Category Archives: Imam Abu Hanifa

The Sunnah Style of the Kurtah

QUESTION:
What is the Sunnah style of the kurtah for a man? Which style has a greater resemblance with the Sunnah – the maxi-kurtah which the Arabs wear or the kurtah with side slits worn by the Ulama of India and Pakistan? There appears to be much controversy on this issue.

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama): 

The unnecessary controversy in this regard is the nafsaani machination of such ‘learned’ men and their students whose primary concern is not the Sunnah. They are influenced by the Salafi Arabs who have adopted the long, maxi kurtah. Some of the maxi-kurtahs worn by the present-day Arabs are even below the ankle.

There is no resemblance whatsoever between the current maxi Arab-style kurtah and the kurtah which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wore. The maxi-kurtah which is on or below the ankles is haraam. The question of Sunnah simply cannot be directed towards it. It is also a clumsy garment in emulation of female dresses. It hampers free movement. It thus is a garment which is unbefitting for a Muslim male.

The kurtah worn by the Ulama of India and Pakistan has a very close resemblance to the (Kurtah) original of Qamees Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. Firstly, its length is the Sunnah length stated in the Hadith. According to the Hadith, the length of Rasulullah’s kurtah was midway between the knees and ankles. This attribute exists in the kurtah of our Akaabir Ulama. 

As for the side slits – although we have not been able to find an explicit reference to it in the Hadith, the presumption that the Sunnah kurtah did have slits is based on two factors:

(1) The Akaabir Ulama and Auliya of India and Pakistan did not forge this style. They did not call a conference to decide on a kurtah style. They inherited it from the seniors above them who in turn inherited it from the seniors above, and so on until the Chain of inheritance links up with the Sahaabah. From the life-style and ideology of our Akaabir Ulama, it is clear that there exists Ta-aamul (unbroken practice on which there is continuity from one generation to the other).

Our senior Ulama and Auliya were meticulous in their observance of inherited practices. Furthermore, they had a natural aversion for new and innovated practices. It should be remembered that the Silsilah of our Akaabireen who were all top-ranking Auliya who meticulously practised every detail of the Sunnah, is an unbroken Chain linking directly to the Sahaabah. There is no missing link anywhere in this golden Silsilah.

It has always been the practice to adopt the ways and styles of the senior Shaikh above. In this manner, the practices were transmitted and transferred from one generation to the next. For example, our Shaikh Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) did not invent the kurtah which he used to wear. He simply wore the style which his Asaatizah and Mashaaikh wore. His Shaikh, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh), did not introduce the kurtah style we are wearing. He simply adopted the style of his seniors who in turn had adopted the style of their seniors, and so on until the Chain ends with the Sahaabah. Thus, it is safe to presume that the Masnoon kurtah did have side-slits.

(2) Everyone is well aware that the Sahaabah were the greatest of fighters. They were expert horseman. Horse-riding was not a hobby or a part-time activity for them. It was a way of life. It is quite obvious that the clumsy, womanish maxi-kurtah which extends below the ankles, as well as the Salafi maxi-kurtah without slits but above the ankles and not in conformity with the Masnoon length, do not permit free and fast movement. Running, jumping and leaping with the womanish kurtah is most difficult. Unrestricted movement is hampered. The maxi-kurtah is a most unbefitting garment for a horseman and a Mujaahid in the battlefield.

Giving naseehat to an army of the Sahaabah setting out to conquer the lands of the kuffaar and to settle there, Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) stressed two acts: (a) Do not shy away from the sun. Sunshine is our bath. Sun-bathing was a way of life for the Sahaabah. They were robust and courageous. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) instructed them to beware of the luxury and comfort of the Ajam (non-Arabs). (b) Do not mount your horses like the Ajam. While non-Arabs would climb onto their horses, the Sahaabah would leap on to their horses. They would sprint and leap into the saddle. We are certain that this act is not possible with the maxi-womanish kurtah which the flabby and obese Arabs of this age have adopted, and which some molvis in our circles are advocating. There is a nafsaani agenda for this advocacy.

It should now be clear that the kurtah of our Akaabir Ulama and Auliya has the greatest resemblance with the kurtah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and perhaps it is identical. Ta-aamul of the Akaabireen is the strongest argument to bolster this claim.

Related Reading: Islamic Dress Code According To The Sunnah

Gunyat al-Talibeen and Answer to the Accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefah (Rahmatullah Alayh)

Ghair Muqallideen, the so-called Ahl-e-Hadith, target Hanafis and present a text of Gunyat al-Talibeen by Shaikh Abdul Qadir  Jeelani (rahmatullah alayh) against the Hanafis and label them as deviant and Bid’ati sect.

The Ghair Muqallideen say that Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rahimahullah) has counted Hanafis and their Imam Abu Hanifa Nu’man  Bin Thabit (rahimahullah) under the category of Murjiya sect and regarded them as Ghair Naji (who will not get deliverance from hellfire).  [Gunyat al-Talibeen by Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rh), Page: 222, Translation: Hafiz Mubassir Hussain Lahori, Darul Ilm Mumbai]

So, therefore, let us analyze this text in detail:

Answer 1:

Imam Ibn Hajr Haythami  (rahimahullah) says about the book Gunyat al-Talibeen: “There were inserted many things in the book which were not therein earlier” as Imam Ibn Hajar Haythami (rahimahullah) writes in his book:

ﻭَﺇِﻳَّﺎﻙ ﺃَﻥ ﺗﻐﺘﺮ ﺃَﻳْﻀﺎ ﺑِﻤَﺎ ﻭَﻗﻊ ﻓِﻲ ‏[ﺍﻟﻐُﻨْﻴﺔ‏] ﻹِﻣَﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺳْﻠَﺎﻡ ﻭَﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﻠِﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟْﺄُﺳْﺘَﺎﺫ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟْﻘَﺎﺩِﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻼﻧﻲ، ﻓَﺈِﻧَّﻪُ ﺩﺳَّﻪ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻓِﻴﻬَﺎ ﻣَﻦْ ﺳﻴﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻭَﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻓَﻬُﻮَ ﺑﺮﻯﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺫَﻟِﻚ ﻭَﻛَﻴﻒ ﺗُﺮﻭَّﺝ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻫَﺬِﻩ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴْﺄَﻟَﺔ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺍﻫِﻴَﺔ ﻣَﻊَ ﺗﻀَّﻠُﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟْﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭَﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺔ ﻭَﻓﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺎﻓِﻌِﻴَّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻳُﻔْﺘِﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻫﺒﻴﻦ،

“You must not be deceived by the contents of the book [Ghuniya] of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah)”, THESE THINGS WERE ADDED TO IT, Allah Ta’ala  will take revenge from them, otherwise the author should not be blamed for it. And how can this issue be hidden from him even being well-versed in the Qur’an, Sunnah and the fiqh of Shafi’i and Hanbali Schools, even he used to issue fatwas according to these schools.” [Fatawa Hadaththiyah by Ibn Hajr  Haythami, Vol.: 2, Page: 280]

Note: There are distortions at many places in Gunyat al-Talibeen as it was quoted by Ibn Hajr Haythami (rahimahullah). Therefore, calling Hanafis as deviant by referring to the distorted book is stubborness and fraud.

Answer 2:

Even the Ghayr Muqallid scholar, Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib, has written marginal note on GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN (Published by DARUL ILM, MUMBAI) and therein he very categorically refuted the attribution of Irja to Imam AbuHanifa (rahimahullah) with the reference of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib writes in the footnote:

“In some versions of Gunyat al-Talibeen, there is mention of GHASSANIYA instead of Hanafis. See for example: Al-Gunyat Ma-Ta’aliq Wa Takhreej by Iza Abu  Abdur Rahman Saleeh Bin Muhammad Bin Owaizi Vol. 1, Page: 185.

Moreover, he writes in refutation of Murjiya sect: “However if we suppose it means Hanafis, so why Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah) has regarded Hanafis a branch of Murjiya? The reason seems that it was due to allegation of Irja against Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)! But what is the reality of the quotes from which this allegation was hatched. Shaikh Ibn Abi Al-Izz, the commentator of Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah has presented several interpretations of the same. (Sharah Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah, Page: 232-234). It is also to be clear that IBN TAYMIYYAH has mentioned several praiseworthy attributes of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) and refuted many allegations levelled against him and counted him among the Aimma-E-Salaf. See for example: Minhaj Al-Sunnah Vol.: 1, Page: 259 and Vol.: 2, Page: 333. [Gunyat al-Talibeen, Translated: Hafiz Mubasshir  Hussain Lahori, Page: 222, 223, Darul Ilm, Mumbai]

Note: There are two clarifications in the footnote of Ghayr Muqallid scholar Hafiz  Mubasshir Hussain Lahori.

1. The distorters replaced the word Ghassaniyah with Hanfiya.

2. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah  (rahimahullah) refuted the allegation of being Murjiya against the Imam Abu Hanifah.

Answer 3:

According to the great scholar and Imam of Ghair Muqallideen, Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai, the versions of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chains, as he writes in the answer to a question:

“As far as I know the prevalent version of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chain, Allah Knows Best.” [Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, Vol.: 2, Page: 421]

Therefore, referring to the book which is not proved as per the Imam and Shaykh of Ghayr Muqallideen is mere deceit and fraud.

Answer 4:

Even Allama Ibrahim Sialkoti, the prominent Ghayr Muqallid scholar, has refuted this accusation as he writes in his book Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith:

“Indeed some authors (may Allah have mercy on them) have counted Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah), Imam Muhammed (Rahimahullah), and Imam Abu Yusuf (Rahimahullah) among the Murjiya sect.” while in the next lines he discards this notion saying: “This is an accusation against him. [Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 56]

Answer 5:

There are scores of Muhaddithin and Ulama who have refuted the allegation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah); for example:

1. Imam Muhammad (rahimahullab) writes that labeling any “SALAF” as Murjiya is “KUFR”. [Kitab Zad al-Sunnah]

2. Imam Ibn Qayyim says that accusing any Salaf of being  Murjiya is destroying one’s own faith.

3. Imam Ibn Rajab and Shaykh Abdul Aziz Bin Bazz wrote that it is Kufr to associate the Salaf and the Four (4) Imams with the Murjiya sect… [Mukhtasar Zadal- Ma’ad]

4. Ibn Taymiyyah says: “It is a great Innovation (Bid’at) to accuse the Four (4) Imams as being Murjiya.” [Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol.: 4, Page: 46]

5. Saleh Al-Fawzaan also has refuted the allegations of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah). [Lu’mat Ul-I’tiqaad, Page: 312]

6. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Al-Izz Hanafi (d. 792 Hijri) also refuted the accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). [Sharh  Aqeedah Tahawiyah, Page: 283-284]

7. Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) also rejected the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (rahimahullah) to Murjiya. [Faydh al-Baari, Vol. 1, Page: 61]

Answer 6:

Allama Ibn Abdul Barr Maliki  (Rahimahullah) has very emphatically refuted the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) to Murjiya, as he writes:

“Some scholars of Hadith have accused Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) with Irja, whereas there are many Ulama who have been accused with it, but the accusation towards Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahimahullah) was very much publicized unlike others;since it is also fact that some people have malice against him and accuse him with things that he never had. They fabricate improper things against him, whereas he was overwhelmingly commended by a large number of Ulama and they admitted his merits and virtues.” [Jaame Bayan al-Ilm Wa Fazlihi, Vol.: 1, Page: 1081]

Therefore, I request the Ghayr Muqallideen to pay heed to the words of the “SALAF” at least, otherwise abandon proclaiming to be SALAFI.”

NOTE: The famous scholar of Ghair Muqallideen, Maulana Ibrahim Sialkoti , the author of “Salaatur Rasool”, writes: “One who disrespects the Imams of Deen is semi-Rafidhi.” [Taarekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 73]

Therefore, one who accuses  Imam-E-Azam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah) he, according to Ghayr Muqallid scholars, is as semi-Rafidhi (Shia).

And Allah Knows Best!

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

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

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]

Jewish Lineage of the Saudi Royal Family

Eventually, there is a great furore over the Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s statement that he said “Israel have right to the land” yesterday (full news can be accessed here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/saudi-crown-prince-israelis-land-180403051145026.html).

We tend to hear people react in anger over such unnecessary controversial statements, some people wonder “why the custodian of the Haramayn are supporting Zionists and America??” more often than not.

To find a logical answer for such questions and such statements made by the Crown Prince, one needs to dig deeper and do research into the Saud Clan and their history to find the truth underneath such “friendliness” between the Zionists and the Sauds, which we often hear in the media.

The following is a book by Muhammad Al-Sakher, highlighting the Jewishness of the Royal Family of Saud Clan:

[By Muhammad al-Sakher]

1. Do the Saudi Family members belong to the Tribe of Anza ben Wa’el as they allege to be?

2. Is Islam their actual religion?

3. Are they of an Arab Origin at all?

The following facts will blot out all the allegations of the Saudi Family and will refute all the false statements made by those hypocrites who sold their conscience to this family by falsifying and interpolating the real history of the Saudi Family; I mean the Journalists and historians who, for a financial temporal reward, have inserted and attached the genealogy of this family to our Great Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) alleging that the Saudis are viceroys of our Almighty Allah on the Earth. It is quite clear that such a flattery is intended to vindicate and justify the Saudis’ Crimes and Atrocities, so as to firmly stabilize their Throne and to prop the pillars of their despotic regime. Which is extremely dictatorial and completely rejected by our great Islamic Faith.

WHO ARE THESE SAUDIS? WHERE ARE THEY FROM? AND WHAT IS THEIR FINAL GOAL?

The Saudi Family members know perfectly well the Muslims all over the world have already known their real Jewish Origin. Muslims have now known all their bloody past, which was, and still is stuck in the same mire of Brutal Despotism and Atrocity. Presently, they exert their utmost efforts to conceal their Jewish Origin by covering themselves with the cloak of the Islamic Religion, so as to try to keep their real Jewish Ancestry hidden in the dark by connecting their family tree with our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

They forget or ignore that Islam does never give any favorable attention to genealogy or “Family Trees”; it favors and honors indiscriminately all human beings whose actions and words are commensurate with the doctrines of the Holy Qur’aan as confirmed by the following Qur’aanic verse:

“O Mankind! We created you from a single (Pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other.) Verily, the most honored by you in the Sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” [Qur’an 49:13]

Anyone who is iniquitous and blasphemous cannot affiliate him/her self to our great Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) even though he/she may be the closest blood relative to him. Bilal, the Abyssinian slave, who was a faithful Muslim, was much more honored by Islam than Abu Lahab, the pagan, who was the real blood uncle of our Prophet. In Islam there is no Favoritism. Allah sets the degree of comparison in Islam according to the person’s piety and not according to his/her worldly status of affiliation to any dynasty.

Who is the Real Ancestor of the Clan of Saud??

In the year 851 A.H. a group of men from Al Masaleekh Clan, which was a branch of Anza Tribe, formed a caravan for buying cereals (wheat and corn) and other foodstuff from Iraq, and transporting it back to Najd. The head of that group was a man called Sahmi Bin Hathlool. The caravan reached Basra, where the members of the group went to a cereal merchant who was a Jew, called Mordakhai bin Ibrahim bin Moshe. During their bargaining with that merchant, the Jew asked them: “Where are you from?” They answered: “From Anza Tribe; a Clan of Al Masaleekh.” Upon hearing that name, the Jew started to hug so affectionately each on the them saying that he, himself, was also from the clan of Al Masaleekh, but he had come to reside in Basra (Iraq) in consequence to a family feud between his father and some members of Anza Tribe.

After he recounted to them his fabricated narrative, he ordered his servants to load all of the camels with wheat, dates, and tamman; a remarkable deed so generous that astonished the Masaleekh men and aroused their pride to find such an affectionate (cousin) in Iraq-the source of sustenance; they believed each word he said, and, because he was a rich merchant of the food commodities which they were badly in need, they accepted him (even though he was a Jew concealed under the garb of an Arab from Al Masaleekh clan.)

When the caravan was ready to depart returning to Najd, that Jewish merchant asked them to accept his company, because he intended to go with them to his original homeland, Najd. Upon hearing that from him, they wholeheartedly welcomed him with a very cheerful attitude.

So that (concealed) Jew reached Najd with the caravan. In Najd, he started to promulgate a lot of propaganda for himself through his companions (his alleged cousins), a fact, which gathered around him a considerable number of new supporters. But, unexpectedly, he confronted a campaign of opposition to his views led by Sheikh Saleh Salman Abdullah Al Tamimi, who was a Muslim religious preacher in Al-Qaseem. The radius of his preaching area included Najd, Yemen, and Hijaz, a fact which compelled the Jew (the Ancestor of the present Saud family) to depart from Al Qaseem to Al Ihsa, where he changed his name (Mordakhai) to Markan bin Dir’iya near Al-Qateef, where he started to spread among the inhabitants a fabricated story about the shield of our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) that it was taken as a booty by an Arab pagan in consequence of the Battle of Uhud between the Arab pagans and the Muslims. “That shield,” he said, “was sold by the Arab pagan to a Jewish clan called Banu Qunaiqa who preserved it as a treasure! He gradually enhanced his position among the Bedouins through such stories, which indicated how the Jewish clans in Arabia were so influential, and deserved high esteem. He gained some personal importance among the Bedouins, and decided to permanently settle there, at Dir’iya town, neat Al Qateef, which he decided to be his “Capital” on the Persian Gulf. He aspired to make it his springboard for establishing a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia.

In order to fulfill his ambitious scheme, he started to approach the desert Arab Bedouins for support of his position, and then gradually, he declared himself as their king!

At that juncture, Ajaman Tribe, together with Banu Khaled Tribe became fully aware of that Jewish cunning plan after they had verified his true identity, and decided to put an end to him. They attacked his town and conquered it, but before arresting him he had escaped by the skin of his teeth.

That Jewish ancestor of the Saudi Family, Mordakhai, sought shelter in a farm at that time called Al-Malibeed-Ghusaiba near Al-Arid, which is called at our present time Al-Riyadh.

He requested the owner of that farm to grant him asylum. The farmer was so hospitable that he immediately gave him sanctuary. But no longer than a month had he (Mordakhai) stayed there, when he assassinated the landlord and all members of his family, pretending that they were killed by an invading band of thieves. Then he pretended that he had bought that real estate from them before that catastrophe happened to them! Accordingly, he had the right to reside there as a landlord. He then gave a new name to that place: Al-Diriya-the same name as that he had lost.

That Jewish ancestor (Mordakhai) of the Saudi Family, was able to establish a “Guest House” called “Madaffa” on the land he usurped from his victims, and gathered around him a group of hypocrites who started to spread out false propaganda for him that he was a prominent Arab Sheikh. He plotted against Sheikh Saleh Salman Abdulla Al Tamimi, his original enemy, and caused his assassination in the mosque of the town called Al-Zalafi.

After that, he felt satisfied and safe to make Al-Diriya his permanent home. There he practiced polygamy at a wide scale, and indeed, he begot a lot of children whom he gave pure Arab names.

Ever since his descendants grew up in number and power under the same name of Saudi Clan, they have followed his steps in practicing under ground activities and conspiracies against the Arab nation. They illegally seized rural sectors and farmlands and assassinated every person who tried to oppose their evil plans. They used all kinds of deceit for reaching their goals; they bought the conscience of their dissidents; they offered their women and money to influential people in that area, particularly those who started to write the true biography of that Jewish family; they bribed the writers of history in order to purify their ignominious history, and to make their lineage related to the most prominent Arab tribes such as Rabi’a, Anza, and Al Masaleekh.

A conspicuous hypocrite in our era, whose name is Mohammad Amin Al Tamimi- Director/Manager of the contemporary Libraries of the Saudi Kingdom, made up a genealogical tree (family tree) for this Jewish family (the Saudis), connecting them to our Great Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). For his false work, he received a reward of 35 thousand Egyptian pounds from the then Saudi Ambassador to Cairo, Egypt, in the year 1362 A.H.-1943 A.D. The name of that Ambassador is Ibrahim Al-Fadel.

As aforementioned, the Jewish ancestor of the Saudi family, (Mordakhai), practiced polygamy by marrying a lot of Arab women and begot many children; his polygamous practice is, at the present time, being carried out “to the letter” by his descendants; they cling to his martial heritage!

One of Mordakhai’s sons called Al-Maraqan, arabized from the Jewish root Mack-ren, begot a son called Mohammad, then another son called Saud, which is the name of the present day Saudi Dynasty.

Descendants of Saud (the present day Saudi Family) started a campaign of assassination of the prominent leaders of the Arab Tribes under the pretence that those leaders were apostates; renegading from the Islamic Religion, and deserting their Qur’aanic doctrines; so they deserved the Saudi condemnation and slaughter!

In the History Book of the Saudi Family pages 98-101, their private family historian declares that the Saudi dynasty considers all people of Najd blasphemous, so their blood must be shed, their properties confiscated, and their females taken as concubines; no Muslim is authentic in his/her belief unless he/she belongs (affiliates) to the sect of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab (whose origins are also Jewish from Turkey, this will be posted sometime later In Shaa Allah.) His doctrines give authority to the Saudi Family to destroy villages with all their inhabitants-males including children, and to sexually assault their women; stab the bellies of the pregnant, and cut off the hands of their children, then burn them! They are further authorized by such a brutal doctrine to plunder all the properties of which they call renegades (not following their Wahabi sect.)

Their hideous Jewish family has, in fact, done all that kind of atrocities in the name of their false religious sect (the Wahabi), which has actually been invented by a Jew so as to sow the seeds of terror in the hearts if people in towns and villages. This Jewish Dynasty has been committing such brutal atrocities ever since 1163 A.H. They have named the whole Arabian Peninsula after their family name (Saudi Arabia) as if the whole region is their own personal real estate, and that all other inhabitants are their mere servants or slaves, toiling day and night for the pleasure of their masters (The Saudi Family.)

They are completely holding the natural wealth of the country as their own property. If any poor person from the common people raises his/her voice complaining against any of the despotic rules of this Jewish Dynasty, the Dynasty cuts off his/her head in the public square. A princess of theirs once visited Florida, USA, with her retinue; she rented 90 (ninety) Suite rooms in a Grand Hotel for about One Million dollars a night! Can anyone of her subjects comment about that extravagant event? If he/she does, his/her fate is quite known: DEATH WITH THE EDGE OF THE SAUDI SWORD IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE!!!!!

WITNESSES ON THE JEWISH ANCESTRY OF THIS SAUDI FAMILY:

In the 1960’s the “Sawt al Arab ” Broadcasting Station in Cairo, Egypt, and the Yemen Broadcasting Station in Sana’a confirmed the Jewish ancestry of the Saudi family.

King Faisal Al-Saud at that time could not deny his family’s kindred with the Jews when he declared to the Washington Post on Sept.17, 1969 stating: “We, the Saudi Family, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslim Authority which shows any antagonism to Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (Arabia) is the fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world.” That was the declaration of King Faisal Al-Saud bin Abdul Aziz!!!

Hafez Wahbi, the Saudi legal advisor, mentioned in his book entitled “The Peninsula of Arabia” that King Abdul Aziz A-Saud, who died in 1953, had said: “Our message (Saudi Massage) encountered the opposition of all Arab Tribes. My grandfather, Saud Awal, once imprisoned a number of the Sheikhs of Matheer Tribe; and when another group of the same tribe came to intercede for the release of the prisoners, Saud Awal gave orders to his men to cut off the heads of all the prisoners, then, he wanted to humiliate and derogate the interceders by inviting them to eat from a banquet he prepared from the cooked flesh of his victims whose cut off heads he place in the top of the food platters! The interceders became so alarmed and declined to eat the flesh of their relatives, and, because of their refusal to eat, he ordered his men to cut off their heads too. That hideous crime was committed by that self-imposed king to innocent people whose guilt was their opposition to his most cruel and extremely despotic rules.

Hafez Wahbi states further that King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud related that bloody true story to the Sheikhs of the Matheer Tribs, who visited him in order to intercede for their prominent leader at that time, Faisal Al Darweesh, who was the king’s prisoner. He related that story to them in order to prevent them from interceding for the release of their Sheikh; otherwise, they would meet the same fate; he killed the Sheikh and used his blood as an ablution liquid from him just before he stood up for his prayer (after the false sect doctrine of the Wahabi). The guilt of Faisal Darweesh at that time was that he had criticized King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud when the king signed the document which the English Authorities prepared in 1922 as a declaration for giving Palestine to the Jews; his signature was obtained in the conference held at Al Aqeer in 1922.

That was and still is the system of this regime of the Jewish family) (Saudi Family). All its goals are: plundering the wealth of the country, robbing, falsifying, and committing all kinds of atrocity, iniquity, and blasphemy-all are executed in compliance with their self invented Wahabi Sect which legalizes the chopping of the heads of their opposing subjects.

Imam Abu Hanifa & the Shoe Worship Narration

Translated By Waqar Akbar Cheema

Here is the response of Al-Imam al-Hafiz Muhibuddin Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Mahmud ibn al-Hasan bin Hibat Allah bin Mahaasin a.k.a. Ibn al-Najjar al-Baghdadi (d. 643 AH) to the Khatib al-Baghdadi’s narration about Abu Hanifa tolerating worship of a shoe.

He writes:

وأما ما نقله عن محمد بن الحسين بن الفضل القطان إلى يحيى بن حمزة أَنَّ أَبَا حنيفة قَالَ: لو أَنَّ رجلا عبده هذه النعل يتقرب بها إلى الله لم أر بذلك بأسا. فَقَالَ سَعِيد: هَذَا الكفر صراحا

فهذا لم ينقله أحد من أصحاب أبى حنيفة واعلم أن أصحاب الإنسان أعرف به من الأجنبى، ثم اعلم أن مذهب أبى حنيفة له أصول وقواعد وشروط لا يخرج عنها، فأما أصول مذهبه رضى الله عنه فإنه يرى الأخذ بالقرآن والآثار ما وجد وقواعده أن لا يفرق بين الخبرين أو الآي والخبر مهما أمكن الجمع بينهما إلا إن ثبت ناسخا أو منسوخا وشروطه أن لا يعدل عنهما إلا أن لا يجد فيهما شيئا فيعدل إلى أقوال الصحابة الملائمة للقرآن والسنة وإن اختلفوا تخير ما كان أقرب إلى الكتاب والسنة. فهذا عليه إجماع أصحاب أبى حنيفة وهو إذا عددت المدرسين منهم في عصر واحد وجدتهم أكثر من إسناد الخطيب منه إلى أبى حنيفة رحمه الله.

واعلم أن أخبار الآحاد المروية عن النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلّم توجب العمل لأجل الاحتياط في الدين ولا توجب العلم. وأخبار التواتر توجب العلم والعمل معا فكيف بك عن أخبار الخطيب هذه التي لا تكاد تنفك عن قائل يقول فيها، فإذا نازلنا الأمر وساوينا قلنا أخباره أخبار آحاد وأخبار أصحاب أبى حنيفة متواترة والعمل بالمتواترة أولى؛ وقد ثبت مذهب أبى حنيفة وأصوله وقواعده فإذا ثبت أن هذه أصول أبى حنيفة فكيف يسوغ له أن يقول هذا مع علمه بقوله تعالى: ما نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفى

فهذا لا يصح عن أبى حنيفة

“As to what is narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin al-Fadl al-Qattan through Yahya bin Hamza that Abu Hanifa said: ‘If a man were to worship this shoe to get closer to Allah I do not find anything objectionable with this.’ Sa’id said: This is clear disbelief.

This is not narrated by any of the companions of Abu Hanifa and know that a person’s companions know him better than the strangers. Further, remember that the Madh-hab of Abu Hanifa has its rules and principles that it does not divorce with. And the principles of his Madh-hab is to first seek evidence with whatever one finds in Qur’an and Sunnah. And [his] Madh-hab‘s principle is not to see variance between two reports or an ayah or a report when reconciliation between the two is possible except when proof of one being abrogated and other the abrogator is established . Their principle in (science of seeking evidence) is not to turn away from Qur’an and Sunnah except when nothing is found in these two sources in which case the sayings of the Companions that are closest to Qur’an and Sunnah are to be referred to and if they differ then the one closest to Qur’an and Sunnah is to be adopted. This is something on which the companions of Abu Hanifa have agreed and when I counted the teachers among them at a given time I found them to be more than the links of al-Khatib back to Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him. And know that the isolated reports (akhbar al-ahaad) narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, necessitate practice by the way of cautiousness in religion but they do not give certain knowledge whereas continuously reported narrations (akhbaar al-tawatur) lead to certain knowledge and mandate practice as well. Then how can you refer to the narrations of al-Khatib (al-Baghdadi) that you will hardly ever find someone saying. Therefore, when it comes to it we say his narrations are isolated and the reports of the companions of Abu Hanifa are continuously reported (mutawatir) and going by what is continuous is the best, and the principles, rules and essentials of the Madh-hab of Abu Hanifa are established and when these principles of Abu Hanifa are proven how is it possible for him to say so with his knowledge of the word of Allah, “(the mushrikin say) We worship them for no other reason but because they would bring us near to Allah closely”?
The report, therefore [we say], is not proven from Abu Hanifa.”

In other words the report is one of isolated reports (akhbaar al-ahaad) and simply contradicts what is known through continuous reports (mutawatir) about the creed (aqeedah) of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah’s mercy be upon him. Such “munkar” and “shaadh” reports are no evidence for any purpose whatsoever..

See, Ibn an-Najjar al-Baghdadi, Kitab ar-Radd ‘alaa Khatib al-Baghdadi, (included in) Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Zuyulihi, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, 1417 AH), vol.22 pp.46-47.