrational

The rationality on which the Itmaam view is based has already been explained earlier. There is nothing irrational in the ruling that the haaidhah has to perform four raka’ts if she attains purity along the journey whilst there remains a distance of less than three days to her destination.

The order of Salaat is applicable to only those who possess the qualification (ahliyat) of performing Salaat. Since the haaidhah’s qualification has been  negated and cancelled totally, not temporarily, by the Shariah, the order of Qasr for the musaafir is not applicable to her.

The fact that the obligation of Qadha of the waived Salaat has not been imposed on her, also confirms the elimination of ahliyat. With regard to Saum (Fasting), while the haaidhah is not allowed to fast, her ahliyat remains intact, and this is confirmed by the fact that she has to compulsorily make qadha of the fasts which she has missed due to haidh, etc.

Due to total lack of ahliyat for Salaat, her niyyat of safar has no validity. The analogy of the validity of her intention for Hajj and Umrah is fallacious. Ahliyat for one Ibaadat is not necessarily ahliyat for all acts of Ibaadat. Her ahliyat is established by the Shariah, not by opinion and qiyaas. Whilst the Shariah confirms the haaidhah’s ahliyat for Saum, it negates the qualification for Salaat. The rational basis for this mas’alah is therefore palpable for the unbiased mind. Haidh is Musqit-e-Salaat as well as Musqit-e-ahliyat-e-Salaat. However, for Saum, haidh is only Musqit-e-Saum, not Musqit-e-ahliyat.

The most despicable attempt made by the Korangi Mufti to assault and scuttle the Jamhoor’s view is the creation of a haraam red herring to divert the focus of the unsuspecting readers from the Mufta Biha version of the Hanafi Math-hab. Releasing the red herring, the Korangi fatwa avers:

“The Itmaam version has been acquired from Nahjun Najaat and Fataawa Zaheeriyyah. The author of Nahjun Najaat is ghair ma’roof (an unknown entity). Some have proclaimed him to be of the Shaafi’ maslak.”  

Without hesitation it must be said that the charge directed at the Author of Nahjun Najaat is completely false, and the claim that Shaami had acquired the mas’alah from Nahjun Najaat is utterly baseless. Also, the averment of the Author being a Shaafi’ is baseless. This entire statement is tantamount to chicanery. It is a lamentable attempt to divert the focus from the valid mas’alah which the Hanafi Math-hab has upheld since time immemorial.

Although Mufti Taqi is constrained to mention that Shaami had ‘also’ acquired the mas’alah from Fataawa Zaheeriyyah, he very conveniently pushes into oblivion this highly authentic Kitaab which occupies a lofty pedestal. He makes absolutely no reference of Shaami’s reliance for the mas’alah on Fataawa Zaheeriyyah and on As-Siraajul Wahhaaj which he mentions in his Minhatul Khaaliq. He acquits himself in a manner to convey the baseless idea that Shaami’s reliance was only on Nahjun Najaat. The reality is that Shaami did not extract the mas’alah from the well-known, authentic kitaab, Nahjun Najaat.

We have already explained earlier the confusion spun around the Ibn Hamzah, Author of Nahjun Najaat, who had died in 1085 H, and the Izzuddeen Hamzah who had died two centuries earlier in 874 H. The one who died in 874 H was a Shaafi, whilst the one who died in 1085 H was a well-known Hanafi Shaikh.

Having failed to constructively apply their minds, the Korangi Muftis allowed themselves to become victims of confusion in their eagerness to peddle the Qasr view for the haaidhah, for this suits their own narratives. Allaamah Shaami was well aware, and more aware than Mufti Taqi of the Maslak of the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

Furthermore, Nahjtun Najaat which refutes Shurumbulaali’s rationale for the Qasar view, mentions several kitaabs which appeared decades and even a century or two after 874 H when the Izzuddeen Hamzah had died. He was the great, great, great grandfather of the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

It is lamentable that when the Korangi Muftis sought to denigrate the noble Author and his Kitaab, Nahjun Najaat, they had not engaged themselves cognitively. If they had, it would have precluded the intrusion of the subjective agenda underlying the baseless attribution to Allaamah Ibn Aabideen. Before blundering into the confusion which they have created for themselves, they were supposed to have applied their minds and carefully examine what exactly Shaami had said. Instead of cognitive engagement, the Muftis blundered by spinning the narrative that the Author of Nahjun Najaat was a Shaafi’, and his Kitaab a non-entity implying that Shaami had blundered, when in reality the blundering is the exercise of the Korangi Muftis. For achieving this purpose, Mufti Taqi, without careful investigation, simply relied on Idhaahul Maknoon and Hadiyyatul Aarifeen for information on the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

Both these kitaabs mention Izzuddeen Hamzah as the author of Nahjun Najaat, and that he was a Shaafi’. Without proper research Mufti Taqi simply accepted that the Author mentioned in these two kitaabs was the same person to whom Shaami refers. Some genuine research would have revealed that the author mentioned in these two kitaabs was not the one to whom Allaamah Shaami had referred. They would then have ascertained that the Author to whom Shaami referred had died more than two centuries later. At the end of his Kitaab, the noble Author of Nahjun Najaat states:

“This is the final glance of this servant (who is in need of the pardon of Allah Azza Wa Jal) at the sources recorded by the illustrious Masters (Fuqaha). I have relied mostly on what the Mutaakhkhireen Ahle-Fatwa have authoritatively stated. They are those who have scaled the loftiest heights in the firmament of Knowledge, such as Shaikh Qaasim, Muhaqqiq Abdul Barr, As-Samdeesi, the Author of Al-Faidh Sharhul Mukhtaar, Al-Burhaan Al-Karaki, the Author of Al-Faidh fil Fataawa, his Student, the Author of Al-Bahrur Raa’iq, his brother, the Author of An-Nahrul Faa’iq, Shaikh Maahir Shamsuddeen At-Tamartaashi Al-Ghazzi, the Author of At-Tanweer (the principal text of Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar)………

The conclusion of what I have written co-incides with the morning of the blessed Yaumul Khamees,18 Zil Hijjah of the year 1080 Hijrah of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). I have written in the hope that Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’ala makes this work solely for His Honourable Self, and that He grants a good ending for all Muslims. He is the Beneficent, the Most Merciful.”

If the Korangi Muftis had studied Nahjun Najaat or even cast a cursory glance at it, they would have observed that this Kitaab was completed in the year 1080 Hijri. This would have induced in them the realization that Allaamah Shaami was not speaking about some Shaafi Faqeeh who had died two centuries before the Author of Nahjun Najaat.

Furthermore, the authorities on whom the noble Author of Nahjun Najaat relied for the material in his Kitaab are illustrious Fuqaha of impeccable worth. Thus, Nahjun Najaat is not an unknown entity as the Korangi Muftis have attempted to portray.

The very fact that Shaami had cited him should have constrained the Korangi Muftis to adopt extreme caution before embarking on the exercise to denigrate the illustrious Allaamah Shaami and the illustrious Author of the well-known kitaab, Nahjun Najaat.

If the mind was applied correctly, it would have been ascertained that Nahjun Najaat is a kitaab dealing with Hanafi Fiqh.

The red herring ploy has boomeranged on these Muftis who have acted with extreme puerility by unnecessarily and destructively initiating a wasteful controversy on an issue which was settled by the Jamhoor Fuqaha of our Math-hab almost a millennium ago.

(1) The Mas’alah: If a woman in the state of haidh (menses) sets off on a journey and attains purity along the journey, then if from the point of purity to her destination the distance is less than 77 km, she has to compulsorily make Itmaam of Salaat, i.e. perform four raka’ts even at her destination.

If she undertakes a journey of 77 km or more from her destination, then only will she become a musaafir which qualifies her for the concession of Qasar (two raka’ts).

(2) The view of Qasar for her which Mufti Taqi is promoting is baseless in the light of the standing Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab. This Fatwa has been the Law since the inception of Islam.

(3) Mufti Taqi’s view is devoid of valid dalaail as has been explained in this discussion.

(4) Mufti Taqi has relied on a solitary view – an isolated view – which all the Fuqaha of the  Math-hab were fully aware of, and which view they have set aside.

(5) Both the narrational and rational arguments of Mufti Taqi are decrepit and baseless.

(6) Mufti Taqi has contumaciously overstepped the mark of propriety by attempting to abrogate the unanimous view of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha of all eras. He has grievously erred with his attempt to scuttle a mas’alah which is the official view of the Shariah in terms of the Hanafi Math-hab.

(7) While Mufti Taqi has flabbily  attempted to present Muheet Burhaani as the basis for his view, he (Mufti Taqi) has overlooked the fact that the Author of this Kitaab has cited both views, and that he has not given preference to the view of Abu Ja’far on which Mufti Taqi baselessly relies. He does not argue in favour of Abu Ja’far’s view. 

(8) Mufti Taqi has baselessly adopted selective taqleed of Abu Ja’far. While Mufti Taqi accepts Abu Ja’far’s view regarding Qasar for the haaidhah, he rejects Abu Ja’far’s view of Itmaam for the kaafir who embraces Islam along the journey, and for this selectiveness, Mufti Taqi has no valid daleel. On the contrary, he seeks the support of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha for the Qasar view regarding the kaafir, which view is the view of the very Fuqaha who say that the haaidhah has to observe Itmaam

(9) For total lack of valid dalaail, and lack of narrational support, Mufti Taqi performed a great leap from the 6th century to the 11th century. Muheet Burhaani is a 6th century Kitaab. It was in this Kitaab that Mufti Taqi stumbled on the Qasar view of the solitary Shaikh Abu Ja’far (Rahmatullah alayh). In the five century gap, i.e. between the 6th and the 11th, when he was unable to locate a single Authority to corroborate his view, Mufti Taqi grabbed hold of Shurumbulaali, a 11th century Allaamah, and lumped him together with Abu Ja’far. But the former is nowhere near to the status of the latter. Thus, the only authority Mufti Taqi was able to present is Faqeeh Abu Ja’far, and this was old hat, nothing new. It was not a treasure lost and unearthed. Furthermore, Faqeeh Abu Ja’far was a Shaikh of the 4th century. From the 5th century to the 6th century – which is the era of Muheet Burhaani – Mufti Taqi could not locate a single Faqeeh to corroborate his baseless fatwa of Qasar. Thus, Mufti Taqi was constrained to clutch at a straw, hence he grabbed hold of the mantle of the 11th century Shurumbulaali.

(10) Shurumbulaali’s rational argument has been rationally demolished by the illustrious Author of Nahjun Najaat.

(11) Mufti Taqi and his rubber-stamping Korangi Muftis have committed a despicable act of chicanery by falsely alleging that Allaamah Shaami had acquired the mas’alah of Itmaam for the Haaidhah from Nahjun Najaat when in reality his sources are Fataawa Zaheeriyyah and As-Siraajul Wahhaaj. On the basis of this false premise, the Korangi Muftis have abortively attempted to scuttle the view on which there is Consensus of the Jamhoor Hanafi Fuqaha.

(12) Mufti Taqi’s claim that the illustrious Author of Nahjun Najaat was a Shaafi’, is the effect of defective research caused by haste to promote the baseless view of Qasar for the haaidhah. The noble Author was a well known Hanafi Shaikh of outstanding calibre in every field of Islamic Knowledge.

(13) Mufti Taqi’s claim that Nahjun Najaat is ‘ghair ma’roof’ – an unknown entity – is also baseless and is the effect of defective research. It is a ma’roof Kitaab of Hanafi Fiqh by an illustrious Author, hence Allaamah Shaami cites from this Kitaab on several masaail, but  not the haaidhah-qasr mas’alah.

(14) Allaamah Shaami only presented Nahjun Najaat’s refutation of Shurumbulaali’s rational argument.

QUESTION: Since I have read the fatwa of Advocate Emran Vawda on the mas’alah of a woman in her menses undertaking a journey, I have been thrown into doubt. According to the new fatwa, if a woman in her menses is on a journey and becomes paak on the journey or at her destination, she should perform Qasar Namaaz. Hitherto we have understood that she has to perform Namaaz in full. We have learnt this from Beheshti Zewer.

Advocate Vawda supports his fatwa with the fatwa of Mufti Taqi of Pakistan. Please inform me what I have to do regarding some Namaaz which I had performed two raka’ts on arrival at my destination of Durban. I also had travelled from Durban to Pietermaritzburg where I performed two raka’ts. What is the correct view, and what do I have to do?

ANSWER: Mufti Taqi’s fatwa is erroneous. This has been fully explained in this treatise. Advocate Emran Vawda has simply lapped up what Mufti Taqi had dished out without applying his mind. It is best that the advocate restricts himself to his secular kuffaar law practice. He should not dabble in the domain of the Shariah. In doing so, is only a display of ignorance and contumacy.

You should make Qadha of all the Namaaz which you had performed as Qasar at your Durban destination, and along the  journey from the point you had attained purity if between that point and Durban the distance was less than 77 km. Having performed Qasar in Pietermaritzburg was valid.


A Brother from the U.K. writes:

“Mufti Shabbir of Darul Uloom Bury has recently published a fatwa supporting Mufti Taqi’s fatwa. He has added some extra arguments to support Mufti Taqi’s view. I have enclosed the fatwa for your comment.”


The U.K. Mufti’s first argument: The Qur’aanic Verses

The U.K. mufti, baselessly proffers the following Qur’aanic verses in an abortive bid to support the Qasar view for the haaidhah:

“And when you travel throughout the land there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer.” 

“And whoever from you is ill or on a journey, then the same number from other days.”  

He maintains that:

“These verses are general and do not stipulate any conditions in relation to the travel or the traveller. Thus according to the Hanafi school of thought, all forms of travel including travel for a sinful purpose constitute travel for the purpose of shortening the Salah and the option not to fast. Likewise the travel of all different types of travelling including a menstruating woman should constitute travel, as the reason for shortening Salaah and the option not to fast is travel.”

Firstly, this mufti has run away with the stupid idea of him being a mujtahid. We dare say that he is not even a paper mujtahid. In this belated era in close proximity to Qiyaamah and more than 14 centuries from the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), there are NO Aimmah Mujtahideen. This U.K. mufti has no right and he lacks even the expertise and the qualifications for resorting to Ijtihaad and making Istimbaat of masaail directly from the Qur’aan Majeed. We do not understand from whence he has gained the stupid notion of him possessing the ability of making istimbaat of a juz’i mas’alah directly from the Qur’aan Majeed.

After the era of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of Khairul Quroon, the thousands of illustrious Fuqaha down the long corridor of Islam’s history did not venture into the domain into which this puny mufti from the U.K. is groping. The Fuqaha have adhered to Taqleed of the Imaam of the Math-hab, and have only narrated the mas’alah as it had been transmitted to them from above.

The haaidhah mas’alah is a juz’i (a point of detail) which cannot be deduced directly from the Aayats quoted by the U.K. mufti. The innumerable Fuqaha who narrated the Itmaam view for the haaidhah were not morons. The U.K. mufti implies by his stupid and baseless deduction from the Qur’aan Majeed that all the Fuqaha were morons since they had ‘failed’, in his stupid opinion, to understand the Qur’aanic aayaat which he implies he has understood in this last of ages (Aakhiruz zamaan).

The fact that the noble Fuqaha had not regarded these verses to be ‘general’, is adequate evidence for the validity of the stipulation that the haaidhah is not a Shar’i musaafir for the purposes of Salaat. The muqallid has no entitlement whatsoever to cite a Qur’aanic aayat in an attempt to negate the popular view – the view of the Jamhoor Fuqaha and Ulama of the Math-hab. Only deviates resort to such convoluted reasoning.

The Fuqaha have made it quite clear why the haaidhah is not considered a valid musaafir to avail of the qasar concession. Their rationale has already been explained in detail earlier.

The U.K. mufti further convolutes his argument by citing the Qur’aanic aayat pertaining to concession for the traveller regarding fasting. There is a difference between Salaat and Saum. Whilst the haaidhah is a valid musaafir for the purposes of Saum, she is not so for Salaat. Saum is not waived for her. It remains compulsory. She remains mukhaatab of the Shariah for the purpose of Fasting despite her haidh condition. On the contrary, she is not the mukhaatab of the Shariah for the purposes of Salaat. On the contrary, the Shariah specifically prohibits her from Salaat, and waives it from her. The difference should be palpably clear to a person of discernment. 

While Saum is Fardh for the haaidhah, hence she has to offer Qadha, she is totally exempted from Salaat. There is no qadha for her Salaat from which the Shariah has exempted her. Confusing the two indicates the ignorance of the U.K. mufti.

Is the Aayat general (i.e. Mutlaq) In his arguments, the UK mufti claims that the Qur’aanic Aayat (which he has presented) is ‘general’, (i.e. Mutlaq in Fiqhi parlance). What he says here is that the meaning of ‘travel’ mentioned in the Aayat has literal application, devoid of any stipulative restrictions to narrow the meaning of the term.

The mufti sahib has misunderstood the Fiqhi meaning of Mutlaq. He also fails to understand that his stupid ‘ijtihaad’ cannot override the understanding of the Fuqaha of fourteen centuries. If he had constructively applied his mind, he would have referred to the Fuqaha for a proper understanding of the operation of the term, safar (travel) mentioned in the Aayat.

Erroneously applying the Fiqhi principle of Mutlaq to the Aayat, the UK mufti commits the further blunder of extending his convoluted meaning of ‘general’ to even the traveller (musaafir). Due to the fallacy of his ‘ijtihaad’, he has degenerated from one blunder into another blunder. This is always the fate of self-styled ‘mujtahids’ who are even defective in the comprehension of basic masaail, in both the domains of Usool and Furoo’.

Safar (Travel) in its Shar’i meaning is a concept. It does not have the literal meaning. It is preposterous to claim that the Safar concept of the Shariah has a literal meaning, and that the term in this specific Qur’aanic Aayat has the literal meaning and should therefore be applied literally. Safar in the Shariah is subjected to numerous stipulations – masaa’il which are nugatory of the literal meaning.

The very Shar’i definition of safar debunks the claim of the UK mufti. Defining safar, the Fuqaha say:

“The literal meaning of safar is traversing distance without any limit (of miles/ kilometres). (In the Shariah) it has a special meaning, and it is with this special meaning that the ahkaam (rules/laws) change pertaining to qasar of Salaat, permissibility of fitr (i.e. abstention from fasting), extension of masah alal khuffain from one day to three days, the waiving of the wujoob of Jumuah, Eidain and Udhiyyah (Qur’baani), and the prohibition of a woman emerging without a mahram. (Shaami)

A plethora of ahkaam is the stipulatory attributes of safar and musaafir. This should have been self-evident for the UK mufti. 

In Al-Inaayah Sharh Hidaayah, it is stated: “The (literal meaning) of traversing distance is not meant here (that is in the Qur’aanic concept of safar). On the contrary, it means a special traversing of distance). That is (the distance) by which the ahkaam change. Thus it is muqayyad (stipulated) with this. (Furthermore), it is mentioned (as a stipulation) that there has to be a simultaneous intention made for what is contemplated (i.e. for the journey), because even if one has to journey the entire earth without the intention of a distance of three days, he will not be a musaafir…… Thus, the determinant (for the validity of safar) with regard to the changing of ahkaam is presence of both factors (intention and distance of three days).”

In the unanimous view of all the Fuqaha of all the Math-habs, the Qur’aanic term safar in the context of this aayat refers to a specific journey of varying distances according to the different views of the Math-habs. According to the Ahnaaf it is a journey of three days or 3 manzils which the Ulama have for the convenience of the masses and for uniformity fixed with 48 miles or 77 kilometres. The number of kilometres vary in the opinion of the Ulama. But there is not a single authority of any Math-hab who avers that a journey in the Shar’i context is the unrestricted literal meaning. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, the qualifying distance is what is traversed in three days. According to the Maaliki Math-hab, it is 3 days. According to the Shaafi’ and Hambali Math-habs it is 48 Haashimi miles.

According to the Hanafi Math-hab, the qualifying distance is what is traversed in three days. According to the Maaliki Math-hab, it is 3 days. According to the Shaafi’ and Hambali Math-habs it is 48 Haashimi miles.

The second stipulation is the intention to travel the stipulated distance. Without this specific intention, even if one travels the whole world, one will not be a Shar’i musaafir.

The third stipulation is the Shar’i termination of safar by means of a niyyat regardless of being literally a traveller. Thus, if a valid musaafir, intends to stay over at a place for 15 days or more, he/she will cease being a musaafir despite being literally on the journey.

With these restrictive stipulations it is baseless to claim that safar in the Aayat is ‘general’. On the contrary it is muqayyad (restricted with conditions). In a flabby and flapdoodle endeavour to bolster the mutlaq (general) supposition, the UK mufti proffered the Hanafi view which regards the safar valid even if the objective is to journey for the purposes of sinning.

In terms of the Hanafi Math-hab, this generality is restricted to only the objective of the journey. It does not cancel the other stipulations mentioned above. Furthermore, according to the other Math-habs, it is imperative that the safar be for a mubah (permissible) purpose. This is an added stipulation. It should therefore be quite evident that according to all Math-habs, the Aayat is in fact Muqayyad – restricted with conditions.


The Evolution Of Hanafi Fiqh, And The Sanad

This article was originally taken from:

[This lecture is an excerpt from “Legacy of Abdullah ibn Masood” by Sheikh Riyadh Ul Haq d.b, trancription done by brother Seifeddine-M]

Many people with little knowledge give the perception that Imam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih) came out of nowhere, and people following his interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah are in error. This can easily be refuted by Ibn Abidin’s (rahmatullahi alaih) statement, he gives the analogy of the evolution of the Hanafi fiqh as bread, he says: 

“Abdullah ibn Masood (radiallahu anh), who sowed the seeds of this knowledge, was one of the greatest and best learned ones of the Sahaba (radiallahu anhum). Alqama (rahmatullahi alaih), his disciple, watered these seeds and turned them into crops, and Ibrahim Nakha’i (rahmatullahi alaih), his disciple, reaped the harvest, that is, gathered the pieces of this knowledge together. Hammad Kufi (rahmatullahi alaih) threshed it, and his disciple, Imam A’zam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaih), ground it, that is, he classified the knowledge into sections; Imam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullahi alaih) made dough from it, and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (rahmatullahi alaih) baked it. Muslims have been eating the morsels prepared in this procedure.” 

Another claim which this article answers is, why do you only follow one man, surely he can make mistakes? The short answer being, that it is not only one man, he had a circle of 40 top scholars. Some times the opinion of his students are taken and sometimes his. 

Why the Hanafi fiqh is associated with the Sahabi ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu). I did say in the beginning that this partly true, but its not entirely true, in the sense that the Hanafi fiqh is not just based on ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu)’s ahaadeeth or his sayings and fatawa. But he does play a very integral and important role. 

On one occasion it was reported to Sayyidna ‘Ali (radiallahu ‘anhu) that Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu) had given a fatwa about a question of meerath (inheritance). When Sayyidna ‘Ali (radiallahu ‘anhu) had heard the fatwa he said, ‘May Allah have mercy upon ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood. Indeed he was a Faqeeh (jurist).’ 

Masrooq was a famous Tabi’ee. And al-Sha’bi was another famous Tabi’ee. Tabi’ee is a successor to the Sahabah (radiallahu anhum). Al-Sha’bi (a famous muhaddith) says himself that, ‘I saw more than five hundred Sahabah (radiallahu ‘anhum).’ And al-Sha’bi says of Masrooq that, ‘I have never seen anyone more eager and more zealous in his search for knowledge, than Masrooq.’ 

And Masrooq was one of the leading students of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu). And not only Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu), Masrooq travelled all over the Islamic World at the time, and learnt from Umm al-Mu’mineen ‘A’isha Siddeeqa (radiallahu ‘anha), to the extent that its been related that Masrooq was actually been adopted by Umm al-Mu’mineen ‘A’isha Siddeeqa (radiallahu ‘anha). Meaning, not adopted as a child, but because of her love for him respect for him, and his zeal for learning. And because of the respect and the service that he offered to Umm al-Mu’mineen ‘A’isha (radiallahu ‘anha). She treated him as her own son. 

Masrooq also learnt from ‘Umar ibn al-khattab (radiallahu anh), and many of the Sahaabah in many different cities. The same Masrooq says, after having studied under so many Sahabah (radiallahu ‘anhum), and having been treated as a son of Umm al-Mu’mineen ‘A’isha Siddeeqah (radiallahu anha), he says, ‘I have found the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) to be like pools of water. Some of them are pools that irrigate one man. There are pools that irrigate two men. There are pools that quench the thirst of three men. There are pools that quench the thirst of ten men. And their are pools, that if all of the people of the world were to come to them, they would be able to irrigate them and quench their thirst. And ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood was one of them.’ 

The same Masrooq also says that, ‘Of all of the Sahaabah (radiallahu ta’aala anhum), the knowledge of all of the Companions is distilled and condensed and reaches the peak, in six people. Sayyidna ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood, Sayyidna ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, Sayyidna Abud-Darda, Sayyidna Ubay Ibn Ka’b, and Sayyidna Zaid Ibn Thaabit (radiallahu ta’aala anhum).’ And then Masrooq says, ‘Of all of these six people, the knowledge of these leading six Sahabah is condensed and distilled in only two people, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib (karamallahu wajhah), and ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ta’aala ‘anh). 

Now, Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu) had thousands of students. Many of them were leading Imams of their time. But probably the most famous was Alqama. And this Alqama, he wasn’t a Sahabi, but he was a student of Sayyidna ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, Sayyidna ‘Abdullah Ibn Ma’ood, and other senior Sahabah. He was a very close companion and attendant of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anh). He would wait on ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood, so much so that ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhy) himself said, ‘Whatever I know, Alqama knows.’ Allahu Akbar. What a testimony on behalf of a non-Sahaabi by a Sahaabi. 

Alqama also had thousands of students. Probably his most famous student, who inherited the treasure of knowledge from the thousands of Sahaaba resident in Kufa, and in other areas also, was Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee. Tawoos relates, that ‘I once asked my father that why do you go to Alqama, and not the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam)? When the Sahaba are present, why do you go to Alqama for your knowledge?’ So his father replied to him,‘Because I see the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) themselves refer to Alqama for knowledge.’ 

And this Alqama, as I said, had thousands of students. But probably his best student, and most famous, and the Imaam recognised by all, was Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee. And Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee himself was a Tabi’ee. He saw a number of Sahabah and learnt from them. And, Allahu Akbar, what can be said of Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee. The same Sha’bee who said he has seen more than five hundred Sahaba radiallahu anhum, when Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee (rahmatullahi alaih) passed away, he said to the people after the Janaazah that,‘You have buried the greatest jurist, and the greatest faqeeh of mankind.’ So someone asked al-Sha’bi, ‘Was Ibraheem an-Nakha’i a greater jurist than even Hasan of Basra?’ Meaning Imam Hasan al-Basri (rahmatullahi alaih). Sha’bi (rahmatullahi alaih) replied that, ‘Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee was a greater jurist than even Hasan of Basra, than all of the people of Basra, than all of the people of Kufa, than all of the people of Shaam, and all of the people of Hijaaz.’ And then he said,‘May Allah have mercy on Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee, for he grew up in a household of fiqh, and he learnt the best of fiqh from his family,’ because he was from the Nakha’ee family. His maternal uncle was Aswad bin Yazeed bin Qays an-Nakha’ee. He was one of the leading students of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and Sayyidna ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab. 

And, his uncle’s uncle was Alqama. And he was also from the Nakha’ee family. So he had two great people to look up to, Alqama and Aswad, and they were the leading students of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radiallahu ‘anhu), ‘Umar Ibn Khattab, Sayyidna ‘Ali, and others. 

So al-Sha’bi said, ‘May Allah have mercy on Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee, he grew up in a house of fiqh, and he mastered fiqh, and he gained the best of fiqh. And then he would sit with us and he gained the best of hadeeth. And he combined the best of hadeeth and the best of fiqh. When I mourn his loss I mourn the loss of knowledge.’ 

Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee was asked that, ‘Who should we refer to after your death?’ He said, ‘Hammaad.’ And Hammaad was a leading jurist, a leading scholar of hadeeth and fiqh, of knowledge. He became Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee’s successor, because Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee himself said that after me refer to Hammaad. And, after the death of Ibraheem an-Nakha’ee, the scholars of Kufa appointed Hammaad Ibn Abi Sulaymaan as their Shaykh and their leader. And Hammaad Ibn Abi Sulaymaan, his most famous student, and his leading student, was none other than Nauman bin Thaabit Abu Haneefah (rahimahullah). 

Now this is the chain, and when Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih) used to sit and discuss the masaa’il of deen, he wouldnt just take his opinion. Many ‘Ulamaa’ have recorded in their books, that Imam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih) had a consultant of forty men. And these forty men would sit with him and discuss the masaa’il of deen. Sometimes they would deliberate on one mas’ala for three days. And only when they were satisfied and more or less agreed on that issue would they record it in the book as a mas’ala of fiqh. It wasnt just one errant, or abitrary opinion of one man. 

And who were the forty, Allahu Akbar! Of the forty who used to sit with Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih) were the leading students of the whole of the ‘Ulamaa’ of Kufa. And amongst Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih)’s students, one alim writes in one of his books, about the group forty who would sit with Imaam Abu Haneefah and who would be consulted by Imam Abu Haneefah (rahmatullahi alaih), and who would deliberate with him on these matters of religion, he says they were ‘The greatest of the greatest.’ And it included Imam Abu Yusuf, Dawood at-Ta’i, Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, Imam Zufar, Imam Hasan, and many others. 


The ‘Hanafi Stance’ Regarding The Black Magic Spell Cast on the Prophet ﷺ

By Bassam Zawadi

It is claimed by some that the so-called Hanafi stance on the story of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is that its a concoction and an insult to the  Prophet’s stature.  

The vast majority of Muslim scholars  have accepted this story to be true  however and have argued that it does nothing to impugn the Prophets  character, or his status as the  Messenger of Allah.

Muslim scholars have offered two lines of proposed assessments of the story. 1) What happened to the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a form of illness and this is not impossible for Prophets, nor does it impugn their character and prophethood. This doesn’t affect the  reliability of his deliverance of the message, which is what Allah’s promise  for protection ultimately ensured to secure, and 2) The magic only affected the Prophets (peace be upon him) limbs and organs, but it did not affect his heart, beliefs  and intellectual capacity to convey the revelation being sent to him (i.e. it only had  a significant affect on him on the outside, but not in the inside).  

Secondly, its not true to characterize  the rejection of this incident as a Hanafi stance just because a few Hanafi  scholars may have rejected the story.  An example being Abi Bakr al-Jassas who may have likely done so due to his  Mutazilite inclinations. Regardless of  what motivated his rejection of the  story, al-Jassas doesn’t speak on behalf of the entire Hanafi school!. Rather, we find that the Hanafis have either accepted this story  as either true or narrated it without objecting to it.  Below we present at least five examples of these Hanafi scholars.  

1)  Abi Ja’far at-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.) narrates two ahaadeeth mentioning the incident of the Prophet having a  spell casted upon him and after that  proceeds on to argue that black magic  has remained a real part of our world  up until the time of the Prophet, and  consequently remains so up until ours as well…. [Sharh Mushkil al-Athaar, (al-Risaala, 1st edition, 1994; edited Shuab al-Arna’ut, Volume 15, pp.179-181]

These two ahadeeth indicate that  black magic remained existing until the time the Prophet (peace be upon him) was influenced by black magic. If it (i.e. black magic) remained until that time, then its existence even after that is possible as well.


2)  Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 A.H.) in his commentary of the Qur’an makes  mention of the incident without any  display of criticism or rejection of it. In fact, he mentions it as a valid opinion  when it comes to explaining the  historical context of the revelation of Surah 113 and even goes further to demonstrate that the story serves as a proof for the prophethood of  Muhammad (peace be upon him) because the story demonstrated that he was able to overcome this trial…


But according to us fi maa QEELA  [regarding what had been said], i.e. that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was influenced by magic, there are two means of demonstrating his Messengership and Prophethood:

One of them is that, that the Prophet knew via revelation about the black  magic spell casted on him. For this was done secretly, and no one could have known about it except via revelation.

Secondly: The recitation of the Quran  quashes the effect of magic, just as the  staff of Musa (peace be upon him)  destroyed the effect of Pharaohs  tricks. [Taweelat Ahlussuah, (al-Risaala, 1st edition, 2004; edited  by Fatima Yusuf), Volume 5, p. 543]  

Some have tried to suggest that when al-Maturidi says fi  maa  Qeela, that he is using Qeela as a seeghat tamridh in order to signify that the opinion regarding the veracity of this story is weak. However, its very critical  that  one pays close attention to not only the methodology of al-Maturidi, but also the context itself. The word Qeela which literally translates to it was said, could actually be used to mean just that (i.e. relaying what has been said about a certain matter).

Dr. Majdi Baslum in his introduction to the commentary of al-Maturidi (Taweelat Ahlussunnah) says that al-Maturidi commonly uses Qeela to either eliminate the isnad or to simply present a list of opinions about a matter before he proceeds on to  critically assess each one of them. In other words, al-Maturidi would often use Qeela in the basic linguistic sense of it. And when we look back at his  comments on the incident of the  black magic spell cast on the Prophet  (peace be upon him), we precisely  see that  this is how he is using it. Its difficult to read the Qeela here as a  seeghat tamridh without imposing it upon the text and even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is indeed the case, what is crystal clear is that al-Maturidi had no theological objections to the story itself. On the contrary, he  saw it as a potential positive argument for the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).  

3) Abi al-Layth as-Samarqandi  (d. 373 A.H.) in his Quranic  commentary explains the historical context of Surah 113:5 to be referring to the story of the Prophet being affected by Labid the magician…


Allah All-Mighty said: And from the  evil of an envier when he envies 
[113:6], meaning from all envy. He intends by this Labid ibn Asma the Jew [Bahr al-Uloom, (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut, 1st edition,  1993), Volume 3, p. 526-527]

4)  Abi al-Barakaat an-Nasafi (d.710  A.H.) similarly in his commentary on the Qur’an also accepts the validity of the story. [see: Madaarik at-Tanzeel wa-Haqaaiq at-Taweel, (Dar al-Kalim  at-Tayyib, Beirut; edited by Yusuf Ali Bidaywi, 1st edition, 1998), Volume 3, pp. 700-701]

5)  Badrul-Deen al-‘Aini (d. 855 A.H.) in his commentary on Saheeh al-Bukhari refers to those who reject the  story as “heretics” (mulhideen) and  refutes the theological objection to the story by demonstrating that it had no  implications on  Muhammad (peace be upon him) in terms of his role as the Messenger of Allah…[see: Umdat  al-Qaari,  (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut; edited by Abdullah Mahmoud Abdullah  Umar, 1st edition, 2001),Volume 15, p.135]


It was narrated that Aaishah (May Allaah be pleased with her) said: A spell was put on the  Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until he imagined that he had done a thing when he had not done it. – Of course none of this entails that there was a compromise on the ability to convey revelation.

Some heretics objected to the hadeeth of Aisha. They said: How can the magic  affect the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), whilst magic is kufr and an action of the devils? How can its harm reach the Prophet (peace be upon him)  while he was under the protection of Allah and Allah supporting him with  the angels, and the revelation was protected  from the devils? And I answer: That  this objection is invalid, for Allah said to His Messenger: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak. [113:1], until He says: in knots [113:4], and Blowers: are those magicians who  tie knots. None of this entails that the  effect of this was permanent or that it affected him internally or his capacity  as a Messenger. Rather, the effect of the magic is similar to what a sick  person gets affected by when he  gets a fever or pleurisy, such as weakness in speech or minor delusion. Then this disappeared and Allah quashed the plots of the magician. There is a consensus regarding the Prophets infallible ability to convey revelation. [Umdat  al-Qaari, (Dar al-Kutub al-Iliah, Beirut; edited by Abdullah  Mahmoud Abdullah Umar, 1st  edition, 2001),Volume 15, p. 135]

In a nutshell, we observe that its absolutely false to say that the Hanafi  stance is to reject the story of the black magic spell casted on the Prophet (peace be upon him). Its shoddy scholarship to take isolated opinions of individual scholars and use that to paint a stance on an entire school of thought.