Category Archives: Imam Abu Hanifa


History is pivotal in understanding why Hijāz with its people changed so much.
We must understand how Wahhabism spread in the Hijaz and Najd (modern Saudi Arabia) during and after the time of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab al Najdi, how they martyred the Hanabilah and how they took the name of the Hanabilah.

The ‘Ulama from the Hanafiyyah, the Malikiyya and the Shafi’iyyah are well known amongst the people, however, the great Hanbali luminaries are known less, the most noticeable reason for this is because the Hanbali madhhab is the smallest madhhab with the least followers.

But it is also important to know that due to the Wahhabi genocide in Hijaz the Hanbali ‘ulama were martyred and the madhhab lost its authenticity in most of those regions.

The founder of the madhhab is Imam Ahlussunnah Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal al Shaybani, born in 164 after Hijri.

Imam Ahmad was from the Salaf, he was from amongst the greatest Muhaddithin and Mujtahidin, he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq and had memorised 1 million ahadith.

Imam Ahmad and his students were massive scholars and they were upon the creed of the Salaf, they were Sunni in ‘Aqidah and Fiqh.

Imam Ahmad along the three other Imams are accepted by consensus in the Ummah as the greatest scholars.

Historically some Hanabilah have been affected by Tajsīm as the Ahnāf were by I’tizāl, but no sane individual would discard a school of Ahlussunnah because of some deviant adherents, majority have been upon the right path and Ijma’ remains on four schools.

The Hanbalis in fiqh always remained among the Ahlussunnah, and the ‘Aqidah of the Hanbalis was that of the Ash’aris.

The madhhab took its main blow during the crusades of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab al Najdi, a khārijī who emerged to “cleanse” the world of muslim apostates. This khariji with his cult, and later the Muwahhidun as well, brutally murdered many believers, and they dessimated the Hanbali madhhab and killed the Hanbali ‘ulama of Hijaz and Najd.

Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab al Najdi (1703-1792) was a Khariji and a deviant individual. The ‘Ulama of Ahlussunnah already warned against him before his crusades.

He declared every believer on earth and every believer 600 years prior to his crusades as kuffar.

He spent many years in al Diriyyah and after he gained alliances and power, he then started with his 51 years long crusade against the muslims.
He declared every single muslim on earth to be a disbeliever, except those that followed his religion, and brutally massacred thousands of people, he along his descendants.

In his lifetime he was declared as a Murtad and Kafir by his older brother and the Hanbali Authority of the time, Imam Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, may Allah be pleased with him.

Once the Wahhabis grew in number, along the progeny of Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, they killed many people beyond belief, commiting horrible murders by emptying cities and other unimaginable atrocities.

To the extent that he even murdered his own brother Imam Sulayman.

Besides killing the believers, they dessimated the graves of the Salaf, their houses, the wells they had built, even the trees that were planted by the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions.

They destroyed old relics, artifacts and so much more, all under the pretext of “protecting people against Shirk”, which was an absurd claim, rather, it was to erase Islam completely by the order of the West.

After the death of Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab his sons continued their crusades against Islam.

The Ottomans were the ones who declared war upon the Wahhabi Khawarij, between the years 1811-1818 the Ottoman army at the time, which was led by Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha aided the muslims against them.

Do you know what the Ottomans did to the Wahhabi cult?

They waged war against them and dessimated the Wahhabi cult.

Many Wahhabis ran away, some of them who fled to Egypt, and those that were captured were imprisoned, their main leaders and followers received the death penalty.

To the extent that the son of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was shot to death, by a thousand bullets.
This shows the people what evil atrocities this cult committed.

Because of the Ottomans the Wahhabis were pushed back and removed from power.

But unfortunately after the fall of the Ottoman Khilafah, the Wahhabis rose again due to their alliance with the Sa’ud family and the British Empire.
They spread their Wahabi religion in Hijaz and changed the name to ‘Saudi Arabia’, and finally proclaimed the Dawla (state) of the Wahabiyya, and the rest is history.

Due to this, the people in this age are Wahhabiyyun, I do not state that every single individual is a Wahhabi because there are still some Sunni ‘ulama in those regions.

But the Hanbali madhhab from Hijaz and Najd was infected by them, so that is why so many of them claim the madhhab today.


The Wahhabis claimed to be “Athari” in ‘Aqidah, but their beliefs were false and not in line with ‘Aqidah of the true Atharis or Ahlussunnah. They were Khawarij and shared many beliefs of the Mu’tazilah and the Shi’ah.

They claimed that Allah ﷻ is in a place, that Allah ﷻ is in a direction, that Allah ﷻ sits, that Allah ﷻ resembles his creation. Far from that is our Exalted Lord ﷻ!

The Wahhabi creed is based upon the teachings of Muhammad Amir al San’ani, Ibn Abdul Wahhab al Najdi, al Shawkani, Muhammad ‘Abduh, Jamaluddin al Afghani, Bin Baz, al Albani, Ibnul Uthaymin, and along the rejected opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah.
Their fathers (Amir al San’ani and Ibn Abdul Wahhab) revolted against the ummah and went against the consensus of Ahlussunnah.

They left and rejected the classical teachings of the Hanbali/Athari ‘aqidah, the ‘aqidah of Imam Ahmad, Sayyiduna ‘Abdul Qadir al Jilani, Muwaffaq al Din Ibn Qudamah, Imam al Saffarini, Imam Ibn Badran, al Shatti, and Imam Ibn Balban.

True Hanbali ‘Aqidah is what is found in Lum’atul I’tiqad, Qala’idul Iqyan, Nihayatul Mubtadi’in, Al ‘Ayn wal Athar, Manhaj al Ahmad, Lawami’ul Anwar, only ‘aqidah literature authored by classic Sunni Hanabilah.

And the Madhhab we take from men like ‘Abdul Qadir al Jilani, Ibn Qudamah, ‘Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi, Majd al Din, ‘Ala al Din al Mardawi, Ibn Rajab, al Buhuti, Musa al Hajjawi, al Futuhi, Mar’i al Karmi, al Ba’li, Ibn Badran, Ibn Balban,..

It was a revivement of the Khariji and Mu’tazilah cults. They were declared as disbelievers by the Hanbali authorities.

May Allah ﷻ make Ahlussunnati Wal Jama’ah victorious again.


A Brother lamenting about the spread of Salafi’ism, writes:

“There is a current spread of Salafism in South Africa. What really irks us as Hanafi Muslims is that the Salafis are given lots of show and platforms by the so-called ‘our ulama’. For example, there is an organization of women called MAIDS OF DEEN (they have a website too), they host programmes teaching Salaah to women. However, they teach the women how to read Salaah like men. They use the name of Mr. Bham (Jamiat) in support of their activities.

Secondly, Nauman Ali Khan, the Salafi Shia hybrid ‘mufassir’, was also given lots of show by these very same so-called ‘our ulama’ like Mr. Ragie.

Thirdly, when Masajid were called to cancel the programmes of Luhaydan, the Salafi from Riyadh, many Masajid cooperated. However, Mr. Bham (Jamiat) took a uturn and hosted him in Newtown Masjid.

Fourthly, there is a well-known sportsman cyclist a so-called ‘maulana’ from Ermelo, Mr. Junaid Jasat, who encourages women to go out cycling with their husbands. He is also pushing the Salafi line in Ermelo. We have been teaching our children the basics of Deen for many years, and now he brings in Salafi aunties to poison our children’s minds. These are very distressing.

Mr. Bham of Jamiat pretends to have ‘lots’ of proof to back up his evil participation in attending sports matches, mixing with women, commentating on football matches and so on. I have not found any aayat or hadith to establish these evils.”

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The characters you have mentioned are signs of Qiyaamah predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are such mudhilleen who are perhaps worse than Dajjaal. We say worse because Rasulullah ( Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had expressed greater fear for the ulama-e-soo’ than for even Dajjaal.

The scoundrels you have referred to mislead the ignorant and the unwary, hence they are termed ‘mudhilleen’ i.e. scholars for dollars who lead people to Jahannam. The manner in which they propound and enact their deviation for deviating the ignorant laymen, leads one to conclude that they are not Muslims. At a minimum, they are shayaateenul ins (human devils).

The ‘proofs’ which the cross-worshipper, Reverend Abraham Bham has, are shaitaani drivel of the type which Iblees stated when Allah Ta’ala commanded him to prostrate to Nabi Aadam (Alayhis salaam). The devil presenting his logical ‘daleel’ said: “You created me from fire and him from sand.” This is the kind of ‘proof’ all these  mudhielleen have for bolstering their fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. They are rotten to the core.

Who Are the Madkhalis??

[By Moulana Huzaifah Ibraaheem]

Many people may not be familiar with this term, hence they may be wondering: “Who exactly are the Madkhalis?”

Madkhalis are a branch of the Salafis.

Some people have the misconception that Salafiyyah and the Salafis are one, unified body, but this is very far from the truth. Rather, the Salafis are divided up into many small sects, each with different leaders, different beliefs, different agendas, different ideologies, different methodologies, etc. Perhaps the only thing the various sects truly have in common is that they all hate each other. Other than that, everything else is up for debate, with the very concept of “What is Tawheed?” being a “controversial” issue among the various Salafi subsects, with a variety of conceptions of what exactly Tawheed is and what it entails, e.g. “Is Haakimiyyah part of Tawheed?”, and so on.

Thus, the very first point the readers must realise is that the Salafis are perhaps more divided than any other group, and they certainly fight among one another and kill one another more than any other group has done in recent times.

The Madkhalis, then, are simply one sect from the many sects of Salafiyyah, and the Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafiq character belongs to this subsect of Salafism. From the various Salafi sects, the Madaakhilah (Madkhalis) are the most hated and the most hateful: the rest of the Salafi sub sects unanimously hate them with a passion, and they hate the rest of the Salafis. Their hatred for other Salafis far exceeds their hatred for the Kuffaar; in fact, they (the Madaakhilah) love the Kuffaar and will happily see the Muslims suffer if it means safety for the Kuffaar.

When this is their hatred for even other Salafis, it goes without saying that their hatred for the rest of the Ummah (those who are not Salafis) is worse.

The Madaakhilah are the followers of a man from Saudi Arabia by the name of Rabee` ibn Haadi al-Madkhali, a Salafi Shaykh born in 1931. His Asaatidhah (teachers) include bin Baaz, ibn al`Uthaymeen, al-Albaani, `Abdul Muhsin al-`Abbaad and others. He taught at the Faculty of Hadeeth in Madeenah University for many years until he retired in the mid-1990s. He was made head of the Department of Sunnah in the Department of Higher Studies.

Earlier in his life he had expressed views criticising the Saudi government, but later on became their biggest supporter from all of the scholars within Saudi Arabia, and Saudi began using him to justify all their satanism such as allowing U.S. troops to enter the Jazeeratul `Arab, and preaching an ideology of absolute submission to the Zaalim, Kaafir Saudi government which in turn is the stooge of America. Those who follow him are known as Madaakhilah (Madkhalis), and they resemble a cult more than any other Salafi sect does. To them, there is no Islaam outside of what is preached by Rabee` alMadkhali. Though they hate Taqleed of the Four Madhaahib of Haqq (Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi`ee and Hanbali), they themselves are the absolute blindest Muqallideen, rabid cult-worshippers of Rabee` al Madkhali.

The various Arab Zaalim states have always favoured the Madkhalis on account of their blind support for these Kufr, tyrannical regimes which kill, imprison and torture Muslims. Yet, Allaah Ta`aalaa has made it such that even after all of their grovelling at the feet of the Zaalim rulers, with the rise of MBS (Murtadd bin Shaytaan), even these “Dog Scholars”, “Palace Scholars”, worshippers at the feet of the Taaghoot rulers, they themselves now undergo persecution as well, because MBS does not even want their version of Islaam. He wants no Islaam whatsoever, because he is a Shaytaan in human form who hates Allaah Ta`aalaa, hates Rasoolullaah  صلی اللہ علیه وسلم and hates the Deen of Islaam.

In summary: the Madkhalis are the “dogs of the rulers” who are forever barking at anyone who in any way criticises the Kufr, Zaalim regimes or proclaims the Haqq.

The Madkhalis in reality are the Khawaarij of today; because, the salient feature of the Khawaarij described by Rasoolullaah صلی اللہ علیه وسلم is that they kill the people of Islaam and leave the people of idol-worship alone.

The Madkhalis fit this description perfectly. All of their hatred has always been focused only on Muslims. They only argue with Muslims and only fight with Muslims. They have never in their lives stood up for the Haqq. Rather, they have attempted to make the worship of Taaghoot part of Islaam.

This Baatil, Satanic sect known as “Madkhalis” has been refuted not only by other groups outside of Salafism, but they have even been refuted time and again by other sub sects of Salafiyyah themselves and their evil has been made manifest. Their agenda of trying to make Muslims subservient to Taaghoot has been exposed.

In their personal lives, these people are absolutely devoid of true Deen. Many of them in recent years have popped up in the UK: the likes of Abu Khadeejah, etc.

In the UK, they are known for their vile treatment of Muslim women, of the wives they marry, treating them as cheap prostitutes. They have ruined the lives of many Muslim families, and many of those who had been Madkhalis but later abandoned this sect especially the womenfolk have testified to this and to what they experienced living under the Madkhalis.

Before concluding this point, there is one last issue that must be addressed, and that is the Madkhali Salafi style of dressing which has lately been adopted by not only Salafis but other Muslims as well: the long, silky dress and the red and white scarf.

The Saudis and those who follow them drag themselves around in these long, silky dresses which hang not just on the ankle but far below it. They have moved very far away from the Sunnah of Rasoolullaah صلى الله علیه وسلم and Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم.

Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم were people of Jihaad. The fitness level of the Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم was such that they were able to run and jump onto a moving horse and ride it without even the need for a saddle. Compare this to the Saudi Salafis with their “thawbs” that sweep the streets. They cannot even run while wearing it, let alone fight in Jihaad. Their obesity is appalling. Their style of dressing, with the silky dress dragging around on the floor, is that of homosexuals and has absolutely nothing to do with the Sunnah of Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم and his Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم, and this is something which people must understand very clearly. There are people who think that they are following the Sunnah if they purchase these long silky dresses and that red and white scarf. We must clarify this: By dressing in this manner, you are following Aal Sa`ood (the Saudis), not Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم.

Those who know a little bit about the history of these Saudis and how they were the stooges of Britain will know about a man by the name of Thomas Edward Lawrence, more famously known as “Lawrence of Arabia”, a British archaeologist, army officer, diplomat and writer. During the time of the Ottomans, he bribed and instigated many of the various Bedouin tribes into rising up against them. The red andwhite scarf (known as a ghutrah or shimaagh) was worn exclusively by those Bedouin tribes who had given their allegiance to Britain. Thus, the red-and-white scarf historically signifies loyalty and allegiance (Walaa) to the Kuffaar. It is most hypocritical and ironic, then, to wear that long dress and that red-and-white scarf designed by Britain while speaking about “al-Walaa wal-Baraa”.

It used to be that only the Salafis dressed in this way, but unfortunately today even many of the “Ulamaa” around the world dress like this as well. The original Sunnah of  Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم and his Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم  has been shunned and replaced with a long, tight, silky dress that inhibits a person from being able to fight in Jihaad, and a red-and-white scarf that symbolises subservience to Britain.

فإ الله المشتكى وهو مستعان

The Salafis dress like this despite knowing and admitting that it is not how Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم and Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم used to dress. The excuse tendered by and Sahaabah the Salafis is that, “we must dress according to custom.”

It is narrated that once, Hadhrat Huzaifah ibn al-Yamaan رضي الله عنه was invited to partake of a meal. Present at the meal were some of the leaders of the Persians. During the meal, a morsel of food he was eating fell down, so he picked it up, cleaned it and ate it. One of the Muslims present tried to stop him from doing so, saying that the Persians will think badly of him if he does this. Hadhrat Huzaifah رضي الله عنه became angry at this man and said:

أأترك سنه حبيبي لهؤ لاء الحمقى؟

“What! Should I abandon the Sunnah of my beloved for the sake of these fools?”

That is the difference between the mindset of Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم and the mindset of these “Salafi Shuyookh”.

Imaam al-Ghazaali رحمة الله عليه used to say that amongst the secrets to Sa`aadah (happiness and contentment) is following the Sunnah of Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم  in entirety; in how he ate, drank, slept, dressed, walked, spoke, smiled, laughed, fought, dealt with people, etc. That was the understanding of the Ummah all the years until the Salafis decided to pick and choose from the Sunnah what they felt should be followed, and what the felt was not necessary, they discarded.

Salafis generally lack true love and respect for Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم and Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضوان الله عليهم hence they will refer to Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم simply as “Muhammad”, and to Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضوان الله عليهم “Abu Bakr,” “`Umar”, “`Uthmaan”, “`Ali”, etc.

Not only do they refer to Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضوان الله عليهم and the illustrious A’immah of Islaam in a manner devoid of respect, they even go as far as to insult and criticise them. Their hatred for Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه is well known. Once again, the biggest culprits in this regard among the Salafis are the Madkhalis. Out of all the various Salafi sub-sects, the Madaakhilah are the most vitriolic haters of Imaam Abu Haneefah  رحمة الله عليه, of the Hanafi Madh-hab, and of the Ash`ari and Maatureedi Madh-habs of `Aqeedah.

If any Madkhali reads this he will claim this to be false, but their actions have proven that they have a disregard for the A’immah of Islaam whom they despise, hence they attack the greatest of `Ulamaa as they see fit.

There are Madkhalis who have gone as far as to question whether Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه was in fact a Muslim or not, and who have made Takfeer of Imaam ibn Hajar al`Asqalaani رحمة الله عليه Fakhr-ud-Deen Raazi رحمة الله   عليه, Imaam al-Ghazaali رحمة الله عليه etc. on account of the fact that they were Ash`aris.

No goodness has ever come from the Madkhalis, and many – if not most of those who become Madkhalis do not stay Madkhalis for long. The Salafis themselves have coined a phrase: “Salafi Burnout”, as a reference to those who become rabid, cult-worshipper Madkhalis, making Takfeer and Tabdee` of the rest of the Ummah, only to abandon Madkhalism and even Salafism entirely later on and become a pseudo “Sufi” who only believes in “love” , singing and dancing, saying they left the cult because they found it to be “cold and empty” from the one baatil extreme to the other. This is another testimony to the fact that Madkhalism is a Baatil cult and has nothing to do with the true Islaam of the Rasoolullaah صلی الله علیه وسلم and Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم, Islaam which was followed by the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

Salafi Double Standards

By Umar Rumi

Salafis’ on Moonsighting:

“With today’s modern technology, fax, internet, radio, we should have a unified beginning of Islamic months and `Ids all over the world. Local sighting was a pre-modern condition due to lack of the necessary technology”.

Salafis’ on Madhahib:

“Four madhahib split the Ummah, we should have a unified robotic fifth-madhhab (as the common ikhwani-salafi-modernist common utopia) whereby any ikhtilaf is deleted in favor of the supposed” stronger/more authentic/easier opinion that somehow us “moderns” are painlessly able to individuate without any doubt.

But then:

Salafis’ on Political system:

“An unified Islamic polity is an utopia lol, look at our history, Muslim polities were split most of the time [and somehow all the arguments about pre-modern lack of infrastructure/
technology/means of communications is suddenly forgotten, and history becomes proof]”.

Just look at how the decisive fiqhi discussions and sidelined in favor of ever-changing flipping incoherent recourses to history or the “changed times” being used at will.

A Brief Discussion on How the Classical Fuqaha based their Opinions

A good summary of how the classical scholars built their opinions – it is how we should think about Islam too:

“For imam Abū Ḥanīfah Islamic law is like an edifce. Before removing or replacing any of the bricks or making changes to the structure, imam Abū Ḥanīfah will always ask what would this change will have on the structure as a whole. If by removing a single brick the whole building is in jeopardy, imam Abū Ḥanīfah will leave the brick in place keeping in mind the interests of the whole edifice. It was due to his deep understanding of the workings of the shari’ah that the ḥadīth scholar Sulaymān ibn Mahrān al-A’mash (d. 148/765) said to imam Abū Ḥanīfah ‘you (the faqīhs) are the physicians of ḥadīth and we (the muḥaddith) are only pharmacists.’

At the heart of the matter is an attempt to accurately follow the sunna through means which will yield epistemic certainty (yaqīn) as opposed to probable knowledge (ẓann). For imam Abū Ḥanīfah, the principles induced (istiqrā) through a wide range of reading of the Qur’ān and ḥadīth is certain knowledge, whilst the narration of a lone narrator (khabr wāhid), even though it may be ṣaḥīḥ, does not hold the same surety and certainty. Hence in the case of a conflict between the two, the certain is given preference over the probable. Or to put it in another way, the sunna (spirit of the prophetic teaching) is given preference over the ḥadīth (the literal words of the Prophet).

Imam Abū Ḥanīfah rejects the ḥadīth, ‘A Muslim will not be killed in retribution for the murder of a non-Muslim,’ on the basis that it goes against a higher authority with stronger epistemic value i.e. the Qur’ān. His rejection of this otherwise perfectly sound ḥadīth is on the basis that it holds no sanctity for human life which is in contrary to the teachings of the Qurʾān and the established sunna, as Allah, says in the Qur’ān ‘You who believe! Fair retribution is proscribed for you in the case of murder,’ and ‘We prescribed for them in it: a life for a life.’

Imam Abū Ḥanīfah also rejects lone ḥadīth if it goes against an established practice. This established practice is not only connected to the practice of the people of Medina as imam Mālik would want us to believe. On the contrary, every major city had its own established practice. In his response to imam Mālik’s, above mentioned letter, al-Layth ibn Sa’d writes:

When something that the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) [residing] in Egypt, the Levant and Iraq practiced during the reign of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar andʿ’Uthmān, and they [the Companions] i.e. (this world whilst still practicing this point, they [the caliphs] did not order [the people] to act on the contrary. We do not see it permissible for the Muslim mass to innovate an act upon which their predecessors from the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the Successors did not practice although the Companions of the Prophet differed greatly whilst issuing religious verdicts.

Concerning combining two prayers in one time during heavy rain (which imam Mālik’s teacher Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī deemed to be correct), he further writes: The rain in the Levant is much more than the rain in Medina, the extent of which only Allah, knows. However not a single imam from them [i.e. the imams of the Levant] have combined [the prayers] on a rainy night although amongst them were Abū ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Khālid ibn Walīd, Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān, ʿAmr ibn al-Āṣ and Muʿādh ibn Jabal. It has reached us that the Prophet said, ‘The most knowledgeable amongst you regarding the lawful and unlawful is Muʿādh ibn Jabal. . . [Also amongst them were] Sharahbīl ibn Ḥasana, Abū’d-Dardāʾ and Bilāl ibn Rabāḥ. In Egypt there were Abū Dharr, Zubayr ibn al-Awwām and Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ. In Ḥimṣ there were seventy Companions [who fought in the battle of Badr]. In Iraq there were ʿAbd Allah ibn Mas’ūd, Ḥudhayfa ibn al-Yamān and ʿImrān ibn Ḥusayn. The leader of the believers ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, with whom there were other companions of the Prophet also took up residence there. None ever combined the Maghrib and ʿIshāʾ prayer ever [during heavy rain].

If theʿamal of the people of Medina holds the same level of epistemic value as the mutawātir ḥadīth for imam Mālik, then for imam Abū Ḥanīfah, an action that involve the life of the whole community (umūm balwā) holds similar value. Hence if an action that affects the whole community is only being reported by lone ḥadīths, this ḥadīth immediately comes under suspicion. The reason for this being, if the action being discussed was so prevalent in the community, why is only one person reporting it? An example of this is the ḥadīth concerning rafʿ al-yadayn (the raising of the hands in prayer other than at the beginning) which are all āḥād reports.

Not understanding imam Abū Ḥanīfah’s overall methodology has led some, who have a very superficial knowledge of the inner workings of Islamic law, to maintain that he either did not know any ḥadīth or gives more preference to analogy (qiyās) over ḥadīth. Nothing can be further from the truth.”

[Inhāʾ as-Sakan ilā man Yuṭāliʿ I’lāʾ as-Sunan, Ẓafar Aḥmad ‘Uthmānī Thānawī’]




Is it permissible in our time for females to give lectures to men if the woman lecturer is screened from the males by a barrier?

In response to this question, Salafis in the U.K. have based their fatwa of permissibility on a fatwa of Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh). In his Fatwa, Mufti Kifaayatullah states:

“The holy Shariah of Islam does not prohibit women from any Islamic service of which they are capable. Along with guarding Purdah, a woman may give a lecture to a gathering of men.”

Please comment on this Fatwa which the Salafis are using to create confusion.

Answer by Mujlisul Ulama:

Salafis are COPROCREEPS. In addition they exhibit Shiah tendencies, especially taqiyah (holy hypocrisy). The juhala Salafis, while portraying themselves as ‘mujtahids’ higher in calibre than even the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era, are academically bankrupt and spiritually barren.

They descend into the dregs of ludicrousness by vacillating between extremes. While they claim to deduct the ahkaam of the Shariah directly from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith since Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen is a capital sin according to these coprocreeps, their academic bankruptcy compels them to resort to Muqallid Muftis of this era which is far, very far from the age of even their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyaah, and even further from the noble era of the Salafus Saaliheen.

The attempt to seek daleel for their coprocreep view from the Muqallid Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh) for an issue which has no resemblance to the original mas’alah, is a vivid commentary of their jahaalat. It is indeed ludicrous and laughable when a Salafi seeks daleel from a Muqallid Mufti whose fatwa is out-dated by half a century, and which no longer holds Shar’i substance due to the satanism with which the issue under discussion is bedevilled today.

There is no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a capable female. There is similarly no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a male. Impermissibility has not been predicated to such services whether executed by males or females. However, only a moron Salafi coprocreep and the modernist zindeeqs will cling to the original unadulterated mas’alah even when satanism has become attached to the mubah (permissible) act.

Women performing Salaat in the Musjid was permitted by even Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, when satanasim became associated with this original permissible act, the Sahaabah unanimously banned women from the Musaajid. Similarly, on account of the accretion of satanism,  all the Fuqaha of Islam of all Math-habs have declared that it is no longer permissible for women to attend even Walimahs or bayaans to listen to lectures delivered by Ulama.  Attending any kind of function is no longer permissible for women.

Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view is not a Shar’i daleel. For daleel, we have to resort to the Fuqaha, especially the Fuqaha of the Salafus Saaliheen era. All of those illustrious Souls have issued the Fatwa of Prohibition. Thus, it is imperative to set aside Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view.

Furthermore, the situation during Mufti Kifaayatullah’s time was not as rotten and stinking as it is today. In our time, faasiqaat andfaajiraat are generally the ones who deliver copro-lectures to males who attend to cast lustful stares at the faasiqaat/faajiraat, and to derive nafsaanigratification from their voices. There is an incremental preponderance of faasiqaat/faajiraatin the public domain. This vile and rotten phenomenon has also been given great impetus by the wayward Tabligh Jamaat with its women’s wing.

It is HARAAM in this age for women to give lectures in gatherings of males. The dalaa-il for this prohibition in a nutshell are:

  • The Ijmaa-ee ban on women attending the Musjid issued by the Sahaabah.
  • The Fatwa of the Fuqaha of Islam.
  • The evil shenanigans of women and men in our present era.

Refuting the Deviant Assim al-Hakeem about the Hanafi View of Delaying Salaat al-Fajr

The timing of the morning prayer (fajr) according to the Hanafi school. A certain Jahil “Shaykh” named Assim al-Hakeem said during his program on Huda tv and his disgraced Q&A Site:

“In the Hanafi Madh-hab, they tend to delay the fajr until it is a little bit light before sunrise of course… This is against the majority of the scholars and this is against the sunna of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).”

This “Shaykh” declared the Hanafi practice, in no uncertain terms, as contrary to the Sunnah. But, what evidence do the Hanafis use for this practice?

I checked out the most basic of the Hanafi books such as al-Ikthiar (volume 1 page 44) and I found that the Hanafi scholars based their view on ahadith narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Al-Tabarani and Imam Ahmad.

If you look at Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, you will see chapter 117 called “Narrations about delaying the fajr until it starts to get lighter ( ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺠﺮ ﺍﺍﻟﺴﻔﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﺏ .“(al-Tirmidhi narrates a hadith (number 154) on the authority of Rabi’ bin Khadeej who said:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: “Delay the fajr towards the end of its time [when it starts to get lighter] for there is more reward”.

Al-Tirmidhi goes on to say that this hadith was also narrated by Shu’ba and [Sufyaan] al-Thawri from Muhammed bin Ishaaq. It is also narrated by Muhammed bin Ajlaan on the authority of Aasim bin ‘Umar bin Qatada. There are also other ahadith regarding this subject from Abu Barza Al-Aslami, Jaabir and Bilal. al-Tirmidhi said this is a fair and authentic hadith (haadha hadithun hasanun saheeh). 

Imaam Anwar Shah Kashmiri has more to say on this subject in his commentary on Jami’ al-Tirmidhy called “Al-Urf al-Shadhy” on page 177 of volume 1. It can be found here.

In addition, Al-Hafidh al-Suyuti al-Shafi’i included the above hadith of al-Tirmidhi among the mutawatir hadith (unanimously authentic) in his booklet called “Al-Azhaar al-Mutanathira fi al-ahadith al-mutawatira” as was recorded by the author of I’ila al-Sunan volume 2 page 24. His brilliant research can be found here.

In summary, the Hanafi scholars’ point of view is based on multiple narrations (see Nasb al-Raya of Hafidh al-Zaylai volume 1 pages 304-313 for more details.):

1. Hadith of Rabi’ bin Khadeej narrated by al-Tirmidhy. He declared it a fair and authentic hadith (haadha hadithun hasanun saheeh). Al-Hafidh al-Zaylai, Al-Muhaqqiq al-Kamal bin Al-Humaam agreed with al-Tirmidhy. Al-Hafidz Al-Suyuti declared this hadith mutawatir (unanimously authentic).

2. Al-Nasa’i narrated a hadith similar in meaning and he did not comment on its authenticity. Al-Hafidh Al-Zaylai declared the chain authentic (I’ila al-Sunnan volume 2 page 24-25)

Now, how can someone declare a practice based on a mutawatir (unanimously authentic) and a saheeh (authentic) hadith (not to mention the rest of the evidence) to be against the sunnah? Even if the “Shaykh” believes that hadith is not mutawatir but only authentic (saheeh), I still cannot fathom how a “Shaykh” would dismiss all of the above evidence and label the Hanafi practice as “contrary to sunnah.” Just like his teacher, this Shaykh never even bothered to glance over the Hanafi books before he gave his fatwa. One wonders if these people really believe it themselves wholeheartedly when they say they are following the daleel (evidence). How can someone claim they are following the daleel when time and time again we see that they do not collect all the evidence in a given subject before they make up their minds? They are either delusional or dishonest. I cannot think of a third possibility, can you?

(The from a book of Dr. Sadi Kose).