Category Archives: Hanafi Fiqh

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

Question: Asalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu Maulana Sahib,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maulana Sahib please comment on this issue, 

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

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

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

Jazakallahu Khayr

Answer: (by Mujlisul Ulama):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Was-Salaam

(Mufti) AS Desai

Mujlisul Ulama of SA

Levels of Hanafi Fuqaha & Scholars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Tavares Avery

A Relevant Point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer (by Mufti Waseem Khan): 

Wa Alaikum As Salam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Allah Knows Best

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

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

Women Attending the Eid Salaah – Response to the Corrupt Arguments

BY JAMIATUL ULAMA NORTHERN CAPE

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

HAZRAT AYESHA RADHIYALLAHU ANHA’S FATWA 

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

THE AMUSING CONTROVERSY OF THE MORONS 

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

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

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

The Fatwa of the Shaafi Math-hab:

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

The Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab:

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

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

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

The Fatwa of the Maaliki Math-hab:

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

The Fatwa of the Hambali Math-hab:

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

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

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

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

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

THE ERA OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

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

The response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SUNNAH OF NABI SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM

The anti-Sunnah Bid’atis state: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE STUPID ARGUMENT OF TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESTRICTING THE PROHIBITION  TO THE HANAFI MATH-HAB

The morons of Habibia Soofie-goofie Mosque state: 

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

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ARGUMENT OF HANAFI-RULED LANDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And according to Shaafis, Imaam Nawawi Rahimahullah states:

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

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

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

The following ruling appears in a Shaafi Fiqh Kitaab:

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

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

UNINTERRUPTED ATTENDANCE OF SHAMELESS WOMEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SHAAFI MATH-HAB AND INDONESIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USOOLE FIQH

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

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

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

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

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

A SALAFI CONTENTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]