Category Archives: Hanafi Fiqh

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

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

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

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

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

Answer (by Mufti Waseem Khan): 

Wa Alaikum As Salam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Allah Knows Best

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

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

Advertisements

Women Attending the Eid Salaah – Response to the Corrupt Arguments

BY JAMIATUL ULAMA NORTHERN CAPE

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

HAZRAT AYESHA RADHIYALLAHU ANHA’S FATWA 

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

THE AMUSING CONTROVERSY OF THE MORONS 

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

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

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

The Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab:

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

The Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab:

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

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

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

The Fatwa of the Maaliki Math-hab:

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

The Fatwa of the Hambali Math-hab:

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

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

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

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

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

THE ERA OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

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

The response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SUNNAH OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

The anti-Sunnah Bid’atis state: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE STUPID ARGUMENT OF TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESTRICTING THE PROHIBITION  TO THE HANAFI MATH-HAB

The morons of Habibia Soofie-goofie Mosque state: 

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

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ARGUMENT OF HANAFI-RULED LANDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And according to Shaafis, Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

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

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

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

The following ruling appears in a Shaafi Fiqh Kitaab:

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

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

UNINTERRUPTED ATTENDANCE OF SHAMELESS WOMEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SHAAFI MATH-HAB AND INDONESIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USOOLE FIQH

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

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

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

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

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

A SALAFI CONTENTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanafi Stance on the Six Fasts of Shawwaal

Question: A Moulana claims that it is Makrooh to fast six days during the month of Shawwaal. He claims that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) it is Makrooh. Is it Makrooh or Sunnat to fast six days during the month of Shawwaal?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The Maulana talks drivel. Fasting six days during the month of Shawwaal is Sunnat. It is a practice observed from the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whilst the juhhaal (ignoramuses) baselessly claim that the Hadith on which the validity of this practice is based is a fabrication, the Hadith is authentic. Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) said that this Hadith is narrated via three authentic Chains of Transmission from the Sahaabah Abu Ayyub Ansaari, Thaubaan and Jabir Bin Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhum).

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever fasts the month of Ramadhaan and follows it up with six days of Shawwaal, is as if he has fasted a whole year.”

This Hadith is recorded in Saheeh Muslim, Tirmizi, Nisaai, Abu Dawood and Musnad-e-Ahmad. Thus, the claim of it being Maudhoo’ (fabricated) is palpably baatil (false).

The Makrooh view attributed to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) was predicated with prevalent circumstances. In his era the practice was assigned a higher level. It was elevated to the level of Wujoob (being compulsory). It is a well-known principle of the Shariah that when even a Sunnah practice is   elevated to the degree of Wujoob, it shall be labelled bid’ah and prohibited until such time that the belief of the masses has been rectified.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) mentioned the virtues of fasting six days during Shawwaal and encouraged its observance, it was just natural for the Sahaabah to embrace the   practice with great enthusiasm. They steadfastly observed this practice of fasting six days in Shawwaal. Their steadfast and enthusiastic observance of this practice resulted in the belief   during the Taabieen age that   fasting the six days of Shawwaal was akin to Ramadhaan.

Commenting on the elevation to Wujoob of this practice, Allaamah Ibn Hummaam (Rahimahullah) of the 9th Islamic century states in Fathul Qadeer: 

“The reason for the Makrooh view is that among the masses the belief of incumbency gained ascendancy. Thus, we have heard some saying on the Day of Fitr (Eid): ‘For us it is not yet Eid.’, or similar such statements. However, in the absence of this (type of idea), there is nothing wrong fasting the six days because of the Hadith (encouraging its observance).”  

In Al-Muheetul Burhaani is mentioned: 

“The Makrooh view is based on the fear that it (the 6 days) would become enumerated with Ramadhaan…..However, today, that idea does not exist. It is  therefore not Makrooh.”  

Al-Qustalaani states in Mawaahibur Rahmaan: 

According to our Ulama and Imaam Shaafi’ it is not Makrooh to follow Eidul Fitr with six fasts of Shawwaal, for the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) says: ‘Whoever fasts   Ramadhaan (same Hadith as above).”

There is consensus of the Fuqaha that fasting six days in Shawwaal is Sunnat. It is a practice which   has existed in the Ummah since the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The rare view of Karaahat (it being Makrooh) has to be incumbently set aside or   appropriately interpreted to reconcile it with the well-substantiated practice – substantiated by the consensus of the Ummah. A rare view may not be cited to abrogate an established practice of the Shariah.

The Makrooh view is also attributed to Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh). It is quite clear that the Hadith on this subject did not reach Imaam Maalik. There is no Sahaabi, no Imaam and no Muhaddith who had claimed or who could claim to have encompassed all the hundreds of thousands of Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is precisely for this reason that the Aimmah Mujtahideen had instructed their Students who were Mujtahids and Fuqaha of the highest calibre, to set aside their views should they come across a Saheeh Hadith stating another view.

In our time, the idea of the six Shawwaal fasts being considered to be part of Ramadhaan or being Waajib is furthest from the mind. Leave alone believing these fasts to be part of Ramadhaan, most Muslims are unaware of this Sunnat practice, and most of those who are even aware, do not observe this practice. Thus, the original Sunnat practice remains intact, and the baseless view of Makrooh propagated by the juhhaal of our time is rejected.  

Also Read:  Imam Abu Hanifa’s View on Six Fasts of Shawwal & the Mufta Bihi Position of the Hanafi Madh-hab

Ruling on praying behind an Imam of Ahl-e-Hawa’ – A Brief Analysis of Az-Zabeedi’s View

Question: I have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and also in Mullah Ali Qaari’s commentary of Fiqhul Akbar that the Ahlus Sunnah perform Salaat behind a man even if he is a faajir (immoral). However, I do not perform Salaat behind these deviant Salafis in prison because Az-Zabeedi’ Al-Hanafi said that Salaat behind the Ahl-e-Hawa is Laa Ya jooz (not permissible). Please explain the conflict between our Hanafi Scholars on this issue.

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama): What you have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and Fiqhul Akbar is correct. That is the belief and practice of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is the official position. 

Regarding Az-Zabeedi’s statement, firstly, it does not say that Salaat behind the Ahle-Bid’ah is invalid. It says: ‘La tajooz’ which does not mean ‘invalid’. The statement says that one should not perform Salaat behind them.

Secondly, his advice is in conflict with the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf.. Thus, we do not make amal on the obscure and rare opinion. Whilst we do not intentionally seek out a Bid’ati to follow in Salaat, nevertheless if we are in a situation where the Imaam is from among the Ahl-e-Hawa (people of nafsaani desire/deviates), then we do not perform our Salaat alone. We join the Jamaat. In Musjdul Haraam in Makkah, and in Musjidun Nabawi in Madinah, the Imaams are generally Salafi. We join the Jamaat and perform Salaat behind them, and this is in accord with the Aqeedah stated in all our kutub of Aqeedah as you are aware. Thus, you may not utilize Az-Zabeedi’s version to cancel the clear-cut ruling of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf.

Salafis (Wahhabis) are astray, but they are Muslims. We perform Salaat even behind them. However, if a Salafi who makes masah on ordinary socks leads the Salaat, and if we are aware of it, then we repeat the Salaat we had performed behind him, not because we believe him to be a kaafir, but because his wudhu is not valid.

Sajdah Shukr (Prostration of Gratitude) according to Hanafiyyah

By Mufti Abu Hajira

“Prostration of gratitude” in terms of fiqh means that when some blessing of Allāh is bestowed, or when Allāh Ta’ālā opens the doors of myriads of bounties upon His servant that it is mustaḥabb (desirable) and afḍal (virtuous) to face the Qiblah and prostrate. While prostrating, the servant shall praise Allāh and recite the tasbīḥ. Thereafter he says the takbīr (“Allāhu Akbar”) and raises his head. At this juncture he will neither recite the tashahhud nor perform the salām.

As for the Ḥanafiyyah, many echo the opinion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) that he did not regard such a prostration to be “anything”, that rather he regards it to be makrūh and that it should be left out. Such is mentioned in the primers like Nūr al-Īḍāḥ:

“According to Imām Ṣāḥib, the prostration of gratitude is disliked, not rewarded, and one should leave it out. The Ṣāḥibayn say that it is a means of proximity [to Allāh] and one will be rewarded for it; its modality is like that of sajdah al-tilāwah.”

While understanding this difference of opinion between the teacher and his two students, we come across varied statements.

‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Ābidīn al-Shāmī al-Ḥanafī (raḥimahullāh) has mentioned, quoting from al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī of ‘Allāmah Burhān al-Dīn (raḥimahullāh), that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) was of the opinion that this prostration of gratitude is not wājib. This is because if it were wājib to perform this prostration at the reception of any bounty of Allāh, then a servant would be forever liable to perform these prostrations of gratitude because Allāh’s bounties are bestowed around the clock like rain. This would obviously render undue hardship, which is not stipulated in the Sharī’ah.

The Ṣāḥibayn (Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad (raḥimahumallāh)) on the other hand say that this prostration is a type of worship and that one who performs it will be rewarded. In other words, according to the Ṣāḥibayn, the prostration of gratitude is mustaḥabb and virtuous.

‘Allāmah al-Shāmī (raḥimahullāh) has mentioned at the end of his discussion that the difference between the opinions of Imām Ṣāḥib and the Ṣāḥibayn (raḥimahumullāh) is in regard to the sunniyyah of this prostration, and not in its permissibility in the Sharī’ah. He says,

“And the relied upon opinion is that the difference is in regard to the prostration being a sunnah, and not in regard to it being permissible.”

While the above is a nice and concise reconciliation of the issue, it does not seem to explain away exactly why Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) would regard such a prostration to be “disliked”, not rewarding, and worthy of being left out. If there is no difference about the permissibility of the matter, then carrying out a permissible does not warrant dislike. Let us then look further.

In al-Fatāwā al-Tātārkhāniyyah, quoting from al-Qudūrī, it has been mentioned that Imām Ṣāḥib considered the prostration of gratitude to be makrūh. The same has been attributed to Imām Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī (raḥimahullāh), a teacher of Imām Ṣāḥib, in al-Siyar al-Kabīr. In al-Mukhtalif, Imām Ṣāḥib has been reported to have said that the prostration of gratitude is not a stipulated (mashrū‘) way of gaining proximity (qurbah).

‘Allāmah Ibn Kamāl Pāshā (raḥimahullāh) has mentioned that according to the Shaykhayn (Imām Ṣāḥib and Imām Abū Yūsuf (raḥimahumallāh)), anything less than one unit (rak’ah) is not a means of proximity (qurbah) except in cases where there is a clear naṣṣ, and the case of this is the prostration of tilāwah. So a singular prostration cannot be a means of proximity (in attaining the shar’ī status of qurbah) aside from what has been narrated.

Ḥusām al-Dīn al-Sighnāqī (raḥimahullāh) mentions that Imām Muḥammad (raḥimahullāh) considered the prostration of gratitude to be a masnūn act, while according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and one of the opinions of Imām Abū Yūsuf (raḥimahumallāh), it is not a sunnah. In one narration of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) through Imām Muḥammad (raḥimahullāh), it is mentioned to be makrūh. It is also mentioned from Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) that he does not regard the prostration of gratitude to be “anything”.

The Mutaqaddimūn have differed in interpreting Imām Ṣāḥib’s statement regarding this prostration “not being anything”:

A. It means that he does not regard it to be a sunnah.

B. His intent is to negate the wujūbiyyah.

C. His intent is to negate the mashrū’iyyah (inceptual stipulation from the side of the Sharī’ah)

D. It is not a complete form of gratitude

Since “A & B” both essentially decrease the rank of the prostration and do not negate it completely, let’s focus on “C & D”, where Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) did not consider such a prostration to be a proper perfection in thanking Allāh for the bounties (kamāl al-shukr). The perfection of gratitude then is in offering a two rak’ah prayer as Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu alayhi wasallam) did on the day of the Conquest of Makkah, as mentioned in al-Siyar al-Kabīr. This understanding is not baseless either.

The ṣalāh performed by Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam) on the day of the Conquest at the house of Umm Hāni’ (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) were two rak’ahs as a form of gratitude towards Allāh. This is the complete form of gratitude. Ibn al-Qayyim (raḥimahullāh) affirmed this in Zād al-Ma’ād, refuting those who considered these two rak’ahs to be Ḍuḥā (forenoon prayer). He says, “This ṣalāh is the Ṣalāh al-Fatḥ. In the incident is the evidence indicating that it was due to the conquest made, as a gratitude towards Allāh. For indeed, Umm Hāni’ (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) stated, ‘I never saw him perform this ṣalāh, neither before this instance nor after it.’”

This above interpretation is what Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) has adopted as his view of the prostration of gratitude, i.e. that it refers to a two rak’ah ṣalāh for gratitude. This is because using the term “prostration” in its general form (iṭlāqan) to refer to a complete ṣalāh is abundantly prevalent in the Sharī’ah as well. Sayyidunā Thawbān (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu) narrates that Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), “You should adopt abundant prostrations for sake of Allāh (i.e abundance of ṣalāh).” And in the narration of Rabīʿah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu), he (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wasallam) said, “Aid me in that with abundance of prostrations.” Imām al-Nawawī (raḥimahullāh) mentions in its explanation: “What is intended by it (prostration) is prostrating during ṣalāh.”

And if we can take the meaning of “prostration” to mean complete ṣalāh in these narrations, then the same can be done in other instances as well where there is no indication to interpret it otherwise. By this response we can also substantiate the interpretation that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) negated stipulation of such prostration from the side of the Sharī’ah (i.e interpretation C) since these evidences then would all refer to complete units of ṣalāh. 

It will hence be said that this does not negate the stipulation of this prostration as a means of proximity, rather the intent here is to negate the stipulation of it as a compulsory (wājib) act of gratitude since it is impossible to measure the bounties of Allāh. With this understanding, we may look towards “A & B” as an explanation of “C & D”. While Imām Ṣāḥib drops the level of such prostration down from wājib and sunnah, he does so by negating their stipulation in the Sharī’ah as a sunnah or wājib. And since it is not a complete form of gratitude, one should rather opt for a complete form. But this still begs the question of why there would be no reward for such prostration, since negation is not being made of prostration as a means of proximity (qurbah).

On the other side of the coin, Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad (raḥimahumallāh) opine according to one narration from them that the prostration of gratitude is a means of proximity and worthy of being rewarded. This is due to the narrations mentioned in the six books of aḥādīth except for al-Nasā’ī on authority of Abū Bakrah (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu) that whenever Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would face a matter that pleased him or he received glad tidings, then he would perform prostration. On authority of ‘Abdur Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu), it is mentioned that Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) came out towards his orchard, faced the Qiblah, and went down into prostration. He prolonged his prostration and thereafter raised his head and said, “Indeed Jibrīl came to me, gave me glad tidings, and said, ‘Indeed Allāh (azza wajall) says to you that whosoever sends salutations upon you, I shall bestow salutations upon him (have mercy on him).’ Hence I prostrated to Allāh as a form of gratitude.”

Similarly, Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ (raḍiyallāhu anhu) mentions, “We came out with Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu alayhi wasallam) from Makkah intending toward Madīnah, then when we were closer to Ḥarūrā, he dismounted, raised his hands in supplication toward Allāh for some time and then went down into prostration. He did this thrice, and said, ‘I sought from Allāh and interceded to him for my Ummah and He bestowed me the intercession of a third of my Ummah, so I prostrated for gratitude. Then I raised my head and asked Allāh for my Ummah and He bestowed another third of my Ummah, so I went into prostration of gratitude. I then raised my head and asked Allāh for my Ummah, and He bestowed the last third of my Ummah, so I went down into prostration of gratitude.’”

Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (raḍiyallāhu anhu) also prostrated for gratitude when the news of the demise of Musaylimah, the false prophet, reached him. And Sayyidunā ‘Alī (raḍiyallāhu anhu) also prostrated for gratitude when he found Dhū al-Thudayyah among the dead bodies of the Khawārij.

Hence, the narration of the occurrence of such prostration of gratitude are many, recorded in many acceptable compilations. Those who hold to the opinion that Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) did not consider such prostration to be anything, contend that these are either interpreted towards full ṣalāh, or are abrogated. However, the Ṣaḥābah (raḍiyallāhu anhum) having done it gives strength to the permissibility of it.

An appropriate reconciliation is mentioned in al-Fatāwā al-Tātārkhāniyyah, that the statements of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) are contextual to the prostration being “wājib” while the statements of Imām Muḥammad (raḥimahullāh) are contextual to it being “mustaḥabb”. The two should not be mixed or confused, and both will be acted upon. One must not feel the need to prostrate for gratitude upon realization of every bounty of Allāh as Imām Ṣāḥib (raḥimahullāh) mentions, but at the same time it is permissible to do so when bestowed with some particular bounty of Allāh which pleases one. In this reconciliation, the dislikeness (karāhiyah) will refer to sanctioning something which is mubāḥ or mustaḥabb to a higher status of sunnah or wājib, which will become a bid’ah and blameworthy in the Sharī’ah, hence makrūh just like Imām Ṣāḥib’s statement. Whereas without such belief of wujūbiyyah, one’s exertion to thank Allāh through this permissible action will be a means of proximity and reward from Allāh, in accordance with the Ṣāḥibayn’s statement.

Hence we shall not stop the masses from carrying out the prostration of gratitude within its right confinement, embodying humility, servitude, and worship. This is our fatwā on the issue. And with this detail we may understand the statement of Nūr al-Īḍāḥ when it says, “According to Imām Ṣāḥib, the prostration of gratitude is disliked, not rewarded, and one should leave it out. The Ṣāḥibayn say that it is a means of proximity [to Allāh] and one will be rewarded for it; its modality is like that of sajdah al-tilāwah.”

~Abuhajira

[prepared from study notes for “Nur al Idah” Ijazah Class for ilmhub.com]

اہل کوفہ اور علم حدیث

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

جادو وہ جو سر چڑھ کر بولے

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

نمبر [15] معرور رحمه الله بن سوید رحمه الله

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

باش کہ تاطبل قیامت زنند

آن تو نیک آید و یا ایں ما

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

اقتاس ! مقام ابی حنیفہ رحمه الله

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

باب سوم : صفحہ نمبر 63 سے 70 تک

راشد حنفی

The Question of Raf-ul-Yadain (Raising the Hands in Salaah) – THE HANAFI VIEW

By Mujlisul Ulama

INTRODUCTION

In recent times there has sprung up a sect which has styled itself with the misleading title Salafis . The salient feature of the members of this sect is their venom for Taqleed or the Islamic concept of following the illustrious Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. While they in general denounce all the Math-habs, they entertain a special aversion for Hadhrat Imaam A’zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayhi).

The main item of the Salafi propaganda is to disseminate the idea that a great part of the Hanafi teaching is the product of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s opinion. They baselessly and maliciously claim that there is neither Qur’aanic nor Hadith evidence for many of the teachings of the Hanafi Math-hab. In fact, they perpetrate the slander of falsely claiming that many of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s teachings are in open conflict with the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wassallam). One such false accusation pertains to the practice of Rafa’ Yadain .

Rafa’ Yadain in the context of this treatise is the practice of raising both hands before and after ruku’ during Salaat. The modernist misguided and ignorant Salafis content that the Hanafi Math-hab has no narrational evidence for this practice which according to them is purely the product of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s opinion. They seek to bamboozle ignorant and unwary people by summarily dismissing as weak and fabricated the Ahaadith which the Hanafis present as the basis of their view. The aim of this treatise is only to expose the falsity of the Salafi charge.

The purpose of this treatise is not to refute the Shaafi practice of  Rafa’ Yadain. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah comprises the four Math-hab – Hanafi, Shaafi, Maaliki, and Hambali. All four are on the Haqq (Truth) nothwithstanding differences. This treatise is not an attempt to show that the Shaafi practice of Rafa’ Yadain is baseless. Far from it. Both Math-habs – in fact all four Math-habs – have their respective Qur’aanic and Hadith proofs for their teachings. Thus, the attempt is not to wean followers of the other Mathaa-hib form their Math-habs. The aim is not to convince Shaafis or Hambalis to renounce their practices of Rafa’ Yadain. Our purpose is merely to expose the falsity of the Salafis and to debunk their baseless charge against the Hanafi Math-hab.

Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wassallam) has warned that the Ummah will be split into 73 sects, of which 72 will be assigned to Jahannum. Only one sect – the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, viz., the followers of the four Math-habs is today’s context will be the Naaji (saved) group. These modernist Salafis who are anti-Math-hab, are within the fold of the 72 doomed sects. The common factor of all the 72 doomed sects is their aversion for the Salf-e-Saaliheen – the Pious Predecessors who lived in the first three initial epochs of Islam known as Quroon-e-Thalaathah. The Imaam of the Math-habs are of this glorious age.

Insha’Allah, we shall from time to time publish booklets and articles to expose the deviation of the modernist Salafi group and to prove that all teachings of the Hanafi Math-hab are the products of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

NARRATIONAL EVIDENCE PART – 1

Although the Hanafi Math-hab has also rational evidence for its view regarding Rafa’ Yadain, this booklet discusses only the Naqli (narrational) evidence on which is based the Hanafi practice of abstention from Rafa’ Yadain. The primary basis of all acts of Ibaadat is narrational evidence, not rational proofs. Rational proof is simply adduced as additional substantiation to strengthen an argument. 

AHAADITH OF SAYYIDINA RASULULLAH (Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam)

Proof 1

Uthmaan Bin Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim (Ibn Kulaib) – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Aswad – Alqamah said: 

Abdullah Bin Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

Alqamah said: “Then he (Ibn Mas’ood) performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.’  [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 2

Hasan Bin Ali – Muaawiyah – Khaalid Bin Amr Bin Saeed – Abu Huzaifah. They said Sufyaan narrated to us with this same isnaad (as mentioned in No. I above). He said: 

“He (Ibn Mas’ood) raised his hands in the beginning once.” Some narrators said: ‘one time’.  [Abu Dawood]

Proof 3

Hamaad – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim bin Kulaib -Abdur Rahmaan bin Al Aswad – Alqamah who said: “Abdullah Bin Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

‘Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He (Ibn Mas’ood) then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except in the beginning once.’

Tirmithi added also that in this regard there is also the narration of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu): Tirmithi said:

“The Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood is Hasan. 

*This is also the view of many of the Ulama among the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) and the Taabieen. This is also the view of Sufyaan and the Ahl-e-Kufa (i.e. the Ulama of Kufa).’

* i.e. The view of Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Proof 4

Mahmud Bin Ghailaan al-Marwazi – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood): Verily he said:

‘Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.  [Nasaai] 

Proof 5

Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad Alqamah said: 

‘Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

‘Should I not perform for you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.  [Ahmad in his Musnad] 

Proof 6

Suwaid Bin Nasr – Abdullah Bin al-Mubaarak – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not apprise you of the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

Alqamah said: “He (Ibn Mas’ood) then stood up and firstly raised his hands. Thereafter he never repeated it.” [Nasaai] 

Proof 7

Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad Alqamah – Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not show you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

“He then (performed Salaat) and did not raise his hands except once.”  [Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah in his Musannaf] 

Proof 8

Abu Uthmaan Saeed Bin Muhammad Bin Ahmad al-Hannaat and Abdul Wahhaab Bin Isaa Bin Abi Hayyah- (both from) – Ishaaq Bin Abi Israaeel Muhammad Bin Jaabir – Hammaad – Ibraaheem – Alqamah – Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood – radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I performed Salaat with Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), with Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma). They did not raise their hands except at the time of the first Takbeer in the opening of the Salaat.” [Daara Qutni]

Ibn Adi has also narrated the above Hadith with his sanad. 

Proof 9

Ibn Abi Dawood – Nu’aim Bin Hammaad – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood – radtfiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands in the first Takbeer. Then he would not do so again. [Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 10

Muhammad Bin Nu’maan – Yahya Bin Yahya – Wakee’ – Sufyaan narrated the same text (as above in No. 9) with the same isnaad. 
[Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 11

Abu Bakrah – Muammal – Sufyaan narrating from Mugheerah said:

“I narrated the Hadith of Waa-il to Ibraaheem, that he (Waa-il) saw Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raise his hands when he commenced Salaat, when he made ruku’ and when he lifted his head from ruku’.’ 

Ibraaheem said: “If it is so that Waa-il saw him doing so once, then (remember that) Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood) saw him (Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) fifty times not doing this.” [Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 12

Ahmad Bin Abi Dawood – Musaddid – Khaalid Bin Abdullah – Husain Amr Bin Murrah who said:

“I entered the Musjid of Hadhramaut and saw Alqamah Bin Waa-il narrating from his father that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands before ruku’ and after ruku’. I narrated this to Ibraaheem who became angry and said: “Waa-il (radhiyallahu anhu) saw him. Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions did not see him (Rasulullah – doing so)” [Tahaawi – Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 13

The companions of Abu Hanifah said:

“Abu Hanifah said that Haremmad narrated from lbraaheem who narrated from Alqamah and AI-Aswad from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu): “Verily Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would not raise his hands except at the time of commencing Salaat, then he did not at all repeat it.” [The As-haab of the Masaaneed of Imaam Abu Hanifah]

Many other Muhadditheen have similarly narrated in their treatises, compilations and books.

Some of the asaaneed (chains of narration) of the Hadith of lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) are jayyid (excellent) in terms of the conditions laid down by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim.

Some of these asaaneed are Hasan. It is valid to cite a Hasan Hadith as proof. On the basis of some of the asaaneed of the Hadith of lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), Hafiz Ibn Hazm, Daara Qutni, Ibnul Qattaan and others have declared the Hadith (of Ibn Mas’ood) to be Saheeh (authentic). Hafiz Ibn Hajr concurs with this verdict in his Talkhees on the Takhreej of Zaila-ee on Hidaayah.

In a Saheeh Sanad of this Hadith in the Musnad of Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah are five narrators besides Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), viz. Wakee’, Sufyaan, Aasim Bin Kulaib, Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad and Alqamah. The following are the comments of the authorities of Hadith on the status of these five narrators:

1) Wakee’   

Hafiz Ibn Hair says in Tahzeebut Tahzeeb: “Wakee’ Bin al-Jarraah Bin Maleeh, is the Kufi narrator. He is known as Abu Sufyaan. He narrated from his father and from Ismaaeel Bin Khaalid, Aiman Bin: Waa-il, Ibn Hattan and from numerous others. His sons, Sufyaan, Malee’ and Uyainah narrated from him. His Shaikh was Sufyaan Thauri, the two sons of Abi Shaibah, Abu Haithamah and Humaidi.” 

Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hambal narrating from his father said: “I have not seen a greater man of knowledge and a man with a greater memory than Wakee’.”

Ahmad Bin Sahl Bin Bahr narrating from Imaam Ahmad said: 

“Wakee’ was the Imaam of the Muslimeen in his time.”

Ibn Ma’een said: “I have not seen a better person than Wakee’.”

According to Mulla Ali Qaari, Wakee’ was among the highest ranking narrators of Bukhaari. He was of the Tab-e-Taabieen era. Imaam Abroad said that he preferred Wakee’ to Yahya Bin Saeed. He classified Wakee’ as a great and uprighteous Muhaddith. All the narrators of the Sihaah Sittah narrate from Wakee’.

2) Sufyaan Bin Saeed Bin Masrooq Thauri Kufi 

According to Mulla Ali Qaari in his Tazkirah, Sufyaan was the Imaam of the Muslimeen and a Proof of Allah. His excellences are innumerable. In his time he was an expert in Fiqh, Ijtihaad in Fiqh, Hadith and other branches of knowledge. His piety and authority are accepted by all the authorities of Islam. He too was among the Tab-e-Taabieen.

Abu Aasim said: “Sufyaan is the Ameerul Mu’mineen in Hadith.’ Numerous illustrious Ulama and Muhadditheen pay glowing tribute to the sterling qualities of Sufyaan.”

All the narrators of the Sihaah Sittah narrate from Sufyaan.

3) Aasim Bin Kulaib   

Mulla Ali Qaari states with regard to Aasim: 

“He is Sadooq (extremely truthful), Thiqah (an authoritative and authentic narrator).”

Yahya Bin Ma-een and Nasaai testified to his authenticity and authority in Hadith. Ibnul Qattaan al-Maghribi and Ibn Ham are renowned in Hadith circles. They are extremely severe in assessing narrators. Both have testified to the authenticity of Aasim BinKulaib. Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasaai, Ibn Majah and Tirmithi narrated his ahaadith.

4) Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad 

Mullah Ali El-Qaari says in his Tazkirah that Abdur Rahmaan is among the noblest Taa-bieen. His daily practice was 700 raka’ts Nafil Salaat. He would perform Ishaa and Fajr Salaat with one wudhu. He was an embodiment of Ibaadat. 

In Tahzeebut Tahzeeb , Hafiz says:

“Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad heard Ahaadith from his paternal uncle, Alqamah Bin Qais. Aasim Bin Kulaib and others narrate from Abdur Rahmaan al-Aswad. Ibn Ma’een, Nasaai, Ajal, Ibn Kharraash and Ibn Hibbaan declared him a Thiqah (reliable and authentic narrator). The authors of Sihah Sittah narrated from him.”

5) Alqamah Bin Qais 

According to Mulla Ali Qaari in Tazkirah, Alqamah was a senior Taabiee. He narrated Ahaadith from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and other Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). There is consensus of the Ulama on his greatness. Ibraaheem Nakha’i said: 

“Alqamah resembled Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).”

Besides Ibn Majah all the other Muhadditheen narrate his ahaadith. He is of the second generation Muhadditheen. 

The integrity and authority of these five illustrious narrators are unimpeachable. Thus, the sanad of the Hadith in Musnad ofAbu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah is Saheeh on the basis of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. Similarly, the Sanad of Abu Dawood is Saheeh on the basis of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. In the Sanad of Abu Dawood appears an extra narrator, viz. Uthmaan Bin Abi Shaibah from whom all the compilers of Sihah Sittah narrate, besides Tirmithi.

The Sanad of the Hadith of Tirmithi is Saheeh on the basis of Muslim’s conditions.

The sanad of Nasaai too is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim because in this Sanad only Mahmud Bin Ghailaan has been added to Ibn Abi Shaibah. Besides Abu Dawood the other compilers of the Sihah Sittah narrated ahaadith from him (Mahmud Bin Ghailaan).

Similarly the sanad of Imaam Abu Hanifah regarding the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) is Saheeh because all the narrators besides Hammaad Bin Abi Sulaimaan are reliable (thiqah) in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. Besides Bukhaari, Muslim and other Muhadditheen narrate from Hammaad Bin Abi Sulaimaan. Thus, his sanad is Saheeh in terms of Muslim.

The Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) also conin’ms that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raised his hands only once at the time of Takbeer Tahreemah. His Hadith is narrated by Abdur Razzaaq, Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Tahaawi, Daara Qutni and others. 

NARRATIONAL EVIDENCE PART 2

Proof 14

Abdur Razzaaq – Ibn Uyainah- Yazeed – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) recited Takbeer, he would raise his hands until we could see his thumbs near to his ears. Thereafter he would not repeat it in that Salaat.” [Abdur Razzaq’s Jaami’] 

Proof 15

Imaam Ahmad – Hushaim – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) recited Takbeer, he would raise his hands until we could see his thumbs near to his ears. Then he would not repeat (Rafa’ Yadain) in that Salaat.”  [Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal] 

Proof 16

Abu Dawood – Muhammad Bin Sabaah al-Bazzaar – Shareek – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands near to his ears when he opened (i.e. began) the Salaat, then he would not repeat (it).”  [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 17

Abu Dawood – Husain Bin Abdur Rahmaan – Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – his brother Isaa – Hakam – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raise his hands when he commenced the Salaat. Then he would not raise his hands until he completed (the Salaat).” [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 18

Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Hakam and Isaa – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said: 

“Verily, when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) commenced the Salaat, he would raise his hands, then he would not raise them (again) until he had completed (the Salaat).” 
[Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah] 

Proof 19

Tahaawi – Abu Bakrah – Muammal – Sufyaan – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad Ibn Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would recite Takbeer for beginning the Salaat, he would raise his hands until his thumbs were near to the lobes of his ears. He would then NOT repeat (Rafa’ Yadain).” [Sharh Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 20

Tahaawi – Ibn Abi Dawood – Amr Bin Aun – Khaalid – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Isaa Bin Abdur Rahmaan – from his father -Baraa’ (Bin Aazib- radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) Similar to the above Hadith (i.e. No.19) [Sharh Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 21

Tahaawi – Muhammad Bin Nu’maan – Yahya Bin Yahya-narrates from both:

Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – his brotherHakam – Ibn Abi Lailaa

(both from) – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) a similar Hadith. [Sharhu Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 22

Daara Qutni – Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Alalaa’ – Abul Ash’ath – Muhammad Bin Bakr – Shu’ba – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad said:

“I heard Ibn Lailaa say: ‘I heard Baraa (Bin Aazib) in this gathering speaking to people among whom was Ka’b Bin Ujrah. He (Baraa) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raising his hands when he commenced Salaat in the first Takbeer.'” [Daara Qutni] 

Proof 23

Daara Qutni – Yahya Bin Muhammad Bin Saa-id- Muhammad Bin Sulaimaan Luwain – Ismaaeel Bin Zakariyya – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa (Bin Aazib – radhiyallahu anhum) saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raising his hands at the time of commencing the Salaat until he brought them in line with his ears. Thereafter he would not at all repeat it (Rafa’ Yadain) until he had completed his Salaat. [Daara Qutni]

In other words, after Salaat Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would lift his hands when making dua. 

Proof 24

Daara Qutni – Ibn Saa-id – Luwain – Ismaaeel Bin Zakariyya – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Adi Bin Thaabit – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated similarly. [Daara Qutni] 

Proof 25

Daara Qutni – Abu Bakr al-Aadami Abroad Bin Ismaaeel- Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Ayyub al-Makhrami – Ali Bin Aasim – Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) when he stood for Salaat, reciting Takbeer and raising his hands until he brought them in line with his ears. Then he did not repeat it.” [Daara Qutni]

Besides the aforementioned authorities other Muhadditheen too have narrated the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Some of the asaaneed (plural of sanad) of the Hadith of Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) are Jayyid (excellent) and Saheeh (authentic) in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim or of one of them.

Among the Saheeh asaaneed of this Hadith is the sanad of Abdur Razzaaq. In his sanad are three narrators, viz. Ibn Uyainah, Yazid and Abdur-Rahmaan.

With regard to Ibn Uyainah, the Muhadditheen pay glowing tribute to him. In his Tazkirah , Mulla Ali Qaari states that Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah was one of the most senior experts (Hafiz) of Hadith as well as a great expert of Fiqah. He is described as a great Imaam in Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa.

Hafiz in At-Taqreeb has the same glowing titles for him. The compilers of Sihah Sittar narrate from him.

Regarding Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad Al-Haashimi, the Muhadditheen differ. Bukhaari applied the principle of Ta’leeq to him. Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasaai, lbn Majah and Tirmithi have narrated his Hadith.

Regarding Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa Al-Ansaari. He is a Taabi-ee who met 120 Sahaabah. According to the Muhadditheen, he is flawless . The compilers of the Sihah Sitta narrate his Ahaadith.

Thus, the sanad of Baraa’s Hadith as narrated by Abdur Razzaaq is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. …. 

Another Hadith on this issue, is the narration of Jaabir Bin Samurah (mdhiyallahu anhu) which is narrated in Saheeh Muslim. 

Proof 26

Jaabir (radhiyallahu unhu) said: 

“Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) came out (from his house) towards us and said: “Why do I see you raising your hands as if (your hands) are the tails of mischievous horses. Be tranquil in Salaat.'”

According to Imaam Bukhaari, this Hadith does not support the Hanafi claim because Abdullah Bin al-Qibti narrates that Jaabir Bin Samurah (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“We use to perform Salaat behind Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). When he said ‘Assalamu Alaikum’, we would indicate with our hands on both sides. Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said:

“What is wrong with these people? They point with their hands (i.e. raising them) as if their hands are the tails of mischievous horses. It suffices to place the hands on the thighs, then making salaam to his brother on his right and left side.”

The Ahnaaf counter this argument by averring that these are two different Hadiths. The one narrated earlier (No. 26) refers to Rafa’ Yadain which is the issue now under discussion. 

The other Hadith (which is narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) concerns the practice of raising the hands at the time of making Salaam at the end of Salaat. But this is not the topic being discussed here. This explanation has been tendered by Mulla Ali Qaari in Mirkaat, Sharah Mishkaat.

Imaam Jamaalud-Deen Zaila’i (rahmatullah alayhi) refuted the notion that both – Hadiths No. 26 and the one narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti – are one and the same, stating that it is not said to a person raising his hands upon making salaam: “Be tranquil in Salaat”. These words (Be tranquil in Salaat) are only said to a person who is still in Salaat; in the state of Ruku’ or Sujood or when he stands up for the second, third or fourth rak’at. The application of these words to the latter sense is manifestly clear.

Both the Hadiths are therefore, not the same. The first was narrated by a certain raawi on a certain occasion whilst the second was narrated by another raawi on a separate occasion.

Furthermore, the wording of the two Hadiths negate beyond any doubt the possibility of the two being one and the same. In Hadith No. 26 the raawi says: Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) came out towards us and said … “This indicates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said these words when he entered the Musjid whilst the Sahaabah were engaged in Salaat.”

In contrast, the second Hadith (Narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) states:  

“When we used to perform Salaat behind Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)…”

The context here (in the Hadith narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) shows that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) spoke after having lead the Sahaabah in Jama’ah (congregational) Salaat when he (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) observed them raising their hands.

The above discussion is sufficient to dispel the opinion of Imaam Bukhaari and establish the view of the Ahnaafthat these (Hadiths No. 26 and the one narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti ) are two different Hadiths. 

Proof 27

Another Hadith in substantiation of the Hanafi view is the narration of Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). The Hadith is narrated by Tibraani as follows:

Tibraani – Abelur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Hakam – Miqsam – Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Holy Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said: 

“Do not raise the hands except in seven places.

When commencing Salaat.
When entering Musjidul Haraam and seeing the Baitullah.
When standing on Marwah.
When making Wuqoof with the people in Arafaat.
At Muzdalifah.
At Maqaamain.
When pelting the Jamrah.” [Tibraani]

lmaam Bukhaari narrated this Hadith in his Al-Mu’jad fi Rafi Yadain. Wakee’ narrated this Hadith also, the sanad being as follows:

Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Hakam – Miqsam- Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Proof 28

Another Hadith in support of the Hanafi view is the Hadith of Abbaad Bin Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu).

Baihaqi – Abdullah al-Hafiz – Abul Abbaas Muhammad Bin Ya’qoob Muhammad Bin Ishaaq – Hasan Bin Rahee’ – Hafs Bin Giyaath Muhammad Abi Yahya – Abbaad Bin Zubair who narrated the following Hadith:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would open the Salaat, he would raise his hands in the beginning of Salaat. Thereafter he would not at all raise his hands until he completed (the Salaat).’ [Baihaqi]

Commenting on this narration, Imaam Baihaqi said:

“Abbaad is a Taabi-ee, hence this Hadith is of the Mursal category. A Mursal Hadith is acceptable by the Haharisi, especially if it belongs to the Quroon-e-Thalaathah and it is corroborated by other asaaneed.”

Mursal is a Hadith the sanad of which ends at a Tabi-ee – Such a Hadith is authentic – Various factors confer authenticity to a Mursal Hadith, e.g. Ahaadith on the same subject are narrated with other chains (asaaneed) by virtue of which these other Ahaadith acquire a higher status than the Mursal Hadith. Thus, when Ahaadith of a higher classification corroborate a Mursal Hadith, it is accepted as valid and authentic.

In his assessment of the above narration Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri comments:

“I have scrutinized the narrators of its isnaad. The findings of my study indicate that this Hadith is Saheeh (authentic). 

Hafiz (Ibn Hajr) gave a direction in ad-Diraayah to study its isnaad. I complied with his order and thoroughly researched it. It is Mursal Jayyid (excellent). If you desire to view my findings take a look at Nailul Farqadain’.” 

Proof 29

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Ibn Aadam – Ibn Ayyaash- Abdul Malik Ibnul JabrZubair Bin Adi – Ibraaheem – AI-Aswad who said:

“I performed Salaat with Umar (Ibn Khattaab – radhiyallahu anhu). He did not raise his hands any where in the Salaat, except when he opened the Salaat.”  [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Daara Qutni has also narrated this Hadith with his sanad. Also Imaam Tahaawi has narrated this Hadith with his sanad.

The author of Bazlul Majhood states that the above Hadith is Saheeh (authentic). Although this Hadith is based only on the Raawi, Hasan Bin Ayyaash, he (Hasan Bin Ayyaash) is thiqah (reliable) and hujjat (a proof). This was said by Yahya Bin Ma’een. Ibn Turkemaani furthermore stated that the sanad (chain of narrators) of this Hadith is Saheeh conforming to the conditions laid down by Imaam Muslim. 

Proof 30

Imaam Muhammad – Muhammad Bin Abaan Bin Saalih and Abu BakrBin Abdullah Nahshali – Aasim Bin Kulaib Jarmi – from his father who was a companion of Hadhrat Ali (karramallah wajhah). He (Kulaib Jarmi) said:

“Hadhrat Ali (karramallah wajhah) would raise his hands in Takbeer Ulaa, i.e. the Takbeer with which the Salaat is opened. Thereafter he never raised his hands anywhere in the Salaat.'” [Muatta Imaam Muhammad] 

Proof 31

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Bakrah – Abu Ahmad – Abu Bakr Nahshali – Aasim Bin Kulaib – from his father (Kulaib Jarmi) who said:

“Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would raise his hands in the first Takbeer of Salaat. Thereafter he would not raise his hands.” [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

This very same Hadith has been narrated by Imaam Tahaawi with exactly the same sanad from Abu Bakrah. 

Proof 32

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Dawood – Ahmad Bin Yunus – Abu Bakr Nahshali Aasim – from his father who was the companion of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Hadhrat Ali the same narration (i.e. as in No. 31 above). [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Tahaawi and Baihaqi have likewise narrated this Hadith with their respective chains of transmission.

Commenting on this narration, Imaam Tahaawi said that it is not conceivable that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would have deliberately abandoned Rafa’ Yadain if it was the permanent practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). Hence, it is evident that according to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the practice of Rafa’ Yadain was abrogated.

Commenting on the sanad of this Hadith, Aini says in Sharh Bukhaari:

“The isnaad of the Hadith of Aasim Bin Kulaib is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Imaam Muslim.”

Hafiz said in ad-Diraayah: 

“Its narrators are thiqah(reliable):

Zaila’i said: 

“It is an authentic narration.” 

Proof 33

Imaam Muhammad – Thanri – Husain – Ibraaheem , Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) – he (i.e. Ibn Mas’ood) would raise his hands when opening Salaat. [Muatta Imaam Muhammad]

Proof 34

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Masrood _ Abi Mas’ood – Ibraaheem narrated that Abdulla,h Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) would raise his hands in the beginning when commencing Salaat. Thereafter he would not raise his hands.  [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Tahaawi also narrated this Hadith with his sanad. The isnaad of this Hadith is Mursal Jayyid. (Jayyid – a classification of Hadith stronger than even a Hasan Hadith.) The reason for this Hadith being classified as Mursal is that Ibraaheem never met lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). However, this does not detract from the authenticity and strength of this narration since lbraaheem was in the habit of omitting the narrators between him (Ibraaheem) and Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) when a great number of raawis had narrated the Hadith to him from Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).

Imaam Tahaawi narrated the following dialogue between Ibraaheem (Nakha’i) and A’mash: 

‘A’mash: When you relate a Hadith to me please do name the chain of narrators.

Ibraaheem: When I say: ‘Abdullah said, ‘it is only when a large number has narrated the Hadith to me from Abdullah, and if I say: “So and so person narrated to me from Abdullah, it is when only that particular person has narrated to me.”

The authenticity of the above Hadith (No. 34) is therefore not tainted in the least by the omission of the narrators between Ibraaheem and Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). The great Muhaddith Daara Qutni after relating a tradition from Ibraaheem – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood), acclaims:

“The fact is that despite this narration having an irsaal (omission of a narrator) in it, Ibraaheem Nakha’i is the most enlightened of all people with regard to Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood), his views and his verdicts. He (Ibraaheem) acquired that from his maternal uncles Alqamah, al-Aswad and Abdur Rahmaan, and from other senior students of Abdullah.”

Proof 35

Imaam Muhammad – Muhammad Bin Abaan Bin Saalih-Abdul Aziz Bin Hakeem who said:

“I saw Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) raising his hands in line with his ears in the first Takbeer opening the Salaat and he did not raise his hands besides this (one occasion).” [Muatta Imaam Muhammad]

Proof 36

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash – Husain – Mujaahid who said:

“I did not see Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)raising his hands except in the beginning of opening (the Salaat).” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah] 

Proof 37

Tahaawi – Ibn Abi Dawood – Ahmad Bin Yunus – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash Husain – Mujaahid who said: 

“I performed Salaat behind Ibn Ulnar (radhiyallahu anhu). He would not raise his hands except in the first Takbeer.” [Sharh Ma-aanil Aathaar]

Commenting on this Hadith, Imaam Tahaawi said: 

“This is Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) who has seen Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) making rafa’ (raising the hands) then he abandoned it after Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). It is inconceivable for this except that he was convinced of the abrogation of what he had seen Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)doing. Thus the proof for this has been established.”

Imaam Ibn Humaam reports this narration in Tahreerul Usool. Similarly, Baihaqi in his al-Ma’rifah narrated it. The sanad of Tahaawi for this Hadith is Saheeh.

Ibn Abi Shaibah mentions the following authorities of the Shariah who negate Rafa’ Yadain at the time of ruku’ and when rising from ruku’: Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions, Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), Ibraaheem Nakha’i, Haithamah, Qais, Ibn Abi Lailaa, Mujaahid, Alswad, Sha’bi, Abu Ishaaq, Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayhim), and others – all of whom are elite members of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. 

Proof 38

Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash narrates that Mujaahid said: 

“I performed Salaat behind Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) for a number of years (in one narration, ten years). He did not raise his hands except in Takbeer Ulaa (the first Takbeer).”

This sanad is Saheeh. When a Sahabi’s action conflicts with his own narration, then in terms of the principles of Hadith, it (his action) indicate, abrogation of what he had narrated.

Al-Qastalaani in Sharh Bukhaari claims that Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash, narrator in the sanad (of No. 38 above) is dhaeef (weak). However, this claim itself is weak and incorrect because Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim, both have declared him to be Thiqah (reliable, authentic). They both narrate his ahaadith.

Furthermore, the Muhadditheen of the four other Saheeh compilations have also narrated his ahaadith. Hence, the statement by Qastalaani is unacceptable in view of his (Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash’s) ahaadith being accepted and narrated by Bukhaari and Muslim.

Also, Hafiz has praised him. Thauri, Ibn Mubaarak and Ibn Mahdi likewise lauded praise on him. Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal said: “He (Ayyaash) is truthful.” Yahya Bin Ma-een said: “He is Thiqah.”

Proof 39

It is narrated from Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) that he used to raise his hands when commencing Salaat and he used to say in every descent and ascent (i.e. when going down and rising up): “Allaahu Akbar. He would say as well: 

“I am more of a resemblance to the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) than you.” 

(Hafiz Abu Amr in al-Istithkaar and Aini in Mabaanil Akhbaar citing at-Tamheed) 

Proof 40

Ahmad bin Yoonus – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash: 

“I never saw a Faqeeh doing it; raising his hands in other than the first Takbeer.” [Tahaawi] 

Proof 41

Yet another Hadith in substantiation of the Hanafi practice of only raising the hands at the beginning of Salaat is one narrated by Baihaqi in al-Khilaafiyyaat and Zaila’i in Nasbur Raayah from Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu): 

“Verily, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) used to raise his hands when commencing Salaat. Then he would not do so again.”

Haakim said that this Hadith is Baatil (false) and Mawdhoo’ (fabricated). However this claim of Haakim is itself Baatil. The Ahnaaf state that Haakim’s claim is utterly baseless. Haakim could not find anyone on the sanad of the Hadith whom he could disparage.

Shaikh Aahid as-Sindi averred that its narrators are authentic and reliable. This he stated in al-Mawaahibul Lateefah.

It should be borne in mind that Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) was a very senior Sahaabi who was constantly in the company of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), so much so, that the impression of him being a member of the Ahl-e-Bait (Rasulullah’s family) was created. He followed Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) in all five Salaat on a daily basis. Hence, his explicit negation of Rafa’ Yadain categorically confirms that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) had discontinued the earlier practice of raising the hands.

An argument advanced to refute the Hanafi argument is that the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) has been proclaimed to be dhaeef since one of the narrators in one of the Chains is Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa who has been described as dhaeef by Abu Dawood. This argument holds no substance because the Hanafi case is not based solely on the Hadith of Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) with the sanad in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa appears. There are a number of Saheeh asaaneed (Chains of narration) in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa does not feature at all. Thus, the many other Saheeh asaaneed serve to corroborate the sanad in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa features. The cumulative effect of the Saheeh asaaneed of the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) elevates the sanad in which appears Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa, hence that Hadith too is acceptable.

Furthermore, some of these ahaadith are authentic in terms of the conditions of either both Bukhaari and Muslim or in terms of the conditions of one of them, especially the sanad of Abdur Razzaaq. The authenticity of Abdur Razzaaq’s sanad is based on the conditions of both El-Bukhaari and Muslim.

The argument that Yazeed Bin Ziyaad in this sanad is weak, is not valid because in Sharhul Bukhaari, Aini states: 

“Undoubtedly, this Yazeed has been authenticated (declared as Thiqah) by AI-Ajli, Ya’qoob Bin Sufyaan, Ahmad Bin Saalih, Sabaahi and Ibn Hibbaan.”

Also Muslim and Ibn Khuzaimah record his narration in their Saheeh. Moreover, Yazeed is not the solitary narrator of this Hadith. Isaa Abdur Rahmaan too narrated it from lbn Abi Lailaa. Similarly, Hakam has narrated it also from Ibn Abi Lailaa as recorded by Abu Dawood and others. In his Tahzeeb, Hafiz says that Muslim has also narrated the Hadith of Yazeed.

Since this narrator, viz. Yazeed, is among the narrators of Saheehain (Bukhaari and Muslim), no credence can be accorded to anyone who seeks to impugn him.

Proof 42

Shah Anwar Kashmiri states in Nailul Farqadain: 

“At this juncture one should not forget that the view of those who do not make Raf Yadain is Admi’ (i.e. they prove the non-existence or a certain act.). Taking this into account, their view is also supported by all those Ahaadith which describe the Salaat of Rasullullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam but make no mention of Raf’ Yadain, neither affirming it nor denying it. This is so because, had there been Raf’ Yadain, these Ahaadith would not have been silent on the issue.

In view of what Hadhrat Shah Kashmiri Sahib has stated, the Ahaadith that support the Hanafi view are indeed numerous. It would require a few volumes to attempt to record them. It this brief booklet only those Ahaadith have been recorded that explicitly negate Raf’ Yadain.

CONCLUSION

The Hadith narrations presented in this treatise in substantiation of the Hanafi viewpoint are all Saheeh (authentic) according to the Muhadditheen, including Shaikhaan (i.e. Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim).

All unbiased Muslims who are in pursuit of the truth will understand after having studied this short treatise, that the Hanafi practice of refraining from Rafa’ Yadain is not based on only rational/logical arguments, but is the product of authentic narrational evidence (Ahaadith). In view of the validity of the arguments and grounds of the Hanafi Math-hab, there is no controversy among the followers of the four Madhhabs on this issue. Each one follows the teachings of his Mathhab without attempting to denigrate the followers of the other Mathaahib.

Only followers of baatil such as the modernist Najdis, are bigoted in the matter of valid ikhtilaafaat (differences) based on Haqq (Truth). It is their baatil which constrains them to embark on their pernicious exercises of disparaging Al-Imaam Al-A’zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayhi) in particular. But the Truth cannot be suppressed for too long. 

Truth has come and falsehood has perished. Verily falsehood (by its very nature) is perishable
[Holy Qur’aan]